Ron Klain

Differences of opinion are the essence of politics; differences in factual analysis are usually less sharp. Yet one of the most interesting divides in public discourse now concerns not a policy dispute, but different perceptions of a “factual” question: How has the administration treated the financial sector: Wall Street, the banks and their executives?

The science of economics rests on the idea that we are rational actors seeking to maximize our wealth. Economic policy making, similarly, seeks to maximize the financial well-being of the people affected by the policy, subject to distributional concerns. Policy makers presume that their constituents, collectively, prefer economic measures that, collectively, enrich them.

For two years, polls have shown that the American people have two strongly held beliefs. First, they think the president should do more to create jobs. Second, they believe federal spending should be cut, and the government should shrink.

When I worked in the Obama White House, one of my most important assignments was to help oversee implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , commonly known as the stimulus. The measure met its major objectives, hitting spending targets on time, keeping down waste and fraud, and surpassing the goal of saving or creating 3 million jobs. Yet it never won favor with the public.

This past weekend, my hometown marked the 100th anniversary of its great civic festival, the Indianapolis 500. There are many ways to explain the race’s enduring appeal -- the pageantry, the drivers, the traditions -- but what makes it truly compelling is the cars: their roaring engines, the constant innovation, the new technologies that set records for speed.

During my tenure in the White House, there was always an unintentionally funny moment when the Cabinet sat down each month to meet with the president -– and I do mean, literally, when it sat down.