Mercatus researcher: Obamacare is making a bad jobs situation much worse

Note, 11:15 a.m., 2/6/14: This post originally linked to Charles Blahous’ column as carried on, a post that was edited sometime after this post was written. The e21 link (here) made no note of the revisions, leading to some confusion to readers here about an apparent discrepancy between the quoted matter and its ostensible source. I have changed the link to the Blahous column to its posting at under “Expert Commentary,” which contains the material as originally written and quoted.

Charles Blahous writes on the recent CBO findings of much worse employment effects by Obamacare than originally projected:

Driving millions of additional workers out of the workforce in the current economic environment is a disastrous effect that renders nearly all of our economic policy challenges even more difficult to solve.

What is also concerning to me is how blithely the administration and its willing mouthpieces are turning to euphemism to pretend the unexpectedly bad news is unexpectedly good:

Despite this, some ACA supporters have actually tried to spin the CBO report as good news.  It isn’t; it’s a huge problem. … CBO’s reporting of the obvious has become newsworthy largely because it has conflicted with repeated assertions by the White House and its political allies that the ACA will result inhigher employment.” …

From any reasonable vantage point, the CBO findings are a disaster for the ACA’s advocates, as they substantiate in detail how and why the law will thin the ranks of taxpaying workers and increase the burdens they each must carry.  This has produced some bizarre efforts at counter-spin.  Some have tried to argue that it’s not really job-destruction if the employment reductions result from workers voluntarily leaving the workforce.  The White House has even argued that CBO’s report substantiates that the ACA will cause fewer people to be “trapped in a job” by the need to maintain health insurance.

Not long ago I joked that there must be a Euphemism of the Year contest for the greatest manipulation of language in defense of Obamacare. These would be formidable entrants in such a contest.

Meanwhile …


  1. Interesting that the original quote from Charles Blahouse apparently didn’t conform enough to your agenda that you felt compelled to essentially REWRITE it, complete with your own added input for good measure. Tsk, tsk…

    Apparently you assume that your readers are too lazy to actually bother clicking on your links. Speaking of which, you do realize that the link to WaPo is to the highly regarded bi-partisan Fact Checker section (which gives both you and Charles Blahouse a failing Three Pinocchio rating for truthfulness). Priceless.

    Comment by Randy Seven on February 5, 2014 at 6:59 pm

  2. There was no rewriting here; Blahous took the sentence out. A Yahoo cached version still contains it (at least for as long as the cached version exists).

    Comment by Jon Sanders on February 5, 2014 at 9:37 pm

Our apologies, you must be registered and logged in to post a comment.