That's different. Picture this: you go into a restaurant with two of your friends and agree to split the bill, which comes to $9. You owe one of your friends $3 because you broke his favorite beer mug last week when you were at his house. So instead of paying him $3, you agree to let him eat for free. Now you are left to split the bill with your other friend - each of you paying $4.50. In reality you are making a payment to your friend of $3, which is equally being financed between you and your other friend, who had nothing to do with breaking the mug. This is what Keyes is proposing: he is making a payment to blacks by forcing others to pay extra, even those whose ancestors were not slaveowners.
No he isn't, he didn't say we should raise the tax burden on everyone else to pay for it.
The argument you made is precisely the one the left makes about "tax cuts to the rich".