ALSBTALK:

I'm inclined to prefer my political choices to be grounded in reality.  Whims of the moment can have real force (i.e., real politick), but also can evaporate in an instant.  Some physical processes and some economic processes prompt whims of the moment and thus prompt political activity, and while the whim might evaporate the reality of those physical forces and the reality of those economic forces continue regardless of whether the whims have or have not evaporated.

In the over 2,000 page bill known as Obamacare, how many Republican amendments were included:  fewer than 10 or more than 200?

Were any of the Republican amendments material alterations of any material provisions in Obamacare?

If a Republican amendment that materially alters a material provision in Obamacare triggers a market response that the viewer views as "bad" or views as "good", is the bad/good actor the Republicans or is the bad/good actor Obama?

In Obamacare there is a fine imposed on employers who terminate existing health care plans and force their employees into the market to purchase health insurance unbundled from employment.  Obama proposed that there be a fine.

The fine Obama proposed that employers must pay to be legislatively set at a magnitude that was greater than most employers' existing and forecasted health care plan cost per employee times the number of employees (i.e., employer pays more to free ride).

The fine Republicans insisted upon set that fine at much less than those costs (i.e., employer pays less to free ride).  Similarly, the Republicans insisted upon setting the fine on an individual violating the individual mandate at less than the market price.

Who prompted businesses to eliminate existing employer health care plans?

Disingenuousness requires knowledge.  A person who is ignorant of reality can be foolish but can not be disingenuous.  

Paul Ryan is very bright and very knowledgeable.

There are some actions that are constitutional for the federal government when an "identical" action by a State government clearly would be unconstitutional.  Impairing the obligations of contracts is but one example.  Thus, USA States lack the power to impair the pensions they voluntarily created.  Whereas, Congress may impair such transactions.

Since the federal government may impair contracts, to an extent "contracts" cease to be at issue.  Let's look at the core of what is a "contract":  reasonable expectations.  Social Security is not a common law contract, and even if it was the federal government could impair it.  Take your every-day run-of-the-mill person on the street, now ask that person which reasonably creates within a Reasonable Person a reasonable expectation that is of greater magnitude of reasonableness and of greater magnitude of certainty:  a common law contract or Social Security?

Promises have been made.  It is lawful for the federal government to break the promises it has made.

Because of the past decisions made by past Congresses (especially as magnified by surprises born of self delusion, ignorance, procrastination, or genuinely unforeseeable events) the current array of promises can not be kept with the current array of taxes (buzzword = "not sustainable").  Ignoring all questions of politics and solely looking at questions of accounting, economics, and finance given actuarial realities the following is two statements are true:  [1] far less than a majority of each of those four professions say it would be "impossible" to raise taxes sufficiently to keep the promises made; however, [2] a majority of each of those four professions say it would anywhere from "difficult" to "improbable" to raise taxes sufficiently to keep those promises.  Necessarily someone must be disappointed:  either [i] keep promise and raise taxes, or [ii] break promise and (maybe) not raise taxes.

Is a person disingenuous if that person does not clearly and unmistakably assert that taxes must be raised if promises made are to kept? 

Is a person disingenuous if that person does not clearly and unmistakably assert that promises made will be broken if taxes are not raised?  

Obama has called for tax increases, is Obama being disingenuous?  Is Paul Ryan?  Is Rick Perry?

Based on each and every one of our past elections for President (e.g., 1988 read my lips), do Americans elect disingenuous persons President or do Americans elect persons that tell the truth?  Who prompted businesses to eliminate existing employer health care plans?

Michael

Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department
College of Business Administration
Mammel Hall 228 
University of Nebraska at Omaha
6708 Pine Street 
Omaha  NE  68182-0048
[log in to unmask] 
(402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm