Before I reply I might ask, doesn't this belong in the Political Discussion forum?

Whatever deficit that Barack Obama inherits when he takes office in a couple of weeks will be the result of the governance and absence of leadership of the administration which was in power for the last eight years. So far, all Obama has done is to nominate some very smart and experienced people to help him run the government, put together some very important legislative plans to address the disastrous problems facing the country, and conduct repeated press conferences to let the people know what he plans to do and why. He will make a major speech tomorrow to explain the depth of the financial crisis we face, how he plans to reverse it, how much it will cost to do so, and how long he expects it will take to repay the cost of fixing the problems.

What's wrong with that? Or is it more desirable to have a political leader who continues to say that things are OK when anyone with an ounce of thoughtfulness knows that they're not? "Stay the course" was the mantra, even when we all knew things weren't going well. The fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 was used as the justification for letting the country and the economy fall apart.

Yes, I'm glad to have a President who is showing respect for our intelligence by explaining the situation we are all facing and how he plans to lead us out of it. That instead of just "staying on message" and repeating statements that were thought would be believed if they were just repeated often enough.

But so far, Barack Obama hasn't influenced anything any more than a single U.S. Senator out of 100 could do. I only wish the outgoing administration had so little influence. We'd all almost certainly be far better off.