Ronald Reagan was not a perfect president, despite his real and important virtues. But when I read what some critics say about him, I find myself in the same position I was in the 1980s: in agreement, sort of, but 180 degrees away.

Paul Krugman, the New York Times ’s sometime economist, argues that our memory of Ronald Reagan is too gauzy and glowing. While Reagan may be “the patron saint of tax cuts,” after getting his tax-cut package through Congress in 1981, he also raised taxes. I fault Reagan for this. But Krugman calls such tax hikes “pragmatic and responsible.”

According to Krugman, Reagan saw that his tax cuts were “fiscally irresponsible.” There is absolutely nothing in Krugman’s column about the elephant under the blanket, all the runaway spending that could have been cut. And can still be cut. And there’s plenty about Reagan’s tax-cut legacy that our more imperfect-than-thou columnist misses altogether: for example, that the most productive Americans no longer lose more than two-thirds of their income to taxes.

By 1988, Reagan and the Congress had brought the top bracket’s tax rate down from 70 percent to 28 percent. That’s been hiked several points since then, but remains today a lot easier for the best income earners to accumulate capital, create jobs, and create more wealth just as Ronald Reagan said they would. The Krugmans of the world sniff “Hmpf! How irresponsible!” when we keep more of our money. But I think my money really is my money. And I don’t begrudge other people their money either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.