I've grudgingly accepted that taxes are going to need to stay where they are for the foreseeable future, we can't afford a tax cut until we have become more solvent and reduced out debt. So Paul Krugman's accusation that Paul Ryan's "road map" selectively ignores the effects of revenue reduction is one to consider seriously.
Still, the bulk of his critique of one of the few politicians to even attempt to address the national debt in a meaningful way is mostly just name-calling and ad hominem attacks on Newt Gingrich. (Wait, what?) And the rest of the substantive attack Krugman makes on Ryan is that people won't like spending cuts. Well, duh. But they don't like a nation thirteen trillion dollars in debt, either, or at least they shouldn't. What people need to understand is that when you demand subsidized health care from the government, paid for by government debt, you are taking tomorrow's money from your children and grandchilden to pay for your health care today.
Because Krugman doesn't seem able to understand that, for instance, glowing reports of unexpected robustness in the Social Security system are illusory. We need to get steered towards a path of national solvency. If Krugman thinks Ryan's plan to that end is nothing but flimflam and hot air, so be it -- let's see him point to some alternative way to reach the same goal.