we were looking at included all of Obama's proposed tax increases that might hit millionaires. We could not find hard data to make a statistical comparison of how big a tax hit this is to a specific income group. Instead, we asked a few economists for their professional opinion. Did they think the Obama campaign was justified in using that terminology to refer to the proposed tax increases on high earners? "In the real world, an 8.8 percent reduction in after-tax income is a significant blow," said Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, said, "For my part, I would grant that this is more than 'a little.'" William McBride, an economist with the business-backed Tax Foundation, agreed that 8.8 percent of income "is not a little." "Historically, the president's tax plan would be the largest tax increase on high-income earners since World War II," McBride said. "The rates on personal income, dividends, and capital gains would all be the highest in 30 years." When we contacted the Obama campaign, they argued that the use of the phrasing "a little more" is a judgment call, and they added that Romney once told reporters that the $362,000 in speaking fees he earned in a year was "not very much." But we don't think Romney's comment -- an off-the-cuff remark widely ridiculed as a gaffe -- should set the standard in this case, especially since Romney's net