Where'd that goalpost go?

Over at Kos today, RonK makes a point that I haven't seen much in the recent tax cut debates: Featured prominently in current pro-cut rhetoric is the language (mentioned "here": yesterday) that more money in peoples' pockets does good for the 'conomy, while tax cut opponents point out the gross inequality made manifest in the plan. Opponents raise the issue of the deficit, but that criticism is usually deflected. But as RonK says

bq. We went into the tax cut debates of 2001 projecting a ten-year surplus of 5.6 trillion dollars. Today's Congressional Budget Office projections put us a couple trillion in the hole. Account for the sure things not yet reflected in CBO figures -- AMT relief, fully-funded homeland defense, reasonable costs of occupying Iraq, realistic costing for continuing programs -- and we're more than $4T in the red.

bq. That's a ten trillion dollar reversal in federal fortunes, and we have set nothing aside for prescription drug benefits, Social Security reform, full-scale Missile Defense, or anything unexpected. A year or two later, the boomer bulge hits retirement.

In other words, the tax cuts of two years ago were sold on the notion that the government had too much money. But now that it's abundantly clear that neither the state nor federal governments have enough, why is it so hard to come up with a coherent opposition to the cuts? -- The cuts, which, by the way, passed today, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.