Any idea if her book is as flawed as the article? For instance, arguing that the top 1% of earners covered 26% of the tax burden in 1986 and 40% in 2006, without mentioning that since the top 1% took 11.3% of the income in 1986 and 22.06% in 2006, the tax rate on the top 10% of income actually decreased substantially? I try to avoid polemics that use statistics so disingenuously.