Goldberg: Obama's 'fine' mess

The 1990 Italian film "Everybody's Fine" is one of the most depressing films I've ever seen. Starring the late Marcello Mastroianni, it's the story of an old man who tells his wife he's going to visit their grown kids. According to their letters the kids are doing great, but he'd like to see for himself.

It turns out that the kids are all doing badly, and the whole trip is drenched in nostalgia and regret for what might have been. When the father gets home, he can't bring himself to tell his wife the truth, even though — the audience discovers — she's been dead and buried for years. In the last scene, we see the old man at his wife's grave, reassuring her, "Everybody's fine."

Listening to President Obama's defenders spinning his claim that the "private sector is doing fine" reminded me of those kids and their dad, all afraid to admit everything's not fine.

One common defense: He was just being ironic or sarcastic.

New York magazine's Jonathan Chait insists that Obama meant it "the same basic way that I did this week when I was slowly recovering from a horrendous head cold and told people I was 'fine'.…" On Monday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes told the "Today" show that Obama meant it the way somebody says "I'm fine" when they really mean "You don't have to rush me to the emergency room" after a bloody head injury.

The only problem: There's pretty much no evidence that's how Obama meant it.

In his news conference last week, Obama argued that the private sector isn't holding back the economy, the public sector is — hence "the private sector is doing fine." When given the opportunity to retract his gaffe, he basically repeated it. "It's absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine," the piqued president said. "That's why I had a press conference." (Something's wrong when you have to explain why you had a press conference.)

Why is the economy "not doing fine"? Because, he explained, the public sector isn't keeping up with the private sector. "Now, I think if you look at what I said this morning and what I've been saying consistently over the last year, we've actually seen some good momentum in the private sector."

And when CNN'sCandy Crowley asked Obama senior advisor David Axelrod three times on Sunday for a yes-or-no answer to the question "Is the private sector doing fine?," he refused to offer anything like a retraction. "It's certainly doing better than the public sector," he said on his third try. Simply: There's been no retraction.

Two things are going on here, one substantive, one political.

Substantively, Obama believes that we can save the economy — or at least his reelection efforts — if we open the sluices of more federal spending (with money borrowed from China) and devote it to hiring a lot more government workers. Basically, it's stimulus 2.0 (3.0, really, since Bush had a stimulus too). Obama, as he correctly insisted, has been saying this "consistently."

Politically, however, this is a very hard sell. As we've seen in Wisconsin and California, lavishing more borrowed money on public sector workers is less popular than asking them for some shared sacrifice.

More important, the private sector isn't doing fine. The only reason the unemployment rate is as low as it is, is that millions of Americans have lost hope that it's worth looking for a job. You can't have the weakest recovery in generations and the highest sustained unemployment rate since the Depression and say the private sector is doing fine.

Actually you can say it; it's just that no one will believe you.

And that's Obama's real dilemma. He can't concede the private sector is doing badly because 1) he wants to burden it even more to spend more on the public sector and 2) if he admits the private sector is still doing badly, he's conceding the heart of Mitt Romney's charge that

Obama has failed economically.

So he's stuck claiming he's done everything right, and the only problem is the GOP's refusal to lavish more money on state governments. And nobody in his family of advisors and supporters has it in them to tell him otherwise. It's like he's talking to a tombstone marked "Obama Campaign 2012."

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks
    The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks

    As we embark on the seventh year since the historic collapse of the Lehman Bros. investment bank, it's clear we haven't fixed what broke the economy in 2008. Big banks still control Congress. Workers remain acutely vulnerable to another financial crisis. But we can't blame only Wall Street...

  • Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance
    Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance

    The terrorists who turned the World Trade Center into rubble struck a devastating blow to the U.S. economy too, and few sectors felt it as acutely as the insurance industry. Afterward, insurers balked at providing any coverage for damage caused by further acts of terrorism, making it harder...

  • A tax system tilted toward the rich
    A tax system tilted toward the rich

    Congress managed to pass a tax bill in December — a great relief to tax professionals like myself. But what our legislators didn't do was address the fundamentally unfair way the United States taxes people who work for a living compared with people who live off of the earnings of their...

  • In spending-bill battle, Obama and banks prevail over Pelosi, Warren
    In spending-bill battle, Obama and banks prevail over Pelosi, Warren

    So much for the new populism.

  • Obama's myRA accounts come up short for savers
    Obama's myRA accounts come up short for savers

    President Obama's legacy will probably not include retirement savings accounts, but he did point the way to a promising option this year: a government-sponsored account, aimed at the millions of workers without access to an employer plan. As with so much else in his presidency, it's an...

  • That ugly spending bill? That's what compromise looks like
    That ugly spending bill? That's what compromise looks like

    The trillion-dollar spending bill that the House of Representatives passed last week had something for everyone to hate. But it was still a step, however awkward, toward making the United States governable again.

  • Empty threats vs. real immigration reform
    Empty threats vs. real immigration reform

    House Republicans once again find themselves choosing whether to govern or to make a point. Last year they embarked on a destined-to-fail effort to "defund Obamacare," leading to a 16-day government shutdown. Now, some Republicans want to "defund amnesty," a reference to President Obama's...

  • The new Rand Paul vs. the old Rand Paul
    The new Rand Paul vs. the old Rand Paul

    Rand Paul, the heretofore libertarian senator from Kentucky, gave a foreign policy speech to Republican grandees in New York last week with a clear message: I'm not an isolationist like my dad.

Comments
Loading