Last September, physicists in Scotland reported creating the world’s fastest-spinning manmade object. A tiny sphere of atoms briefly accelerated to 600 million revolutions per minute.
That still isn’t as fast as the latest spin engineered by liberal media to defend the latest Obamacare debacle.
The Congressional Budget Office reported Tuesday that the president’s Affordable Care Act will reduce America’s number of full-time workers by more than 2 million over 10 years. Virtually anyone confronted with that fact could correctly surmise that this a horrible turn of economic events.
But no sooner was this news released that media outlets unveiled their fun-house mirrors to show people their distorted interpretation of the announcement.
Typical was a headline from a Los Angeles Times blog: “Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news.”
Or this headline from MSNBC: “CBO delivers welcome news to Obamacare backers.”
Or this headline from a defensive New York Times editorial: “Freeing workers from the insurance trap.”
Obamacare’s disingenuous defenders assert that we’re not losing jobs; these are just 2 million people who will choose not to pursue full-time jobs – because, notably, they will ascertain that it won’t pay to work harder.
That’s better? Discouraging diligence and industry? Lowering the labor supply to lower economic growth? At a time when we desperately need economic growth?
Liberals would have you believe that walking away from your job gives you the freedom to pursue subsidized Obamacare instead of having to punch a time clock to gain access to your employers’ offered health benefits. (And when jobs and taxes are precisely what fund Obamacare’s subsidies!)
See? You’re not jobless or underemployed. According to The New York Times, you’ve been set free!
And they actually expect you to believe that.
“But,” the editors at National Review write, “the administration still does not seem to be able to get its collective head around the fact that American workers are not just hungry mouths that have to be filled with paychecks: They are people who provide economically valuable goods and services.”
Sure, some people might be happier if they didn’t have to work. But how “happy” will our economy be without the valuable contributions of 2-plus-million people?
Liberals held out hope that CBO head Douglas Elmendorf would vindicate their viewpoint when he testified before the House Budget Committee. In The Washington Post’s left-leaning “Plum Line” blog Tuesday, Greg Sargent wrote expectantly that “this doesn’t have to be a partisan argument. Tomorrow we can find out what the CBO’s own director has to say about it.”
By all means. Here’s what Elmendorf had to say about it Wednesday, verbatim: “The act creates a disincentive for people to work.”
Could it be made any clearer?
Consider all of the problems that have cropped up around Obamacare so far. Policies have been canceled. The website has been a disaster from the start. Insurance companies have surged into upheaval. Bewildered consumers have found it difficult to know where to turn.
Now we’re getting a good look – a bad look perhaps is more accurate – at what we can expect of Obamacare’s long-term effects on the American economy. Our work force will be further hobbled, and taxpayers will be forking over more than $1 trillion in Obamacare funding to make it happen.
This failed approach to health care could very well put our national economy in a coma.