Andy, on point 1 we somehow seem to have gotten to the point where we each think the other is hair-splitting. The only point on which I vouched for Christie’s accuracy was that Lonegan’s plan raises taxes for a large group of people. (I was taking issue with the Wall Street Journal, which had criticized Christie for criticizing that feature of Lonegan’s plan.)

On point 2, yes, it’s true that Lonegan wants to do more than merely reduce the progressivity of the state income tax. He wants to eliminate it (sort of*). He wants to eliminate it badly enough that he is willing to raise taxes on the lower end of the income scale to achieve that goal. So we are in part disagreeing on how high that goal ought to rank for conservatives. I can think of dozens of goals I’d rank higher — goals that insisting on raising taxes on poor people would endanger.

You say I’m underestimating the ability of a talented politician to make these “modest” tax increases — good luck selling that to the affected people — part of an attractive package of conservative reforms to state government. I think you’re underestimating how hard it would be for any politician to present himself as the guy who wants to protect taxpayers from government while openly promising to raise taxes on at least 40 percent of the population. It seems to me that following this course would actually lead to what you fear: the squandering of the potential for a taxpayer backlash against big government. I’m not sure how we can settle the question — although if Lonegan keeps this platform and becomes governor, I’ll concede that I misjudged the politics.

* Totally geeky sidebar: Of course Lonegan himself believes that people should pay more in taxes as they make more money. He just doesn’t want them paying a higher percentage of their taxable income. If the rationale behind this flattening is that it makes for better incentives for high earners, makes voters sensitive to the cost of government spending, and divides that cost equally, then isn’t this flat-percentage policy a half-measure and a flinching from principle? Shouldn’t everyone pay the same dollar amount?