January 13, 2010
— Ace Yeah, I don't know what the hell's going on myself.
This is the sort of post that makes me wish I had a third ball and a swimming pool full of tapioca.
Gruber is the MIT guy who was paid -- well paid: $392,000, jack! -- by the White House to run supposed analyses of the economic and other effects of the White House health care proposals.
But this paid relationship was never disclosed to the public. And to sell the White House's proposals, they kept offering up MIT professor Gruber's supposedly objective, third-party analysis. And the media ate it up.
Now the, ahem, special relationship has been revealed -- but no one in the media is talking about it at all.
How the White House Used Gruber's Work to Create Appearance of Broad Consensus
...
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.
On 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 BarackObama.com.
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.
I'm stopping there, but she continues to document the White House-Gruber-Media love triangle. It goes on and on. White House pays a flack to write a report saying exactly what they want it to say, White House sends the report out to the media as objective verification, media publishes. And publishes. And publishes. And re-publishes and surreplublishes some more.
And now it's all exposed, and no one in the goddamn media has any questions about this at all.
Posted by: Ace at
03:26 PM
| Comments (159)
Post contains 690 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Alex at January 13, 2010 03:34 PM (wFWt7)
Posted by: CRU at January 13, 2010 03:34 PM (gJL6J)
Posted by: Bill D. Cat at January 13, 2010 03:34 PM (a9UO0)
Posted by: MIT Romney at January 13, 2010 03:35 PM (9J125)
Posted by: This Year's Global Warming at January 13, 2010 03:35 PM (Q41Zh)
Posted by: shibumi at January 13, 2010 03:35 PM (OKZrE)
Posted by: di butler/murderous bitch at January 13, 2010 03:36 PM (S3xX1)
I never want to eat tapioca again.
Regardless, file this under the media doesn't give a rat's ass about, Shit
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 13, 2010 03:36 PM (SYU4y)
Posted by: NYCcon at January 13, 2010 03:37 PM (jLXdE)
Posted by: Methos at January 13, 2010 03:38 PM (Xsi7M)
Posted by: dananjcon at January 13, 2010 03:39 PM (prWxk)
Posted by: Bosk at January 13, 2010 03:40 PM (pUO5u)
Thank goodness everyone else was thinking Die Hard too, I thought I had that movie too much on my brain.
I think Ms. Huffington may be souring on our awesome of awesomest President and his administration. Quick, they'd better invite her to spend the night at the White House or something.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at January 13, 2010 03:41 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at January 13, 2010 03:42 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: the Butcher at January 13, 2010 03:42 PM (8g9qq)
Also, I guess this puts to rest that rumor about Ace's three balls. The third nipple, though, that one's still true, right?
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at January 13, 2010 03:43 PM (RZ8pf)
And now it's all exposed, and no one in the goddamn media has any questions about this at all.
^
heh heh, I guess not
Posted by: Butters at January 13, 2010 03:44 PM (EQ+8c)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 13, 2010 03:44 PM (554T5)
Posted by: dananjcon at January 13, 2010 03:46 PM (prWxk)
Now that a few years have gone by, doesn't the Plame-Scooter affair seem so manufactured and silly?
Of course it does, what am I saying. It seemed that way back in 2004.
Posted by: Butters at January 13, 2010 03:47 PM (ewicX)
Don't forget the three legged dog reading that quotes Nietzsche .
Posted by: Sam at January 13, 2010 03:47 PM (Cxsey)
Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 03:47 PM (dQdrY)
Posted by: ace's third nipple at January 13, 2010 03:47 PM (2qU2d)
I swear there's a whole gob of people out there that would benefit from the 'Fist full of shirt/battered about the face and neck' approach to seeing things my way.
Posted by: BigWyo at January 13, 2010 03:47 PM (SafY+)
The New York Times gets scooped by Breitbart, Huffpo, hell, even the National Enquirer. What are those clowns doing over there, anyway? They're still a newspaper, aren't they? Or did they quietly become a karaoke club months ago and just not tell anyone?
At some point, somebody's gotta put down the hookah pipe and protect their phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen! Immediately! Immediately! Harrrumph! Harrrumph!! Hey, I didn't hear a harrumph out of that guy.
Watch your ass.
Posted by: William J. LePetomaine, Editor at January 13, 2010 03:48 PM (QKKT0)
Not only are all of Obama's policies failing right in front of their faces, these 'journalists' completely ignore this scandal-ridden administration and Congress.
When they're not ignoring the scandals, they're spinning excuses for the scandals.
Posted by: Butters at January 13, 2010 03:49 PM (ewicX)
http://tinyurl.com/ydz9xl8
Posted by: Rene LeDouche at January 13, 2010 03:49 PM (zJCRa)
Now that a few years have gone by, doesn't the Plame-Scooter affair seem so manufactured and silly?
Except no one will be going to prison for this. BTW, how's Fitzgerald doing tracking down the real killer the real Chicago corruption?
Posted by: andycanuck at January 13, 2010 03:49 PM (2qU2d)
Posted by: MSM at January 13, 2010 03:50 PM (Q41Zh)
I swear there's a whole gob of people out there that would benefit from the 'Fist full of shirt/battered about the face and neck' approach to seeing things my way.
Sounds good to me cause talking to or reasoning with them certainly does no good.....
Posted by: LGoPs at January 13, 2010 03:50 PM (v/rEn)
What's the big deal. It's only TAX MONEY paying for this.
Posted by: gus at January 13, 2010 03:50 PM (Vqruj)
Posted by: Chicago Rent-a-Thug at January 13, 2010 03:50 PM (aC0uO)
Posted by: Doctor B. H. Obama, as seen on TV! at January 13, 2010 03:52 PM (aC0uO)
Posted by: GregInSeattle at January 13, 2010 03:53 PM (B5cM9)
Posted by: Michael Steele at January 13, 2010 03:53 PM (LIH4p)
How the White House Used Gruber's Work to Create Appearance of Broad Consensus
What?!? Obama pays a hack to spin his political narrative?!? Say it ain't so.
The real surprise is that HuffPo actually published this.
Posted by: SFC MAC at January 13, 2010 03:53 PM (fD1Vj)
andy, as you know, over a year ago in December Fitzgerald and his colleagues stood there and said they had never seen this type of widespread corruption in their careers with the Justice Dept.
Yet the case seemed to evaporate along with the M.I.A. Patrick Fitzgerald as soon as Rahm Emmanuel's name mentioned.
Posted by: Butters at January 13, 2010 03:53 PM (EQ+8c)
Posted by: Michael Mann's Hockey Stick at January 13, 2010 03:55 PM (xJ9ip)
That's unpossible.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 13, 2010 03:56 PM (6Hbvd)
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
I thought Democrats hated sole source contracts. Isn't that one of the reasons they went banshee on Halliburton? Oops! Sorry, there I go using logic again. I'm a bad conservative......baaaad conservative.
Posted by: LGoPs at January 13, 2010 03:56 PM (v/rEn)
Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 03:58 PM (dQdrY)
Oy. I sort of missed the controversy over Jon Gruber and his contract with HHS. For those who haven’t been following this, Gruber — who is one of the three or four top health care economists in the nation —
turns out to have a large research grant from the Department of Health and Human Services, for modeling the consequences of various reform .
The truth is that this is no big deal. GruberÂ’s grant is from HHS, not the West Wing; itÂ’s basically the same kind of thing as, say, an epidemiologist receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
You wouldnÂ’t ordinarily say that this tarnishes the epidemiologistÂ’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: itÂ’s hard to think of who else could be doing the work better. And his position on reform has been entirely consistent.
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
krugmans response
Posted by: willow at January 13, 2010 03:59 PM (7FgWm)
This is the sort of post that makes me wish I had a third ball and a swimming pool full of tapioca.
Why do you need a special post to feel this way? I've always wanted a third ball and a pool full of tapioca.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b+/tard at January 13, 2010 04:00 PM (IoUF1)
Posted by: dananjcon at January 13, 2010 04:00 PM (prWxk)
10 So, what Orwell book are we living in, 1984 or Animal Farm? I'm getting confused here.
Neither. It's Dante's Inferno. I don't even think we've crossed the river Styx yet.
Posted by: Dang at January 13, 2010 04:01 PM (UA4gE)
But this Gruber crap - meh, move along, nothing to see here.
Posted by: Intrepid at January 13, 2010 04:01 PM (92zkk)
Posted by: Urquhart at January 13, 2010 04:02 PM (Y/yU3)
Well, I look at it this way...If yer dog keeps shitting on the carpet, you can yell at it all day long and it'll take a crap on your floor while yer doing it. A good hoover maneuver in said shit accompanied with some serious 'I'm really pissed off right now' yelling does the trick.
Posted by: BigWyo at January 13, 2010 04:03 PM (SafY+)
Posted by: Bugler at January 13, 2010 04:03 PM (YCVBL)
Remember a few years back when it was revealed the Pentagon was paying certain commentators/journalists to write positive stories about the war effort. remember the absolute $h!t-storm the mainstream media kicked up about that?
This? Nary a peep. Figures...
Posted by: Cicero at January 13, 2010 04:04 PM (BMtTl)
Holy balls, this bitch is dumb even for a Masshole libtard.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b+/tard at January 13, 2010 04:05 PM (IoUF1)
Posted by: John Galt at January 13, 2010 04:08 PM (Ylv1H)
The truth is that this is no big deal. GruberÂ’s grant is from HHS, not the West Wing; itÂ’s basically the same kind of thing as, say, an epidemiologist receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
When did Orszag join HHS? That would seem at least an appearance of impropriety.
Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 04:08 PM (dQdrY)
wow...just wow
oh well, strange bedfellows and all that -- glad it got exposed; too bad it isn't going to get more exposure but the media is the media...the bastards
Posted by: unknown jane at January 13, 2010 04:10 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Railwriter at January 13, 2010 04:12 PM (daRzV)
Having spent about five years doing computer work around HHS in the '90s, I didn't find anything at all shocking about what Gruber did. Health economics and other social science disciplines that concentrate on public health administration are a cesspool of marxist nomenklatura-in-waiting funded entirely by the taxpayer's dime.
These guys move freely from schools to government jobs to contracting jobs to consulting jobs to political appointments to medical industry. The incest is epic, and there is no way in hell anyone could ever enumerate the conflicts of interest.
They run studies, they collect and crunch data, they model costs vs. outcomes, and they publish in the big circle-jerk of peer-reviewed public policy journals.
But they rarely do any of this to solve health problems in the real world. They do this primarily to justify their jobs and whatever medical pork any given DC looter wants to grab.
Well, the joke is on them. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi loot at will and don't need no steenkin' justification. And, should single-payer ever come to be, the health economists won't have private industry to kick-around anymore, and that's about the only thing they know how to do.
Posted by: MikeO at January 13, 2010 04:13 PM (Ce+tv)
Posted by: hairy reed at January 13, 2010 04:13 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: rawmuse at January 13, 2010 04:14 PM (NhERI)
Posted by: GregInSeattle at January 13, 2010 04:14 PM (B5cM9)
They hired an economist to serve as a publicist. Before this, they tried to use the NEA to give grants to artists to serve as their publicists.
Posted by: Never Mind at January 13, 2010 04:14 PM (cBzdl)
Posted by: Railwriter at January 13, 2010 04:14 PM (daRzV)
Posted by: Madame Speaker Pelosi at January 13, 2010 04:16 PM (UdCPj)
Hamster's probably apeshit because
1. he's not sufficiently liberal and
2. didn't come over to her house for a sleepover and tell her all his secrets
Posted by: Truman North at January 13, 2010 04:17 PM (FjC5u)
Posted by: nickless at January 13, 2010 04:17 PM (MMC8r)
72 DAyum, that almost makes me kinda sad for them -- stuck in dead end jobs that a self immolating, working for masters that slit their throats even as they do their utmost to remain loyal...
Ok, maybe that was all just a bunch of sarcastic horseshit on my part, and maybe I could give a rat's behind if these weasels are the mechanics who tune up the bus that eventually runs over them!
Posted by: unknown jane at January 13, 2010 04:17 PM (5/yRG)
Besides this latest dishonesty and cover-up what I'd like to know is why is nobody trumpeting facts about the orders of magnitude under-estimates for similar programs in the past. Like Medicare, like Medicaid, like SSS. The numbers should be easy to find and better yet the comparison's would fit on a bumper sticker - which is as complex as the American people seem to be able to focus on anyway.
Show that Medicare was opriginally estimated to cost $50 billion and in reality costs $500 billion now, or whatever the real number is. And then compare it to $1 trillion estimated for Obamacare and inflate it by a factor of 10. That should get people's attention.
Posted by: LGoPs at January 13, 2010 04:21 PM (tm/sN)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 13, 2010 04:21 PM (5/yRG)
If you have nothing to hide, then why hide?
Bah, now I know what a TV dinner feels like.
Posted by: Lincoln Adams at January 13, 2010 04:21 PM (gLNLT)
What a sham.
Is the Brown campaign paying attention to this stuff? I hope they're working with their media people using their $1.3 million splicing together an ad that highlights this crap just to drive the point home down the stretch.
Step on their throats and don't let up. The stakes are too high.
Posted by: Olliander at January 13, 2010 04:23 PM (UdCPj)
Posted by: ccruse456 at January 13, 2010 04:25 PM (UNvcb)
I left a comment explaining why I am a tea party patriot and saying the WH is directing this op not the banks, the banks are doping what comes natural the problem is the WH and I will not be deterred...
I think some folks want to have leverage to improve the HCR bill and some want to use the Tea Party people to push for bank bonus taxes and add to their populist mvmt, and some just want to coopt it or derail it from within
we will not be distracted. we will do what we do since it is natural, lol, and they can move to our position or not, up to them
country first
Posted by: ginaswo/MiM at January 13, 2010 04:25 PM (95tho)
Two reasons:
1) Health Care Reform is going to be Barry's "legacy". MSM can't deny him that. They created him.
2) The MSM isn't going to admit they've been used. The public is already well aware they're Obama's whores. Why rub the public's face in it?
Posted by: GarandFan at January 13, 2010 04:27 PM (ZQBnQ)
It is a very bad sign when MIT is for sale.
But they will make up for it when they finally predict the massive solar flare that wipes out all life on earth, with the help of a 10 year old girl.
Posted by: Vic at January 13, 2010 04:29 PM (QrA9E)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 13, 2010 04:30 PM (DIYmd)
This is the sort of post that makes me wish I had a third ball and a swimming pool full of tapioca.
Welcome to the party, pal!
Posted by: Blogluddite at January 13, 2010 04:30 PM (JwmYb)
First Jane uses the word, horseshit, and then she uses the words, rat's behind, instead of the words, rat's ass. A woman's prerogative to be goofy, I suppose.
Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 13, 2010 04:31 PM (ITzbJ)
But they will make up for it when they finally predict the massive solar flare that wipes out all life on earth, with the help of a 10 year old girl.
Posted by: Vic at January 13, 2010 08:29 PM (QrA9E)
At least we have that to look forward to.
Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 04:32 PM (dQdrY)
Geez Louise. Yes, that's exactly what I'm gonna say, Willow. If you read what's been leaked about how grant-awarding committees work, the clear inference seems to be that nobody gets a *government* grant (for anything significant, at least) unless the approving authority knows what he expects to find *and approves that expected result.* And every grant recipient knows that if they publish a result that isn't completely consistent with what they essentially promise, they sure as hell won't get any *more* grants.
Example: The theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Posted by: sf at January 13, 2010 04:34 PM (xz5dP)
You'd think someone at MIT would take a dim view of this boob whoring himself to Ofucktard.
Wait, MIT is a University.
My bad.
Posted by: gus at January 13, 2010 04:35 PM (Vqruj)
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad "Name in Lights " Max at January 13, 2010 04:36 PM (aC0uO)
Posted by: sf at January 13, 2010 08:34 PM (xz5dP)
Yeah, something about one's research impacting pending super legislation, tends to move it into a category of its own.
Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 04:36 PM (dQdrY)
This one is a case where we do not have to postulate a "what if" for the Republicans. Does everyone remember the hue and c ry raised by the Dems when it was discovered that Armstrong Williams had been paid to promote the BS No Child Legislation.
His was case of paying an opinion columnist to promote a bill, whereas eher we have a case of them paying an "economist" to gin up some phoney numbers. i.e. fraud.
Posted by: Vic at January 13, 2010 04:37 PM (QrA9E)
Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 04:39 PM (dQdrY)
Vic. Listen very carefully. Obama is a CHICAGO POLITICIAN. Chicago politicians get what they want by BRIBERY, by THUGGERY and by threats BIG and SMALL. Rahm Emanuel is a CHICAGO POLITICIAN.
Have you ever seen Rahm Emanuel?? He is not a nice man.
So here is the deal VIC. They will buy you. And if you cannot be bought, they will threaten you. They know no other way.
BTW. They don't mind BUYING you, because it's not their money.
Posted by: gus at January 13, 2010 04:41 PM (Vqruj)
I think that if this country survives this administration we will find in the end that the corruption will put the Teapot Dome scandle to shame.
We are seeing fraud and corruption in epic proportions noew and in some cases they are not even trying to hide it. I am simply astounded that they talk about accepting bribes for voting on a bill without even a blush.
Posted by: Vic at January 13, 2010 04:41 PM (QrA9E)
That was totally unhelpful. I mean, who the fuck doesn't?
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 13, 2010 04:42 PM (qWLc4)
ya know, i've only been following politics for 3 years, (i know, i know)
I cannot understand with all the lies, corruption, that more seasoned pundits have learned, how you guys stay sane, it's so disheartening to me.
Posted by: willow at January 13, 2010 04:43 PM (7FgWm)
Vic. Listen very carefully. Obama is a CHICAGO POLITICIAN. Chicago politicians get what they want by BRIBERY, by THUGGERY and by threats BIG and SMALL. Rahm Emanuel is a CHICAGO POLITICIAN.
Have you ever seen Rahm Emanuel?? He is not a nice man.
So here is the deal VIC. They will buy you. And if you cannot be bought, they will threaten you. They know no other way.
BTW. They don't mind BUYING you, because it's not their money.
Posted by: gus at January 13, 2010 08:41 PM (Vqruj)
Trump is trump.
Posted by: Itchy at January 13, 2010 04:45 PM (qWLc4)
I think we'll only be 90% of GDP in debt this year, but 100% isn't too far away.
At least in the end, there will be only chaos.
Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at January 13, 2010 04:45 PM (otlXg)
Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner At Large at January 13, 2010 04:46 PM (erIg9)
Hey, it's the Chicago way.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 13, 2010 04:47 PM (554T5)
Posted by: gus at January 13, 2010 08:41 PM (Vqruj)
Actually, The Precedent is more of an Indonesian politician, but they are as dirty as the Chicago thugs. The only difference is that Chicago politicans are greedy and corrupt and stupid while the Indonesian type are more anti-American and revenge-seeking, along with being greedy and corrupt and stupid.
Posted by: Jerry Brown at January 13, 2010 04:49 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: LGoPs at January 13, 2010 04:53 PM (tm/sN)
I am shocked and honest liberal.
Surprised and happy to see it. Maybe the rest of the MSM will start to stop sucking The One's dick and report facts. I guess that will happen when his approvals get to 30%.
Shit next thing you know Al Gore will admit the hockey stick is bull shit.
Nah, I dreaming.
Posted by: Kemp at January 13, 2010 04:53 PM (2+9Yx)
Posted by: Barack Vissarionovich Obama at January 13, 2010 04:58 PM (aC0uO)
It'll never happen. We will be hearing the continuing over-the-top ultra-positive coverage of Obama 40 years from now. No matter how big of a disaster he obviously is.
Posted by: kefka at January 13, 2010 04:59 PM (n1uMU)
Interesting, Krugman quotes firedoglake, guess he and the Times hacks read it.
Er, when was the last time this dickhead quoted a conservative blog? or read one?
And, he is pissed about it. The cult all read the same shit. His buddies are ragging his dishonest ass.
Go Jane Go! Your hits go up the more honest you are.
I mean honestly on a liberal blog, first time evah!
Posted by: Kemp at January 13, 2010 05:03 PM (2+9Yx)
I've been loosely following Hamsher's scribblings for a couple of months and she's been "off the reservation" for a while now on this health care thing. The HuffPo has also been dabbling with occasional heresy here and there for a few months too.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 13, 2010 05:08 PM (G9JvI)
ItÂ’s not that much money in the scheme of things, but it's enough to open a
clinic in a poor neighborhood.
Which beats paying a guy $400k to tell us that we should open a clinic in a poor neighborhood.
Posted by: Noel at January 13, 2010 05:16 PM (Hh13R)
Wallace is fat.
Posted by: curious at January 13, 2010 05:17 PM (p302b)
Posted by: A Casual Observation at January 13, 2010 05:20 PM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: Frank Booth at January 13, 2010 05:20 PM (C39a6)
Posted by: Noel at January 13, 2010 05:22 PM (Hh13R)
Posted by: Wind Rider at January 13, 2010 05:23 PM (DPTD6)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 13, 2010 05:24 PM (G9JvI)
Posted by: Frank Booth at January 13, 2010 05:25 PM (C39a6)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 13, 2010 05:29 PM (G9JvI)
Posted by: eman at January 13, 2010 05:32 PM (bcTXf)
Don't get me started on the grants. While I was at HHS, somebody mistakenly dropped a pile of IT-related grant applications on my desk once for evaluation notes. I started reading through them, and you will never believe how shitty these requests looked.
These people needed editors and spell-check something fierce. There were plenty of them written worse than some of the drunk comments on the ONT. Many of the forms were hand-written with terrible penmanship.
These were applications for significant (to me) amounts of taxpayer money to do jack shit. You'd think they'd at least make them look pretty. When I gave my boss a WTF?, he told me that somebody screwed-up by giving them to me. Not that anyone was hiding anything--just that it wasn't part of our shop's job.
I learned later that the grants for the smaller amounts (less than $25k at the time, IIRC) were pretty much automatically awarded, and higher amounts required sign-off from higher-level government employees and some documentation to cover people's asses.
There was a lot of casual fraud such as applicants breaking their grant requests into multiple small ones spread across different HHS agencies.
The grants administration people I knew considered the applicants their "clients" and couldn't award-out taxpayer money fast enough for their tastes.
Posted by: MikeO at January 13, 2010 05:44 PM (Ce+tv)
Posted by: logprof at January 13, 2010 05:45 PM (gJL6J)
This is the most tiresome thing currently happening in America: the utter abdication of their duty and to the public trust, by the American press. They are too arrogant and too out of touch to realize that it's past time for them to START ASKING THIS PRESIDENT SOME FUCKING QUESTIONS.
Posted by: Thea at January 13, 2010 05:51 PM (/3dGX)
Posted by: ParisParamus at January 13, 2010 05:55 PM (Hv1Cx)
No they aren't. The lefties are in a snit because they're not getting their nationalized health care openly and as fast as they want it.
None of this would be coming out if they didn't feel all outrageously outraged about that.
It's got nothing to do with good government, honesty, ethics, citizenship or anything else some of you want to credit them with.
Their current temper tantrum happens to benefit our cause, that's all. Tomorrow they'll be right back to telling their lies. They aren't our friends, nor are they trustworthy. They never will be.
Posted by: Warden at January 13, 2010 06:18 PM (QoR4a)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 13, 2010 06:22 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: Ethanmorse at January 13, 2010 06:49 PM (W8lBd)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 13, 2010 06:51 PM (WHpnp)
When you read the Spendulus legislation carefully, you notice that the "mandatory" public web site reporting is waived for smaller amounts. Obviously anyone with a few neurons firing will submit several grant proposals couched in fluffy language about "implementation phases" to avoid having any scrutiny.
This is apparently a pretty common ploy with grant proposals.
Meanwhile...Dept of Energy is sucking canal water and still cant get the Spendulus promised money for grants to hand out for useful scientific R&D.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 13, 2010 07:09 PM (G9JvI)
Posted by: stace at January 13, 2010 07:35 PM (g/wgk)
Didn't DoEnergy just award $7million to an empty store front?
Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 07:36 PM (dQdrY)
The underlying data and methods weren't made public. The source of the funding turns out to have been questionable.
The media repeatedly referenced the conclusions of the paper, parroting the party line without questioning anything because the source couldn't possibly have been wrong.
Some questionable background about the study becomes public, and the mainstream media says nothing.
Nobody dares question the findings of the study, because, after all, the author was a respected scientist from a top flight academic institution. Should questions arise later, that of course won't taint the findings, because the science is settled.
This is all a metaphor for something, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
Posted by: random at January 13, 2010 07:41 PM (mhbHz)
Maybe, but it wasn't MY freaking storefront, which would have been ummm OK ;->.
For $7M in DoE bucks, we could have gotten a nice used SEM, some spectroscopy gear, had a bunch of fancy optics for our laser built, put to together a pilot manufacturing line and been cranking out product by the end of the year. But no...we're still sipping air.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 13, 2010 07:57 PM (G9JvI)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 13, 2010 11:57 PM (G9JvI)
Why not just tell them you are working on laser fusion?
Posted by: OokOok at January 13, 2010 07:59 PM (dQdrY)
Posted by: sexypig at January 13, 2010 11:22 PM (0t7L8)
Posted by: Patton at January 13, 2010 11:43 PM (xvN1A)
Thanks for the inside skinny. I have seen exactly the same shit in my neck of the woods. The entire fraking Federal Government works this way, I swear! The amount of waste and inside dealing is incomprehensible to the average taxpayer. The problem is that it is so endemic that you either join in or leave because it is intolerable to anyone with a modicum of moral fiber. This problem coupled with the trend of the Government evaporating the private sector poses the greatest danger to society. The Islamists threat palls in comparison to the damage that business as usual in Washington and it's attendant environs represents. You can kill or imprison the Islamisits (well up to now, anyway) but the Gov owns you and takes care of your mother.
Posted by: Pawn at January 14, 2010 12:30 AM (eJXbB)
Posted by: Lee at January 14, 2010 02:29 AM (8cnnJ)
The recycling of a single report is common in DC. The majority usually uses it over and over. Usually the White House will lead with it, but it's pretty rare to see them lead with a report from a guy on their payroll. Furthermore, the HHS even used the report and never thought about mentioning how they paid the guy to write it.
I'm starting to wonder if the actual agency heads in the executive branch have any power at all. It's starting to look like all the czars in the White House are running every fucking branch.
Posted by: WTFCI at January 14, 2010 04:20 AM (EbpbH)
Posted by: Justin Camp at January 14, 2010 05:07 AM (nF4Jh)
"And now it's all exposed, and no one in the goddamn media has any questions about this at all."
I know, it's quite maddening...same damn thing happened with that Armstrong Williams thing...er...ohhhh....
Posted by: Tongueboy at January 14, 2010 05:45 AM (U1Ib2)
Krugman at the NYT was none too pleased with Hamsher calling out Obama's hired gun Gruber.
Poll: Who is the bigger douche? Paul Krugman or Frank Rich? It's close. Some would add Maureen Dowd to make it a triumverate, but she's just a dried up twat, not quite douche worthy.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 14, 2010 06:50 AM (ujg0T)
"Hey Paul, got something for you. I've had the lawyers look over our contracts, and our rights to your work, and I've decided to carve it up and sell it all to Iowahawk and The Onion for a buck each. No, you can't bid. Yes, this is pure spite. Now, can you ask Frank to come in here?"
Posted by: mrkwong at January 14, 2010 09:37 AM (G8Eo0)
Posted by: Loyola at January 15, 2010 11:10 AM (PxQsG)
Posted by: polo boots at November 26, 2010 12:07 AM (ZSsvq)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2258 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








--Almost as "special" as the relationship between Colt McCoy and Jordan Shipley
Posted by: Brent Musberger at January 13, 2010 03:30 PM (gJL6J)