Peter Schiff – Obama Spins Subsidies Both Ways

1

By:  Peter Schiff Tuesday, February 11, 2014

In our current age of spin and counter-spin, there is no contortion too great for a politician to attempt. On occasion, however, the threads of one story become entangled with another in a manner that should deeply embarrass, if the media were sharp enough to catch it.

This happened last week in response to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) bombshell report on how Obamacare incentives could reduce the size of the labor force by more than two million workers by 2017. While the report did not reflect the Republican spin (that the law will cause employers to kill jobs – -it will, but for reasons not detailed in the report), the reaction of the White House and congressional Democrats set a new mark in rhetorical boldness. In the ultimate act of making lemonade from lemons, they described the findings as unabashed good news. But to do so, they had to contradict their previously expressed views on unemployment insurance.

Last week, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the low cost of Obamacare health insurance will give workers the flexibility to leave the work force if they choose. He agreed with the CBO’s opinion that many individuals work at jobs that they don’t really value solely because the positions provide health insurance. So, whereas Obama once said, “If you like your health care plan you can keep it,” he is now saying, “If you don’t like your job, you can leave it.”

Bonhoeffer Fund July 2022 Performance Update

Screenshot 27Bonhoeffer Fund's performance update for the month ended July 31, 2022. Q2 2022 hedge fund letters, conferences and more The Bonhoeffer Fund returned 3.5% net of fees in July, for a year-to-date return of -15.8%.   Bonhoeffer Fund, LP, is a value-oriented private investment partnership for . . . SORRY! This content is exclusively for Read More

The subsidies built into Obamacare are exceptional in their severity. As has been noted by many observers, even relatively small increases in income can result in substantial losses in federal subsidies. With health care costs eating up increasingly large portions of personal incomes, it is easy to see why health care subsidies could be the deciding factor for many people to stay home.

But this dynamic is the opposite of what the President and his allies are arguing in the ongoing debate about extending unemployment benefits. Republicans have pointed out that people are discouraged from taking marginal jobs because weekly government checks represent a more attractive option. The White House has responded with deep derision, with the President himself saying that he never met a single American who would prefer a check from the government to a check from an employer. (Perhaps he should get out more?)

In fact, he has accused Republicans of insulting the unemployed by insinuating that they are lazy. However, he is now guilty of the same thing.  Of course, it was never about the unemployed being lazy, but about them not being stupid.  If the government pays you not to work, either with cash or health care, some would be stupid to pass up the offer.  Even more absurdly, Democrats have said that unemployment benefits keep people in the labor force by requiring them to look for a job in order to receive benefits. (This ignores the simple fact that job sear