Refundable Tax Credits

If a person has a $1000 tax liability but qualifies for a $1000 tax credit, we could probably agree that the net tax take by government is zero. But if person A has a $1000 tax liability and person B, who owes no tax, qualifies for a refundable tax credit of $1000, what is the net tax take by government? In other words, can a politician credibly claim that wealth redistribution is possible without taxation? Obama claims that his economic proposals would result in a total net tax take of 18.2% of GDP. This is a very reasonable number and is close to the average since WWII. How does he get this number? He gets it by considering refundable tax credits to be subtractions from the tax! Taking $1000 from person A and giving it to person B as a refundable tax credit results in a net tax of zero! It should be accounted for as $1000 in tax receipts and $1000 in welfare spending. With this brilliant accounting tool at his disposal, Obama wants to fund all sorts of social welfare with the magic of refundable tax credits. College tuition, mortgage assistance, health insurance premiums, saving incentives, child care, earned income, are all on his list for refundable tax credits. When he increases these credits which he subtracts from the net tax take, he declares it a tax cut! He ignores the negative effect that the tax on person A has on the unemployment rate, because, after subtracting the refund, it didn't happen! Are the American voters stupid enough to go to the polls without getting this?