The Boy Who Cried Wolf

Posted by Andrew Tobolowsky on 03.22.2009

How Both Parties Maneuvered Themselves Out Of Our Trust

I've written a lot of opinions for this website over the year and a half or so I've been working here. On a variety of topics and for a variety of occasions. But one thing I've never claimed to be an expert on and never dealt with seriously is the economy.

I'm a smart kid and I'm logical so it's not like I'm helpless here. I have it on good authority that most of you who come in here to dazzle us with their economic knowledge are not in fact holders of economic degrees. So a lot of us, I know, ARE in the same boat. But in terms of knowing what lever will raise what hook? I know a lot of people who've STUDIED the subject who aggressively disagree with each other on what to do about taxes, interest rates, etc. What am I supposed to think?

But I do know politics. And I think it's likely that if we are heading towards a financial disaster because of what Obama's doing, it'll only be a reckoning for years of self-destructive politics on both sides.

Judd Gregg went on CNN today to say that Obama's budget—not the bailout but his budget, which distinction I'll discuss in a minute—will cause America to go bankrupt. Is he right? I don't know. He surely knows the economy better than me.

But I hope he isn't because two factors arbitrate against him ever being listened to, and neither are particularly the fault of one party or the other.

First, the bailout which is NOT the same thing as Obama's surprisingly ambitious budget.

The truth of the matter is that Republicans, flat out, did a horrendous job of opposing the bailout. As the senators grandstanded on vague principles, the Republican governors tried to slip them notes that they really did need the cash. PR people failed to notice that it's not that private citizens were against personally receiving money—no one ever is, no matter what, ever—they were against other people getting it too, especially banks. So they tried to sell the attack against it by turning these private citizens into Republican financial philosophers which is the one thing people NEVER are when someone's talking about actually handing THEM cash.

The outcry against the three (four?) governors who have refused bailout money is evidence enough of this. Especially Rick Perry (dumb man, fantastic hair), whose official stance is we won't take it, and we're not getting enough. The refusal of someone who lives in a huge house, with a nice salary, and the luxury of principles, of money intended for people who don't have much to eat is never going to go down smooth however much principle there is behind it.

And so, by opposing equally the money intended for wall street and main street, the Republicans set themselves up as blindly obstructionist. It would have been one thing if they had the numbers to force the issue. Because they didn't, when they refused to come into the tent and try to make the situation better, it came off as just more grandstanding. And that's because it was completely safe: the Republican senators could get away with the best of both worlds. The much-needed bailout would pass, and their hands would be clean of any of the negative consequences. It looked gutless, and it probably was.

The really problem is that by APPEARING blindly obstructionist (not, I may say, that that appearance is not founded on just case) we may very easily come to a juncture--this may be it--when they're obstructing something that really does need to be obstructed only they have, to put it into elegant political terms, shot their wad on worthless junk.

So now when it comes to them wanting to warn us about the budget, about which they may be absolutely, deadly right—they're saying only what the American people are expecting them to. It seems like they're just being obstructionist again. It's the boy who cried wolf. But maybe, we really should listen. And maybe they shouldn't have biased us against listening by picking their battles.

The budget gives me far more uneasiness than the bailout. The problem many Republicans have with the budget is a fair one—it seems strange that anyone would be talking about spending lots of money in our current financial situation. You can understand Obama's thinking—first, that this is why he wanted to be president, to try to make the changes he's trying to make and second, I think it is entirely true that his revisions of Health Care, initiatives for cleaner energy and so on will ultimately result in much greater cost effectiveness and efficiency in a lot of places.

But it's hard to argue that the initial starting cost, coming at THIS time, isn't a serious risk.

You can hardly turn on a TV these days without seeing a Republican, be it a distinguished senator or an obscure talk show host, telling us this budget here will plunge us into debt and enumerating the consequences of that action.

But how can you blame people for being a bit surprised to find that Republicans suddenly care about debt. We've been in basically ineradicable debt since Reagan. We've been in completely ineradicable debt since Bush II. Two of the last three Republican presidents did things to the debt things that it's illegal to do in 48 states. Suddenly, they care about Obama's debt.

It smells fishy. It is hypocritical. But the scary thing is, hypocritical is not the same as wrong.

Judd Gregg strikes me as a man of principle. He's a smart man, and a man whose financial acumen even Obama values. I don't know that he's right, but I do know he has a legitimate fear. But I think politics has gotten in the way of him being listened to. It's not his fault, nor is it just his party's fault. It is, however, true.

If the warning he offers is necessary, than the culpable ones in THIS case are the Democrats for not offering it as well. That's not any less political posturing than anything I could say about the Republican handling of the bailout. It is just as bad. I see Pelosi really dedicated to sending a message to Obama that she's not his pawn, but I surely don't see her doing anything specific simply because it's the RIGHT thing to do. And that scares me just as much.

This is the real version of that riddle where, of the two guards, one person's telling the truth and one's lying. Only there's a dangerous difference. Both of the guards have demonstrably been choosing their own political interests over our personal ones at every important juncture. It's not that one always tells the truth and one always lies, as in the good classic riddle with a solution, it's that one has momentarily stopped lying and will probably go back to it shortly. That's a guess it's impossible to make with confidence. And that truly is a shame.

There's nothing new in any of this, of course. With the piece by piece dismantling and fire sale of John McCain's soul in the last election, I guess I'm just hoping to find somebody else who I can expect to tell me the truth regardless of political implications. Who knows? Maybe it's Judd Gregg.

And let me please say, as well, that I loved this article . He's better than I am. Yes, he is...