OK, Max, this is what I don't understand. If Clinton wanted the kiddie credit to be refundable, why has he agreed to disqualify those with incomes <$19,000 and reduce its amount below $500 per kid for families below an income of $25,000? What do you think of the reasons given for doing so--that through the EITC these families which do pay payroll and sales and other taxes already get more than enough cash to cover all their income tax and employee share of payroll tax? Is that a good reason to disqualify these families from a credit other families will receive (these families receive other kinds of tax breaks, the absolute magnitude of which probably often exceeds the EITC that really poor families receive)? Republicans warn that such a refund for the very poor would be welfare, a subsidy for the very poor--ie the unfit. Clinton provides no resistance here, and the House Democrats, I would bet, are probably ready to sacrifice the claim that really poor families receive the full kiddie tax credit. I am sorry if I still have not understood your argument or failed to be precise. In my defense, the WSJ did refer to how convuluted this debate has become. All the best, Rakesh
