Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

The Barr Letter and Useful Idiots of the Jaded Left

The Barr Letter and Useful Idiots of the Jaded Left

As everyone knows by now, President Trump has been totally “exonerated” for everything, ever, by a four-page letter from William Barr, the Attorney General whom he appointed expressly to “exonerate” him. With regard to potential obstruction-of-justice, on page three of his letter, Barr cited Special Counsel Mueller’s statement that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Understandably, Trump’s allies and surrogates are ecstatic that Trump has been so unequivocally and unconditionally exonerated by a letter about a report that “does not exonerate him.” But the gloating does not stop there. A contingent of “left” journalists and self-styled pundits are jumping in the self-congratulatory bandwagon.

The “leftist” critique of the Russia collusion story follows a certain “dialectical” logic: first, the lesser of two evils is the greater danger and therefore my foe and second, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Alleged journalist Glenn Greenwald presents an inarticulate version of this critique when he sputters hyperbole on Democracy Now. Greenwald magically transforms not establishing an actionable criminal case into not a shred of evidence.



Matt Taibbi gives a more nuanced performance in comparing Russiagate to the Bush administration’s lies about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Taibbi qualifies his hyperbole by noting the hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars wasted as a result of the latter. “Unless Russiagate leads to a nuclear conflict, we’re unlikely to ever see that level of consequence.” But in terms of journalism?

As a purely journalistic failure, however, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations this time around dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it’s led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission. We’ve become sides-choosers, obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.

What a load of bollocks. Are we now supposed to believe that up until the time of the Steele dossier, the corporate news media was “an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction”? Fox? Breitbart? Daily Caller? Not to mention non-stop CNN and NYT coverage of Trump rallies, diners in rural Pennsylvania, personable neo-Nazis, Clinton emails and climate change

In his comprehensive critique of journalistic failure, Taibbi mentioned Fox once and the Daily Caller twice — to note their coverage of Michael Cohen’s denial of having ever been in Prague. Throughout the whole affair, the vast right-wing propaganda Wurlitzer was presumably acting as “an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.” Thank you, Matt Taibbi for your bold refusal to choose sides!

Not that it matters, but the mainstream media framing of the Russia collusion story was orchestrated by the “victim” of the “witch hunt.” The Mueller investigation was initiated by the Trump-appointed Deputy Attorney General who wrote the memo to give Trump cover for firing James Comey. The soi-disant “left” critics of Russiagate have bought that framing and are now gloating that “their side” has won.

Comments (11) | |

Maybe No Conspiracy Or Coordination, But Lots And Lots Of Collusion

Maybe No Conspiracy Or Coordination, But Lots And Lots Of Collusion

Trump and his supporters have been loudly claiming that the Barr letter about the Mueller report has shown “no collusion!” which has been shouted loudly from the rooftops, with many supposedly respectable sources such as the New York Times agreeing with this assessment, thus supporting the long running Trump/Hannity repeated claim.

But I note that the big headline on this morning’s Washington Post was “Mueller Finds No Conspiracy,” not “No Collusion.” Indeed, a careful reading of the clearly carefully written Barr letter finds it not using the word “collusion” at all. Its crucial getting Trump off a major hook says that the available evidence suggests that there was “no conspiracy and no coordination.” Nothing about collusion.

Clearly few have even notieced this, very few besides myself so far, but I did occasionally see commentators noting that while Trump/Hannity were constantly denying “collusion” with the Russians, Mueller was not investigsting that, ssomething that is not iillegal in any case, but instead “conspiracy” was what was being investigated, something that is a crime. While I am about to accuse Trump of stupidity, I think he or somebody figured it out that pushing this “no collusion” line would end up as it has as indeed Mueller was not investigating the not-illegal “collusion.” So far, they are getting away with this scam.

So how do these things differ? Conspiracy and cooedination both imply some amount of planning and direction, with for conspiracy some sort of communication and agreement on the plan with the other conspiring party, namely the Russians. What apparently the Mueller report finds is none of that: no central plan or direction or the making of such a plan with the Russians. This indeed looks like it is true, although some of what went on around the Trump Tower meeting gets pretty borderline, even as that seems to have been sort of a mutually botched meeting.


Comments (23) | |

Tax the Rich

Dylan Matthews has a typically excellent explainer about taxing the rich. Just click the link.
I have one thought. Matthews is soft on capital income.

Matthews wrote

Saez and Diamond also argued that capital income — income from things like capital gains, corporate profits, dividends, etc. — should be taxed, which broke with previous models of optimal tax theory. (Our current capital gains top rate is 23.8 percent.) Those models had suggested the proper tax rate on capital income was zero, on the grounds that it discouraged savings: If you spend money on an investment, your profits are taxed, but if you spend money on food or a house or what have you, you don’t get hit with a capital tax — so a capital tax’s presence pushes you to spend more and save less.

This is a roughly correct description of the previous models, but it isn’t exact. In fact, the mathematical result is that as time goes to infinity the tax rate on capital income should go to zero. There is no justification for arguing that this means the rate should be zero in 2019 or 3019. The infinite jump from t goes to infinity to now is simply a dishonest rhetorical trick.

Another problem is that the academic literature on capital income taxation is not sound. The classic paper by Judd is simply mathematically incorrect. Yet it is still regularly cited. The key assumption which Judd made which makes his conclusion a mistake (a mistake like 2+2=5 not a mistake like taking a crazy assumption seriously) is that the state runs a balanced budget. Given Judd’s assumptions, the correct math shows a positive tax rate on capital income for all time.

It is interesting that a math boo boo could be so influential. One might almost guess that ideology and self interest are involved.

If the state is allowed to run deficits or surpluses, then the optimal policy involves building up a huge sovereign wealth fund so high that all desired spending is financed by the socialist profits on state owned means of production (this is just what the math says). At that point, the optimal tax on capital income is zero, because there is no reason not to tax. In particular if one wishes to tax capital income because one cares about inequality, the math suggests no compromise at all. In the simplest model it is optimal to tax capitalists until the richest capitalist has the national average income. With more reasonable assumptions, an egalitarian who also cares about efficiency would end up taxing the rich until they become poorer than average.

An egalitarian would accept that the tax on capital income eventually go to zero when the recipients of capital income are as poor as the average person or poorer. A class warrior who wanted the rich to starve but didn’t want to deprive workers of capital to work will would tax the rich till they starved.

A critique of the standard anti capital income taxation program should conclude “it is not until capital income ceases to go to the rich and goes to the relatively poor can we inscribe on our banner from each capitalist zero taxes and to each capitalist the full market income”

In contrast, if some have high labor income, it is best to let them end up with above average income. As is often argued, the equality efficiency tradeoff is different for capital income taxation, but it is different because less is optimally conceeded to the rich in the name of efficiency. Nothing or less than nothing should be conceded.

This is a simple mathematical result based on standard assumptions.

Also the standard model assumes dynamic effiency. Matthews is very smart, but he accepts the assumption that we should encourage saving. This is an implication of the Ramsey Cass Koopmans model, which might or might not have anything to do with reality. It is possible to decide if a higher steady state ratio of capital to effective labor implies higher or lower welfare.

It has been argued that the standard case for more capital is valid if r>g where r is the expected return on capital (including the expected value of risky returns) and g is the trend rate of gdp growth. In fact, it is valid only if rf > g where rf is the safe rate of interest which has almost always been less than g. This isn’t a fringe claim. It is Public Debt and Low Interest Rates Olivier Blanchard — another Frenchman, January 2019.

He would have cited AngryBear if he had known about this post.

In fact, the math says we can benefit from lower saving. This means a higher debt to gdp ratio would be better if it crowds out saving. I have co-authors now, so I shouldn’t type more.

Comments (8) | |

The government shutdown may have caused a mini-recession

The government shutdown may have caused a mini-recession

Aside from being a monumentally poor policy outcome, and aside from the hardship it caused nearly a million workers, the government shutdown may also have caused a general contraction in production, sales, and income, and a slowdown in employment, that if it were longer would qualify as a recession.

Because the affected three months straddle Q4 2018 and Q1 2019, both quarters will likely show positive real GDP growth, it won’t be a recession. Let’s call it a mini-recession.

Although shorthand for a recession is two quarters of GDP contraction, that wasn’t the case for 2001, and the NBER has indicated that a general downturn in production, employment, sales, and income are the crucial criteria. So let’s look at each.

Industrial production declined significantly in December, and the small rebound in January was not enough to overcome that downturn. This is especially true of the manufacturing component:


The same is also true of real retail sales:

Comments (0) | |

Interview with Andrew Yang

Now that Andrew Yang has made it into the first debate by meeting the fundraising threshold, and being on Morning Joe this morning,  it is time to post this interview of him via Freakonomics.

I was impressed by his thought approach.  He is the first person who is talking about the economy as a ecosystem of society.  That is, it’s not just about making money.  He does not come out and say it as I would but I think he is thinking about a question I have asked here in the past: What do we have an economy for?  Is it to just produce the biggest most powerful engine in the world and watch it run?

My concern is that the MSN is not prepared to do a proper interview with a person who actually wants to discuss a comprehensive idea regarding social structure and present a plan for it as observed on Morning Joe today.  You could just tell they wanted to throw out the memes of name calling:  “socialist”, “taxing the rich”, “taxing business”, “far left”.  But, I think Mr Yang handled it well considering the short time he had vs his scope of policy.  Plus Mr. Yang had facts noting his “freedom dividend” is what Alaska has.

I don’t expect him to win, but I do hope he and his ideas get more coverage and thus pushes the Overton window back toward society.  The problem is,  his idea is very comprehensive.  It’s talking about society.  Unfortunately, our mindset wants discussion boiled down to the “1 item” reductionist meme.  You know: How are you going to bring the nation together?  My answer: Oh, I don’t know.  How do you handle a 2 year old that always says No? (Mitch McConnell  et al)


Here is the link:


Tags: , , Comments (0) | |

Elizabeth Warren, David Leonhardt, Redistribution, and Predistribution

I just had an unusual experience. I was convinced by an op-ed. One third of the way through “Elizabeth Warren Actually Wants to Fix Capitalism” by David Leonhardt, I was planning to contest one of Leonhard’s assertions. Now I am convinced.

The column praises Elizabeth Warren. Leonhardt (like his colleague Paul Krugman) is careful to refrain from declaring his intention to vote for her in the primary. I am planning to vote for her. I mostly agreed with the column to begin with, but was not convinced by Leonard’s praise of Warren’s emphasis on aiming for more equal pre-fiscal distribution of income rather than just relying on taxes and transfers to redistribute.

In particular, I was not convinced by

This history suggests that the Democratic Party’s economic agenda needs to become more ambitious. Modest changes in the top marginal tax rate or in middle-class tax credits aren’t enough. The country needs an economic policy that measures up to the scale of our challenges.

Here two issues are combined. One is modest vs major changes. The other is that predistribution is needed in addition to redistribution, as discussed even more clearly here

“Clinton and Obama focused on boosting growth and redistribution,” Gabriel Zucman, a University of California, Berkeley, economist who has advised Warren, says. “Warren is focusing on how pretax income can be made more equal.”

The option of a large change in the top marginal tax rate and a large middle class tax credit isn’t considered in the op-ed. I think this would be excellent policy which has overwhelming popular support as measured by polls (including the support of a large fraction of self declared Republicans). I note from time to time that, since 1976 both the Democrats who have been elected president campaigned on higher taxes on high incomes and lower taxes on the middle class (and IIRC none of the candidates who lost did).

This is also one of my rare disagreements with Paul Krugman, and, finally one of my rare disagreements with Dean Baker (link to a book which I haven’t read).

After the jump, I will make my usual case. But first, I note Leonardt’s excellent argument for why “soak the rich and spread it out thin” isn’t a sufficient complete market oriented egalitarian program. It is phrased as a question.

“How can the next president make changes that will endure, rather than be undone by a future president, as both Obama’s and Clinton’s top-end tax increases were?”

Ahh yes. High taxes on high income and high wealth would solve a lot of problems. But they will be reversed. New programs such as Obamacare or Warren’s proposed universal pre-K and subsidized day care will not. Nor will regulatory reforms such as mandatory paid sick leave and mandatory paid family leave. I am convinced that relatively complicated proposals are more politically feasible, not because it is easier to implement them, but because it is very hard to eliminate programs used by large numbers of middle class voters.

I’d note that I had already conceded the advantage of a regulatory approach which relies on the illusion that the costs must be born by the regulated firms. Here I note that fleet fuel economy standards are much more popular than increased gasoline taxes. One is a market oriented approach. The other is one that hides behind the market as consumers don’t know that part of the price of a gas guzzler pays the shadow price of reducing fleet average milage.

OK my usual argument after the jump

Comments (10) | |

Preventing Presidential autocracy: thoughts on reining in Executive power

Preventing Presidential autocracy: thoughts on reining in Executive power

Matt Yglesias posted a jarring tweet this past week when he wrote:

He elaborated by linking to a long-form article he wrote four years ago, explaining his position, where in relevant part, he wrote:

America’s constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

Some day … there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we’re lucky, it won’t be violent. If we’re very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we’re less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen.


In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that “aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government — but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s.”

Yglesias — and Linz — saved me a lot of work. Because I had long ago heard that the US was the only Presidential democracy that hadn’t succumbed to autocratic rule. That was precisely Linz’s finding. At this point the only other democracies that I know of that come close are Costa Rica (since the last coup of 1948) and the Fourth and Fifth French Republics (since 1945).

Comments (5) | |

The Lordstown Effect

The Lordstown Effect

Late last week, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) announced that he will not run for president in 2020, declaring that he would prefer to stay in the Senate to criticize President Trump and support whomever the Dems nominate against Trump. He had been highly praised by various commentators, including Chris Matthews, and even conservative columnist, George Will, who wrote an entire column in WaPo praising him. In repeated polling among Daily Kos activists he was running around fifth or sixth at about 5%, with the top 3 being Harris, Warren, and Sanders over 10%, and Brown in with Biden, Klobuchar, and O’Rourke in the mid-single digits range, all the others never exceeding 1% (so much for all the attention paid to Booker and Gillibrand, neither going anywhere). In short, Brown had potential to be a serious candidate, with a record generally respected by both progressives (despite not signing on for “Medicare-for-all”) as well as more moderate Dem types. Of course, his biggest appeal, symbolized by his “Dignity for Work” slogan, was his clearly strong appeal to the midwestern white working class that was key to Trump’s 2016 victory, with this reinforced by Brown’s strong reelection victory in Ohio in 2018, even as GOP took the governorship.

With all this going for him, and his having enough support to be in the top tier out of the scads of seriously nobody candidates clamoring to run, why really did he pull out? I do not know, but I find his “I love the Senate so much” explanation not all that convincing. He took a pretty substantial tour around the country with his clearly appealing Dignity for Work pitch, but somehow he obviously decided it was just not quite enough to warrant the hard reality of running, which certainly is hard. There may have been doubts in his family, and nobody can be blamed for simply not wanting to put up with all that is involved in such a serious run. Being in the Senate is certainlhy a lot easier, not that I think Brown is lazy or scared or any of that.

Beyond whatever personal factors there may be, two factors stick out obviously as possibilities, especially when put together. One is that he is a white male at a time when there are a lot of women running, as well as several non-white candidates, with Kamala Harris recently topping those DK activist polls, if not the broader ones, where two other whilte males lead, the more senior and better known Biden and Sanders, with Biden apparently definitely getting in. Brown arguably overlaps with both of them, but he would have a hard time beating either of them in the end, and given that they might well be battling for the lead for those not wanting a woman (or nonwhite) candidate, he may have felt he did not have a good enough chance in the end.

The other may have been a feeling that there is also a strong tilt to a progressive stance he felt he could not fully sign on to, with the “Medicare-for-all” issue the tip of an iceberg, although ironically he has long been viewed as among the most progressive and leftist of Dems in the Senate, if not quite as much so as Sanders or Warren. He saw Harris bungle while supporting “Medicare-for-all” by declaring this would mean no private health insurance, and her having to walk that back. Harris looks to be maybe in about the same place as Brown, someone who might appeal to both party wings, but with her more willing to pander to the left with a strong likelihood of “moving to the center” if she gets the nomination, a very traditional thing to do, but maybe one Brown just did not want to play. As someone in the Senate for a longer time, and with him emphasizing his love of being in the Senate, it may be that he is too aware of complications for some of these slogans when one gets around to making them into actual policies, with this also applying to the Green New Deal, which I think he was also unwilling to sign on to (I may be wrong on that one). He may be too much of a policy wonk a la Hillary Clinton, worrying about getting into policy details that would damage his run for the nomination in a time when a more strongly voiced support of a harder line progressive set of positions seems to be popular.

However, there is one other matter that I think may have played a role in his decision, although perhaps more indirectly, and I think there if so it was probably less important than the two already mentioned. But it would have been and is there. I am labeling it the “Lordstown Effect,” and it has to do with his more or less unabashed and across the board protectionism. This is (and was) without doubt a central part of his “Dignity for Work” program and also his appeal to the midwestern white working class, arguably the strongest argument for making him the candidate (and he may well yet end up as the VP candidate for Harris or some other non-white male candidate, with reportedly Clinton having seriously considered him for it in 2016).

The problem is that Trump has now shown us what a mess an aggressively protectionist program is, which weakens Brown’s position. It is not just that one is hurting farmers, who seem to be sticking with Trump anyway despite getting hurt by his policies. It is that even in the core of the old unionized industrial Midwest in Ohio, such an across the board protectionism runs into contradictions, and it has done so in Ohio itself, where Brown has had to face this, managing to get around it on the ground for now, but I suspect fully aware of the problem. It is highlighted by the closing of the large auto assembly plant by GM in Lordstown, Ohio. While there were other factors, a major one according to GM is the steel tariffs Trump has not only put on for the clearly hypocritical reason of “national security,” but the fact that after renegotiating NAFTA (which Brown proudly voted against and supported renegotiating), Trump did not remove the steel tariffs on Mexico and Canada. Brown supported and supports the steel tariffs, which help him in Youngstown and other Ohio steel towns (and Youngstown was a place that flipped from supporting Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016), but those same steel tariffs also hurt the industries that use steel, notably in this case the auto industry, which has many production facilities in Ohio also, with the one (formerly) at Lordstown one of the largest.

As long as it was all just an abstract possibility, Brown could address a rally with steel and autoworkers and support protectionism for both the steel and auto industries. But, in the end, when the abstraction became a reality, supporting the steel tariffs hurts the autoworkers. Somehow, somewhere, I think Brown understands this, and it may be that this Lordstown Effect played into his decision, with him realizing that a full-throated defense of across-the-board protectionism is not going to be the leading issue for a Dem trying to unseat the protectionist Donald Trump. But, who knows, the eventual Dem candidate may yet want to have him on board as VP candidate to quiety nod in that direction anyway, especially if that candidate does not have obvious appeal to the midwestern white male working class. We shall see. But I suspect that awareness of the Lordstown Effect has played a role in Brown’s decision not to run right now for president.

Barkley Rosser

Comments (4) | |

Neoliberals Passing the Baton

Brad DeLong got a huge amount of attention by saying it was time for neoliberals such as Brad DeLong to pass the baton to those to their left. Alarmingly, he seems to have written this first on twitter.

Zach Beuchamp rescued it from tawdry twitter to now very respectable blogosphere with an interview.

One interesting aspect is that Brad has very little criticism of 90s era Brad’s policy proposals. Basically, the argument is that Democrats must stick together, because Republicans are purely partisan and no compromise with them is possible. I absolutely agree with Brad on this.

But I also want to look at criticisms of Clinton/Obama center left policy as policy.

Brad tries to come up with 2 examples

I could be confident in 2005 that [recession] stabilization should be the responsibility of the Federal Reserve. That you look at something like laser-eye surgery or rapid technological progress in hearing aids, you can kind of think that keeping a market in the most innovative parts of health care would be a good thing. So something like an insurance-plus-exchange system would be a good thing to have in America as a whole.

It’s much harder to believe in those things now. That’s one part of it. The world appears to be more like what lefties thought it was than what I thought it was for the last 10 or 15 years.

Now monetary vs fiscal policy is only considered right vs left because of the prominence and fanaticism of Milton Friedman. Is see no connection between laser eye surgery, hearing aids, and private health insurance. Medicare for all is not a National Health Service (note I am not conceding that a national health service would be bad for medical innovation). Brad did not advocate insurance/plus/exchange system in 1993. He (and Bentson, Summers and Rubin) advocated a payroll tax financed system not the Clinton-Clinton and Magaziner mess. I think he is stretching to get a second example.

I think the first isn’t really left vs right and the second is and always was a bad political calculation. IIRC Obama certainly said that he thought single payer was better policy but politically impossible. That was the general line on the center left wonkosphere. I think the case for insurance-plus-exchange was at most a bad political argument disguised as a bad policy argument.

In another twitter thread (no not the one where he says twitter is a horrible medium for serious discussion) Paul Krugman comments

I want to focus on two of his tweets

Last point: wages. Here’s where research has convinced me and others that wages are much less determined by supply and demand, much more determined by market power, than we used to believe. This implies a much bigger role for “predistribution” policies like minimum wage hikes 10/

Pro-union policies, and more than we used to think. “Let the market do its thing, but spend more on education/training and a bigger EITC” no longer sounds like wisdom 11/

I listed this as the one economist’s mea culpa based on empirical evidence which came to my mind. A lot of center left economists used to oppose minimum wage increases and were convinced by empirical evidence (mostly by Card and Krueger) that this is actually good policy. But I don’t see any problem with the EITC. Rather, economics 101 based arguments against the minimum wage and unions have been undermined by evidence*.

I think Krugman’s problem with “a bigger EITC” is political. It appears on the Federal budget so deficit hawks won’t allow a really huge increase. In contrast, people can think firms pay the minimum wage, so increasing it sounds like a cheap way to help the working poor.

More generally, I don’t see any reason to abandone redistribution (like the EITC). In fact, I think that is both excellent policy and political dynamite. I note that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama campaigned promising to raise taxes on the rich and cut taxes on everyone else. Also they won. Other Democrats didn’t promise that and they lost. A more progressive income tax is a relatively market respecting policy long supported by left of center economists. Oh and also Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. I don’t think there is any evidence against the Clinton 1993 tax increase combined with EITC increase.

The fact that it is totally obvious that it is good politics (rejected absolutely by the Republican party and supported by most self identified Republicans) doesn’t mean that it is too obvious to stress. It means debating redistribution vs predistribution is a distraction (which one here is not like the others)?

I personally have criticisms of Bill Clinton type neoliberalism after the jump

Comments (16) | |

A modest proposal to use FICA-style tax withholding as a transition to “Medicare for All”

A modest proposal to use FICA-style tax withholding as a transition to “Medicare for All”

Probably the foremost reform advanced by the Democratic Party at present is “Medicare for All.” Personally I don’t particularly care whether it is ultimately necessary to have single payer (like Canada) or universal coverage (like France or Germany) or a hybrid of each (like Australia). I am fond of the Japanese saying that translates as “There are many paths to the top of Mount Fuji,” but let’s set that aside for now.

What is generally acknowledged is the problem of how to create a “bridge” between the hodge-lodge of government and employer-based coverages we have now to whatever is ultimately passed as “Medicare for All.” That’s because there will understandably be a lot of blowback if people “lose” an employer healthcare plan, or else get hit with a new tax.

I propose that a system of payroll tax withholding that includes Obamacare and “Medicare for All” plans in addition to employer-provided medical benefits will work. Specifically, I propose three tweaks to Obamacare as it existed in 2016:

1. Two new spaces for mandatory FICA-style tax withholding spaces are added to each paycheck. One is for “Medicare for All” employment coverage, and the second is for “Medicare for All” unemployment coverage.

2.  The individual mandate penalty that the GOP killed in 2018 remains dead. But it is replaced, in all cases where an individual is not covered by employer-provided coverage, with an automatic payroll deduction for individual enrollment that defaults to the least expensive monthly bronze plan for individuals under 40, and the least expensive monthly silver plan for individuals age 40 through 64. This would kick in only for new employees in the first two years, after which it would apply to all employees.

3. Employers could voluntarily purchase, on behalf of their employees, coverages that are at least at the mandated levels set forth in #2 above.

Here’s how it would work.

Comments (0) | |