We previously discussed the statements of Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who played a major role the ACA, or “Obamacare,” where he repeatedly endorsed the theory at the heart of the recent decisions in Halbig and King by challengers to the ACA: to wit, that the federal funding provision was a quid pro quo device to reward states with their own exchanges and to punish those that force the creation of federal exchanges. That issue will now be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Gruber caused a considerable controversy when, after he had denounced the theory as “nutty” during the arguments in Halbig and King, he was shown later to have embraced that same interpretation. Having been paid almost $400,000 as an architect of the ACA, Gruber has become a major liability in the litigation. Now Gruber is back in the news with an equally startling admission that the Obama Administration (and Gruber) succeeded in passing the ACA only by engineering a “lack of transparency” on the details and relying on “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Gruber’s remarks were made on a panel given roughly a year ago on Oct. 17, 2013. Notably, this was at the height of the tension over the ACA. While I have long supported national health care, I was critical of the sloppy drafting of the ACA, the federalism conflicts contained in the individual mandate provision, and the unsupportable claims made by the White House in selling the Act. The last concern was the subject of Gruber’s comments. Gruber told the crowd that the “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.” He also said that “basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
Gruber also later states that New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.) is someone who “as far as I can tell, doesn’t understand economics” while calling a staffer for Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) an “idiot.” The later reference appears to be a reference to aide William Pewen.
The specific comments on the bill are transcribed as follows:
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
I was concerned that these lines were taken out of context so I watched the video below:
What is fascinating is that Gruber is open about what has long been hidden in this Administration: the lack of transparency as a tactical political vehicle. The ACA was pushed through by a muscle vote on a handful of votes while the Administration made claims that he later had to admit were misleading at best, such as the President’s repeated assurance that citizens could keep your current insurance policy if you liked it.
Gruber also admits that the Administration crafted the law to avoid it being supported by a tax despite Chief Justice John Roberts’ later decision that it was a tax. Gruber says that, while he would have preferred to be honest and open, such considerations had to be set aside in the interests of passing the law — even by less than honest means.
In a truly ironic twist, the University of Pennsylvania tried to pull back the admission on the lack of transparency by pulling the video:
It was too late. The video was out.
In fairness to Gruber, he was doing what an academic is supposed to do in honestly assessing what he believed occurred in the historic passage of the ACA. While he later sought to deny the earlier comments that he made on the state exchanges (in a less than candid moment), there is thus far no comment from him on this latest video. As in the earlier admissions, there has been little relative coverage by the mainstream media of the comments. Once again, the lack of media attention is surprising given the importance of Gruber to the ACA and the Administration.
UPDATE: Gruber went on MSNBC to say that his comments were “inappropriate” while the host insisted that his comments were misunderstood as “nuanced” observations.
Citizens United ushered in a boom in dark money. Therefore, there is lack of integrity at the outset……..
Darren/Elaine,
I believe that despite all the problems , like the current state of the media, Citizen United, etc, we can still have better presidents with integrity and healthy personalities, if , and i know that is a big IF, if people become less prone to getting sucked into a “cult”
New numbers were just released by the Administration today that shows this failed program is falling woefully short of projected sign ups. All the folks who aren’t paying, or are highly subsidized, have signed up. Hell, I MIGHT consider this horseshit coverage if I didn’t have to pay. But, nobody else wants it. The macro issue is the Savior was elected and he wanted this to be his legacy. So, he and everyone around him lied to get it passed. Well, be careful what you wish for because Obamacare is indeed his legacy, and it will go down as the biggest govt. boondoggle since Prohibition, which was eventually, and righteously, repealed.
on 1, November 11, 2014 at 4:25 pmByron
There is no benefit in government run health care.
***************************
Byron, tell that to the millions who love their Medicare. What happened to Paul Ryan when he tried to push Medicare off the cliff? Backlash by left and right alike.
On another loosely related topic We need to fully relegate the idea of political dynasty to the past. George H.W. Bush as a two term vice president becomes president. Bill Clinton was new to the federal scene and had two terms, then his vice president ran for the presidency but lost to the son of the penultimate president who then served two terms. Barrack Obama did not come from this political family, he went two terms but so far I don’t see a dynasty from his family. Yet, the wife of one of the presidents ran for office against him.
Now we are two years away from the next presidential election and much of the speculation as to whom the two candidates we be centers around two other dynasties: One of the Bush sons or Hillary Clinton.
Prior to this it was the Kennedys, with one of the ultimate forms of nepotism JFK appoints his brother to be the US Attorney General, of course it goes sideways and back with other family members contemporaneously or in the past. There also John Adams and his son, TR and FDR, and others as well.
The practice of perpetuation of political dynasties as an antithesis of our Constitution where the notion of the ordinary citizens can assume through elections political office. Dynasties preclude others from participation because these positions become a form of birthright rule such as the British House of Lords was in the past.
The White House must never be akin to the Houses of Hanover, Windsor, or Hohenzollern.
Darren,
Unfortunately, many people don’t choose to vote for candidates who tell them the uncomfortable truths that they don’t want to hear. In addition, it can be difficult for honest people to make it through an election season. In these days of Citizens United, the need to raise astronomical amounts of money to run successful state/national campaigns, we can only assume that candidates who win election will most likely feel indebted to the people with deep pockets who donated large sums of money to their campaigns.
Darren,
The mentality of those that support ANY corrupt administration is no different than that of a person that would hire a nanny because they dress the part and speak the part; completely ignoring the fact they are a registered sex offender. What could possibly go wrong? It’s irrational and willfully ignorant.
The problem with the current crop of “leaders” is that they think politics is a game and combine that with narcissism and dementia , and you have what we have been getting for several years now.
Ah, could be SWM.
Observer, you are right about that. I would prefer a candidate who actually promises and delivers a meritocracy in the cabinet instead of the spoils system that has infected much of politics as of late.
“What I’ve observed over the years: All administrations lie and do unethical things.”
Elaine,
But the responses from citizens that actually care about the damage it causes DO NOT defend it
Observer, Hillary? LOL!!
Jim, I understand your feelings on this, yet to do nothing is a worse course of action. Inertia can take time to increase. This is why we need to keep up the struggle. One matters reach a tipping point often change manifests. Yet if nothing is done then issues stagnate and resuscitating their vigor requires much more effort.
“And the acceptance and advocacy of this notion by supporters of current and future administrations is one reason abuses will further continue”
——-
unless we finally have a person of integrity in the office who brings into his cabinet people who value honesty and truth.
I think I know who it is, and he is not new, Annie. Blouise tipped me off.
Like I stated earlier, nothing will come of this, nothing. I’m not really sure why anyone discusses it.
Annie, With Jeb probably running, Bush amnesia syndrome does not have a chance.
Two of you seem oddly attracted to each other.
Darren, At the core of the problem is the duopoly. We can choose between 2 corrupt and entrenched parties. Pick your poison.
Elaine I know you don’t accept nor advocate any administration doing unethical things.