Now that we’re at least a month away from the elections, can we look at the proposed Obama tax plan in a way that’s at least slightly more grounded in reality than most of the editorial content composed during the campaign?

That criticism cuts both ways.  For every wannabe resource dedicated to the stacking of half-truths without context in order to sink Obama there was a “Barack is perfect” wannabe pundit transforming hope into delusion at The Huffington Post.  I don’t know if the kneejerk Joe the Plumber fans or the “eat the rich” crowds really made a lot of difference in terms of electoral outcomes, but I am fairly certain that neither crew did much to advance the public’s understanding of candidate policy positions.

Now that the smoke has cleared, it turns out that all of the misinformation may have been just as factually accurate as the correct assessments of Obama’s campaign advocacy.  The Obama tax plan of the summer and fall may not bear a great deal of resemblance to the Obama tax plan of January, 2009.

Critics will call it flip-flopping, supporters will call it an informed change of opinion based on current economic conditions.  Some on the right might think Obama is coming to his senses while some on the left may feel like he’s selling out.  However you characterize it, it’s clear that Obama’s original approach to taxation seems to be in a state of transition.

The heart of the matter is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts.  Painted as a tax break for the wealthy that did little or nothing to aid the middle class, Obama’s campaign hammered on the policy throughout the campaign.  If anything was crystal clear about the Obama tax plan throughout the campaign, it was his disdain for the Bush cuts.

Now it looks like Obama might be a little reticent to do away with the cuts upon taking office.  In a recent interview with Tom Brokaw, for instance, Obama indicated that his economic team was considering whether it made more sense to pursue legislative action to do away with the cuts (the position taken during the campaign) or to let them expire on their own accord.  That sentiment was also expressed by high-ranking Obama adviser David Axelrod.  Allowing the Bush cuts to expire without legislative action would keep them in place until the end of 2010.

So, there’s a decent chance that the Bush cuts might be with us for another two years.  What’s happened to create this shift in perspective?  There two prevailing schools of thought on the matter. 

 Obama might be heeding the warnings of those who believe that any tax increase (including increases created by elimination of a reduction) during a recessionary period could further damage the economy.  Remember, things weren’t nearly as bad as they are today when Obama was campaigning and advocating an immediate dismantling of the Bush tax policy.

Alternatively, Obama might be making a political decision with respect to the cuts.  Many in more conservative circles are up in arms over the idea of doing away with the tax breaks and Democrats who’ll be up for reelection in two years may not be particularly comfortable with the idea of voting on a bill that would, essentially, raise taxes for at least part of their constituency.  You don’t want to fire up the re-election campaign during a bad economy while wearing an “I increase taxes” lapel pin.  By allowing the cuts to expire on their own accord, the Bush cuts could disappear without requiring anyone to make a potentially damaging vote on the issue.  That, some argue, would be good for Obama’s 2012 chances and for keeping congress blue.

Obama himself does a good job of explaining the current state of the Obama tax policy:

“I think that the plan that we’ve put forward is the right one, but, obviously, over the next several weeks and months, we’re going to be continuing to take a look at the data and see what’s taking place in the economy as a whole.”

In other words, things are less clear in December than they were in November.