The White House (And Its Faithful) Scramble To Refute CBO Report On Obamacare Job Losses

Tyler Durden's picture

Earlier we reported how, in the CBO's own words, Obamacare would result in (at least) 2.5 million (soon to be revised much higher) workers departing the labor force over the next decade, that would stay there were it not for the skewed incentives provided by this latest welfare Ponzi scheme. Sure enough, it took the White House mere moments to share its canned retort seeking to control the major fallout this report generated as it goes, once again, against all of Obama's promises. From Reuters: "The White House on Tuesday refuted arguments that Obamacare reforms will hurt jobs, and said a new report from the Congressional Budget Office finds the reforms will spur hiring during the 2014-2016 period. "Claims that the Affordable Care Act hurts jobs are simply belied by the facts in the CBO report," the White House said in a statement about the report, contradicting assessments that said the CBO showed reforms will result in a cut to hours." So job losses after 2016, but before then the surge in hiring - of part-time workers - offset by mass layoffs of full-time workers as employers seek to game Obamacare. Just say that then.

Of course, the White House scrambling to contain the damage is expected. However, nothing compares to the "explanation" provided by The Bezos Post's internal "fact checker."  The "explanation" there why "No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs" (which it did) is truly an example of a Goebbelsian work of art when it comes slaying any facts that do not fit the "glorious leader" narrative.

The so-called "facts" according to the "fact-checker":

First, this is not about jobs. It’s about workers — and the choices they make.

 

One big issue are the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or getting less help with health insurance payments. In other words, they might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)

 

Thus, someone might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market.

 

...

 

The CBO did look at the effect on demand for labor (i.e., jobs) but said that the effects are mostly on the margins or are not measurable. In fact, in contrast to a common GOP talking point, the CBO declares that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.”

 

Finally, we should note that the figures (2 million, etc.) are shorthand for full-time equivalent workers—a combination of two conclusions: fewer people looking for work and some people choosing to work fewer hours. The CBO added those two things and produced a hard number, but it actually does not mean 2 million fewer workers.

So, as a result of skewed incentives courtesy of Obamacare, there will be 2.5 million workers (or, by some forced logic 5 million part-time workers and so on) in the labor force over the next decade. In other words precisely what all those articles that the WaPo supposedly is refuting are saying?

Of course, by that "logic", Americans can't wait to earn less so they fall into that sweetspot where the government "welfare cliff", i.e., free handouts, is the highest, as we reported over a year ago:

And this is what passes for "refuting" a fact in our day and age? May at least have added a few kittens and a slideshow to at least generate some ad revenue for Jeff Bezos.