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.
Darren, what remedies do you think will be actually effective to restore the balance of power? JT said in the interview today that the president has made a mockery of power of the purse, so that may not work. As far as impeachment, I think it was Carl Jung who said that sometimes we have to do things, that we really do not want to do, but have to in order to keep living.
Sandy, I am also puzzled why JT is not in favor of impeachment after the things he has already done, he violated the constitution that he was supposed to protect, deceived the american public with an arrogance that is unparalleled. Wish JT would explain us why, despite all this, impeachment is not the proper consequence. It may not be politically easy thing to do, but it may be the only thing that would prevent future behaviors like this, and if we allow him to get away with such behavior then wouldnt it make it more likely for us to experience another president behaving the same way in the future?
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.
It surely would send a message as you have mentioned to future presidents as a deterrence to future violations, but the consequences in doing so could unravel many things. Professor Turley was involved in the workings of the impeachment of President Clinton over the issue of lying to Congress. To me while the lying was certainly a cause for a possible impeachment proceeding the abuses of presidential authority in unilateralism by the president if he does take action as is anticipated on the immigration debate is a greater violation.
It had been over one hundred years since a formal presidential impeachment, though President Nixon undoubtedly would have been likely so. I suspect, and I am purely speculating here but I imagine having experienced the ordeal that was President Clinton’s impeachment might have given many pause to go down the impeachment route before other remedies are not tried first.
I really do not think that impeachment, though well deserved, will do much good for the Republican Party. Besides, Joe Biden will become President. Now the upside of that is that it would give him a running start for 2016 and drive a stake into the hearts of Hillary and Warren.
By the way, is the Supreme Court stupid like the rest of us?
Professor Turley, if impeachment was apropos for Nixon, it surely would be an appropriate remedy for “Obama…the president Nixon wanted to be.”
The actions of the executive are now demonstrably “beyond the pale.”
Your suggestion otherwise leaves the branches in a stalemate.
If the people are the sovereign, the power in America resides in the legislative branch and it is imperative that that power is exercised.
The executive and judicial are perfunctory and have only the power to carry out and assure that legislation, or will of the people, prevails. The current executive branch is too flawed to lead and the judicial is too cowed to decide in opposition when required.
The executive has lead in the wrong direction. The judicial has failed to correct.
You have a duty to assure the leaders in the Congress and the Senate that it is imperative that they exercise power of, for and by the people.
The ship of state is foundering.
Will you be on board when it sinks?
Professor Turley, I watched your discussion with Megyn Kelly this evening. I wonder if your insistence on no impeachment is because you voted for Obama and agreed with some of his agenda? I have great respect for you, and every time I’ve seen you discuss your concerns about the Constitution I’ve seen real pain on your face. I’m wondering if he wants to be impeached; I think he’s been depressed about his Presidency. Everything I read, especially Madison, makes impeachment the duty of Congress. Madison says Congress was given this ability to protect the people from a President who isn’t abiding by the Constitution. If Obama is given a pass, what does that say to future Presidents? How much more damage in the next two years? It would prove to the world that our Democracy really works for the people. He was sent a strong message last week, but can’t admit it, especially to himself. Congress must do their duty, or what is our democracy about?
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has billed federal and state governments at least $5.9 million for advice, as more videos surface showing him undercutting the landmark law
MIT economist got $392,600 from the Dept of Health and Human Services for his Obamacare consulting
National Institutes of Health paid him $2 million for Medicare consulting
Justice Department has added $1.7 million for expert witness testimony
Four US states combined to pay him another $1.6 million for advice about health care laws, and contracts for four more states were unavailable
If those states followed suit, Gruber’s haul would exceed $7.5 million
Gruber has become a thorn in Democrats’ sides since videos emerged of him candidly discussing how the Obama White House misled Americans to pass the Obamacare law
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2835384/Obamacare-architect-Jonathan-Gruber-billed-federal-state-governments-5-9-million-advice-videos-surface-showing-undercutting-landmark-law.html
Squeeky, Well, Jesus may be one of the illegals Obama saves from deportation. He can also play 2nd base and hit to all fields.
@Annie and Anon
I will wait until Hillary decides to run, and the Republican field is pretty well announced to defend her. For all I know, Jesus will return before then and run as a Republican.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here is what Obamacare supporters do not understand.
We do not trust your word.
To us, you appear to be the types to fall on your sword to advance the cause. Obamacare could be the worst thing to ever happen to you and you would still fall in party line going “mmm umm that is good!”.
Why? Because your side has proven to be outright liars. Your side has been caught in so many lies its impossible to keep track of them all.
Then we point out the lies, your side gives us a song and dance routine where you either change the subject or give us a bunch of doubletalk and spin.
So tell us, why the hell should we believe ANYTHING you say on the subject?
Definition of Doublethink:
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed,” George Orwell
Something the Progressives have mastered.
AND that 61% figure of those happy with the cost of health insurance includes ALL people who are insured, including those with employer health insurance, as well as the heavily subsidized Exchange recipients.
You really do have to go to Gallup itself and download the questions and resulting data directly. Because clearly the media analysis does not always understand the results.
Ooh, ooh, ooh, over here, pick me, pick me!
It proves Grubering is depends on the absence of reason.
Squeeky is Hillary’s base.
SWM:
I’m just wondering if you actually read the original Gallop poll?
Because if you did, you would know that people who got NEW insurance policies gave it the best marks.
And who got the new policies, according to the data? The uninsured.
So, yes, amazingly, the uninsured were happier with something than with nothing. They were also heavily subsidized, so they would not feel the negative effect of doubled premiums.
What do you think this proves?
SWM:
“A majority — 68 percent — who received insurance through the exchanges said they plan to renew their policy, while an additional 7 percent said they will look for a new policy, but through the exchanges.”
Right. These policies are basically all the same. So, unless you have employer coverage, you are going to have to either get insurance through the exchange, or go without.
The individual policy I get directly through my insurance provider is exactly the same as that on the exchange. There really isn’t much difference between policies on the exchanges. They all cost a boatload of cash.
But, you see, that’s what the government did. It removed consumer choice from the industry, and decided what we all should have. And then you’re going to say that since people can’t choose anything else, then this is a success?
Obamacare is wildly unpopular among Americans. It’s pure denial to believe otherwise.
You are defending the indefensible – an unpopular law that was passed based on a slew of lies.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly like when politicians lie to me and get naive voters to pass legislation they would not choose if they had access to all the facts.
Hillary Clinton is a traitor. It is time to call her what she is. A lying vile snake that is no different than any of the past few people that served as President.
Her base sees that as a feature.
Read the Bills Act.
No more of this “We gotta pass it to see what’s in it” crap.
The job of a legislator is to know what he is voting for, and I mean know as in knowledge of substance, not just the catchy acronym of the Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act
Squeeky tell Anon why you love Hillary.
Anon, Squeeky loves , not me.
Hillary Clinton is a traitor. It is time to call her what she is. A lying vile snake that is no different than any of the past few people that served as President.
These thieves are undermining the Constitution to expand their own personal wealth and power. It is time we remove them from that position.
Clearly elections are not working.
http://youtu.be/iTGChcef1uc
Squeeky