We may or may not be facing one of the gravest economic crises since the Great Depression. What has astonished me in recent days is the degree of skepticism that remains widespread among the American populace.

That doubt has everything to do with the messengers. At a time of a supposed economic national emergency, we are being asked to essentially take the word of an administration that shredded every ounce of credibility it has with people across the political spectrum.

Rather than defer to this message, our response has been: “Prove it.”

This credibility problem has been building slowly, and for years, mostly because of the buildup to the Iraq war.

But the specific problem is more recent. As the mortgage crisis gathered momentum over the past two years, the president’s economic team has insisted the economy is fine. We were hearing that argument almost right up to the point when the administration announced the need for a bailout.

As Rep. Pete Stark said Monday: “The fear-mongering over this turned me off.” Stark also pointed to the Bush administration’s “warnings of disaster” regarding Iraq, “which turned out to be a crock.”

Either they were lying to us before, or they fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Why should we suddenly trust them now?

Next, on a gut level, it simply sounds suspicious to spring a deal on someone and then declare they have to act RIGHT NOW! It sounds like a pitch from a telemarketer calling during dinner.

Adding to this credibility gap is the fact that the public face on this issue is Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, whose previous job was chief executive at Goldman Sachs. In past times, this would have granted him an air of authority. Now, it’s a Scarlet Letter. (Or, now it’s an embarrassment.)

Of course, there are at least two groups that bought the bailout story. But both groups have their own trust issues.

The first is Congress, including the two presidential candidates. Those who supported this deal are among the minority willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. But they have failed in their duty to demand answers about this crisis, and at best, have been lax in oversight in recent months.

And perhaps more troubling: Over the past five years, the 205 members of Congress who voted for the bailout received 54 percent more in campaign contributions from banks and securities firms than the 228 members who voted against the bill, according to analysis by MAPlight.org, a nonpartisan group based in Berkeley that tracks campaign finance issues.

The other group rooting for the bailout is investors in the stock markets. But keep in mind, the wild mood swings that drove the Dow down 777 points Monday were most likely caused by the very same people who are asking for this bailout. Did you or any of your friends rush out and dump your portfolio Monday? Probably not, right?

For most of us, there is simply too much that we don’t know. This is not because we are stupid, or because we don’t have MBAs from Harvard. It is because the administration has failed to provide the facts and answer the questions that would persuade us.

Institutions go bankrupt every day. Airlines fail, but they keep flying.

So why is this crisis different? And why must the bailout happen right this second?

We may not be financial geniuses, but we’re adults. When you’re ready to give us the facts, we’ll be ready to listen. And maybe even believe you.

Contact Chris O’Brien at cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207 or follow him on Twitter at sjcobrien.