While ad hominem is usually bad, I don't see the problem with using it in response to anecdotal evidence. If your argument is "I, personally, can't run my business while paying employees an average wage!", then "your business was spiraling downwards while before the downturn and well before healthcare reform and wage bumps" seems to be a decent response.
Similarly, knowing someone's background is pretty crucial for an op-ed. If the piece is being sold as "I'm a typical businessman, and Obama's policies are keeping me from hiring people", then it's important to know if the businessman in question is typical, or if he's politically connected.
It does seem unfair to have to respond to an inflammatory anecdotal op-ed with a reasoned non-anecdotal argument, but I think that's the burden of a good faith response.
In that respect, I think Michael Fleisher's background is a good indicator that his piece has a bias, but pointing it out doesn't necessarily negate what he wrote.
I've always lived by the rule "if you think someone's wrong based on who they are and not what they said than your argument is too weak to present to others".
It's true, he didn't spend nearly enough time explaining why the argument was false. But then again, the 2-3 sentences he spent on that was enough. The rest is, I suppose, filler.
But at the same time it makes sense. Blaming the government for your inability to afford employees is just a blame game. You can afford and employee or not. If you're a moderate veteran in business you know the burdened costs so you factor that in.
The article has good detail about how he's blaming the government for his own failing business. He's just trying to egg on the government for more breaks or he won't hire and supposedly the recession will continue.
Maybe he'd like to turn off the HVAC system in the offices to save some money too.
