Does Brook overlook Hamilton's skill at envisioning, crafting and selling compromises? I think not only of the Federalist papers, but also his success in establishing sound public credit.

The case for wage subsidies from Edmund Phelps, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/nobel-winner-edmund-phelps-on-his-plan-to-help-low-wage-workers-without-raising-the-minimum-wage/

D'oh. I meant to type "bubble FREE framework for growth."

Sorry, just discovered the exact clip I was quoting. http://www.bloomberg.com/video/summers-long-time-since-rapid-healthy-growth-TKNBivCdQhGJXFtewR_S5A.html

Bottom line for me: what "bubble framework for growth" does Summers have in mind? I don't think he completed his thought on that question in this interview -- I believe it's more than what he talked about which was regulatory uncertainty and lack of infrastructure investment, and general lack of fiscal stimulus. Here's a paraphrase of what he said starting around the 6 minute mark: I don't believe we need bubbles. What I believe very profoundly is: Prior to the recession we had growth that was reliant on bubbles. We have a framework for growth that is reliant on bubbles. I am calling for a framework that makes bubble free growth possible.

All Larry, all the time: http://larrysummers.com/

You wrote "Richmond Federal Reserve President Dennis Lockhart" but of course you meant "Atlanta".

10% of US born workers have less than a high school degree. Of people employed in the US and having less than 8 years of education 70% are immigrants here legally. Depending on the data source employees can include undocumented immigrants, and this may be 30% of all immigrants. I'm not convinced that for those of us born in the US the US is a low wage country. If a large portion of low wage jobs are held by immigrants does mean the US is a low wage country -- no, it means the US offers opportunities superior to what the immigrants find in their country of origin.

Mark - The peace of mind argument nature of insurance is what the government's lawyer failed to articulate in yesterday's mandate hearing. It was a big ouch.

Seems highly improbable to me. To give just one example, I don't think Anglicans in the Global South have any interest in warming relations with Rome. They're ardent competitors in the mission field. In making his case for centralization/Covenant Rowan has been trotting out this argument (that organization of the Anglican Communion hampers ecumenical talks) for some time. It strikes me that he simply thinks it sounds like a clever argument that he can add to his debating points. I don't see it as a great selling point for any province that's not sold on the Covenant. Are any provinces sold on the ABC's view of the Covenant -- that signing provinces are ceding power to the center?

Tooting my own horn here's what I wrote about the plan a year ago: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/episcopal_church/the_churchwide_healthcare_feas.php For those who didn't get it in the mail here is "Serving the Church in a Time of Change": http://download.cpg.org/home/about_us/pdf/report_general_convention.pdf This document http://download.cpg.org/home/about_us/pdf/DHP_HOB08.pdf says (p.13), QUOTE/ Goal is for all employees to have the same or better benefits under the proposed DHP plans The financial impact goal is that the cost to dioceses should be positive or cost-neutral /UNQUOTE Finally, isn't it interesting that you're echoing what national polls surrounding the health insurance debate say: people who have health insurance like their plan and don't what it to change.

Nick, You are referring I suppose to the recent mailing from CPG, Serving the Church in a Season of Change. In Appendix A p. 2 the question is framed as a social justice issue: "Perhaps it is time for the Church to remember the words of our baptismal covenant and require pensions [I'm suggesting by the same argument health insurance could be inserted here] for its lay employees, just as it does for its clergy employees -- as a matter of justice and dignity and a step toward parity for all persons who serve the church. [Appendix B is the appendix that goes into more detail on health insurance.] As you observe a requirement to insure lay employees would impact the budgets of churches that have not voluntarily insured their lay employees. I want to underscore that the response of many of these churches is likely to be to reduce their number of employees or cut hours of individuals so they are treated as part timers not subject to the mandate. Ex post you may have achieved parity, but it would be a stretch to call the consequences justice or dignified. As far as how fast premiums would increase year-to-year my guess is tha in the long run just as fast they would if the national plan does not come into effect -- general health care inflation will dictate that. The difference, I think, is what will happen in the short term. I tend to believe the CPG's analysis [even setting aside the effect of a possibly healthier lay group, you've got administrative savings, buying power savings...] that over the denomination as a whole the average premium initially to a jump down, perhaps several jumps down as the plan rolls out in the first couple of years. Your mileage may vary of course -- That is to say, some dioceses will greatly benefit, others less so, and some may even end up worse off (CPG seems to be saying premiums will vary regionally and that no where will premiums go up, but you would be losing your freedom to leave the plan if it suits you later). (I should add that if I recall correctly dioceses would remain free to subsidize premiums to parishes, but to discriminate the subsidy between clergy and lay.) I will interested to see if the vote on the resolution follows rather narrow economic interests or not.