Thanks Jeff.

Unless I'm mistaken, that table, while taking into account that the Bush cuts may or may not be continued, does not take into account the effects of 9-9-9 on jobs, prices, and any other economic issues that Cain claims his plan will improve. So, unless I am mistaken, his response (or Lowry's or Block's) would be that the analysis is incomplete, or a lie, or compares apples to oranges.

Do you know whether anyone has either evaluated the claimed economic stimulus effects, or at least analyzed the results of the plan under various stimulus scenarios?

Most likely, this is overkill for a plan that is probably not taken seriously by anyone, but since doing the analysis is worth a publication, someone may have done it.

This analysis is from the Tax Policy Center:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3221&DocTypeID=1

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute. So, slightly left of center. But, I believe this analysis was cited by several of Cain's opponents during the "Western" debate on CNN.

I don't trust what Cain says about his tax plan. It is supposedly revenue neutral while lowering taxes on most people. This is explained, as I understand it, by increased employment and income. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, it seems to me that he is overlooking the loss of revenue due the time-lag between introduction of the new plan and the resulting improvements to the economy, and that he is selling the idea of economic improvement mostly on pure faith.

Have any of you seen an independent assessment that strikes you as truly unbiased and dependable, or do you have better knowledge than mine (should not be hard, since I'm no expert), and if so, can you help enlighten me as to whether the plan makes more sense than I realize?