I’m a little surprised by Paul Krugman’s reaction to the Jonathan Gruber story. Krugman, who in general supports the excise tax on high-end insurance plans in health care reform, today chastised those calling attention to Gruber’s contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services, which weren’t disclosed until late last year.

The truth is that this is no big deal. Gruber’s grant is from HHS, not the West Wing; it’s basically the same kind of thing as, say, an epidemiologist receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. You wouldn’t ordinarily say that this tarnishes the epidemiologist’s credentials as an independent analyst on infectious diseases, unless you want to say that nobody receiving a research grant can be considered independent.

The only reasons you might see this differently would be if Gruber were either receiving a sweetheart deal, or seemed to have changed his views to accommodate his sponsors. Neither is remotely true. Gruber is very much the go-to guy on modeling reform: it’s hard to think of who else could be doing the work better. And his position on reform has been entirely consistent.

Should Gruber have made a fuller disclosure? Yes — I think he was being too much of an academic, taking for granted that everyone understands the difference between being a political hired gun and receiving a research grant. Should he disclose the contract every time he writes anything? Well, maybe — but a brief mention should suffice. When you’re writing 800-word op-eds, you need to reserve as much space as possible for real content.

Later in the post, Krugman took a shot at FDL, saying that we’re creating a “fake scandal” like a bunch of right-wingers.

Where exactly is the disagreement here? Gruber failed to disclose – nobody disputes. He should have made a fuller disclosure – nobody disputes. He should disclose when talking on the subject – as a brief mention, a la “MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who is working for the Obama Administration on health reform.” Nobody disputes that either. You’d think someone like Krugman, who has written extensively on media ethics, would concede that point and look at it in that context.

Krugman might want to read his own editors on this subject, who said they would have insisted on disclosure had they known of Gruber’s relationship with HHS, and that Gruber “signed a contract that obligated him to tell editors of such a relationship.”

In addition, Krugman acknowledged in an earlier post that supporters of the excise tax, particularly on the point of wages and premiums, aren’t being completely honest.

Second, there’s the argument that any reductions in premiums won’t be passed through into wages. I just don’t buy that. It’s true that the importance of changing premiums in past wage changes has been exaggerated by many people. But I’m enough of a card-carrying economist to believe that there’s a real tradeoff between benefits and wages.

The link refers to an EPI paper, which specifically cites Jonathan Gruber as one of those exaggerating about the effects. Again, Krugman explicitly acknowledges this. Again, what’s the dispute.

Gruber should have let editors and reporters know about his financial relationship: Check. He shouldn’t exaggerate about the impact of the excise tax on wages: Check. If we’re peddling fake scandals, then… well, then so is Paul Krugman, because he agrees with the scandal on multiple key points.

Incidentally, this post by Ezra Klein offers the best defense of the excise tax that I’ve seen, and specifically calls out supporters for pushing bad-faith arguments. It’s a worthy debate to have, but at least we should have it on the level. My take on this is that, if detractors against the excise tax are only against it in practice but not in theory, supporters are only for it in theory and not in practice. That suggests a middle ground to align the theory with the practice. With a legitimate debate that middle ground could be properly found. One side calling out the other for ginning up “fake scandals” is not the stuff of honest debate.