Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
I suspect that' not the crux of the issue. The left wants to characterize (spin?) this effect of Obamacare as somehow "liberating" to the employee: They can cast off the shackles of that unwanted job and go pursue their interests. I think it remains to be seen how this will actually pan out. The CBO numbers are estimates, not actual. The actual effects / numbers likely won't be known for some time.
However, I think its dubious to frame the estimated impact as positive. I think Milbank actually swerved pretty to the crux of the issue here:
"Sounds nice, except the CBO said its more pessimistic workforce view had been shaped by recent studies, “in particular” those looking at “expansions or contractions in Medicaid eligibility for childless adults.” In general, the CBO explained, phasing out subsidies to buy health insurance when income rises “effectively raises people’s marginal tax rates . . . thus discouraging work.”
Citing studies that suggest raising marginal tax rates (whether that occurs due to a subsidy phase out or actually increasing tax rates) "discourages work" is likely that last thing that ardent supporters of big government solutions want to talk about.
|
I agree pretty much with all of the above. However, I strongly disagree with the concerted effort by the GOP to characterize the report as
reducing jobs rather than workers by 2 million. If they are at all literate, they know full well what the report says and it says nothing about losing 2 million jobs. In fact, it says the opposite (i.e., its impacts will be negligible in that regard). In fact, I have a hard time seeing how this is a bad thing. People leaving the workforce voluntarily to either start businesses or retire create jobs or open up existing job slots for those seeking employment, respectively.
I gotta hand it to the GOP, however, for being better at creative messaging than the Dems.