Readers know that I am not a big fan of Paul Krugman, but he is revered beyond all reason by a lot of my compatriots. No attuned observer would accuse Krugman of being an Obama acolyte or apologist. He went hard against Obama during the primaries because his health care plan lacked a mandate. Ironically, a good part of the left (including Markos) have called for opposing the Senate’s health care bill precisely because it has a mandate. And, yet, this hasn’t dimmed Krugman’s star one bit. So, it must come as a shock to some to see Krugman write this:
What the folks at Firedoglake should ask themselves is this: do you really want to become just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals?
He’s referring to an article that was actually written by Marcy Wheeler, who is not known for pushing fake scandals despite her association with Jane Hamsher. But Jane has run with it, blasting out a mass email at 12:20pm today (with the headline: Huge scandal brewing) that asserts:
Dear Martin –
For almost the entirety of the health care debate, the Obama Administration has relied on economist Jonathan Gruber to make the public case for its idea of reform – even the most unpopular parts. But as Firedoglake revealed on Friday, the Obama Administration has failed to disclose that it paid the same economist more than $780,000.
Jonathan Gruber’s work has been cited by the White House, Members of Congress, and countless media outlets, but not once did the Obama Administration disclose it was paying him more than $780,000 in tax dollars. This is a huge ethical violation that undermines the entirety of health care reform.
Sign our petition to President Obama: come clean on Jonathan Gruber and anyone else receiving public money to push health care reform.
Of course, the $780,000 is actually a research grant from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). Dr. Gruber is an expert in modeling how hypothetical health care policy will affect costs. HHS hired him because he provides an invaluable service, not to be a paid shill. Krugman explains:
Gruber’s grant is from HHS, not the West Wing; it’s basically the same kind of thing as, say, an epidemiologist receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. You wouldn’t ordinarily say that this tarnishes the epidemiologist’s credentials as an independent analyst on infectious diseases, unless you want to say that nobody receiving a research grant can be considered independent.
The only reasons you might see this differently would be if Gruber were either receiving a sweetheart deal, or seemed to have changed his views to accommodate his sponsors. Neither is remotely true. Gruber is very much the go-to guy on modeling reform: it’s hard to think of who else could be doing the work better. And his position on reform has been entirely consistent.
There is still the issue of disclosure. Should Gruber (or his publishers) disclose that he has a contract with HHS when he writes op-eds? Should cable news make the same disclosure when he appears on their shows? I think so, but I’ll provide Krugman’s answer for balance.
Should Gruber have made a fuller disclosure? Yes — I think he was being too much of an academic, taking for granted that everyone understands the difference between being a political hired gun and receiving a research grant. Should he disclose the contract every time he writes anything? Well, maybe — but a brief mention should suffice. When you’re writing 800-word op-eds, you need to reserve as much space as possible for real content.
This could be handled by disclosing it below the body of the piece, so I don’t think Krugman really explains away the problem that he acknowledges. But, in any case, this is an issue for Gruber and his publishers, not the Obama administration. Hamsher makes it sound like there has been an ethical breach on the part of the administration for failing to disclose that someone they have cited as an expert has a research grant from the government. I don’t have to tell you how that standard would work if applied universally. Suddenly, being expert enough to get a research grant would render you non-credible as an expert. Moreover, the government pays the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for their non-partisan analysis and quote them as inerrant scripture. There is no principle that is being violated here in hiring an expert and then quoting their analysis.
Marcy Wheeler uncovered something interesting and possibly disconcerting in Gruber’s contract and lack of disclosure. Jane Hamsher has turned that into yet another broadside, ridiculous, factually-challenged attack on the Obama administration.
Maybe he and Jane can start a bi-partisan Democrat faux-scandal institute.
ya know, i have a question about this whole grover/hamsher mashup that’s got everyone’s knickers in a twist.
So far as i can tell, it’s bad because grover Norquist represents the worst of the right, correct?
Does that mean that it’s also bad for David Boeis to team up with ted “Florida Recount” Olsen to fight proposition 8 in california? Cus Olsen’s a shitheel too, right?
or what about Obama’s decision to [try to] work with Republicans, including many we lefties loathe? isn’t that kind of the same thing, working across the aisle with perceived foes to accomplish a common goal?
i’m just asking. Frankly, i am so tired of politics, that i haven’t really put that much thought into it, and I’m so tired of blogosphere hysterics, it’s a chore to even open my browser.
No. It’s because Jane is allying with Grover to attack the Democratic President on a fake scandal.
If Jane and Grover were saving fur seal pups, that would be something else.
rahm emmanuel is the president?
what part of “fake” are you missing?
You think you can attack the chief of staff of the president without harming the president? If he deserves it, fine. But, if not?
How about the brouhaha about AIG being asked not to disclose information? How was that reported? Yeah, that does remind me of Whitewater days. Only the left is doing the dirty work.
oh puleeze.
Rootless was concise.
But this is part of a pattern of behavior.
Bill Clinton gave a sinecure to Rahm Emanuel as a reward for his service. This is presented as Barack Obama’s fault.
An expert fails to disclose a possible conflict of interest and this is presented as Barack Obama’s fault.
Elements of the financial rescue are unpopular but necessary. These are painted in the most corrupt light, and blamed on Obama.
I think you should really consider the point I made here.
re: bailout. what was necessary about “no strings attached”? i don’t know what the “sinecure” refers to.
frankly, i think both you and Jane have preferences that color your analyses (to paraphrase your take on charlie Cook). And as a result, i read both of you less and less, and take you less and less seriously. i can’t deal with the full-on rage i find at FDL a lot of the time, and i can’t deal with the way you refuse to address new stories that don’t fit your narrative. at fdl, on gets the idea that obama and his administration can do no right, and at your place it’s like they can do no wrong.
the sinecure refers to his job at Freddie Mac for which he was not placed on any of the sitting committees (or, if he was, there is no record of it) and for which Jane teamed up with Grover to accuse Rahm of corruption thru omission (or commission, there being no possibility of innocence, naturally).
As for Obama being able to do no wrong, you’re clearly choosing to read selectively. I disagreed with their decision to escalate in Afghanistan (surely a major issue, no?). I told them they were boneheaded to go along with Harry Reid’s plan for the public option. I have been critical of their handling of Bush era crimes and their actions to protect them in court. I have been critical of the continued use of the state secrets provision, and the use of special courts. And I’ve advised them to stop making the left eat shit and start throwing us some bones. I have said more than twice that Tim Geithner has served his purpose and should be replaced by a reform-minded secretary.
What I haven’t done is unfairly criticize Tim Geithner and Rahm Emanuel which has become the favorite hobby of the progressive blogosphere.
“And I’ve advised them to stop making the left eat shit and start throwing us some bones. I have said more than twice that Tim Geithner has served his purpose and should be replaced by a reform-minded secretary.”
where? when?
A Leopard’s Spots, December 17th, 2009.
On Geithner, November 2nd, 2009.
Last Saturday, in a comment:
duly noted.
as i’ve said earlier and at my place, I’m pretty tired of the whole circus. Outside of the Philly Weekly gig, I’m going to be taking a break from political blogging. I find I am as tired of the sites I began visiting as an alternative to the NYT et al have become as predictable as the NYT itself, with some rare exceptions (greenwald, notably). I’ve even become bored with my own writing, and that’s never a good sign.
I maintain my position that this health care bill will be a disaster.
If you get bored with your own writing, you need to write about different things. I’ve changed focus on the blog many times, I think, over the course of five years.
One thing that has been consistent is that I fight to protect what I care about against unfair or unfactual attacks. It just so happens that the harshest, unfairest, and least factual attacks I am seeing these days are coming from people on the left, many of whom I have counted as my friends and colleagues. If they want to do that, they’re going to hear about it.
I criticize this president when I feel he deserves criticism, and I try to do it in as constructive a way as possible. But tear him down with nitpicking and bad-faith distorted attacks? I won’t stand for that, let alone engage in it myself. We worked too hard to get this man elected to invest in his failure. If I have a bias, it’s a bias against seeing the Republicans make a comeback before they have reformed themselves into something less dangerous to all of humanity. Trust them with the most lethal armaments ever created? Never again, as they say.
Don’t attorneys fall under the heading of hired guns? Not so as to Grover.
.
By Theodore B. Olson
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
When I unscribed from FDL’s email list my reason was “get Grover’s help.”
There are quite a few liberal bloggers I have stopped reading over the last couple of years just because they love to sensationalize these nonsense “scandals.” They’re just rabble-rousing, like a liberal equivalent to the Fox News blowhards. We really shouldn’t count folks like Jane Hamsher or John Aravosis or David Sirota etc, etc, etc… as being among the “reality-based community.” Are they just trying to get on TV or something? Trying to justify raising their BlogAds rates? They blow their credibility for such short-term gain in knowingly or ignorantly stoking these fake controversies.
And on the Op-Ed disclosure of the research grant, I would expect any respected publication’s editor to disclose this at the bottom of the essay as an Ed Note, like they should also disclose the writer’s occupation or affiliation with any interested entity.
I don’t even find it interesting. Grants are giving by committees, not individuals, and depend pretty much entirely on the quality of the proposal. This is a nonissue, in my book.
well, there is the Armstrong Williams precedent.
wiki
But this is not the same thing.
A contract is not a grant.
At this point, anybody who hasn’t gotten religion on Hamsher being completely around the bend is just sad.
Jane needs to be fitted for a straightjacket. This is like Whitewater For Morons at this point.
One question that I think should be addressed is a comment posted by Merrill Goozner on a study Dr. Gruber published 2 years ago, which studied “the effect of higher out-of-pocket co-pays for retired public employees in California.” According to Goozner, the study indicated that such higher co-pays “led to higher hospitalization rates as old folks with chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease cut back on physician visits and necessary drugs.” The impact was particularly harsh for people seeking care for chronic conditions, and concluded that “health insurance should be tied to underlying health status, with chronically ill patients facing lower cost-sharing.”
The main gist of the 2007 study is that the impact is more people showing up in the ER, rather than getting necessary care because benefits will be reduced and copays will be increased.
I have no truck with the questionable failure to disclose perceived conflicts of interest (since our congressional representatives fail to disclose these frequently). However, it would be helpful if Prof. Gruber would indicate that his own previous work creates problems with what he states now.
People at FDL and the like have already lambasted Krugman for his positions on trade (NAFTA) and living wages. People over at Talk Left accuse him of never being poor so he doesn’t know what it’s like (although Armando and Steve M. have been fairly critical of those commenters).
In any case, I don’t expect them to take his positions seriously now when they haven’t been much of a fan of his in the past (note: only when he agrees with them do they cite him…kind of like the GOP with the CBO).
It’s funny because Krugman was the go-to-guy among these groups in the past. Now they rally around Joe Stiglitz and Dean Baker and Yves Smith. I’ve dropped Smith from my blogroll ever since this financial crisis started because she sounds like Matt Taibbi; it’s a shame because she was always a good read (still is sometimes). And about Baker and Stiglitz, they’ll probably be the next to be turned against in the future if they take some position that the left doesn’t like.
It’s a hypocrisy merry-go-round.
He also just had a post up about too big to fail policy, and it’s more or less what I’ve been saying on these boards regarding it: you can’t “break up” big banks as there’s no legal mechanism to do so, and even if there was, there’s absolutely zero evidence that this is necessary or would prevent future crises. He also supports the excise tax. So damn, that’s like 3-0 in the past two to three days with Krugman and the left.
FDL is not the left.
should say, FDL is on the left but are not ‘The left’.
Fair enough, but I see similar populist bullshit among a lot of the left regarding economics (Talk Left, Open Left, FDL, Daily Kos (although anyone can get recommended, so)).
I don’t mind populism to get the people behind you, but populism as policy like a lot of them want is not sound policy.
Take out “le” and you have it right.
Theft (of “the left”).
What do you consider them?
for the most part, I consider them demagogues.
Heh, well that makes two of us then. I don’t even bother in the comment section anymore because I get ravaged. I’ve been called a Red State troll before, so now I just lurk.
I was part of a private discussion group which I eventually left when I saw that demagoguery seemed more persuasive than reason or facts. It was so bizarre – these seemingly intelligent, reasonable people were all caught up in things that ultimately made no sense to me. Too bad. They were nice people. Just not all strategic thinkers.
Oh the vitriol! I could swear that it was Boo who condemned all those woe-be-gone personal attacks and antics. I guess now that’s out the window. Who knows why? According to Boo just last week, we need to keep everything civil so that we can pass compromised, weak, and effect-free legislation so that we can go along with Mr. Slick’s “presidential” agenda. Now FDL is spreading poppycock. Coombayah…Pshaw…. I guess some people are more deserving of personal attacks than others.
well, Marcy isn’t spreading poppycock. She raised a legitimate issue and asked the right questions. It’s what Jane has done with that reporting that is poppycock.
I see Grover has already had an effect on Jane:
What else does the government pay in? Pathetic.
Yes, astonishing!! Should we tell the public that many academics rely on grant money? It seems that all of academia, at least those who aren’t deadwood, are part of a colossal conspiracy. No wonder the right is anti-intellectual, since it appears that the creme of academia are on the government dole!
In a serious vein — Krugman’s distinction between economist’s economists and policy entrepreneurs is pertinent here. There are many ‘hired guns’ in economics but it’s easy to distinguish the ‘feed the rich’ crowd from academic economists.
Really a shame about FDL and Wheeler in particular. They were pretty good a rabble-rousing even when their ability the think things though was suffering terminal affliction. Now it’s impossible to see anything but them adopting the Foxnews model 100 percent: not investigating, but scanning for gotchas to attack the object of their implacable hate, which happens to be Obama at the moment.
I don’t see that the “scandal” deserves even the small credit Boo gave it. It wasn’t some secret contract, it was there in the open for anyone to see. The contract does not depend on his conclusions pleasing Obama, any more than the OMB’s existence does. We’ve all been in places where we’re so consumed by hate or a need for revenge that we obsess on every little tidbit that we can twist into an attack on the enemy. It’s fair to call it temporary insanity. I hope Wheeler recovers and Hamsher gets the massive intervention she needs.
Eve and Slink are no longer on FDL’s payroll. There were posts to that effect on DK. Not reading Dk these days, I have no other info. But this is probably not merely career movement. My bet is something is amiss behind the scenes. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but Karma gets us all.
I think this comes down to EGO and power.
AND the acknowledgement that if things get better, they have nothing more to rant about. Or so they see it. They can make more money complaining against legislation than fighting for it.
Paul Krugman’s fall from unassailable expert and Liberal Thought Leader to criminal element and Obamabot has been swift.
The comments at FDL are brutal.
I have to say this for old Jane — she’s the most effective cult leader since Jim Jones.
I do believe that if she continues on her current course to full metal wingnut, the Janebots will follow right along.
I read Hamsher’s piece and she doesn’t just go after him for non disclosure, she impugns his credibility. She completely implies that because he’s being paid by that evil group HHS, that he must be lying or just telling them what they want to hear. There is a reason he gets grants to do research, he’s the best in the business at what he does. Are the folks at Firedoglake now going to attack every researcher who gets government grants, impugn their characters and question their credibility simply because they get grants to actually do their research. Researchers have bills to pay too, does it automatically mean that anyone who is paid to do research is in the tank for the financer? That’s why this attack is so outrageous, FDL has become corrupt, self serving, sensationalist, dangerous and awfully full of themselves. Arghhhh