From the midweek Morning Jolt:
Gruber Offers a Look at Democrats’ Own ‘47 Percent’ Philosophy
Take a good look, America. If you can’t stand that smug twerp Jonathan Gruber, refusing to tell you directly about how much money he’s made from his contracts with the White House and state governments even when questioned under oath . . . you have to realize this is perfectly fine with the philosophies of Barack Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. This is not some bolt out of the blue, some unbelievable turn of events causing things to go wrong in progressive liberal governance.
The only thing that really went “wrong” in their mind is that Gruber was particularly explicit and publicly stated their shared contempt for voters, voters’ facile understanding of Obamacare and their naïve belief in the promises used to sell it.
Americans, you got really upset about Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment. It’s understandable; you figured that the candidate was saying something nice about the voters as a whole when in public, and writing off a lot of voters as hopeless and hapless when behind closed doors.
That is exactly what Jonathan Gruber did. Over and over again.
“It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.
At the University of Pennsylvania in 2013 (which you can see here), Gruber said, “If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK? Just like how people — transparent — lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”
At Washington University at St. Louis in 2013, Gruber said, “they proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”
This is not a gaffe. This is not a “speak-o,” as he called one of his earlier statements that later proved deeply inconvenient to the Obama administration’s legal arguments. This is who the guy is. And the only thing unique about Gruber is that he says out loud, and in public, what most elected Democrats think.
Stop buying what they claim about how they care about the little guy.
Somehow, Jonathan Gruber had the cojones to claim you’re not entitled to know how much he had been paid by taxpayers.
“Gruber testified and did not disclose he was being paid by the Obama administration. That is deception at its highest form,” yelled Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “Give me a dollar amount. You’re not going to answer the question? You’re under oath and you’re not going to answer the question.”
Gruber, consulting with someone in the audience at least twice, said his written financial disclosure was a matter committee staff should broach with his legal team.
“I’ve been informed by counsel that my disclosure is in compliance with the House committee rules,” Gruber said.
Another member of the committee, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), called for a subpoena to get documents related to Gruber’s contract work.
“We only received $100,000 in disclosures, which were three grants,” Issa said. “In other words, the gentleman’s disclosure is incomplete.”
Gruber replied that he was only required to provide details from this fiscal year and the previous two.
When a guy won’t tell you how much he’s being paid by state agencies, it’s because the number is really embarrassing to somebody.