I am not a huge fan of Paul Krugman and his ‘we need government stimulus’ mantra. That being said, I was deeply impressed with his most recent New York Times column. I urge you to read it - shouldn’t take more than a couple of minutes.
You will draw your own conclusion about what Krugman is saying (or charging). By my take, he seems to be implying that if Romney continues to clam up about his finances, then he must be hiding something; something immoral or criminal, and quite possibly both.
So, I ask: should Romney run through the gauntlet of financial transparency that Krugman is demanding?
I think the answer must be ‘yes’ and cannot possibly give a better set of reasons than has Krugman - essentially that Romney’s continued obfuscation and/or nondisclosure is tantamount to admitting his guilt (moral, criminal, or both).
(again, the Krugman piece is here)