As many students of politics know, there are two kinds of
truth: political truth, and all other varieties. Political truth, unlike
scientific truth, need not be connected verifiably with objective reality. Political
truth sometimes dresses up in the robes of science, but bad science also leaves
objective reality behind at the altar.
Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), the Cassandra of Obamabots, was one of the architects of Obamacare who,
unlike many proponents of President Barack Obama’s “Affordable Care Act,” went
off script and, in venues he may have thought were off record, simply laid out
the truth about Obamacare in such unvarnished terms that even those
overfriendly to President Barack Obama in the media could not easily misunderstand
Mr. Gruber’s essential message – which was: Obamacare, right from the get-go,
was intentionally misleading. More importantly, he noted, it was of
necessity misleading. The sales pitch of the used car salesman who
wants you to buy the lemon on his lot, likewise and for much the same reasons, is
misleading.
"This bill” Mr. Gruber said, “was written in a tortured
way to make sure CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill
dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies,
if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you
made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not
have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And
basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but
basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass....Look, I
wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather
have this law than not."
As soon as the clouds passed away from Mr. Gruber’s
sunburst, many prominent Obamabots scurried for cover. Few of them bothered to deny the truth of Mr. Gruber’s assertions; all of them
clubbed the messenger, whose annual income no doubt will diminish as a result
of the drubbing.
The press spotlight having been focused on Mr. Gruber and
the Obamacare warts, media sleuths have now discovered that Mr. Gruber has also
told the inconvenient truth about abortion. In a paper co-written during the
Clinton administration and printed in the National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER), “Abortion, Legalization and Child Living Circumstances,” Mr. Gruber, along with two other
co-authors, wrote:
“Legalization of abortion in five
states around 1970, followed by legalization nationwide due to the 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision, generates natural variation which can be used to estimate the
effect of abortion access. We find that cohorts born after abortion was
legalized experienced a significant reduction in a number of adverse outcomes.
Our estimates imply that the marginal child who was not born due to
legalization would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent family,
40% more likely to live in poverty, 50% more likely to receive welfare, and 35%
more likely to die as an infant. These selection effects imply that the
legalization of abortion saved the government over $14 billion in welfare
expenditures through 1994.”
Mr. Gruber also touted a positive link between abortion and a precipitous drop in crime rates among “cohorts,” by which term Mr. Gruber
means to indicate single parents, the poor and welfare recipients – or, to put
the matter bluntly, the underclass, mostly African American and Latino city
dwellers, all of whom are fortunate enough to live in close proximity to
abortion mills.
A more recent report published
in the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2000, “NBER Working Paper No. 8004”, probes the connection between legalized
abortion and recent crime reductions:
“We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly
to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion
legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines
earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater
crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those
born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states.
Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent
drop in crime.”
The [Center for Disease Control] CDC’s
latest Abortion Surveillance report has found that between 2007 and 2010,
nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the U.S. were performed on black
children, even though blacks make up only 12.8 percent of the population.
Another 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and an additional
seven percent on other minority races. More than half of all babies killed
by abortion between 2007 and 2010 were minorities.
It should be noted
that both Governor Dannel Malloy and his prison czar, Mike Lawlor, the architectof a bill that awards early release credits to violent prisoners, have
claimed responsibility for a reduction of crime in Connecticut that parallels a
national reduction in crime attributed by Mr. Gruber and other economists to
abortion. This is the kind of pseudo-science that leaves objective reality
waiting impatiently at the altar for a marriage that never occurs. Neither Mr.
Lawlor nor Mr. Malloy has yet been so brash to claim credit for the drop in
crime rate that has occurred nationwide.
Comments
---------
“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227883/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-question-eugenics/jonah-goldberg
------
CSPAN transcript of the Gruber Grilling 12/9:
WE'RE TOLD YOU CAN KEEP YOUR INSURANCE, YOU LIKE IT, AND WE KNOW THAT'S A LIE. YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR AND WE KNOW THAT'S A LIE. AND YOU CAN KEEP YOUR HOSPITAL AND THAT'S A LIE. LIES ON TOP OF LIES. AND IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT HEALTH CARE EITHER. IT'S A TAX. PREMIUMS WILL BE LOWER AND YET THEY'RE HIGHER. ANOTHER LIE. SO, LET'S BACKTRACK. APOLOGIZED TODAY FOR SOME COMMENTS YOU MADE IN THE VIDEO, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND IT SAYS SEVERAL TIMES HERE YOU SAID YOU APOLOGIZED TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK SMARTER OR BETTER THAN OTHERS...
LET'S BE CLEAR. YOU DID NOT APOLOGIZE FOR HELPING THE ADMINISTRATION DECEIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THIS HEALTHCARE ACT OR FOR TELLING AMERICA THE TRUTH IN YOUR VIDEO COMMENTS ABOUT HOW IT WAS A FRAUD UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
------------
I THINK THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS PASSED IN A HIGHLY TRANSPARENT FASHION.
------------
BUT EVERY THING THEY PROMISED WAS A LIE. HOW CAN YOU CALL THAT TRANSPARENT? YOU DIDN'T SAY, WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO DO FOR YOU IS NOT GOING TO REALLY DO YOU ANY GOOD?