Folks, the following is a 25% edit of a longer article by William Tate, over at American Thinker. I chopped it way down, and left out a lot. For the meat of the matter, go to the original. It sounds like Mr. Tate has really done his homework, and the information is “compelling”. I’m not going to put the rest in a blockquote ghetto, but everything below the line was written by Mr. Tate, and all I have done is whack and weed it down to a quarter its original length. Enjoy, and shiver:
The Obama machine is scrambling to minimize damage inflicted by the Congressional Budget Office’s report, but a full reading shows that job loss could be even worse than previously reported. The report may be even more damning because of what isn’t there.
The CBO report concedes that “some employers might leave wages unchanged and instead employ a smaller workforce.” Alternatively, “some employers will respond to the penalty by hiring fewer people at or just above the minimum wage.”
Still, the CBO argues, “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.” (Emphasis added.)
It’s an artfully worded statement, dependent on the word, compelling. (More on that later.) And it depends — in a quite Clintonian way — on what the meaning of the word, is, is.
Could it be that there is — meaning currently, right now, today — little “compelling” evidence about the impact of the employer mandate on jobs because the mandate hasn’t taken effect yet, and keeps getting delayed? And that, by delaying it, the Obama administration is delaying the negative impact of Obamacare on jobs — now until after they leave office?
After virtually ignoring the impact Obamacare will have on employers, the CBO report still concludes that the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs will be lost, primarily because of workers who decide to cut back on work.
The Obama propaganda machine would have us believe that’s because these workers will no longer be stuck in “job lock.”
However, what the CBO report actually says is that these workers will decide to work less because they will be hitting income thresholds, which will mean smaller Obamacare subsidies. Simply put, the CBO concludes that these folks won’t want to work more and take home less.
The CBO even admits that such an Obamacare subsidy structure “effectively raises people’s marginal tax rates.”
