Deconstructing Gruber – 2010: “How the White House Used Gruber’s Work to Create Appearance of Broad Consensus”…

Bret Baier utilized research tonight on his show “Special Report” that was done by Jane Hamsher -back in 2010 and 2011- surrounding Jonathan Gruber and the construct of ObamaCare legislation.  Hamsher did an exceptional job, yet, at the time, few were listening….

gruber 2

FLASHBACK MAY 2010 – HUFFINGTON POST Up until this point, most of the attention regarding the failure to disclose the connection between Jonathan Gruber and the White House has fallen on Gruber himself. Far more troubling, however, is the lack of disclosure on the part of the White House, the Senate, the DNC and other Democratic leaders who distributed Gruber’s work and cited it as independent validation of their proposals, orchestrating the appearance of broad consensus when in fact it was all part of the same effort.

The White House is placing a giant collective bet on Gruber’s “assumptions” to justify key portions of the Senate bill such as the “Cadillac tax,” which they allowed people to believe was independent verification. Now that we know that Gruber’s work was not that of an independent analyst but rather work performed as a contractor to the White House and paid for by taxpayers, and economists like Larry Mishel are raising serious questions about its validity, it should be made publicly available so others can judge its merits.

pelosi gruber

Gruber began negotiating a sole-source contract with the Department of Health and Human Services in February of 2009, for which he was ultimately paid $392,600. The contract called for Gruber to use his statistical model for evaluating alternatives “derived from the President’s health reform proposal.” It was not a research grant, but rather a consulting contract to advise the White House Office of Health Reform, headed by Obama’s health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, to “develop proposals” for health care reform.

How did the feedback loop work? Well, take Gruber’s appearance before the Senate HELP Committee on November 2, 2009, for which he used his microsimulation model to make calculations about small business insurance coverage. On the same day, Gruber released an analysis of the House health care bill, which he sent to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post. Ezra published an excerpt.

White House blogger Jesse Lee then promoted both Gruber’s Senate testimony and Ezra Klein’s article on the White House blog. “We thought it would all be a little more open and transparent if we went ahead and published what our focus will be for the day” he said, pointing to Gruber’s “objective analysis.” The “transparent” part apparently stopped when everyone got to Gruber’s contractual relationship to the White House, which nobody in the three-hit triangle bothered to disclose.

But that was child’s play compared to the effort that went into selling Gruber’s analysis of the bill unveiled by the Senate on Wednesday, November 18. Two days later on Friday November 20, Gruber published a paper entitled “Impacts of the Senate High Cost Insurance Excise Tax on Wages: Updated,” claiming that the excise tax would result in wage hikes of $234 billion from 2013 through 2019.

And it was off to the races.

The next day on the 21st, Ron Brownstein wrote in the Atlantic about Gruber’s effusive praise for the cost-cutting measures in the bill: “Everything is in here….I can’t think of anything I’d do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn’t have done better than they are doing,” says Gruber.

jonathangruberOn Monday the 23rd, the DNC was sending the Brownstein column around in its entirety…one of 71 emails they would send touting Gruber’s work. It was also included in OFA’s Monday Morning News Clips on

On Tuesday the 24th, OFA had another post touting the Brownstein article and citing Gruber as a “self-proclaimed skeptic on this stuff. The DNC sent that around, too. Mike Allen wrote that Obama had made the Brownstein article “mandatory reading” in the West Wing. TPM had the scoop that Rahm Emanuel told senior staffers “not to come back to the next day’s meeting if they hadn’t read the article.”

David Brooks of the New York Times was not convinced that the Senate bill would be deficit neutral, so Peter Orszag pointed him to the Brownstein’s “insightful article on health care costs” on the White House OMB blog that same day. It’s hard to believe Orszag didn’t know about Gruber’s contract — a search of the White House visitor logs indicates he met with Gruber on March 26, the day after his HHS contract was first awarded.

Paul Krugman cited Gruber’s glowing analysis in the Brownstein article — “this is the best effort anyone has made” — as one of the reasons he supported the Senate bill, noting that “the health care economists I respect are seriously impressed by the cost-control measures.” Rahm Emanuel subsequently cited Krugman and Brownstein to Jonathan Weisman of the Wall Street Journal as evidence of a “progressive backlash against the progressive backlash” to dismiss liberal criticism of the bill. Jeff Bingaman mentioned the Krugman piece on the floor of the Senate, and entered it into the Congressional Record.

On November 25, Peter Orszag and Nancy-Ann DeParle had a conference call with reporters to tout a letter written by 23 economists — including Gruber — encouraging the President to enact the excise tax and other measures. Orszag again invoked the Brownstein article, saying he “has done the work to understand the issue”:

Orszag seconded that notion, saying, “I agree with Jon Gruber that basically everything that has been put forward in health policy discussions for a decade is in this bill.”

“And then some,” added DeParle.

On November 27, following the release of the CBO score, Gruber issued another report saying the Senate bill would reduce non-group premiums (Gruber is one of the CBO’s academic advisors). Again, Ezra Klein printed excerpts in his Washington Post blog, saying it was “good news for advocates of reform.”

The next day on the 28th, Mike Allen ran it with the headline “MIT analysis backs Obama health plan,” leading readers to believe that Gruber’s work represented outside confirmation. The DNC didn’t flinch at that description, sending around an email on the 29th with the subject line: “MIT Analysis backs Obama Health Plan,” and another on the 30th saying “ICYMI” (“In Case You Missed It”), just to be sure you didn’t. Tom Udall pointed to Gruber’s report, in addition to Ezra and Politico, on his website.

Then HHS included the Politico article in their newsletter, saying “a memo authored by MIT economist Johnathan Gruber” finds the bill will lower non-group premiums. No mention that he was working for them.

On the 29th Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the very White House Office of Health Reform that Gruber was hired to consult for, posted perhaps the most misleading column of all on the White House blog:

MIT Economist Confirms Senate Health Reform Bill Reduces Costs and Improves Coverage

gruberShe identified Gruber as an “MIT Economist who has been closely following the health insurance reform process” who had “issued a compelling new report.” There was no acknowledgment that her very own White House office had commissioned Gruber’s work.

On November 30th, Krugman wrote about the CBO report, relying on Gruber’s analysis. He, too, concluded it was “good news for reform advocates.” That same day, Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate that same day, saying “just a few days ago an MIT economist — one of the nation’s foremost economists — a man by the name of Jonathan Gruber, analyzed our bill and concluded it will help Americans pay less and get more.”

Reid read from the piece on the floor of the Senate, saying that it provided substantiation from Gruber “who is one of the most respected economists in the world” that the Senate bill would reduce the deficit. Nancy Pelosi touted “the Gruber analysis” on the Speaker’s website.

On December 3, Kathleen Sebelius released a statement on the “Benefits of Health Insurance Reform for Businesses.” She substantiated claims made in the statement by citing Gruber’s November 3 testimony before the HELP Committee, and his November 5 paper. No mention that he was a contractor to HHS.

And on December 12, John McCain referred to “an analysis by MIT economist John Gruber released by the White House this weekend.”

Subsequent to that, a report was issued on December 14 from the Executive Office of the President by the Council of Economic Advisers. It again invoked Gruber’s November 20 paper as the sole source for the claim that the excise tax would cause wages to increase: “Research by Jonathan Gruber finds that even just a single provision — the excise tax — would increase after-tax wages by $234 billion from 2013 to 2019,” it says.

On December 28, Gruber published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post — in which he neglected to mention his contract to consult with the White House on this very issue. He was asked point-blank if he had any contracts related to the piece for which he was being paid, and he said “no.” The Post subsequently published a correction.

And just last week, John Kerry — author of the Cadillac Tax provision of the Senate bill — writing in The Hill cited Gruber’s work alone as the authority for the claim that the excise tax would result in increased wages. Did Kerry, as author of that part of the Senate bill, work with Gruber to craft it too? He doesn’t say.

Gruber validates the argument put forward by the Senate bill’s proponent that it will make health care more affordable — a claim that Marcy Wheeler has made compelling arguments against. Though Gruber’s analysis has been cited as support that insurance would be affordable, it appears that the individual mandate will impose a financial burden on middle class families that will leave them with no ability to make the co-pays necessary to use the insurance they are forced to buy. But because Gruber’s work has the authority of an expert from MIT, it has been accepted as independent confirmation that the bill will make things better, not worse.

Gruber is also cited repeatedly to substantiate the claim that the excise tax will result in higher wages after employers reduce benefits, because they’ll pass those savings on to workers. That argument on its face flies in the face of all reason, and nobody has been able to point to a study showing that when health care costs go down, businesses mostly share those savings. Quite the contrary: In November, a Mercer survey of 465 employer health plan sponsors found that only 16% would pass on any savings to employees.

But Gruber’s representations on that front are continually advanced as one of the primary reasons why Krugman and others support passage of the bill. As Marcy Wheeler observed, when Jason Fuhrman made that case on the White House blog, Gruber was the sole source supporting that particular claim. She noted with irony that the administration “can’t muster any support among 3 hand-picked reports for its claim that the excise tax will lead to wage increases.”

But her central point is critical: most claims that the excise tax will “bend the cost curve” inevitably lead back to Gruber’s analysis.. And now that his ties to the White House have been exposed, he seems to be inserting caveats and backing away from that assertion.

What was Gruber’s role in crafting the Senate bill? Nobody will say. Is he in effect grading his own work when he praises the bill? We don’t know. What we do know is that the White House engaged an expert who was quite likely to reach the conclusions he reached, because he’d been making similar claims for years. And they worked hard to promote his work as independent validation of their plan, when in fact he was an integral part of it.

Gruber says he believes in transparency, and claims to have a spreadsheet for his simulation model. On February 27, two days after the presolicitation of his HHS contract began, Gruber participated in an HHS hearing on modeling health insurance data. According to the transcript, Gruber said:

As much as we can do in groups like this to be transparent about modeling the process, I call my model a black box, but in fact I have now put together a spreadsheet which lays out every single one of the assumptions that is in the model, in a document which describes it all. I think we all need to be as transparent as possible in what is going into the models, so that ultimately folks like ASPE and CBO and others who need to use these to make policy can understand why we are getting different answers and what is going on.

Recently Bill Black, Eliot Spitzer and Frank Partnoy called for the release of AIG emails and internal documents, asserting that the public now owns 80% of the company and should be able to examine them in order to be able to ascertain what happened in the past. Likewise, now that it is known that Jonathan Gruber was a White House consultant, the assumptions that have been used by the White House to estimate the impact of the health care bill for decades to come should be made publicly available.  (continue reading)

pelosi gruber

Almost three years ago –back in Feb 2012– Treeper Admin, Patriot Dreamer, sent a warning out about Gruber’s scheme:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economist Jonathan Gruber is one of the chief architects behind Romneycare and Obamacare.

His not-so-independent analysis was relied upon by President Obama and the Democrats when debating the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In 2009, Gruber said that “[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.” Based on Gruber’s analysis, President Obama sold Obamacare to the public on the premise that his reforms would bend the cost curve down.

Now, Gruber says “[a]fter the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,” Gruber reported. Why? Because many residents who currently have heath insurance in the individual market do not meet Obamacare’s minimum coverage requirements as determined by federal government bureaucrats.

More on this story at The Daily Caller.

This entry was posted in Conspiracy ?, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2012, Election 2014, Election 2016, Fabian Socialists - Modern Progressives, media bias, Notorious Liars, Obama Research/Discovery, Obamacare, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Deconstructing Gruber – 2010: “How the White House Used Gruber’s Work to Create Appearance of Broad Consensus”…

  1. BigMamaTEA says:

    Thanks Sd.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. bikermailman says:

    This is what happens when you’re in such a bubble. All the yes men around you, praising your most excellent new suit of clothes, you forget that there’s a little thing called the internet. Been around a while, you may have heard of it. Was your stupenderifous skill at using it that helped get you elected, IIRC. That, and a fawning, knob slobbering media. Of course, this is why they want to grab ahold of the internet, and use their truthy hit squads to make sure people (such as the fine Sundance and commenters here) don’t find evidence of their lies, and yes, crimes.


  3. Chewbarkah says:

    It is not hard to see why Gruber is so consumed by hubris that he cannot quit bragging about fooling the stupid American people. Gruber was the essential man for selling the lies, and all the big Democrats palavered over his genius. He was partially correct about the increase in wages — Gruber’s own wages that is. How many million has he soaked up from federal taxpayers, and those of almost every leftist state in the union?


  4. Phooey says:

    I’m more angry at the media than anyone or anything else. This information and the pompous interviews and panel discussions with Gruber have been out there for years. For years! A lot of it prior to the 2012 election! Now all of a sudden with the Dems getting trounced in the mid-terms, this is getting a little traction — because somebody needs to be the whipping boy. And it can’t be their precious Obozo.

    These Gruberisms should have been on front pages and leading nightly news broadcasts. Instead, it’s the corruption and complicity of this state-run, propaganda machine that enabled the re-election of the worst POTUS ever. GWB was crucified for much less by these fraudulent “journalists,” and now they’re going to let Barry coast right on down the road, burning down what’s left of the country with his poisonous trail of racial hatred, divisiveness, and forced demographic shifting in his second undeserved term as POTUS.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 1hear2learn says:

      I blame the Democrats in Congress that took bribes for their votes ANd ALL of the complicit journalists, including the ones that “tried” to speak out yet didn’t report when they were being silenced at the time it was happening when it may have made a difference and possibly stopped this monstrosity from becoming law..


  5. Murse says:

    Rush calls Obama a sociopathic liar. Wow, the gloves are off. I don’t see how the msm can ignore the Obama/Gruber scandal. A large percentage of Americans have come to see the leftist bias of the msm during the past 6 years. This Obama/Gruber scam is the scandal of the century and the media is burying it to its own detriment. The msm is now completely irrelevant.


  6. doodahdaze says:

    Rand Paul was just up on Hannitty. I am sold. He cited Youngstown Steele case for ecec. orders and wants no Omnibus but regular appropriations. GO RAND! I like it.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. texan59 says:

    For those who haven’t read it, I recommend you go get “The Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell. The basic premise is that eventually one or two things happen to truly bring about awareness of something new. I don’t know if this is it, but we are certainly getting to the area close to the tipping point with dear leader and his miscreants. There will come a time when the “media” can no longer ignore the stench coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Things don’t always happen when we want them to, but they always happen. Looking back, it took six years for the media to no longer be able to ignore The Crooked Stick. It was nearly five years before they turned on Landslide Lyndon. Bronco Bama’s time will come.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. myopiafree says:

    Obama-LIE, Gruber-WHO.

    Oh, and yes, if you like your Doctor, you can KEEP your Doctor.
    This man likes with a straight face.


  9. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    So it would seem that Obama is lying again, or more correctly he has never stopped lying

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s