It appears that friends (albeit a dwindling number) of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber may soon have to put his face on milk cartons to locate the economist. After a series of frank but embarrassing statements on the strategies behind the Administration’s passage of the Affordable Car Act (ACA), Gruber has moved from the status of “disfavored” to “disavowed” to “disappeared.” This week, Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi expressed a complete lack of knowledge of who Gruber is, was, or will be — even though she previously cited his work and he was paid $400,000 as one of the architects of Obamacare and has made over $2 million from HHS. Such roles are often difficult for scholars in moving between the political and academic worlds, but it is rare to find an academic become such an issue in a national debate.
Gruber had already previously attracted controversy with statements where he 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 uproar 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. Gruber has become a major liability in the litigation. Gruber then was 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.” Now a new videotape has surfaced from Gruber speaking at the University of Rhode Island in 2012 and expressing the same contempt for the intelligence of citizens — suggesting again that they were hoodwinked to “the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.” In another view taken from at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis, Gruber also refers to the “Cadillac tax,” and says “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.” His comments of working in Massachusetts (with Mitt Romney) are no less insulting to an array of people.
That is when the Beltway machine kicked into high gear to erase all memory of a professor named Gruber. If this trend continues, we will need dental records just to confirm his identity.
The Washington Post noted after Pelosi’s press conference that she cited Gruber’s work by name in support of Obamacare:
PELOSI: We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange.
Her office also relied on Gruber when fighting to pass the law.
Before he was “disappeared,” he was widely cited as an architect of the act. The New York Times said in 2012:
After Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.
Nevertheless, the White House used an anonymous official to disavow Gruber’s role as an architect of the Act and insist that he never “worked in the White House” — a comment that may refer to the location of his actual desk.
He was widely sought as one of the architect of the law, which ultimately proved his undoing since many of these comments came in the same 2012-13 period. Supporters of the White House have even challenged the $400,000 figure paid out for Gruber. However, the Washington Post not only affirmed the figure used by Republicans but found that he had received $2 million on various contracts. Pretty good for a guy who must not now be named.
The tempest swirling around Gruber is difficult to watch. He is an accomplished scholar with a long list of accomplishments to his credit. The frankness with which he has spoken is a signature of an academic, though his view of the intelligence of the American people is quite shocking. It will remain a cautionary tale for those traveling between the academic and political worlds.
It is really cute that you think there is a philosophy involved.
Never lose that fresh faced naiveté buddy. It will keep you young!
trooperyork – I am trying to put the brightest face on a dark picture. 🙂
Gigi
What you’re reading about Ted Kennedy and Massachusetts is beyond misleading (more Gruberism). For all intents and purposes, Ted Kennedy never even lived here in Massachusetts and certainly never had any involvement in state issues. Like many people, he summered on Cape Cod (we here on Cape Cod thank you for the business but wish you would stay out of your cars once you get here).
The initial Medicaid waiver (circa 1998) was hatched under a Republican administration in Massachusetts when there was a Republican Congress in Washington. I’m sure Senator Kennedy and the rest of our Democratic Congressional delegation did good constituent service to help smooth its way through a then Democratic administration in Washington. But there was nothing unusual about it; dozens of states had such Medicaid waivers. They are called “demonstration waivers” and what Massachusetts tried to demonstrate — unsuccessfully — was that it would be better to spend the money through Medicaid than what we and many other states, counties and cities call “free care pools.”
At the same time, Massachusetts began guaranteed issue and other policies that are often credited to RomneyCare but that actually predate it by a dozen years or more. There were three or four “Massachusetts health care reforms” before RomneyCare and this was part of one of them (there have also been four “Massachusetts health care reforms” since RomneyCare, which has now been effectively repealed.)
You are absolutely right that every problem/situation beginning to show up under Obamacare (ESI crowdout, higher premiums, increased ER wait times, tighter doctor networks, etc. etc.) were all visible and well document in Massachusetts at the time Obamacare was proposed and passed. But the Republicans could not point them out because Romney was running for President (both in 2008 and 2012)
Obama can never be impeached.
Why would you want to turn your town into Ferguson, MO?
I like my liquor stores and Quickie Marts just the way they are thank you very much!
trooperyork – I have never understood the philosophy of destroying the businesses that you really need in a community. These rioters keep burning down all the businesses that they really need. It is like cutting your own throat.
Perhaps this is asked and answered already above somewhere but is it fair to say:
“Gruber caused uproar 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.”
Since he says he “helped craft the legislation,” is it really an “interpretation?”
What plays in the Beltway should stay in the Beltway.
Impeachment would be a technically appropriate tool for correcting the President’s abuse of the separation of powers but couldn’t a case be made that he’s merely taking the path cleared for him by previous administrations and complicit congresses?
We are not an 18th century culture fresh off a defeat of the world’s most powerful tyrant. Our 21st century culture has been groomed for this form of tyranny. Our electorate doesn’t understand the philosophy that makes impeachment a legitimate response and would respond consistent to that of an addict having their source of drugs threatened. We’ve actually seen that irrational behavior demonstrated in this blog and these people are not as grubered as most of the apathetic populace.
I’m going to guess there are videos and other evidence that demonstrate just how mutually-dependent the administrative state is on the malleability of the minority voter. Until that constituency has their Gruber-moment, these political actors will always be able to rely on them as the trump card for further abuses of power.
Darren, I think the situation was very different back with Clinton impeachment , the public did not support that because his lie was related to something personal , here the lies have been used in situations that involved other people, e.g., Benghazi . Consequently , I believe there will be more support in public for the appropriate consequence . However , I agree that in the MSM there will be people like Maher screaming that it’s all about his race . The way CBS kept his interview portion hidden that would have supported Romney’s point in the debate , in my view , was a crime .
By the way can anyone share any video clip of JT from the Clinton impeachment ?
Biden is Obama’s insurance. As some Rep said yesterday, “Biden is just a pair of floppy shoes away from a complete clown outfit.”
I personally believe that impeachment can be brought by violation of oath of office. I believe the Founders had the tool for that reason.
The oath is legally binding. That is why Obama had to retake it when Roberts made an error giving it.
I think a valid case can be made that he has been anything but faithful and operating in a wreckless manner.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The simple argument against impeachment is that there’s no way that an impeachment trial would result in 67 senators voting to remove Obama from office. Obama would be much less of a lame duck.
If the press hadn’t turned overwhelmingly against Nixon, I’m not sure that he would’ve been removed. Even Andrew Johnson was acquitted, in the most toxic political atmosphere in US history.
Ali used “rope a dope” against a stronger and @ that time better boxer, George Foreman. He invited Foreman to punch away and then defeated the punched out champ using the strategy to perfection. This amnesty is Obama’s attempt @ rope a dope. And, Rep have proven to be quite dopey in the past.
My interpretation of what Professor Turley stated, XYZ, was that he hoped Congress would exercise all its available remedies before they tried to impose and impeachment due to the costs and consequences of such an action
I concur with Darren. As much as I would like to see Obama gone from office and even Biden as President….how much worse could he BE?……..the act of impeaching a sitting President is not only divisive, it would just add more fodder for the MSM to beat up on the eeeevil Republicans.
The low information voters (Democrats) would buy any drivel that is sent their way. The racial divide would be exacerbated by the race hustlers and bought hook line and sinker by the black population. As it is now, any disagreement with Obama’s agenda is construed as being based on racism. The Republicans would be tarred with that label. Obama WANTS this. It is a way to get back not only at the Republicans but also to try to polish his own legacy. If it also creates a Democrat increase in the 2016 election, that would just be a byproduct as it is really and always just about HIM.
In addition it would totally gum up the process of governing, stalling any real remedies to the chaos that Obama has purposely caused.
Instead of being drawn into chasing that tar baby (not a racist term for those knee jerk reflexive racists hollerers…..look it up) the Republicans would be better served to “exercise all available remedies”. Budgetary control. Produce bills to repeal aspects of the various laws. Get a tighter control over the out of control regulations, that are not laws, imposed by agencies. Start with the EPA. Override Obama’s inevitable vetoes. Show just who is doing the voter’s business and who is acting in the best interest of the voters.
They were sent to Congress to do work. Impeachment is a lure and a trick that they need to avoid at all costs.
Professor Turley would support impeachment if he felt there were impeachable offenses. He has expressed before that Obama has treaded the line very close and forgive me if I get this wrong but I believe he stated the only offenses close is if they could tie the IRS scandal to him or he illegally invades another country like Syria.
The Syria thing is interesting because we have a Democrat congressman who has said Obama has enacted illegally in Syria.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/tim-kaine-isis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine: We’re in ISIS war ‘without legal authority’
I’m not sure of the validity, but in reading about what happened in Massachusetts, and as I understand it, before Romney Care it was Ted Kennedy Care. Teddy boy hoodwinked the Congress to give his state mega millions for a healthcare bill he never really intended to get off the ground. The millions of dollars towards that states healthcare for the poor was a guise. When Romney became governor he established a healthcare bill and put those millions towards it. Massachusetts has had its share of headaches and the healthcare program has become too costly. Or so I’ve read.
None-the-less, you would think our federal government would have studied the mistakes made and the vast amount it has cost Massachusetts, and then corrected the problems, or scraped the project. But no, the Dems wanted to pull at the American people’s heartstrings that we just had to help the poor NOW, because we are the party that cares. They had to get this bill pushed through (without reading it) so that the “architects” and those who had their fingers in the pot could make millions of dollars on this great muse.
So there we are, once again, we, the American public have had the bag pulled over our eyes and we’ve been water boarded. Thanks Democrats you get rich and people who you say your going to help get poorer. It’s a Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton kind of thing.
Well, JT, I am nitpicking here, but this is a CLOUD 9 statement: “The frankness with which he has spoken is a signature of an academic…” Academics tend to be anything BUT frank, unless of course jabbering behind closed office doors and speaking the accepted party-line. 🙂 G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident
When the truth starts coming out, in a comical way…it’s DISTRACT FAST and lie. What about Romneycare? Oh look, it’s a feeding frenzy. Childish reactions!
Sucker!
Recently Pelosi said she was insulted that people are questioning her age and called it sexist. Consider it a compliment Nancy, some one thinks it might be senility instead of pathological lying.
This is what happens with socialist in a free market economy.They have to lie because their crap doesn’t work and then…you really can’t murder the masses, Comrade.
Your stupidity fed these racist, sexist, elitist, statist our wealth and our children’s future. leaders enslave people by taking away their self empowerment. Don’t count on it happening again without a serious struggle. We forgot Carter and his mess…what is it with you socialist? Why do you like living in misery? Where you picked on in high school? Didn’t get called on in sports? What? You have some sort of revenge thing going on?
Here’s what fun…there will be more coming out. This smug nasty but now rich (thanks to people liken Annie) Gruber, is just the tip of the iceberg. Promise. Wait for it.
“Scandal” these aren’t scandals, it’s just another Tuesday to pathological liars who want to do nothing but control us stupid people whom are paying their bills. We can’t call them scandals anymore. I believe scandals are shocking and unusual events. No these people, include the Supreme Leader and their behavior is “common” in every way possible and including the classical definition. COMMON. Common thief, common liar, common criminals. Sadly too common. No scandals here.
When Obama had a Dem Congress he chose a horrible healthcare plan as his legacy. He could have done immigration reform but said “screw then” I’m using my political capital on MY LEGACY. Well, his legacy is about to be repealed and he’s going rogue, using illegals as a weapon. His actions in 2009-10 showed what he REALLY thought of illegals. Now, he’s taking action that will cause a backlash against illegals, that will hurt them. Quite Machiavellian.
JT gave a good assessment on Megyn Kelly last night.
For all I know, Jesus will return before then and run as a Republican.
And He’d be a tea party member, because kicking over the tables in the temple, booting put the money changers, etc. 🙂
Re: impeachment of Obama – Those nice white boys in the House of Representatives impeaching our nation’s first black president would give the Democrats campaign fuel for generations to come. Impeachment ain’t gonna happen, and Obama knows it, so what we are now going to witness is a game of chicken between Obama and congress.
Another poor guy on road to lose his life because of a law that, I heard, Obama adm wants to be replicated at an international level:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1144655/man-held-over-blasphemy-allegation