I use schizophrenic metaphorically, as an adjective: we should recognize that the desire to tax internet transactions is bizarre behavior that should be corrected.
True schizophrenia has many features. For this metaphorical use I want to focus on just one: reversing the ordering of concepts of primary and secondary importance. We’re (metaphorically) schizophrenic about government finance because our priorities are backwards.
When we make purchases, why and what we buy are primary, while who and where and how are secondary.
For example, assume that no one would (reasonably) argue that buying broccoli is worse for you than buying Fritos. That's primary. How you pay for those is secondary, and shouldn't trump the primary decision: you're not better off with the Fritos because you paid cash for them while you charged the broccoli.
Yet this is exactly what we do when we think about government: we completely avoid the primary question of whether its spending is good or bad, and focus on the secondary choice of whether we finance that purchase out of tax revenue or bond sales.
(Now I'll digress and note that I'd prefer a consumption tax to an income tax, and so I'd be fine if they were going to delete some income tax to replace it with a tax on internet purchases. But, of course, that's not what they're doing.)
So if this goes through, it's a victory for bean-counting moralizers — who think they can improve the quality of government purchases by funding them with tax revenue — and a loss for people who do this funny thing called thinking.