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.
