Paul Krugman Circles the Wagons

[Capers]

Paul Krugman Circles the Wagons
01-12-10 12:00ET

For those of you who haven’t been following this developing story, op-ed economist Paul Krugman of the New York Times is blogging in defense of fellow economist Jon Gruber:

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

But Gruber, despite Krugman‘s best efforts to convince readers otherwise, is not, by any stretch, some kind of freelance economist. Gruber works for the Department of Health and Human services.

And the Department of Health and Human Services, despite Krugman’s best efforts to convince readers otherwise, is not, by any stretch, some kind of obscure and or independent government bureaucracy. The Department of Health and Human Services is what’s known as a cabinet department. It’s run by a member of Barack Obama’s cabinet -- by one of Barack Obama’s closest advisors.

Krugman’s seeming beef is with a blogger named Marcy Wheeler over at Firedoglake. It seems that the folks over at Firedoglake want like-minded liberals to know that Jon Gruber works for the White House. They want you to know that when Krugman (among others) cites Gruber’s work in support of Barack Obama‘s healthcare policies, Krugman is actually citing Barack Obama in support of Barack Obama:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/jonathan-grubers-rent-a-scholarship/

You see the problem here. It’s a rehash of the Judith Miller scandal -- another simultaneous corruption of government and media. The folks at the New York Times are once again getting their talking points from the White House -- though be it a different White House -- and repackaging said talking points as some kind of independent analysis. In turn, the subversives at the White House are once again citing said independent analysis -- citing their own propaganda -- in support of their own agenda.

Marcy Wheeler is stirring a huge pot.

You see, Paul Krugman, the cryptically self-described liberal without conscience, is not blogging in defense of Jon Gruber and or Barack Obama, as he so artfully implies. Krugman is blogging in defense of Krugman.

Paul Krugman, trying his darndest to come across as some kind of independent observer, finds himself at the heart of a scandal. His reputation is at stake. And he’s preemptively circling the wagons.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Is this a repost from a blog?

If so, could you link the original. I say that because of the timestamp under the post title.

[Capers]

5. No.

This is the original.

[berni_mccoy]

2. The only one circling is FDL... down the drain.

Krugman posted one paragraph on how FDL has blown Gruber's disclosure out of proportion and they've gone ballistic over it. They need to calm down and step away from the keyboard at this point.

[johnaries]

3. .

:rofl:

Yep, FDL has jumped the shark and landed in the sewer.

[Capers]

4. FDL told the truth.

Krugman is deceiving. Again.

[dionysus]

6. uh huh.

[ThatPoetGuy]

19. "Again"?

Oh, do tell.

[Capers]

69. First he lied about the nature of the relationship and then he lied

about Firedog's conclusions about the relationship. Why? Because he bet his career on this one.

[ThatPoetGuy]

72. No, you're the only one lying here.

When you described Krugman as "the cryptically self-described _liberal without conscience_," you were lying. He's never used that phrase to describe himself. Google that phrase -- the only person who has ever used it is you, here, lying, putting words in his mouth. You chose those words as a smear. And you were lying.

Your entire argument is false. Personally, I think you should be banned. You persist in stating falsehoods, as though repeating them and saying them emphatically is going to turn them into truths.

[Capers]

75. Your problem seems to lie with your inability to understand the English language.

I guess that explains why you didn't read the blog.

You see, Krugman's blog (as linked in the OP) is called The Conscience of a Liberal. Have somebody read it to you.

Then take some time to figure out why you weren't able to find a link to Krugman's cryptic projection. Here's a hint: It's cryptic and it's a projection.

When you're done with all that you can come back and apologize for calling me a liar.

[ThatPoetGuy]

76. Why should I apologize for telling the truth? You're a liar.

"Paul Krugman, the cryptically self-described liberal without conscience"

That's what you said. Those are your words. And you were lying.

If you think you can backtrack and say that the adverb "cryptically" gives you leeway to claim someone has said things that they haven't actually said, then you've got a serious problem. If you honestly believe calling his blog "The Conscience of a Liberal" is somehow equivalent, no matter how "cryptically," to calling himself a "liberal without conscience," then you are mentally ill.

You made a bold-faced lie. You had an opportunity here, to say, "I made a mistake. Oops, my bad." But instead you chose to heap dishonesty upon distortion upon lies upon worthless spit and falsehoods.

Congrats. You have sunk to a level of deception that would shame a Republican.

[Capers]

79. You already admitted that you went searching the internet for a quote

which was never, in any way, represented as a quote. Now you want to pretend that you can selectively remove words from a sentence to make your point?

It's no wonder you support government propaganda but don't want to use the word PROPAGANDA.

[HuckleB]

27. In a fantasy world, perhaps.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grytpype]

17. +1000

[HuckleB]

24. +1 Exactly.

[Romulox]

47. Are you kidding? FDL is getting MAJOR national publicity.

Krugman is leading with his chin here. He is not adept at politics, full stop.

[bvar22]

52. The New York Times agrees with FDL:

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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/pageoneplus/corrections.html

FDL WINS on this one.
It DOES make a difference that Gruber was On the Payroll!!!

[gratuitous]

7. Gosh, who to believe? The Nobel Laureate or Jumpy Wheeler?

That's a toughie.

[Capers]

8. You should probably "believe" the facts and dismiss the spin.

[Quezacoatl]

13. And that's exactly Krugman's point isn't it? Ignore the spin.

[gratuitous]

29. Well, the first "fact" seems incorrect

If Mr. Gruber is not on the HHS payroll, but is rather the recipient of a public grant from HHS, then the story starts falling apart pretty early, doesn't it? What was Gruber's grant for? Was his work on analyzing the health care reform package paid for by that grant money, or was the grant for something else entirely? Even if Gruber was given a grant by HHS for analyzing health care reform, it's a pretty routine practice for government agencies to hire outside consultants; it doesn't necessarily follow that a consultant's analysis will conform to a preconceived result (not always the case in the previous administration, but there's no evidence I've seen here that it is the case in the present administration). Is there evidence that Gruber's analysis was purchased, or are we seeing some pretty shaky stove-piping?

[Capers]

65. Yes, Gruber's analysis was purchased.

Obama saw what he wanted (mandates) and he made a purchase.

And yes, Gruber is on the HHS payroll.

Good questions though.

[ThatPoetGuy]

73. Please, demonstrate ANY falsehoods or distortions in Gruber's analysis.

I'm sure you can, right?

Because anyone who'd claim his argument was false based on the fact that he received money -- and not based on any demonstrable errors or falsifications -- is wildly dishonest. Hear that, Jane Hamsher?

[Capers]

74. I didn't say there were any.

I don't know if Jane Hamsher did either, as if that has anything to do with anything.

What you don't seem to understand is that liberals with conscience don't support government propaganda.

But wildly dishonest people do.

[ThatPoetGuy]

77. If there are no distortions, it's not propaganda.

It's that simple.

If the man is saying the same thing he would have said without his deal with HHS, then it's not propaganda.

I don't know if there are distortions.

But the argument, "He was paid, therefore it's propaganda," is missing the most important step -- "he was paid _to distort facts_, therefore it's propaganda."

Unless you can demonstrate that the results were skewed, you've got nothing. Epic fail.

[Capers]

78. Nope. You don't know what propaganda is.

Add PROPAGANDA to your library list with CRYPTIC.

Whatever you want to call it, don't try to tell us that your support for it is somehow liberal or democratic. No decent American -- liberal, conservative, Democratic, or democratic -- supports government propaganda. You do.

Think about it.

[slipslidingaway]

43. LTCM ring a bell or Greenspan or finally admitted his model was wrong. n/t

[gratuitous]

50. LSMFT

"La poisson aime la friture!"

:crazy:

[slipslidingaway]

54. Scholes, Merton win Nobel prize

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-20396690.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management

"LTCM was founded in 1994 by John Meriwether, the former vice-chairman and head of bond trading at Salomon Brothers. Board of directors members included Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton, who shared the 1997 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.<2> Initially enormously successful with annualized returns of over 40% (after fees) in its first years, in 1998 it lost $4.6 billion in less than four months following the Russian financial crisis and became a prominent example of the risk potential in the hedge fund industry. The fund folded in early 2000..."

[On the Road]

10. After Reading the Firedoglake Entry

I was under the impression that Fruber was on the payroll of HHS, not that he had a grant approved. I would assume that Firedoglake does not know the difference or understand the implications. I don't see the scandal.

[DevonRex]

11. FDL is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I'll take Krugman over them any day.nt

[slipslidingaway]

44. I see nothing in the link from the OP where Marcy Wheeler led people to believe...

that Gruber was on the payroll of HHS, in fact she mentions contract several times.

Some people here are deliberately misrepresenting the facts saying that Wheeler led people to believe he was on the payroll and others parrot the same false claim.

Look at the link in the OP and post where she made this representation.

If people here believe that a contract with HHS is the same as being on the payroll of the HHS that is their problem.

[slipslidingaway]

55. Crickets n/t

[berni_mccoy]

14. They knew it was an HHS research grant, but chose to mislead and sensationalize.

That's what they do. They also claim Reid said he had 60 votes for PO but refused to act on it. Reid never made that claim. It's still on their "War Room" page.

[Luminous Animal]

56. Not a research or academic grant. It is a contract for technical services.

Here is the link to the acquisition letter:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=3032e84fe13f650770acee31c1372a1b&_cview=0

[flyarm]

21. go read it now with full explaination!!

Jonathan Gruber, “Paid Consultant to the Obama Administration”
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday January 12, 2010 7:43 am


http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/12/jonathan-gruber-paid-consultant-to-the-obama-administration/

snip:

Yesterday, Paul Krugman defended Jonathan Gruber’s failure to disclose his consulting contract by saying:

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.

But last night Gruber appeared on The News Hour, and here’s how Gwen Ifil introduced him:

“For more on the pros and the cons of the so-called Cadillac tax, we turn to Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — he is also a paid consultant to the Obama administration — and Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that receives some money from labor groups.”

I guess when Gruber’s contract called for him to render “technical assistance” on “the President’s health reform proposal,” that’s what it meant.

Ron Brownstein’s article in late November contained Gruber’s evaluation of the Senate health care bill, to the effect that “you couldn’t have done better than they are doing.” Gruber told Brownstein that “it’s really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can’t think of a thing to try that they didn’t try…everything is in here.”

Of course, as Jon Walker noted at the time, that’s a laughable claim. The CBO determined that the public option — which Gruber waves off as “much ado about little” — would have saved $110 billion. Mandating that Medicare providers take part in the public option? Another $91 billion. Medicare reimbursement rates would have saved another $50 billion.

[slipslidingaway]

42. What language written by Marcy Wheeler left you with that impression...

do you think a contract is the same as someone being on the payroll of HHS???

I see the word contract and contracts mentioned several times, but nothing there that would indicate he is on the payroll of HHS.

:shrug:

Link in the OP
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/jonathan-grubers-rent-a-scholarship/

"...But he has consistently failed to disclose that he has had a sole-source contract with the Department of Health and Human Services since June 19, 2009 to consult on the “President’s health reform proposal.”

He is one source for the claim that the excise tax will result in raises for workers (though his underlying study is in-apt to the excise tax question). He is the basis for the argument that the Senate bill reduces families’ risk–even if it remains totally unaffordable. Even Politico stenographer Mike Allen points to Gruber’s research.

But none of the references to Gruber I’ve seen have revealed that Gruber has a $297,600 contract with HHS to produce,

a technical memorandum on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform. The requirement includes developing estimates of various health reform proposals on health insurance coverage and cost. The alternative specifications to be considered will be derived from the President’s health reform proposal.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Remember Armstrong Williams?

Selling the Bush Administration's "No Child Left Behind" policy

In January 2005, USA Today reported that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that under a $240,000 contract Williams would promote the controversial No Child Left Behind legislation of the Bush administration. According to USA Today, Williams was hired to "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same." <3>

As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004."<4>

The contract with Williams was part of a $1 million contract between the U.S. Department of Education and the public relations company, Ketchum. Download Ketchum's request for increased funding for their "Minority Outreach Campaign," featuring Williams (132kb PDF file).

Melanie Sloan from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told USA Today that the contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government. "And it's propaganda," she said.

...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Armstrong_Williams

[berni_mccoy]

15. Wow, that's like saying Reid and Lott made the same gaff. But they didn't.

Gruber's grant was a research grant. Williams was a paid propagandist directly by the Administration. There is a difference. You can certainly try to make them the same, but then you'd be lying like FDL.

[glitch]

16. Good post, welcome to DU! nt

[HuckleB]

30. How is it a "good post?"

:shrug:

[flyarm]

18. I stand with FDL and Marcy was on MSNBC and said Krugman is vacilating now..from his former

statements!

[berni_mccoy]

22. No, it was Wheeler who was changing her tune. She backed down from her statement, clarifying

that Gruber got a grant, and was not being paid to promote the tax. But you spin like FDL does.

[flyarm]

32. then why did GWEN IFIL claim this last night with Gruber on her show?

Jonathan Gruber, “Paid Consultant to the Obama Administration”
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday January 12, 2010 7:43 am


http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/12/jonathan-gr... /

snip:

Yesterday, Paul Krugman defended Jonathan Gruber’s failure to disclose his consulting contract by saying:

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.

But last night Gruber appeared on The News Hour, and here’s how Gwen Ifil introduced him:

“For more on the pros and the cons of the so-called Cadillac tax, we turn to Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — he is also a paid consultant to the Obama administration — and Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that receives some money from labor groups.”

I guess when Gruber’s contract called for him to render “technical assistance” on “the President’s health reform proposal,” that’s what it meant.

Ron Brownstein’s article in late November contained Gruber’s evaluation of the Senate health care bill, to the effect that “you couldn’t have done better than they are doing.” Gruber told Brownstein that “it’s really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can’t think of a thing to try that they didn’t try…everything is in here.”

Of course, as Jon Walker noted at the time, that’s a laughable claim. The CBO determined that the public option — which Gruber waves off as “much ado about little” — would have saved $110 billion. Mandating that Medicare providers take part in the public option? Another $91 billion. Medicare reimbursement rates would have saved another $50 billion.

[berni_mccoy]

38. Hmmm, a reporter gets it wrong after FDL makes a false controversy. Surprise surprise.

Anser me this: is HHS part of the Obama Administration?

Does the White House dole out every single dollar or do they let each branch, like the HHS, have a budget that they can spend as they need and see fit?

Keep spinning though.

[slipslidingaway]

51. You would think Gruber would have set the record straight, yet he...

said nothing after the intro.

See this diary as well...
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/23174

[slipslidingaway]

48. Please post Marcy Wheeler's exact words, thanks. n/t

[ThatPoetGuy]

20. It would be flaming if I said you're a liar...

so I'll just say that this piece is full of lies.

[flyarm]

23. indeed it is!! eom

[Champion Jack]

25. More FDL bullshit

[HuckleB]

26. It doesn't get much more inaccurate than this OP.

:mad:

[Beetwasher]

28. It Is The UTTER HEIGHT OF Dishonesty To Say Having A GRANT Means You WORK For DHHS

It's a total fucking lie. Just an out and out complete load of unmitigated bullshit. Holy crap. The gall of the people pushing this noxious bile.

[flyarm]

31. read my post #21! eom

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. Wow....

Because you recollected that Gwen Ifill said something one night on the television set...

But that wasn't the point that the Firebaggers have been making. They're saying that because Gruber has a government grant, he's working for the Obama Administration.

[flyarm]

35. last night on Gwen Ifill!! eom

[Beetwasher]

36. So?

So she thinks a grant makes him a paid consultant? Where's the proof he's a paid consultant? I'm willing to consider this is possible, but a grant does not make one a paid consultant, regardless of what Gwen Ifill says.

[Luminous Animal]

63. It's not a grant. It is a contract for technical services.

Here is the link to the acquisition notice from The Department of Health and Human Services:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3032e84fe13f650770acee31c1372a1b&tab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck=

And here is his classification:

Classification Code:
B -- Special studies and analysis - not R&D
NAICS Code:
541 -- Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services/541990 -- All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

[berni_mccoy]

39. Oh Noes!!1!11111

:rofl:

[slipslidingaway]

45. That is not what Marcy Wheeler said, just wanted to establish that point. n/t

[RoyGBiv]

57. +1

Thank you.

I'm so beside myself in awe of the blatant, self-congratulating ignorance of these claims I scarcely know what to say.

By the standards being pushed here, there are no "independent" researchers. Damn near everyone who does anything worthwhile works via a grant either from a government agency or educational institution, which itself takes government grants, or from a corporation.

So take your fucking pick. Jesus.

[sendero]

58. No it isn't..

... god there are so many stupid people here.

Whether it is a grant, a contract, payroll, WHAT THE FUCK EVER, you are making your livelihood and you are beholden.

Jackass.

[Beetwasher]

64. LOL!

You don't jack shit. Beholden??? :rofl:

What a dumbass.

[Luminous Animal]

62. It wasn't a grant, it was a contract to provide data analysis...

to an office under the purvey of the administration. Holy Crap. The gall of people who offer knee jerk opinion without doing any sort of research.
Holy Crap.

[Capers]

66. Boy, you sure look silly.

[amborin]

70. when researchers' research grants are funded by a corp, conflict of interest issues arise

if their research pertains in any way to the agenda or products of the funding institution

same thing may be the case here

full disclosure enters the picture: this institution funded my grant, so I may be biased in favor of its policies or agenda

[Juche]

33. Is this a scam

Are right wingers trying to turn progressives against each other or something?

I don't know enough about Gruber's independence, but I tend to believe Krugman since he has a history of being right and avoiding hyperbole.

[NJmaverick]

37. Now you are posting Liar Dog Lake crap here to smear Krugman?

:puke:

[Capers]

67. I posted truth and the truth smeared Krugman.

[Trillo]

40. Interesting point about New York Times.

I read another paragraph earlier today that also mentioned them.

These companies exist in a pathological world where identity and personal worth are determined solely by the perverted code of the corporation. The corporation decides who has value and who does not, who advances and who is left behind. It rewards the most compliant, craven and manipulative, and discards the losers who can’t play the game, those who do not accumulate wealth or status fast enough, or who fail to fully subsume their individuality into the corporate collective. It dominates the internal and external lives of its employees, leaving them without time for family or solitude—without time for self-reflection—and drives them into a state of perpetual nervous exhaustion. It breaks them down, especially in their early years in the firm, a period in which they are humiliated and pressured to work such long hours that many will sleep under their desks. This hazing process, one that is common at corporate newspapers where I worked, including The New York Times, eliminates from the system most of those with backbone, fortitude and dignity.

more @ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/wall_street_will_be_back_for_more_20100110/

Not saying I agree with the statement about the NYT, as I never worked there, instead I'm just noting a pattern.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. How is pointing out that the blogosphere is full of retards "circling the wagons"? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

46. Capers - you need to separate your own words from Marcy Wheeler and FDL...

in the link you posted to FDL, Marcy Wheeler never said that Gruber works for HHS.

She stated several times in her post that he had a contract and questioned why that fact was not disclosed.

Other people here have jumped on the bandwagon to attack Wheeler and FDL for things they have not done.

[Romulox]

49. Krugman is making a PR blunder by providing a national megaphone for his detractors.

:hi:

[Capers]

68. Krugman took a big chance when he jump in the shit with Obama.

Now he's afraid of losing his reputation so he's trying to get ahead of the truth.

[bvar22]

53. New Yrok Times Editorial Staff agrees with FDL:

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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/pageoneplus/corrections.html

FDL WINS on this one.
It DOES make a difference that Gruber was On the Payroll!!!

It would be better for Krugman to just quietly walk away from this one.

K&R

[EFerrari]

59. Yup.. K&R

[depakid]

60. There is a question re: "appearance of impropriety"

that ought to have been addressed- particularly given the history of such things over the past decade or so.

[amborin]

71. Kudos to FDL: Gruber failed to provide "full disclosure" ===very dishonest behavior

[unkachuck]

61. K&R....n/t