Allow us to be the first to welcome the New York Times to the ranks of those concerned about the disastrous alignment of several provisions in the tax code that increasingly harm New York families. In a dispatch issued yesterday about the effects of the federal alternative minimum tax, a Times reporter, Ford Fessenden, interviews several families in New York City suburbs on both sides of the Hudson to detail how this federal tax is increasingly cutting into their incomes. The AMT, a measure introduced in 1969 to make sure a literal handful of super-rich people couldn’t deduct away their entire tax liabilities, has been stretching its greedy hand further down the income scale for years. It is now, Mr. Fessenden reports, tacking on an average of $2,200 in extra federal taxes to the bills of those with incomes ranging from $100,000 to $200,000. Persons hit hardest include one family in Eastchester making $150,000 a year and another earning $125,000 a year that just bought a $560,000 home in Ossining but may not be able to afford it if tax rates worsen.

The New York Times editorial page, discovering that the tax hits the middle class the hardest, has called for an extension of AMT relief, But it’s not yet clear that the Times has thought through the implications of admitting that people earning in the low six figures are still in the “middle class.” Back in May, the paper suggested fixing Social Security by both increasing the payroll tax rate by 0.3 percentage points and increasing the income cap on the tax to $150,000 from the current $90,000. That would represent a double tax hike on the middle class identified in the AMT article. The Times has also argued vigorously against extending the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, which it derides as tax cuts “for the rich.” But what about the families in the middle class that benefit from these tax cuts by virtue of stocks they own in 401(k) plans?

In other words, it’s too soon to predict that the Times is going to emerge with what might be called a neoconservative position on the tax code. But neither do we mean to discourage progress in the economic education of the Times. The paper is no doubt in the slow process of being mugged by reality. Recognizing low-six-figure earners as the middle class they are in the context of the AMT debate is a first step. The next is to remember that those families are always in the middle class, and not just when it’s rhetorically convenient for a newspaper’s opinion page. The best policy for the Times, as well as for the lawmakers that represent New York, is to protect their interests from the camp that wants to get its hands on their money in disproportionate ways.