Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response.  The purpose of the LTE is to influence debate on the Irish Recovery Plan, not to dispute the balance or the merits of Obama's plan. (That is a US debate).

The reference to clearly defined return on investment was intended for inclusion in the Irish Plan (and specifically to promote the benefits of wind power).  A lot of public spending in Ireland has been perceived as wasteful and thus it is necessary to predicate any call for more on a requirement that it be well directed.

The reference to Obama was included only because:

a) He is very popular in Ireland
and
b) His plan is geared much more on increased public investment (and less on public expenditure reduction - which is the primary focus of the  Irish Plan too date.

So the case I am making is that any call for increased sacrifice has to be balanced by clear and measurable guarantees that those making the sacrifice also have to be the beneficiaries of future prosperity, and secondly, that Government cut-backs alone will not encourage a recovery - in fact they would make a bad situation worse.

The debate so far has been entirely on the need to reduce expenditure, so they reference to Obama was a handy way of emphasising that - provided the investment can generate a reasonable return - we must also be looking at stimulating the economy even at the cost of more borrowing.

notes from no w here