The president gave the White House press corps its 37th chance to ask him questions today in what was purported to be the wrap-up press conference of his first term. Judging by the questions that were asked, a visitor from the Planet Zontar might conclude that the country has three big problems: the continuing fiscal finagling in the Congress, gun violence, and, briefly, why the president doesn't make nicey-nice with the people who want the viscera of his administration on a plate. (No questions about the continued influence of mega-banks. No questions, either, about climate change, but I'm not looking for miracles here.) Interestingly, the president came as close as he's ever come to admitting that, in the political aggregate, the American people are both unusually ignorant about what the debt-ceiling really is, and that they are prone in their affection for firearms to buy into whatever paranoia happens to burble forth from their radios of an afternoon.

He repeated several times that raising the debt ceiling doesn't actually mean incurring more debt but, rather, giving the government the fiscal wherewithal to pay for spending that Congress already has authorized. (And whoever in the Communications shop came up with "America is not a deadbeat nation" deserves an extra juicebox at recess today.) And, when asked by ABC's Jonathan Karl why the current national discussion about gun violence seems to be driving a lot of people to increase their personal arsenals, the president pointed out that,

As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns, you know, I think that we've seen for some time now that those who oppose any common-sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government's about to take all your guns away. And you know, that — there's probably an economic element to that. It obviously is good for business... And — but — you know, but — but part of the challenge that, you know, we confront is, is that even the sight — slightest hint of some sensible, responsible legislation in this area stands this notion that somehow here it comes and that everybody's guns are going to be taken away. It's unfortunate, but that's the case, and if you look at — over the first four years of my administration, we've tried to tighten up and enforce some of the laws that were already on the books. But it'd be pretty hard to argue that somehow gun owners have had their rights infringed.

I will grant you that bragging about how little you'd done on the issue of gun control as an antidote to the jackbooted fantasies of the black-helicopter crowd isn't my idea of an effective argument, but so rare are the moments when the president is even vaguely critical of elements of The American People for the mess they've made of self-government that I take them when I can get them.

As has become customary, the entire economic discussion was undertaken in the context of the perils of the deficit. The president kept asserting that he will not allow a rump faction of the House to blow up the American economy over raising the debt ceiling, but he always tacked on a desire to have "a conversation" about a "balanced" approach to dealing with The Deficit.

Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It's hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn't be having that debate. If we want to have a conversation about how to reduce our deficit, let's have that. We've been having that for the last two years. We had — just had an entire campaign about it. And by the way, the American people agreed with me that we should reduce our deficits in a balanced way that also takes into account the need for us to grow this economy and put people back to work. And despite that conversation and despite the election results, the position that's been taken on the part of some House Republicans is that no, we got to do it our way. And if we don't, we simply won't pay America's bills. Well, you know, that can't be — that can't be a position that is sustainable over time. It's not one that's good for the economy now. It's certainly not going to be the kind of precedent that I want to establish, not just for my presidency but for future presidents — even if it was on the other side. Democrats don't like voting for the debt ceiling with a Republican's president, and yet you — you — but you — but you never saw a situation in which the Democrats suggested somehow that we would go ahead and default if we didn't get a hundred percent of our way. That's just not how it's supposed to work.

I'm not entirely sure that's what the election is about. It certainly wasn't about the primacy of The Deficit among our various economic problems. Every time The American People get polled about the issues that are most important to them, including in the exit pollingdone in real-time during the election the president just cited, The Deficit finishes pretty far up the track behind unemployment and a generic category called The Economy. What becomes important is in what way is that generic category defined. The general public seems to think that The Economy is defined by how many people are working and how many people are not. The political elite, including the president, and the courtier press that services that elite, all seem to define the economy through the deficit. The cognitive dissonance in Washington is about how best to deal with an economy defined by the deficit. The cognitive dissonance in the country is about how best to deal with an economy that is being defined at the highest levels of the government in a way that the rest of the country finds odd and inadequate. So when the general public hears the president say this...

As I said on the campaign, one component to growing our economy and broadening opportunity for the middle class is shrinking our deficits in a balanced and responsible way. And for nearly two years now I've been fighting for such a plan, one that would reduce our deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade, which would stabilize our debt and our deficit in a sustainable way for the next decade. That would be enough not only to stop the growth of our debt relative to the size of our economy, but it would make it manageable so it doesn't crowd out the investments we need to make in people and education and job training and science and medical research — all the things that help us grow.

...it thinks the president has his priorities in the wrong order. When he talks about The American People, and the Middle Class thereof, he ought not to convince himself that he was re-elected because he's the guy who'll best bring down The Deficit. He got re-elected because the other guy convinced America that he wouldn't much care if people ate grass by the side of the road. The people who voted for this president did not do so because they wanted a balanced program to bring down the deficit. They did so because they thought he was less likely to make their everyday lives harder than they already are. Because, as the blog's First Law Of Economics states: Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io