Hey Jane, on the Gruber front…I hope there is also coverage about the HC insurance industry raking in huge profits while denying realistic coverage on policies and then paying for GOP backed, The Lewin Group, to also run HC microsimulations and participate in “industry beneficial” policy talk yet still failing to address care.

FDL is the place! You guys rock!

FDL, the be-there place.

Heading out now, Jane, to check out the circus, er um opening statements in Pasadena. If I get in. We’ll see. I’ll report back with anything I think you pups might be interested in hearing.

You are lucky to be able to see it in real time.

Link klynn?

What a day! Thanks.

Thanks, Jane. FDL truly the gold standard. Maybe your pacesetting will drag the msm out of their gossipy gaffe mode based on Republican spin-o-the-day and actually do real reporting, too.

Pete Williams reporting at MSNBC…in between breathless we-must-repeat-the-Rspin hyperventilating. Hey, MSM, the frame is not Republican vs. Democrat. It’s the content of their commentary: applauding segregationism vs inartful articulation of reality.

P.S. Anybody in the msm talking about the upcoming Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearing?

When will the anti-gay-marriage crowd come out against the biggest threat to marriage: divorce?

U.S. Supreme Court blocks broadcast? Is that the closed circuit sites?

Dear Jane…just wanted to know if you got thee vintage poodles i sent you?

That’s what the Breaking News headline at MSNBC is saying. No link yet.

Mornin’ Jane and Firedogs

we gonna . . .

roar on the shore

fight at the site

shred in the thread

quake at the lake

why yes, I’m excited, why do you ask :D

Krugman poses a question for FDL re: Gruber this a.m. at his blog:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/jonathan-gruber/

Not advocating his position necessarily, just putting it out there.

SCOTUS moved the gay marriage haters into the closet?

Paul Krugman has weighed in on Gruber.

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?

The bottom line is this: Jon Gruber is a technical expert, some of whose research has been supported — entirely properly — by government agencies. And we need his input into policy.

He is correct in this. FDL is losing (or has already lost) any reputation it once had.

I am. Jane needs to seriously re-think what she is doing. There is a way to advocate from the Left and still not drive oneself insane. Currently that is not being done here and will only backfire on FDL in the long run.

I posted a few links yesterday but no bites. Here is one. The links are embedded in the comment. The international conference is pretty interesting too which I note at comment #25. I also have links at comment 31 and 60 (John Shiels backed the McCain plan BTW).

Comment link at 31 worth a read too.

If you Google Shiels and Gruber together you get some interesting hits. Shiels is the paid mouth piece for the GOP and HC insurance industry. He counters Gruber every time.

No wonder the GOP are so quiet. They are just allowing Shiels to speak for them.

Gregg Levine has a new post up: Breaking: US Supreme Court Blocks Broadcast of Prop 8 Trial

“If you Google Shiels and Gruber together you get some interesting hits.”

If you google “9-11 was an inside job” you get interesting hits too. Reality is not found through a web browser.

If the administration was in such need of Gruber, why didn’t they disclose how Gruber was to them instead of acting like he was an independent confirmation of the administration? If Gruber was needed – fine – but it’s up to the WH to disclose that he’s their guy as him to admit to reporters that he’s on the admin’s payroll. Krugman is just trying put up stawmen.

It is a shame Krugman spent time on his Op Ed defending Gruber instead of having open discussion about the real and thoughtful questions Marcy asked regarding the excise tax.

If he is going to weigh in, then he should not patronize with “threats of looking like” and engaged in real dialogue and answered some fair and thoughtful questions.

He did not. Thus, he looks bad with the intellectually veiled name calling.

I have great respect for Krugman. But he handled this very poorly. He could have answered the questions and didn’t even need to play “defend the peer”.

Sorry but the Gruber info is a classic conflict of interest and should have been disclosed. As someone who has been a consultant and a direct fed employee, in these types of things, it has to be totally clean and Gruber’s failure to disclose, followed by all the apologists trying to minimize his actions tell me that this IS a big thing.

It’s always the cover-up.

Just about every major news organization has quoted both microsimulation experts. By doing a search with both names you do get a number of links to articles by major news sources citing both individuals in contexts against each other’s research. They are numerous and I do not need to take the entire day linking to them.

Manners go a long way.

You didn’t actually read the article did you?

“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.”

It was his responsibility to disclose and Krugman even thinks he ought to have done so. He just doesn’t think it’s a big deal. I agree with him.

Nonsense. It is a scandal in a teapot. Most people are able to discern between manufactured hysteria and real wrong doing. An academic failing to disclose that his research was funded through the government, duh…., not a big deal.

How’s that partnership with right-wing nuts cases working out for ya? Not so good is it.

Do not feed folks.

Perhaps Krugman was making the distinction between an academic funded by grant money to do research opining on the actual subject of his work vs Armstrong Williams’ propagandizing. Krugman says Gruber should have made a fuller disclosure but that his failure to do so does not destroy Gruber’s credibility on the topic.

I just love FDL!

Thanks, noen. To the rest, consider yourselves warned. To Jane Hamsher, your Saturday frontpage looked like a full scale indictment and scandal of Jonathan Gruber, with everything from “Gruber-gate” to an attempted slam on his publishing in NEJM. But Paul Krugman is right. And this isn’t what the left should do, this is Republican Opposition Research class digging.

But apparently it’s too addictive to stop, even when top economists start to weigh in.

I don’t particularly like Krugman’s views, anymore. From his pro-bailout stance to his pro-health insurance stance, it looks like he’s squarely in the veal pen now, calling out: “Oba-maaaaaa!”

Sorry but that is bull shit. I’d never heard of Jonathon Gruber before all of this. He is supposed to be the expert. How am I supposed to judge his credibility when he fails to disclose information in his background pertinent to the issue at hand?

All I hear from you and Krugman are excuses for his failure to do what is a routine disclosure in the business world. And if he is at MIT, he should be aware enough and had enough dealings with business to know this and recognize he is not dealing with only the academic world (where the argument that everyone knows him is still BS but not quite as much).

It is a deal where IF the disclosure is made, then no big deal, but the FAILURE to disclose becomes the big deal and makes me ask “what and why is he hiding this pertinent information from the people who he is trying to convince?”

…consider yourselves warned

Bwhahahaha!

why does Tiny Dancer send his troll dolls to the Lake?

same shit different day
Jane tees em up,the trolls go wild
hahahahahahahahaha
truthiness hurts

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 is correct in this. FDL is losing (or has already lost) any reputation it once had.

The fact that Krugman felt the need to try to make us see “reason” is more than enough proof that FDL hasn’t lost its great reputation.

And, he’s wrong. He’s asking us to back off for the sake of some nonexistent “greater good” of a failed corporatist administration. That’s not “reason.” That’s bullshit.

Gruber not disclosing this information is very much a big deal, and you’re losing whatever reputation you ever had – if any – by saying that it isn’t.

Still smarting, huh?

Place yourself in Gruber’s position – is there a forum of any kind that you feel comfortable withholding that inherent conflict?

It is rather Bushian to use the “I didn’t fudge information, therefore it was not inappropriate to bypass the Times regular disclosure policy.”

The standard is to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety – not to simply dismiss assertions about conflicts by pouting and playing the victim. Petulance is no defense for not doing your due diligence.

…consider yourselves warned.

Not all attacks are equal. some show that we’re right on the money (pun intended). Thanks for the advice, though. Great work, Marcy! I’ll be making a contribution at https://secure.firedoglake.com/page/contribute/MarcyWheeler

I just realized something this morning and I’m wondering if there’s an answer out there. How is the MLR compatible with the Excise Tax? I’m not saying it isn’t compatible as I don’t know how it has been addressed or even if it has been addressed…maybe paying the excise tax is considered part of delivering medical care to people? I say this because mathematically there will be a point reached where the 40% excise tax turns the MLR into the red, which would effectively ban these plans. This isn’t just something academic because that could affect large families who are older and have health problems (or any of the variety of combinations that could result in a high cost family plan or individual plan).

Also there seems to be a contradiction in how this is supposedly being targeted at the rich, but at the same time this is excise tax is supposed to raise wages for those that aren’t rich. Afterall you can’t very well say this is going after the rich when you are claiming wage increases for the poor.

“his failure to do what is a routine disclosure in the business world.”

He doesn’t come from the business world. He’s an academic and a little naive about the ways of Washington. Obama has brought in a number of pure academic types who were unprepared for the fishbowl of DC.

“How am I supposed to judge his credibility…”

By consulting people who DO know him and not resorting to knee jerk ideology. The internet seems to me to have a distorting effect on judging people and events. It tends to skew things in favor of whatever political ideology one holds. Whether from the Left of the Right. One’s own preconceptions tend to get confirmed and magnified.

Literally any belief, real or imagined, can be confirmed through the internet. We all tend to self select news, stories and ideas that we like or want to be true. Over time that builds up into a self validating system that becomes further and further removed from reality.

There is a world outside of one’s PC and it is what we used to call reality. The virtual world is a reflecting mirror in which people battle their own inner demons and chimeras.

Gruber is clearly a rookie. I mean with relationships like those, he should have worked cost plus (being the only game(r) in town and all that).

You’re evading what I said. I said it was the WH’s responsibility to disclose, which Krugman and yourself completely ignore. Also Gruber was a political hired gun – the very same day he signed his $95K contract the WH scheduled an appointment with him and then the very next day he met Orzag at the WH for almost 2 hours. Orzag and others at the WH then subsequently touted up their political hired gun without disclosing this.

The old “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes” argument. Thanks Richard Pryor.

Two words:
Aluminum tubes.

Gruber is not a pure academic and in fact is a veteran high level DC political operative – he’s a former Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary.

“The fact that Krugman felt the need to try to make us see “reason” is more than enough proof that FDL hasn’t lost its great reputation.”

The fact that others are attempting to argue with you is not proof that you are right. It is an indication that they disagree and a wise person takes such things into account. True wisdom comes from constantly challenging one’s own preconceptions and subjecting them to criticism of others. Circling one’s intellectual wagons and taking on a siege mentality only results in isolation and marginalization.

We humans do not know things singly on our own. Knowledge is a collective social activity where ideas are criticized and challenged and slowly over time built up into something worthwhile. Seeking out only people who think like you do and believe like you do leads to stagnation and eventually a kind of intellectual death.

Whenever someone criticizes you you should rejoice at the opportunity to learn.

two more words:
duck hunting

Exactly! Like how about waiting until we get a legitimate health care bill ready, one that’s open to real criticism and models open to inspection, before we saddle everyone with a piece of crap.

January 9th, 2010.The New York Times

EDITORS’ NOTE

On July 12, the Op-Ed page published an article by Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at M.I.T., on health insurance and taxation. On Friday, Professor Gruber confirmed reports that he is a paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services, and that his contract was in effect when he published his article. The article did not disclose this relationship to readers.

Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Professor Gruber signed a contract that obligated him to tell editors of such a relationship. Had editors been aware of Professor Gruber’s government ties, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his article.

This was not a ‘rookie mistake’.

No, I don’t think it was the White Houses responsibility, it was his. What you see with the Obama admin is a kind of technocratic elite many of whom really are sort of naive. They tend to think like academics and carry the assumptions that others do not have deeply hidden political agendas. In the academic world people sort have a base level assumption that others are more or less honest and upfront and that one’s funding doesn’t really effect your academic work.

This is a non-scandal just like the other non-scandals FDL has been pursuing. Don’t hear so much about that one any more do you? The cumulative effect however will be to lower FDL’s already tarnished reputation. There was another way.

“This was not a ‘rookie mistake’.”

EVERYONE in academia has their work funded by government grants. That’s how you survive.

Trying to excuse this:

…Professor Gruber signed a contract that obligated him to tell editors of such a relationship.

is the work of flacks.

“What you see with the Obama admin is a kind of technocratic elite many of whom really are sort of naive. They tend to think like academics and carry the assumptions that others do not have deeply hidden political agendas.”

WTF!? Talk about seeing what you want to see. LOL

That’s all well and good that you think the Obama administration is made up of naive elitists, but you’ve provided no explanation why presidential administrations aren’t responsible for being transparent.

But this wasn’t in academia – MIT didn’t receive the funding. By the way, if what you are saying is true, how much money did the Bush administration give Paul Krugman? Afterall, if the Bush admin wasn’t funding Krugman, you’re saying he’s a failed academic.

Beat me to it.

I want to know how this Gruber was paid this astronomical amount of money? Just what pay grade does this fall into? I knew a person who couldn’t work for the Clinton WhiteHouse because they couldn’t compete with his salary at his employeer. What kind of money does the 0bama people have access to if they can pay an academic $780,000 for a years work???? This is another BIG question I need answered. Inaddition to the conflict of interest question.

EVERYONE in academia has their work funded by government grants. That’s how you survive.

You just made out arguments for us with that comment. He was not a rookie, so why are you making apologias for him like this? He knows better.

And yes, even those who are academics are required to disclose basic information included where their funding comes from.

And lastly, (as I’ve said before–poster should really read what has already been posted on this subject) – the non-academic voter (most of them) trying to inform herself and evaluate the arguments of the experts, has no idea that:

EVERYONE in academia has their work funded by government grants. That’s how you survive.

That fact is the purpose of disclosure, and yes, it is required for federal contractors, and is normal journalistic practice.

Call it a tempest in a teapot – but knowing this guy’s background, his assumptions, and his economic incentives are important to knowing how to judge his opinion statements on the issues of health care on which he has spoken. He is not a rookie, and he made a big mistake.

Yeah, Gruber had 400,000 reasons not to want to say anything that would upset the Obama admin, but yet the WH touted him up anyway as being an objective verification of the Admin when in fact he was being paid by the admin. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was told not to disclose this just like how the Geithner group told AIG not to disclose their payouts.

The NYT AGREES that he should have disclosed. It took them only ~ what? ~ 48 hours? ~ to turn around a correction, that is, disclosure faulting Gruber!!! Gruber was contractually bound to disclose! Gruber broke his contract with the NYT.

Krugman calls him the go-to guy for health reform modeling yet many here never heard of him. Could it be that he is recognized as the go-to guy BECAUSE he has been promoted (behind the scenes) by the WH? Based on work he was able to do BECAUSE the administration provided the funds for him to do this work?

AND I TOO would DEARLY love to know why it takes $780,000 for this. That is a lot of money, even these days.

I stopped reading Krugman when he endorsed this dreadful health care debacle on go-along grounds decorated with talking points. Clearly he enjoyed HIS recent visits to the WH (after being ignored for so long). Is Krugman being paid too?

Thanks for your words of wisdom…

The fact that others are attempting to argue with you is not proof that you are right. It is an indication that they disagree and a wise person takes such things into account.

The fact that Krugman felt it necessary to address the Marcy and FDL is proof that he’s worried that others will see that we’re right. If he thought that Marcy and FDL were just flat out wrong, or if he thought that FDL’s reputation were lost (as you suggested in your comment @ 17), he would have ignored us.

The fact that he and others can’t ignore us is more than enough proof that FDL hasn’t lost its great reputation.

Where’s the link for the Silver/Walker debate?

Why nothing on the debate between Jon and Nate? Is there a debate at all?

According to this comment from Jon Walker in the post at the top of the page, technical problems have forced a delay until later in the week.

Stay tuned, I’m sure we’ll hear more later. :})

Thanks Dakine.