Thanks for the analysis and discussion. Much appreciated. One item, however, bears noting. In the examples, you write: "A single mom, with one child, making $15,000-a-year (in adjusted gross income) would get a $17 tax cut from the McCain plan, but see a $500 reduction from Obama, thanks to his new work credit." Although this might be true in a sensitivity analysis, in reality there appears to be little-to-no difference between the two tax plans for this hypothetical taxpayer. Under the 2008 tax structure, a single mom with one child with an AGI of $15,000 has a federal income tax liability of $256 (assuming the child qualifies as a dependent and there are no deductions or credits). Therefore, the greatest difference between the two plans can only be $239 ($256-$17), not $483. If mom/child qualifies for the already-in-place child tax credit, however, then mom's federal income tax liability is zero under the 2008 tax structure, meaning there is zero difference between the two plans. As I see it, and as your examples demonstrate, Obama's plan contains a lot of illusion (giving really big tax breaks to people who can't use them) while helping few people more than does McCain's plan -- all while making high-income earners really take it in the ear (to borrow your metaphor). Is this incorrect?