Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius in reference to Jonathan Gruber’s failure to disclose his financial relationship with the Obama administration when he was testifying before the Senate Finance Committee. It appears that, at the time, Sen. Grassley was unaware Gruber had been given a lucrative, sole source contract by the HHS to do analysis of the “President’s health reform proposal.”
The letter reads:
The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201Dear Secretary Sebelius:
As the senior senator from Iowa and Ranking Member of the United States
Committee on Finance (Committee), I have a duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch, including the activities of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department). This duty includes monitoring HHS activities and conducting oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used appropriately.I write concerning Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jonathan Gruber’s relationships with HHS. Recent reports state that Professor Gruber received nearly $400,000 from HHS in exchange for his providing assistance in evaluating Congress’s various health care reform proposals. During this same time, he was active in promoting and defending the Administration’s preferred health care policies both before Congress and in the media. This includes Dr. Gruber’s participation in the Committee’s May 12, 2009, Roundtable Discussion entitled “Financing Comprehensive Health Care Reform.” On occasions such as this one, it appears that Professor Gruber advanced the Administration’s agenda without disclosing the fact that he was receiving federal remuneration.
For years, I have advocated for transparency in the operation of government and in the use of taxpayer dollars. While it is questionable for Professor Gruber to advocate Administration positions in the media without disclosing his financial ties to the Administration, I am especially concerned by his advocacy before the United States Congress. When an academic leader comes before Congress to advocate a position, Congress should have confidence that he or she is independent and not being paid to assist the Administration. In this case, it appears that neither Professor Gruber nor the Department found it worth informing Congress of his substantial ties in advance of, or any time after, his testimony.
Senator Mike Enzi wrote to you yesterday requesting information concerning Professor Gruber’s relationship with the Department. Today, I write to ask that you require any individuals under contract with your Department to disclose that fact publicly to the Committee prior to any testimony before Congress. I also request that you provide a full list of individuals who are currently under contract, or have been under contract at any point within the past year, to assist the Department in any aspect of the health care reform process.
As I am sure you will agree, this is the clearest way of ensuring full transparency and preventing future questions about taxpayer funds and those advocating positions before Congress. If the health care debate has shown us anything, it is that our government can greatly benefit from more openness and transparency.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I request that your agency provide a response by no later than February 5, 2010. []
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member



60 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Oh well, even if it is an R, it’s still interesting.
Can’t wait to see the comments in this secion.
*going to prepare popcorn*
Sorry to barge in re: another topic – anyone know if Teddy who’s doing the liveblogging has lost his connection? I can’t get the page to re-load anything but what was up there at 12:30. Thx
“For years, I have advocated for transparency in the operation of government and in the use of taxpayer dollars.”
That’s rich. Where was he during the last administration?
Teddy breaks his live blog up into several parts you may want to see if he started another entry
Never forget the final amendment to the U.S. Constitution… IOKIYAR
Yes, transparency–where is it? Did this guy really think we all knew he was being paid big bucks to support this health care train wreck. All I can think is that he is set for life with his payments and we are struggling to feed our families, pay our rent and forget health care. Anyone else feel as discouraged as I do?
O/T Jon, but I noticed some of your posts indicated a willingness to end the filibuster (something I’ve LONG been in favor of), and wanted to do a what if with you.
If the Republicans won a significant popular vote and landslide electoral victory for President, and that victory was accompanied by huge Republican margins in the House and 59 Republican Senators; and if those 41 Democrats in the Senate then filibustered everything like the R’s are doing today; how long do you think it would be before the Republicans did away with it?
I’m guessing less than a year, and given that, I’m still wondering why some on “our” side don’t support it now. Because I’m telling you, if the roles were reversed, the filibuster would already be gone. WTF is it with Democrats anyway?? Their lack of spine is now way past getting old and moved far into it’s really fucking annoying territory.
Sorry for the OT.
Nope. I am checking frequently and the latest on the Prop H8 page is part 2 which was this morning’s.
Be careful about Grassley. Before I testified not too many years ago I had to submit a form providing information about any Federal grant dough I had the benefit of, either directly or through my employer. It’s possible Gruber provided this info to the committee before participating in the hearing the senator cites.
(Full disclosure: I agree w/the Krugman comment on this and hope the Dems pass the Senate plan, naturally including whatever concessions they are obliged to give the House.)
I would love to see this bill killed as I don’t think my family can pay for the insurance even with a subsidy. Even if we could afford the insurance, I wonder if we can even afford the cost of the health care–scared is not the word for how we feel. Maybe I don’t understand how it going to work but when I go to the websites that give a little info about what it will cost and what it will do, we think we are going to be in trouble. Any info you can provide to reassure us?
As I left in the comment section of a post that seems to have disappeared (premature epublication?), Marcy should check to see if Gruber did any consulting for insurance corps earlier in his career before he became the darling of the neolibs.
No bill with paid shills!!!
Credit due to FDL and MTWheeler for pushing this subject and crunching the numbers in an additive manner.
Part 3 just came up.
Hey, what part of pimping the insurance corp line thru the federal govt paid for by taxpayer $$ do you find hard to understand?
Another letter between Villagers. Perhaps if they quit writing CMA letters they might actually get something worthwhile done in that fuckin’ swamp.
We’ve got plenty of swamps down here but the gators aren’t gonna be whispering sweet nothings in my ear before takin’ a bite outta my ass.
I’ll take 4000 square miles of gators, snakes and frogs that bite over the Village any day.
The one where they have their hand on my wallet. *g*
I am not argung against transparency by no means, but each and every time the republicans start arguing for oversight the hypocrisy makes my stomach ill. If we could have had transparency over the last 8 years things may not have gotten as bad as they are now. But then again…..
First Norquist, now Grassley…keep up the good work and maybe you can get Boehner, Cantor and Inhofe on board, too! Awesome work, FDL–talk about a Dream Team!!!
Fixed it for you. *g*
I’m telling you, this is one of the most “audacious” scams that anyone has tracked down that I’m aware of.
Yeah, good point.
Almost as impressive as the dream team that’s fucking all of America right now made up of Obama, Emanuel, Lieberman, Nelson, Reid, et al. Not quite as impressive though. This dream team not only gives corporations everything they want, they now make every American citizen pay an annual tribute to them!!!!!
Hah!! Top that Boehner, Cantor, Inhofe, and Grassley!!!!
As I said yesterday, you can’t have independent analysis if the group paying for the analysis has a vested interested.
And the circular logic of Rahm/HHS paying Gruber to praise the excise tax and then citing his articles as evidence that the tax is good is really too Bush-esque.
Bastards… I am so angry at the way this once-in-a-generation healthcare reform opportunity has been a sellout of the middle class to the vested corporate interests.
Thanks Rahm and Obama! The audacity of campaign lies….
If the Republicans had tried this, we’d be freaking out. At least we are consistent enough to freak out now too.
I was disappointed there wasn’t more freaking out about the secret deals O made with PhRMA and insurance corps, earlier. And, unlike Cheney’s meeting with energy insiders, no one tried to sue O.
Amen to that.
I never really believed that liberals/Democrats had a huge following of “Anything is ok if MY team does it” folks until the current health care debate. I mean I got enough of that shit the last eight years from Republicans. Now to discover “our” side is full of those same types??? Discouraging indeed.
It seems integrity is not only lacking in our elected pols, but also in many of those that elect them.
Remember kids, the Republican’s faux-populism would never even rear its ugly head if we’d all just shut up and toe the party line.
My wingnut son once said to me: “My country right or wrong.” I retorted that was a surefire way of getting your country wrong. Didn’t make any impression on him though, except maybe during D admins.
Enuf said. Mum’s the word. /s
lol, I do it too everytime I comment about it, but I wonder why we still use the word “secret” to describe those deals?
Grassley is great on health care conflicts-of-interest. I also want to know all the data that Gruber provided to the White House. I want to know what was kept quiet. Based on Gruber’s previous research I suspect the number of people remaining uninsured and the number of employers who will drop coverage are higher than CBO projected.
Secret because we’re still not sure exactly what the deals involve. We only know what they tell us what the deals involved, and we all know how accurate “what they tell us” is.
You could also try “little known”, or “little noticed”, but eCAHN’s hit the nail on the head, there.
But I thought all healthcare negotiations were being shown on C-Span??? There MUST be some tape of it somewhere!! /s
Yeah, I see your point. I was limiting the phrase to the existence of the deals, rather than the substance of them.
You and the gang here sure are working very hard to give them the opportunity to “top that,” my hyperbolic fat friend. Short memory to go along with your eating/glandular disorder, I suppose. But then there’s “no difference” between the two parties and all that, right? So bring on 8 years of Thune/Romney–that’ll show ‘em! Only when America is completely destroyed can it be saved…by Dennis Kucinich, of course
So, it appears you are saying that the Obama Administration is so fragile that any attempts to hold it to stated campaign goals that if elected, transparency in government would be the watchword, are now cause for it to collapse and the Rs will win no matter who they run?
Sorry, but I was not in favor of folks rubber stamping the previous admin actions because they were in the same political party and I will not do so now just because there’s a D next to the name.
Hard to get more completely destroyed than when Obama argued before the SCOTUS (and basically won) that he has the unchallengable authority to sign a piece of paper making a person a “non-person” and therefore not subject to any rights of the Constitution. That one would make Thune/Romney/ and even Bush and Cheney proud right there. One signature and you’re a non-person. He ended the rights of everyone in the entire Constitution all at once.
And for extra fun, we get to be told that medical bankruptcies will continue to occur, deaths due to a lack of health care will continue to occur, and not only that but we all MUST pay tribute to the same corporations that were responsible for all of that misery and suffering to begin with.
Hard to see how the Rethugs could destroy the country any more efficiently and effectively. But we’ll likely see come November 2010 and 2012. And the Democrats will deserve every loss they incur.
But hey, keep on supporting the trashing of the constitution, the refusal to reform health care, and the new and exciting precedent of being forced to purchase goods and services from private entities. After all, it’s all good if it’s Democrats that do it, right???
OFG’s comment must have needled you, as that reply’s not so much a strawman, as a haystack.
Welcome: lots of people are scared … there is lots of serious analysis here at fdl *with* hard numbers. Check out the War Room page ~ there’s a link on the FDL home page. Kill the Bill!!
Bingo.
Thank you, Senator Grassley. [Though you should've practiced what you preach here, during those long months of closed-door, off-the-record meetings you willingly participated in last year with a select, chosen few of your Finance Committee colleagues - in the process creating a convenient delay that probably enabled Gruber & Co. to finish crunching their contracted numbers for the administration's preferred policy.]
[Aside to OFG @ 7: The Republicans have yet to actually "filibuster" a single bill (or nomination) in the Senate since the Democrats took over in early 2007. That's the real problem that needs addressing. A problem that has led to the Senate now defaulting to supermajority 60-vote thresholds by unanimous consent for passage of the few floor amendments that were allowed to be offered on the Senate health reform legislation. Do read this important, misdirection-piercing post, if you haven't already.]
I think you are referring to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, not SCOTUS: http://rawstory.com/2010/01/court-ruling-finds-obamas-detention-powers-limited-laws-war/
This ruling pertains to non-citizens, not “everyone in the entire Constitution all at once.” Not saying I agree with the ruling but do get your facts straight.
Um…no. But I am saying that is the not-so-secret wish of Jane and a lot of the Firebaggers round these parts. You can read it for yourself on a daily basis.
Disliking the execrable crap that Obama Admin is supporting does not equate with “a secret wish” by anyone here. If Obama had just followed through on his campaign promises of what he did and did not support, folks here would have been, if not happy, at least mollified. As it is, he and his admin have chosen the path to appease the Blue Dogs and Republicans rather than actually fight for what were supposed to be his ideals.
Sorry if I and others are not Democratic Party cheerleaders. They have to earn the cheers, they don’t get them because of a D next to their names.
Some information about other work that Dr. Gruber has done may be found in a comment that I posted earlier elsewhere.I may be able to provide some additional information on Dr. Gruber’s other work soon.
There is also some analysis of his appearance on “The News Hour” With Josh Bivens. This may be found here,along with a link to the clip from “The News Hour”.
LINK:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/12/jonathan-gruber-paid-consultant-to-the-obama-administration/#comment-80451
*Firebaggers* ?????! HaHaHa!
No, not referring to that one, although that is yet ANOTHER in the many cases of Obama arguing the same bullshit that Bush argued. But we aren’t supposed to mention that right? After all, we’re supposed to just STFU when it’s a D in power, else those dreaded, nasty R’s might get back in, right?
No here is link explaining the case I was talking about, when the SCOTUS in December took Obama’s side and declined to hear the appeal of a lower court’s ruling that said basically whenever someone is declared an “enemy combatant” that they are then “non-persons” and therefore not subject to any Constitutional protections. Oh, and it’s the Obama administration that has the sole authority to declare one a “non-person” or “enemy combatant” if you prefer that title.
If you’re going to cheerlead for the guy, you should at least keep up with all the shit you’re cheerleading for.
It’s possible Gruber provided this info to the committee before participating in the hearing the senator cites
And if he didn’t?
OFG and dakine01 — You guys nailed it. Spot-on.
The term “firebaggers” might get catch on to describe a populist uprising led from the left. Sounds good to me. If it did, the irony would surely burn Tomvox1.
Two bins are necessary to get-r-dun right wrt this.
Bin 1: Contains what you’re cheer leading for.
Bin 2. Contains that which has not been done (or that is to be ignored if
it has actually been done).
Dump on ground sort through, then post.
Not efficient, and corner cutting leads to posts which are seen to missing facts, or have the right facts in the wrong place.
You tell ‘em!
When we clear away the PR fluff and the verbiage, how has Obama’s term differed substantively from a hypothetical Bush third term? What has changed. much less improved? Civil liberties? The wars? The economy? Health care? No–all more of the same. The only thing that I can see as an improvement is that our current head of state seems less likely to drop trou and moon the visiting dignitaries at state dinners. So Romney or whomever the Republicans put up can hardly be any worse. In fact, it’s hard to see what will be left to destroy in America after Obama, Reid, and the Goldman gang are finished.
I’ve voted Democratic in every election for the last 35 years. Needless to say, I’ve bit my lip and voted for one compromise after another, each worse than the last, each less honest and more closely tailored to meet the demands of the corporations and their uberwealthy masters. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it may as well be drawn in 2010. Never has the dishonesty been so clearcut. Never have the consequences of Democratic betrayals been so obvious. And never have the chances of hitting back in clear, unequivocal, and decisive fashion been so good. If Kos’ polling results are correct, 45% of the Democratic Party has already come to the same conclusion.
No thanks.
Seriously, the people saying that FDL bloggers are acting like a bunch of kids need to stop, you know, acting like a bunch of kids.
say please.
does anyone really belive that grassley didnt know about this? wasnt greassley the original “bi partisan” ?
I’m not really sure you “get” irony, BJ…
They’re doing what I expect an opposition party to do – trying to find fault with how their opponents are running things. I wish the Democrats would have been more assertive when they were in the minority.
just spray some water on your bags, and worry about your own life. if you thing everythings just fine, then just continue doing nothing about it.
Sen. Enzi’s letter to Sebelius is a bit more inflammatory.
http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=23326833-802a-23ad-4d96-9cb756b8921d
Perhaps for good reason:
I’m glad to see Enzi’s not prepared to wait weeks for an answer, at least not this time around. That letter is going to get them hopping at HHS. Galling for Enzi, if he really did ask the right question at the right time, and for his efforts was treated to an administration lie of omission in response.
But that’s what happens, Republicans (and Democrats), when the Congress decides to turn itself into a Party playground interested only in empowering and serving (or superficially skewering for Party gain) the Executive Branch of government. Chickens coming home to roost.
In 1917, a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democratic Senate[16] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson.[17] From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting. Despite the formal requirement, however, political scientist David Mayhew has argued that in actual practice, it was unclear whether a filibuster could actually be sustained against majority opposition.[18]
In 1946, Southern Senators blocked a vote on a bill proposed by Democrat Dennis Chavez of New Mexico (S. 101) that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the work place. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chavez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters led by Southern Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, a “tracking” system devised by then Majority Whip Robert Byrd was put into place. Tracking allows the majority leader – with unanimous consent or the agreement by the minority leader – to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Before the introduction of tracking, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. With a two-track system, the Senate simply puts aside the filibustered measure and moves on to other legislation.[19][20]
Finally, the Democratic-controlled Senate[16] in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. The filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a minority to affect legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond (then D-SC, later R-SC)) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[21] although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes which Wayne Morse (I-OR) had established in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation.
The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s was when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Robert Byrd (D-WV)[22]. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters.[23] The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes reaching 112 at the end of 2008[24][25][25], though cloture votes are increasingly used for purposes unrelated to filibusters.[12]
What a great comment thread.