the uk has much more incentive to inflate in the classic ryan hart way than we do. ultimately we need to look at the liabilities and the revenues that we're willing to raise to back those. clearly there's an imbalance. we have a huge advantage potentially relative to other countries, countries in the book, which is we are the reserve currency and can borrow unsurpassed by anything any country has ever had, and welin. we're in the process of wasting that credit line. weert not investing in public assets and upgrades the system and we're just spending that, borrowing to finance consumption in excess of our income. that will absolutely end badly. so the pickle we are in is a large one and maybe bigger than what other countries have had. we have an opportunity to fix it. an opportunity that the europeans don't have right now. the europes are in a different place from us and a much, much tougher place. we should take that as a cautionary tale and use that to fix our own budget today. i think we're all on the same page with regard to your general points, senator. >> you t

judge ryan hart has staked the entire decision on that claim which is patently false. >> ifill: let me ask mr. boies about the narrow scope of that hearing. you were hoping for a larger scope than something that affects only california. >we think the reasoning of the court does. let me just respond to the suggestion that somehow proposition 8 was not involving just gay and lesbian marriage but somehow against plural marriage. no one has ever sugges that. to begin to try to defend proposition 8 on the grounds that it's really directed at polygamy at this stage of the debate just shows desperation. that's not what the proposition was about. it was clearly targeted at gay and lesbian marriage. that's what all the advertisements were about. that's what all the publications were about. and that's what the court held was simply unconstitutional. and they held it because the evidence was absolutely uncontradicted that this did not help proceed creation. it didn't help different-sex marriage. there was no justification for this. as the court said, in order to believe that this served a rationa