What's really behind the teabaggers?

All right, let's get away from race for a while and look at the teabaggers' other complaint -- that President Barack ObamaBarack Obama's spending will bankrupt America.

There's no question that the government -- not to mention the country -- is in a very shaky financial position right now. With a projected federal deficit of $1.2 trillion, the National Debt is growing faster than Rush LimbaughRush Limbaugh's midsection.

But we've been running deficits of $400 billion a year or so since George W. BushGeorge W. Bush took office, thanks in large part to his massive tax cuts, and these same people never complained then.

We've been spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war of choice in Iraq, and the people who are upset with Obama were all for it.

So I think it's fair to say that it isn't really about the money, but rather more what the money will be spent for. I honestly believe that part of that comes from mistaken assumptions -- overly optimistic ones -- about people's lives.

In 2001, when Bush got his tax cuts through Congress, it was reported that 48 percent of the benefits of those tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent. The Gallup Organization did a poll in which people were asked two questions.

1. Do you think you are in the top 1 percent of Americans for income?

2. If not, do you think you will be someday?

A total of 17 percent of those polled thought they were already in the top 1 percent, and another 25 percent said they expected to be someday. That means an awful lot of Americans are incredibly deluded about their actual financial situation as compared to the rich.

Since not everyone is going to win the lottery or invent a new operating system for a computer, it would have been nice if Gallup had asked them how they figured to improve their lives so much.

Of course, we've always been overly respectful toward the rich. We treat them as if they all were Bill GatesBill Gates, when in fact an awful lot of them are Paris HiltonParis Hilton.

The irony is that the $700 billion or so of stimulus done late in the last administration was almost all targeted to help the rich -- the big banks, brokerage houses and insurance companies. The stimulus plan earlier this year was much more targeted to job creation and infrastructure projects, yet that's the one the right wing is protesting.

As for health care, the Obama program has two major thrusts -- increase the number of people who are covered and lower health-care costs. Does anyone really believe that if it were a left-wing, "Socialist" program, a solid majority of doctors and the American Medical Association would be supporting it?

I can't help but feel that it's more about political advantage than anything else. In 1993, Bill ClintonBill Clinton got his stimulus package through Congress without a single Republican vote, and even though the stimulus worked, the GOP took back Congress in 1994.

Republicans seem to be running Newt GingrichNewt Gingrich's old playbook in 2009. Paint Obama as a leftist, stymie his agenda and make gains in 2010.

There is one big difference this time.

Aside from the fact that the electorate has changed in 16 years, when Newt ran the plays the first time, the GOP sold itself as a party of ideas. Newt's Contract on America captured the imagination of the right, and there was also a backlash against corruption among Congressional Democrats.

This time it seems all the GOP has left in the way of ideas is more tax cuts. That will work with the right wing, but it's not going to pull a lot of independents and disaffected Democrats.

In 1994, right-wing talk radio was still relatively new, with guys like Limbaugh riding high. Now even Rush seems tired, straining for more and more outrageous statements all the time.

So no matter what the 'baggers tell you, it isn't about the money.

It's about who gets to spend it and for what.