« | »

CBO ‘Clarifies’ Report On 2.5M Leaving Workforce

From an unfazed National Journal:

CBO Responds to Obamacare Controversy

By Catherine Hollander | February 10, 2014

The nonpartisan [sic] Congressional Budget Office was heard all over Washington last week when it released its updated budget and economic outlook. Now, the office is attempting to be understood.

Oh, our sides. Still, this isn’t the first time that the CBO and it’s chief, Douglas Elmendorf, have been ‘taken to the woodshed’ over their predictions for Obama-Care.

CBO on Monday posted a "Frequently Asked Questions" document aimed at clearing up the outlook’s most controversial conclusion, an estimate that Obamacare would reduce the number of hours worked by the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time workers in 2024.

"That analysis has attracted a great deal of attention and raised several questions," the budget office said dryly in a blog post attributed to its director, Douglas Elmendorf…

A number of health care wonks went into overdrive to explain why that was an oversimplification of CBO’s findings.

No, our news media ‘first responders’ went into overdrive to explain that: 1) the CBO didn’t mean what they said. And 2), they don’t ever know what they are talking about, anyway.

Will 2.5 million people lose their jobs in 10 years, thanks to the ACA? "We would not describe our estimates in that way," Elmendorf wrote Monday. It’s a matter of choice, he said.

Just like Mr. Elmendorf was given a choice: Walk back your report, or be liberated from ‘job lock.’

"Because the longer-term reduction in work is expected to come almost entirely from a decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply in response to the changes in their incentives, we do not think it is accurate to say that the reduction stems from people ‘losing’ their jobs," Elmendorf wrote.

How about saying the reduction is due to people being forced out of the work place by Obama-Care? Because that is exactly what is happening. Since their only choice is to either work and lose their taxpayer subsides, or cut back on their work and retain them.

Whether or not people choosing to work less is beneficial to society or the economy more broadly "is a matter of judgment," he said.

Really? Whether 2.5 million people leaving the workforce to hold on to their taxpayer subsidies is bad for the economy"is a matter of judgment"? And this man claims to be an economist? How can it not be disastrous for the economy?

The CBO director reiterated the uncertainty inherent in all of the budget office’s estimates. The latest estimate of the impact of the Affordable Care Act on the workforce is just as likely to be too large as it is to be too small, he said.

So why do we believe CBO on anything? In fact, why are they even being paid? What good are they?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, February 11th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “CBO ‘Clarifies’ Report On 2.5M Leaving Workforce”

  1. mr_bill says:

    Whether or not people choosing to work less is beneficial to society or the economy more broadly “is a matter of judgment,” [Elmendorf] said.

    People aren’t choosing to work less, they’re having their hours cut to classify them as part time employees, so as to avoid obamacare’s costs.

    Last week we were treated to the government saying that 100 million people who aren’t working have chosen not to work. It’s not that they can’t find jobs, no siree. They’ve chosen to be “liberated” from working. See, these people just want to not work and they should be free to not work, [begin seething sarcasm] but they shouldn’t be deprived of any of the benefits afforded them by earning an income. They ought to have healthcare (those “working” people can pay for it). They ought to have cell phones (those “working” people can pay for it). They ought to have housing (those “working” people can pay for it). They ought to be fed 3 square meals a day, and snacks, organic snacks, from the organic mooch-elle approved organic store (those “working” people can pay for it). They ought to be paid some money for not working, a couple years of payments is a decent start (again, those “working” people can pay for it). They ought to be free of all the stigma that has heretofore attached to capable adults who can’t provide for themselves and their families (those “working” people just need to work harder on understanding). There’s no down-side to not working, there is no shame in not taking care of yourself, and you should not be deprived of anything just because you chose not to earn an income. [end seething sarcasm] After looking at what all us “working” are required to do for those who are “liberated,” I actually do kind of feel like a slave.

    I keep waiting for the inevitable collapse. It won’t be pretty for a while, but it will rid society of the leaches. Those who cannot produce will perish. We can get about the business of re-building a society in which achievement is not demonized and punished, nor is sloth rewarded. This country was not forged by the impotent, lazy, and shiftless. It was not made great by people waiting to be “taken care of.” It became the greatest nation in the world because the capable and ambitious found a nation which rewarded achievement. If we are to persevere, we need to remember that.

  2. Astravogel says:

    Regarding Mr_Bill’s comment on the country not being forged by the impotent, lazy, and shiftless.
    My Grandmother would not hire a yard man with patches on the seat of his pants. One with them
    on his knees got preference. Times have changed. I could go sit on the steps and bitch, and still
    get ‘free stuff’ paid for by the productive. Too many grasshoppers, not enough ants. Unfortunately,
    there’s no place to emigrate that isn’t the same or worse.

  3. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Occam’s razor states that, “usually, the simplest answer is the correct one.”

    However, with mathematics, the simplest answer is ALWAYS the correct one. So as for Elmendork saying it’s an “oversimplification”, well, how much more complicated does it need to be before you reach the satisfactory results you’re looking for? (See: Anthropogenic Global Warming/Hockey Stick Graph)

« Front Page | To Top
« | »