Does that response answer that question? Is it too much debt to take on? Now, I am an old trial lawyer. In the courtrooms of America, you can't legitimately respond to a valid argument by attacking the other side's failings on the same point. In other words, to put it in terms understood by all of us, if my daughters overused their credit cards (and they have not), would it be responsible for me, as a father, to accept their retort that I had overused mine? Would it change their behavior? Would it move them in the right direction? Or would it be better for them to learn from my mistakes, adjust their behavior, and avoid having to live through the unfavorable consequences of bad debt management?
When asked about the bill's failings on its intended purpose, economic stimulus, he said, "First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt ... I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history." Again, this is artful (split infinitive aside) deflection, but it is not a valid or utilitarian response. Again, did he answer the question? There was no "second of all ..." Do Americans really care any more if the last guy got it wrong? Or are they more interested in the new guy getting it right?
Only in politics, the world of the unreal and of pointless rhetoric, does that work. If I had responded in trial to an appropriate argument by the other lawyer by merely pointing out that he had once done the same thing, any judge worth his salt would have shut me down immediately, to the harm of my clients. It is sad that many Americans don't know that a legal education is not enough to make one an effective lawyer, and that experience in such things DOES matter. We have elected a guy who is a pure politician, who responds based on the politics of the moment, who points a finger rather than accepting responsibility. That is bad enough, but he also has an agenda that includes massive government growth, redistribution of wealth, and payoffs to supporters on the left.
We will soon learn we can't afford this guy and his "People's Troika" (Obama, Summers, Geithner). They believe in central planning, but where is the plan? I listened carefully for any indication that he gave Congress any real guidance, and all I heard was that his metric for success would be "the saving or creation of 4 million jobs." Of course, that metric can't effectively be measured, so we will never know if this will be successful, nor will anyone be able to prove it was not. How does one measure "jobs saved"? I do intend, however, to hold him to a measure on job creation - I will watch the next six months to see if jobs are "created" and unemployment declines. If those things don't happen, of course, we will still have to pay the bill, for the rest of our lives and those of our children and grandchildren. Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that Congress will be held accountable. I can only hope she is right. And we had better hope some jobs are created, because we are going to need them to pay for this mess!
