Note, 11:15 a.m., 2/6/14: This post originally linked to Charles Blahous’ column as carried on economics21.org, 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 Mercatus.org 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 in “higher 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.