To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals – to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.Finally, a U.S. president that refuses to pervert science and its processes to his own political ends. He says he's breaking with previous administrations who ignored the scientific consensus, who first made their conclusions and then generated the science to support them. This president says he'll listen to the science, no matter what, even when it's inconvenient to do so.
[…]
But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient – especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.
This is the stuff of legends.
Over at AEI's The American, Andrew Biggs begs to differ:
The Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth.Ignoring independent scientific analyses? Generating their own science? Well, isn't that just so convenient.
[…]
Ignoring independent analysis is a pattern for the Obama administration. During the healthcare debate, Medicare's actuaries produced an analysis showing that congressional health plans would increase rather than decrease national health expenditures. The White House rejected the actuaries' study and had the White House Council of Economic Advisors issue its own memo claiming that reform would "bend the cost curve." Likewise, bright minds within the Office of Management and Budget surely thought that if the Medicare Trustees' projections didn't suit their needs they would simply generate their own.
A couple of points:
ReplyDelete1. It's interesting you bring up that Medicare actuary report. It was prepared by one Richard Foster, who prepared a similarly damning report when the Republicans wanted to push through Part D in the early 2000s. Ezra Klein recounts what happened next:
As we learned later, Tom Scully, the Bush-appointed head of CMS, told Foster that he'd lose his job if he released that report. Despite believing the demand was "inappropriate" and "unethical," Foster, after consulting with an HHS lawyer who told him that Scully could indeed make good on his threat, buried the report.
1A. So, Obama never moved to quash this report; instead, it was published; he disagreed with its findings, and outlined his qualms. I fail to see how this amounts to ignoring the marketplace of ideas. You seem to have confused the scientific method with "agree with everything and anything in a published study."
2. Besides, there's a good reason to ignore the analysis that Andrew Biggs linked. For one thing, it declined to estimate "any Federal savings pertaining to the excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health insurance coverage." As the report states, both the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation found significant savings from the tax that would "further offset the coverage costs."
Is it really that unreasonable for Obama and his economic advisers to prefer the CBO report, which actually looked at all savings from proposed taxes in the health reform bill?
I was under the impression that the "marketplace of ideas" is actually defined as "Agree with everything Esquire says or face the consequences."
ReplyDeleteBut I guess that's only in an ideal world. :)