The column “Obama campaign misleads voters, McCain ticket right choice for nation,” accused the Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., campaign of misleading voters. On examination, however, it is the column that is misleading us.

First, the column claims that Obama advocates “sharing the wealth” equally, likening it to one student earning an A, another an F, and giving both a C. Not only is this a poor analogy, it is not even Obama’s position. He in no way advocates dividing the nation’s wealth evenly. A more fitting classroom analogy would be my statistics class in which I assign homework to students in teams, pairing students doing well in the class with those having difficulties. The former help the latter and, I believe, both gain.

Second, the column claims that Obama’s proposed tax policies would mean the taxes on a new college graduate’s $30,000 income would increase from the current $4,500 to $8,400. Again, not true. Obama proposes cutting taxes by $500 for individual workers and $1,000 for working couples, thereby cutting taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families. By the way, under current law, an individual earning $30,000 would owe federal income tax of $2,900, not $4,500. Such are the hazards of using therightperspective.com, a right-wing blog, as an information source as the column did.

Third, the column claims that Senator Obama’s inheritance tax proposal will cause “many families to lose businesses, farms, ranches and homes.” In fact, Obama would repeal the inheritance tax for 99.7 percent of all estates, taxing only estates valued at over $7 million per couple.

The column claims Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., “proposes to cut spending with a zero percent increase.” In fact, McCain has floated over $1 trillion in new spending increases. Coupled with his proposed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, $3.4 trillion more than president Bush is proposing over the next ten years. McCain’s economic policies would make doubling of the federal debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the last eight years look good by comparison.

Fourth, the column claims that Obama voted for infanticide. The facts? Obama opposed Illinois legislation that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a “born alive infant” entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive. He opposed the “born alive” bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he said he would be “fully in support” of a similar bill signed by president Bush in 2002 because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

The column claims that “McCain supports life,” but I have always been confused about McCain’s “pro-life” stance. It would seem to me he is only pro-life when “killing” occurs inside the womb. He has no problem with sending our troops into an unwarranted war where over 100,000 Iraqis and Americans have died.

This coming election is too important to base decisions on half-truths and innuendo.

Terrance Liska is a professor of Economics.