I totally believed the first half of your post (that you are "acquinted" with Krugman) until this follow-up completely disqualified the possibility that you understand him at all.
I don't like Krugman and have often stated as much, but you very clearly are ignorant to his positions if you think either of the first two assertions are true. Krugman, like any Keynesian/economist, realizes the utility of tax breaks as symbiotic with, not diametrical to, the utility of tax increases.
Furthermore, like most Keynesian/modern economists, he generally opposes (at least with the modern distribution of wealth/purchasing power in the United States) any significant tax increases on the lower and lower-middle classes, as demand is still lagging behind supply in the modern economy, due mostly to the robbing of the middle class 1980-2008.
Yeah, just about every modern economist is a "Keynesian Economist" to some varying, but undoubtedly significant, degree. Keynes rang a bell that cannot be un-rung. Just like every economist is a Smithian. It's fundamental to the discipline ever since it dominated economic development throughout the world during the middle 50 years of the 20th century.
