The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an assortment of national business groups opposed to President Obama’s health-care reform effort are collecting money to finance an economic study that could be used to portray the legislation as a job killer and threat to the nation’s economy, according to an e-mail solicitation from a top Chamber official.
The e-mail, written by the Chamber’s senior health policy manager and obtained by The Washington Post, proposes spending $50,000 to hire a “respected economist” to study the impact of health-care legislation, which is expected to come to the Senate floor this week, would have on jobs and the economy.
Step two, according to the e-mail, appears to assume the outcome of the economic review: “The economist will then circulate a sign-on letter to hundreds of other economists saying that the bill will kill jobs and hurt the economy. We will then be able to use this open letter to produce advertisements, and as a powerful lobbying and grass-roots document.”
Reader Interactions
34Comments
Comments are closed.
Lavocat
Didn’t the Politburo used to do this?
Lex
Fred Hiatt’s WashPost op-ed page, at no charge, that’s who.
Betseed
National health care would be the biggest boon to business in this country. I’d think even a bunch of reactionaries like the Chamber of Commerce would be able to see that.
General Winfield Stuck
All you need to do a study these days is a credit card, computer, and ill intent. Welcome to the digital age of Truth of Consequences.
SpotWeld
What is the “U.S. Chamber of Commerce” and why the heck is my TV flooded with their ads? (And where can I get a fact check on them)
The sounds like a lobbyist group for the insurance companies.
Tonal Crow
@Lavocat:
I think this is called “Lysenkoism” for the Soviet bureaucrat whose “theories” about increasing agricultural production actually reduced yields.
MelodyMaker
I’ll do it. but not for $50k. that’s how I just became a respected economist.
Incertus
Is it any wonder I hate the world? On the plus side, the
Sideshow ChannelLearning Channel is showing a full night of conjoined twins. Oh, and the new Doctor Who aired tonight in Britain, so….it was good. Bit dark. Ready for the Christmas specials.Marshall
When I was in the government, we used to call this “science by the pound.” The more padded, the better, just as long as “my study is bigger than yours.”
asiangrrlMN
Circle jerk? I got nothing. I am fresh out of snark. These guys have worn me out.
Jon H
I can think of someone who’d take the money and get it published, but I think he’s busy on the Freakonomics publicity tour.
Jon H
@SpotWeld: “The sounds like a lobbyist group for the insurance companies.”
Them, the tobacco companies, the oil companies, big pharma, the auto companies, pretty much everyone.
SpotWeld
@Jon H: At least they’re equal opportunity. (snark)
Barry
Lex
“Fred Hiatt’s WashPost op-ed page, at no charge, that’s who.”
Oh, I’m sure that a set of full-pages ad in the Post by the Chamber will be taken out. Not as payment, that would be, um, ….
Brian J
What a bunch of dummies. Didn’t they pay attention to what happened with the McCain campaign’s petition during the summer before the election? If I recall correctly, it was circulated throughout the country, and while there were some impressive names on the list, it was mostly nobodies. But then it turned out that some objected to their names being on the list, since they claimed they didn’t agree to everything he was proposing, just some vague principles or something like that. Still, at least for a few days, the McCain campaign could claim that a bunch of economists, including some Nobel laureates, were supporting its economic proposals.
They could probably do something like that now and, after the initial news push and subsequent walk back after any economist who objected had his name taken off the list, still have $50,000 while doing what damage it wanted to do. Or, it could make the proposal so vague but still scary sounding that a bunch of free market absolutist types would sign on purely as a matter of principle.
No matter what, I doubt anybody whose name would carry any sort of influence would sign on to some specific words unless they meant something because the study was legitimate.
Notorious P.A.T.
Now THAT’S first class scholarship!
Notorious P.A.T.
That’s right. The USSR rejected Darwinism on ideological grounds (ahem) so a charlatan named Lysenko stepped in with an alternate theory. . . and Russian biology still hasn’t recovered.
QuietStorm
Firstly, great idea to hire an economist to say exactly what you want her/him to. The difference between this and a press release is … ?
Secondly, does anyone else find it amusing that these companies with multi-billion dollar turnovers are trying to solicit for a piddling $50K?
Finally, “grassroots”? Memo to the CoC members: when well-monied interests try to orchestrate a campaign like this it’s not grassroots, it’s astroturfing. And it’s ridiculously blatant.
Brachiator
These people are actually getting stupider by the minute.
They probably also believe that the prostitutes they hire actually are in love with them.
Delia
I think they could get Robert Samuelson to do it for free as he’s always blathering on in this vein already. But I just checked his credentials and he’s not actually an economist. Maybe he could get George Will to back him up. He’s not an economist, either.
General Winfield Stuck
@Delia:
But George Will lives at the Holiday Inn.
RaptureReadyAndLovinIt
Hey, these people have stonewalled healthcare reform in this country for over half a century. It’s not exactly a newsflash that they are going to pull crap like this.
The antidote to bad information is good information.
Anne Laurie
@Jon H:
Pssh, the Freakonomics grifters — I mean, econonic journalists! — are far too important to sell their brand for a mere $50k. Now, if the USCC wants to endow a research institute, and sponsor a fellowship for a minimum of $100k per annum, guaranteed over at least a five-year period, then they might get some attention. Not from the Wonder Twins themselves, of course, but a sufficiently prestigious title and a one-time payment would at least buy a short list of bidniz-friendly “anti-conventional” Libertarians and the right to use the Freakonomics brand name in the advertising.
Cerberus
Ugh. This sort of thing is criminally common, most famously exploited by the tobacco and oil industries.
That said, as an actual scientist, the practice offends me personally and my unhinged rage is unleashed on those who buy these bullshit studies not even done by actual scientists but rather “non-partisan think tanks”. If we had a media even halfway competent in science reporting, then an industry paying what is to them chump change for 200 pages of bullshit and graphs would end with the report shredded to death or simply ignored to promote the actual legitimate studies into long-term effects of policy.
But sadly, that is not our reality. I suspect that even though this has been exposed, we’ll see a report promoted by the Chamber of Commerce saying all these things within a month and the MSM will still report on it in “he said, she said” terms.
jenniebee
This sort of thing has been going on for decades, it’s just that now it’s become so normal that the folks in the know about how these lobbying campaigns work have forgotten that us hoi polloi aren’t supposed to be in on the dirty little secret.
calling all toasters
What about that guy who used to stalk Krugman? He was technically an economist, I think. Either him or Ben Stein.
calling all toasters
Oh, sorry– who would *publish* it? Why, the entire liberal media.
I know you meant the answer to be the Post, but the fact that they actually broke the story makes them no more likely than anyone else.
Batocchio
Almost every industry other than insurance should be lobbying hard for universal health care, because a good system would save them a ton – and help them compete with foreign nations that have universal health care.
bob h
Didn’t Karen Ignani try to pull something like this, and didn’t it blow up in her face?
Alex S.
Respected economist… Greg Mankiw?
Mr Furious
Hmmm. Isn’t Inhofe’s global-warming-denier “climatologist” actually an economist? If not, his going rate is probably right about $50K.
Dunkel
Step Three: Profit!
BillCinSD
Donald Luskin (the stupidest man alive) or Casey Mulligan (people just quit wanting to work in 2008) should fill the bill nicely
clone12
It’s a lot harder than it sounds. Let’s say you do have a “respectable” economist that publishes the results the Chamber of Commerce wants- the fact that you have you publish your methodology means that unless you want be made to look like a complete boob (see Levitt, Steven or Lott, John), you better do your research. That’s not something you can easily fake.