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 would be different if Gruber had been complaint that he’d urged Dems to lie about the legislation, but they had refused. They had allowed it to pass or fail on its own merits.
But the true scandal is that they DID follow his advice and lie about it the entire time.
Shameful.
You can explain to me how Nancy Pelosi doesn’t know who this guy is when she cited his work when she was pimping this bill?
SWM:
“SWM – care to address the lying that pushed this bill through? Karen No thanks……”
Okey dokey. Thanks for clearing that up.
You know what I see as a trend on this blog? That Obama/Hillaray/pick-your-idol supporters steadfastly refuse to address actual facts and sincere concerns.
And that’s weird to me. Because, although I adored Reagan, for instance, I’ve openly said that he made a mistake when he added Medicare benefits that jacked up their premiums. I even recalled how a mob of the elderly looked like they wanted to try to roll his car.
Elaine:
So you knowingly put forth a false argument?
You appeared to question his status as a Progressive simply because he had worked for Romney at some point?
But you know what? Romneycare was unanimously supported by all political parties. So . . . that means . . . people of all political ideologies worked on it.
And yet, HE didn’t have to resort to lies and subterfuge or a ridiculously long bill to get it passed.
@SWM
LOL at your “no thanks” comment! BTW, I have found that simple soap and water is the best way to get egg off your face, just in case you know anybody who has that problem. . .
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
SWM – care to address the lying that pushed this bill through? Karen No thanks……
Gruber has played his own role in the piecemeal delegitimization of the US government.
History has proven that even lethal force is unable to ensure a State remains in power. The Soviets crumbled almost suddenly, the Chinese are losing their hold.
Both nations employed enslavement, imprisonment, psychiatric wards, and assassination to coerce compliance.
But in time even that failed.
Our smiley-faced jackboots think they can force our acquiescence by lying to us, and slowly strangling our freedoms.
But once the State has lost legitimacy, it needs more and more government officers to ensure compliance. All the methods the Soviet proles learned to evade, wreck, gum up, game, and disable the system will be employed here as well.
Karen S.,
Thanks…but I don’t need you to explain anything to me.
I had the misfortune to work with a Progressive who told me she hoped a customer who was getting deployed with the military died because she thought the war was world domination/colonization by Republicans.
I was grateful to have a job. Guess what? It didn’t make me a Liberal.
We’re gonna need a bigger mountain if we’re to “honor” all of the notable Progressive’s throughout history.
Elaine:
Let me explain something. A rabid progressive can work for anyone – an Independent, a Progressive, a Republican, a Libertarian, and still be a progressive.
“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.”
Just curious, who here thinks, generally speaking, Americans are “smart” when it comes to understanding and actively participating in the political process? History?
My experience is that most are ignorant at best.
SWM – care to address the lying that pushed this bill through?
I explained that Obamacare was a financial disaster for my family, and some either didn’t believe me or thought my situation was not representative.
But now Gruber has been caught stating that Obamacare was never intended to save people money. It was to make people pay more for health insurance to provide it to the poor, giving up some things in the process.
I was right. I recall fighting to stay awake while actually reading part of the law, something almost no one else that I know did. And there were things in it that were really concerning. And yet Pelosi actually said “we’ve got to pass it to know what’s in it.” This is another problem with any legislation that is 6 feet tall when stacked up. It’s impossible for the people voting on it to really be familiar with it.
Sometimes a vote does great harm to your neighbors. But if people fail to understand the consequences of each and every vote, they are in danger of repeating mistakes that are harmful to others.
You are kidding right?
Seriously? I mean really?
Words fail me. You think this mook could be a conservative?
Jill and Trooperyork,
You misconstrued my comment about Jonathan Gruber working for Romney. I was responding to something Olly had said about Gruber being on the “progressive” Mount Rushmore. The man has done work for both Republicans and Democrats. I have no idea whether the man is a progressive/liberal or a conservative. Do you?
BTW, Jill, I haven’t failed to “grapple with the real issue.”
We need a regular person, untouched by political indebtedness, to have a turn.
You’ve made the case for Sen Ron Johnson to run for the presidency.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/11/14/stephen-colbert-mocks-conservative-media-campai/201567
And yes, I agree that you can trust ANY establishment politician as far as you can throw him or her.
That is why I would like to diverge from this entrenched government ruling class that keeps getting elected. We need a regular person, untouched by political indebtedness, to have a turn.
Gruber on Romneycare, and how a federal surplus in that state, contrary to other states, enabled them to pay for it. Also, how the bill only affected the uninsured, instead of every other bleeding person, as Obamacare:
http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/11/14/the-big-gruber-slip-why-romneycare-was-not-obamacare/
How else is Obamacare different from Romneycare? Well, for one, it was created and voted on with complete transparency, with unanimous bipartisan support.
Something that seems to be a completely foreign concept to this proven dishonest administration.
Speaking of True Believers, there was just a scandal where a Charter School in Michigan, I believe, painted over their Hall of Heroes with Mother Theresa and Ghandi with portraits of Obama, among others.
Way to keep the politics out of our schools . . . especially in light of this latests admission of lying to us all.
Is that what these teachers believe is a hero – a liar?
It’s true that anyone entrusted with teaching children can make the mistake of failing to check their personal politics at the door, including those in public, private, and charter schools. But it is a very serious transgression for schools to start teaching there is a single, “correct” political affiliation.