MSM Uses White House Spin To Flee Real Story On CBO Obamacare Report

The ways in which the "sides" (which never includes any poor person's side) have interpreted the CBO report is revealing about how unimportant the people being assessed as lucky or lazy really are to the politicians and the MSM.
There’s a little experiment I like to run, called “quotation check”.

Basically, it works like this. Does a relevant, illuminating quotation from some primary source document everybody is talking about, actually show up in a Google search? Or, has everybody ignored and avoided that quotation because it doesn’t support their political spin—or regardless of spin—because they never read it?

Yesterday, a lot of media outlets, obviously never actually reading the CBO report being widely referenced, were running stories about how Obamacare was going to cost the USA 2 million jobs. And headlines to that effect were all over the place.

Some of the headlines, suggesting the writer had actually read the CBO report, talked about how it wasn’t 2 million jobs, but 2.5 million jobs.

The pro-Obamacare backlash to this was pretty quick. Following the White House’s lead, where they put out a silly reply claiming there was no actual COST of jobs involved, but instead workers would be liberated by having their health care costs covered now—and so could voluntarily work less—many news outlets copied that idea.

The White House, run by Barack Obama who has often blathered on about how much he loves for Americans to "work hard", now offered this view of the delights of goldbricking:
"Americans [will] no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and [will] have the opportunity to pursue their dreams."
No, really, we're still mired in a jobless recovery and Obama is telling the nation about how horrible it is to be "trapped in a job", and how having less money is "the opportunity to pursue their dreams."

Of course, the Obama spin was a plain, silly, lie.

What the CBO reported, and what The Guillotine (for one) quoted the report saying yesterday, was that the impact of Obamacare would be “a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024.”

Obamacare advocates demanded that there was nothing in there about JOBS. The CBO was talking about 2.5 million WORKERS, who would be absent from the workforce. But the implication of this was that these workers, with their jobs intact instead of MIA, would still be there if it weren’t for Obamacare.

So, saying 2.5 million jobs were going to be lost—to actual workers—was a correct reporting of the CBO estimate.

Further, and this is where it gets really interesting as an insight into the thinking, of the White House, and its MSM support crews, but the CBO actually had a quite damning thing to say about exactly where these worker or job cuts were going to occur: amongst lower income Americans.

And understanding exactly why that was, and why it is symptomatic of the pernicious impact of Obamacare on people’s struggles to get even a little bit ahead in Obama’s economy, was THE unreported news of the day.

And that’s where we get to the Google search.

As noted above, I reported this angle on the story yesterday, and the focus of my reporting on the CBO estimates was precisely how the impact of Obamacare falls hardest on the people it is allegedly supposed to help—working class and poorer Americans.

One CBO quotation that explicitly made that case was the following:
“[T]he largest declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers.”
Unlike what the White House was claiming, that decline will not be because these lower-wage workers are now rolling in dough on account of their Obamacare insurance policies. No, the reason they will restrain their work time, and their incomes, is because they have no reasonable choice but to do this, since allowing their incomes to rise forces them to lose subsidies helping to defray the costs of what CBO called the “expensive” Obamacare mandate.

The White House, and the MSM, did not tell Americans THAT of course.

"About 144 results" for this important quotation, almost entirely ignored so far in the CBO report "disincentive" debate. If the big impact of the "voluntary" income reduction occurs mainly to people with lower incomes, then there is a two-fold negative effect from Obamacare: one, there is a disincentive to work amongst low-income workers, created by the obligation to purchase Obamacare insurance; and two, that disincentive is entirely about the struggle of poor workers to retain any assistance they can get (i.e., low-income subsidies) in paying for the expensive costs of Obamacare. It has NOTHING to do with people finally being able to cut back working to pursue dreams.

If you run a Google search for the above quotation, you will get only a few results. I got 144 at 6am this morning.

On the other hand, if you search the following much-quoted item, which gives the impression the worker, and jobs, and INCOME losses are all voluntary—so it’s all good!:
“The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply”
—you will find thousands of search results on Obama goosestepper sites denouncing the evil “right wing” or conservative media like Fox News for failing to note that it’s actually a great thing when poor people are forced by Obama to make less money.

I will note that one of the other sites, besides The Guillotine, where they did include the “lower income” quotation and they did focus on the CBO’s data showing the impact of Obamacare on poorer Americans is Mother Jones. There, Kevin Drum provides what he calls a “Welfare 101” analysis of the situation, but one gets the impression Kevin Drum has little field experience on the matter, especially when he says:
“Low-income workers covered by Obamacare will have lower medical bills. This makes them less desperate for additional money, and might also cause them to forego working extra hours.”
Yeah, you know those lazy low-income workers, always looking for ways to work less and make less money.

Nevertheless Drum does offer the following conclusion, which seems reasonable:
“Obamacare will reduce employment primarily because it's a means-tested welfare program, and means-tested programs always reduce employment among the poor…It's worth noting, however, that health care is an exception to this rule. It doesn't have to be means tested. If we simply had a rational national health care system, available to everyone regardless of income, then none of this would be an issue.”
But this is an issue, and more of an issue than the White House and its corporate Ministry of Truth is willing to address.

Comments