Such a question can only be answered by first agreeing on what constitutes evidence, proof, logic, etc. The point of what Krugman is saying is that these people treat logic like it's some kind of silly putty, to make any kind of nonsense they want. Truth seems to be irrelelvant as they claim the right to tell any lies, and to contradict themselves. The most basic principle of scientific reasoning is falsifiability but they always structure their arguments to be innately unprovable. That's why I ask if you, being an engineer understand that physical laws work on logic and whether you understand anything about the scientific method and boolean algebra as logic. If so then you need to explain why we need to throw all those out the window into this looking glass logic Bush seems to try to run everything on.
If you then maintain that what they are saying really amounts to some kind of sane non idiotic process then you need to explain to me exactly in what why this kind of thought process they have invented or pioneered can ever lead to correct answers.
This is a serious question. I can only apply logic to a piece of trash like the article you cited, and if you don't concede any kind of traditional logical process applies then I can't answer you. Bush said "everything is different now" but I don't concede that means he revoked the laws of logic and scientific method.
If I can see some indication that gibberish is not considered to be a form of reasoning, then I can explain just what complete trash the article was, including that he offers no evidence at all that government can be cut in half.
I suppose that end the thread because this kind of silly putty can't be bent into the shape of real logic. It's really only even out there as a ruse for them to continue looting. The longer people try to parse it into something intelligble the longer they get to continue looting.