Paul Krugman is a frustating writer—not because he is a good writer and utilizes brilliant logic, but because he is obviously smart and should know better than to write what he writes. Today’s op-ed is a prime example. Krugman is apoplectic about Vice President Cheney’s refusal to detail who he met with in formulating the Administration’s energy plans. Krugman writes:

Mr. Cheney’s determination to keep his secrets probably reflects more than an effort to avoid bad publicity. It’s also a matter of principle, based on the administration’s deep belief that it has the right to act as it pleases, and that the public has no right to know what it’s doing.

Well, what does the public have a right to know exactly? Does the public have the right to know everything that effected Cheney’s thinking? If so, why? The public knew the final product and that product had to go through Congress to become law. In Congress, the enviros had their chance to beat up the energy policy and as a result they stopped almost all of it. So what’s the big deal?

Using what I hope is hyperbole, Krugman also writes:

What Mr. Cheney is defending, in other words, is a doctrine that makes the United States a sort of elected dictatorship: a system in which the president, once in office, can do whatever he likes, and isn’t obliged to consult or inform either Congress or the public.

Earth to Krugman, what are you talking about? According to Webster, a dictator is “one ruling absolutely and often oppressively.” Cheney, even in Krugman’s dystopian view of the current events this is obviously not what happened with the Energy Task Force. For the benefit of Mr. Krugman, here’s a little civics lesson. First, the Energy Task Force could not change the law. Some of the proposals had to go to Congress where many of the proposals died ignominious deaths. Even changes in regulations had to go through notice and comment rulemaking where the public and special interest groups could comment on the rules.

What’s so radical about Cheney meeting with some companies to formulate a plan? I fail to see how this is such terrible thing. If Krugman were such a believer in absolute transparency, each of his articles would heavily footnoted and he would disclose everyone he talked to. If transparency is good for Cheney, it ought to be good for Krugman. Obviously Cheney is an elected official and Krugman isn’t, but Cheney’s ideas about energy policy are no more the law of the land than Krugman’s are. But Krugman’s panties are in such a twist I don’t think he understands the most basic workings of government.