That was my reaction to this:
The Obama administration will be better positioned to fight the extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans when they are set to expire in two years, Vice President Joe Biden said on Sunday.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Biden said the administration will be able to make a better case ahead of the 2012 presidential election that continuing the benefit for high earners "does not make sense."
Alright. So if I understand the Vice President correctly, he and the President are going to go and actively rerun their 2008 position on the Bush Tax Cuts, despite having gone ahead and passed the Bush Tax Cuts. This is going to be take some political acrobatics even Cirque du Soliel would have a tough time pulling off.
Why wouldn't some not-all-that-smart oppo staffer run the very same arguments both the he and the President used just in the last two weeks against their own position? Why would a tax increase be "devastating for economy" now, but not in two years? And then there is this bit of myopia:
"They're for two years and we're going back and going at it again," Biden said. "Life is a matter of really tough choices."
Biden said he believed priorities to reduce the federal deficit that he expects to take shape in coming years as well as an improving economy should help Obama argue effectively that another extension of tax breaks for the wealthy should be rejected.
If I can sum this up, the Bush Tax Cuts were bad for jobs. However, we need to keep them because they will create jobs and we had to do it this time because of the Republican filibuster and....(eyes glazing over). Except when they don't, in which case we need to get rid of them. But since the Bush Tax Cut extension we passed created jobs, two years from now is a good time to get rid of them. The ads just write themselves, don't they?
Biden seems to be betting that this Frankenstein tax message can be articulated clearly and effectively. They couldn't do it effectively now, but will be in stronger position in a presidential election year? Up against Citizens United money and a GOP candidate who will CLEARLY argue that anyone opposing extensions is effectively calling for a tax increase? He's got far more confidence in Democratic messaging operation than...well, the President. If this argument was insufficient when the President actually had some credibility on it, how is it going to be stronger after giving up that credibility?
I guess he is betting that administrative nuance beats moral clarity in a presidential election. I've never seen it happen, but I'm just a Cheeto-eating, Mom's basement-dwelling guy in a bathrobe.
Our side is truly screwed on the tax fairness and fiscal responsibility argument. Let's just hope the economy is booming again in 2012 and we have an idiot for an opponent.