In which Ms. McArdle makes points similar to the ones I made here. She concludes with this very good ending paragraph:

The failure to think specifically applies to taxation, incidentally.  I know a very large number of east coast progressives who are outraged when they suddenly discover that middle-class ol' them, who doesn't even have enough money to repair the cracks in the ceiling after property taxes and school bills and one not-very-nice vacation to Nova Scotia, are technically "the rich" for the purpose of assessing taxes.  They, too, are not thinking specifically about where the money is.  They're just thinking it would be nice for Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates to have less stuff, while people living in housing projects have more.  But there, as with cuts to the nebulous cloud of "spending", the math doesn't work.  If you want to raise more tax revenues, stop thinking about corporate jets and the carried interest, and start thinking about eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction for all earners, and allowing the AMT to kick in on the upper end of "middle class" incomes.  In other words, start thinking about taxing New York Times reporters, not a very small class of rich people.

Emphasis mine. If you want to increase revenues, then *everyone* is going to have to pay more in taxes, especially the middle class and the poor, until we get rid of a trillions in spending. Another alternative is to start moving toward the Fair Tax which *everyone* has to pay.

Via Getting Specific on Spending - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic.