That USAToday story is basically a rehash of the [link|http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/Summary%20for%20Distribution.pdf|10 page Summary] (PDF), but its harder to read and has much less detail.
I think the PDF addresses your criticisms.
My addition of the "cost" and "raise" categories have them both at about $1.33 T over 10 years, so if Hillary is hoping to spend $0.75T on new programs, then this bill by Rangel isn't going to pay for it. IOW, this bill is roughly revenue neutral by my math. Republicans jumping up and down calling this a gigantic tax increase are being disingenuous, as usual.
Am I reading you right that you think $670B in new taxes (additional net revenue over 10 years) is a good idea?
Cheers,
Scott.