Press Releases

 

Entries in Jobs (428)

Thursday
Feb132014

NHDP Responds To Dishonest RNC Ad

Concord - New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley released the following statement after national Republicans launched a dishonest, deceitful and debunked web-video attacking New Hampshire's Senator Jeanne Shaheen:

"This dishonest ad is based on phony claims that were labeled false by the Washington Post and debunked by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.  Republicans are obsessed with re-fighting the health care battles of the past and want to take people back to the days where insurance companies can discriminate based on pre-existing conditions and kick people off their plans if they get sick, but New Hampshire can't afford their hyper-partisan approach.  Granite Staters aren't fooled by desperate and deceitful attacks, they know Jeanne Shaheen, and they know she always puts New Hampshire first, working for common sense solutions that make a difference for people here."
  FACT CHECK: RNC AD IS DISHONEST, DECEITFUL, DEBUNKED


REPORT: “CBO Makes Clear That It Never Said 2.5 Million People Will Lose Their Jobs” Because Of The ACA. “The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday in its most direct way yet clarified its recent report on the impact ObamaCare will have on jobs. CBO makes clear that it never said 2.5 million people will lose their jobs, in the sense of being laid off, due to the law by 2024, but rather than workers would choose to leave the labor force. CBO Director Doug Elmendorf makes clear that CBO is instead estimating that there will be fewer hours worked by then, equivalent to 2.5 million full-time jobs, and those lost hours will be due to workers choosing not to work.” [The Hill, On the Money, 2/10/14]

 
FACTCHECK FALSE: Claim That Obamacare Will Kill More Than 2 Million Jobs Given “Three Pinocchios” In February 2014, the Washington Post’s The Fact Checker examined the claim that the ACA would kill more than 2 million jobs was given “Three Pinocchios” for “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.” They wrote: “Once again, we award Three Pinocchios to anyone who deliberately gets this wrong.” [Washington Post, The Fact Checker, 2/4/14]

Saturday
Feb082014

Josiah Bartlett Center - Minimum Wage Hike Will Hurt Entry Level Workers Most 

Weekly Update from the
Josiah Bartlett Center


Keeping you up to date on our latest research
on the issues impacting New Hampshire

Minimum Wage Hike Will Hurt Entry Level Workers the Most

Proposals at the state and national level to increase the minimum wage will hurt the job market, decrease the number of jobs available, and hurt the people advocates are trying to help. Specifically, the higher wage will make it more expensive to hire entry level workers and reduce opportunities for lower skill workers trying to build job experience.

The current federal and state minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. It is a minimum that affects few employees. Nationally, only 2.7% of all wage and salary workers earn the minimum or less (1.2% of workers are at the minimum while 1.5% have jobs that can legally pay less than the minimum like golf caddies, outside sales, or farm labor).

Economists are paraded about by both sides to advocate for and against and to discuss the effects. A 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research paper reviewing the literature found “a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment.” But lest you think the research is completely up in the air, the authors noted “the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.”....Click here to keep reading

Thursday
Feb062014

NRSC - ObamaCare: Equivalent of 11,639 Jobs in New Hampshire Could Be Lost

Shaheen's Support of ObamaCare Will Reduce Employment in New Hampshire
Equivalent of 
11,639 Jobs Could Be Lost

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) detailed that ObamaCare will cost the economy the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs by 2024. A new state-by-state analysis by the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) shows that ObamaCare will have harmful effects on employment and the workforce in New Hampshire.  

In 2009, Senator Jeanne Shaheen promised that ObamaCare was, "a historic step forward.”  But, the news from the Congressional Budget Office contradicts that claim, making clear that fewer people will be employed and fewer hours worked because of the unpopular law.  According to the new ATR analysis, it is estimated that ObamaCare will reduce employment and cost New Hampshire the equivalent of over 11,000 jobs.  

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal made clear how this news is politically harmful to Senators who championed the law like Jeanne Shaheen:  "All of this is one more contradiction of the arguments that were used to sell ObamaCare. The law would reduce health-care costs and shrink the deficit, you could keep your health plan and your doctor, and businesses could hire more workers and be more competitive. All of this is turning out to be false, and now we learn that the law is a job destroyer that is removing rungs from the ladder of upward economic mobility."

"So many of the promises Jeanne Shaheen repeatedly made about ObamaCare have turned out to be false, and as a result thousands fewer will be employed," said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. "ObamaCare punishes additional work, professional advancement, and additional income hurting those trying to climb into the middle class most of all.  Jeanne Shaheen repeatedly lied about ObamaCare, and voters no longer trust her judgment."
 

BACKGROUND

Shaheen Said Passing ObamaCare Was A “Historic Step Forward.” SHAHEEN: “Today, our nation took a historic step forward in a quest that has spanned generations - to provide better quality and more cost effective health care to all Americans.” (Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, “Shaheen Statement On Passage Of The Senate Health Care Reform Bill,” Press Release, 12/24/09)

Thursday
Feb062014

NRSC - Shaheen's ObamaCare Will Result in 2 Million Fewer Workers 

More Consequences of Jeanne Shaheen's Deciding Vote

Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report on the devastating impact ObamaCare will have on the economy. Despite repeated claims and promises by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, the CBO found that ObamaCare will result in 2 million fewer workers over the next decade.

SHOT:

  • "CBO’s updated estimate of the decrease in hours worked translates to a reduction in full-time-equivalent employment of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024, compared with what would have occurred in the absence of the ACA.” (“The Budget And Economic Outlook: 2014 To 2024,” Congressional Budget Office, Page 127, 2/4/14)

CHASER:

  • Shaheen Said Passing ObamaCare Was A “Historic Step Forward.” SHAHEEN: “Today, our nation took a historic step forward in a quest that has spanned generations - to provide better quality and more cost effective health care to all Americans.” (Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, “Shaheen Statement On Passage Of The Senate Health Care Reform Bill,” Press Release, 12/24/09)

OUR TAKE:

"Jeanne Shaheen was the deciding vote for ObamaCare and that vote has had dire consequences for workers, families, and small businesses in New Hampshire," said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen.  "So many of the promises Jeanne Shaheen repeatedly made about ObamaCare have turned out to be false, and unfortunately middle-class Granite Staters continue to pay the price."

Wednesday
Feb052014

NHDP - Washington Post Fact Checker: No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs 

Key Point: "Here we go again. During the 2012 campaign, The Fact Checker had to repeatedly explain that the Congressional Budget Office never said that the Affordable Care Act “killed” 800,000 jobs by 2021... In fact, in contrast to a common GOP talking point, the CBO declares that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA....Once again, we award Three Pinocchios to anyone who deliberately gets this wrong."

Washington Post Fact Checker: No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/
BY GLENN KESSLER
February 4 at 2:07 pm

Here we go again. During the 2012 campaign, The Fact Checker had to repeatedly explain that the Congressional Budget Office never said that the Affordable Care Act “killed” 800,000 jobs by 2021. Now, the CBO has released an updated estimate, nearly the triple the size of the earlier one: 2.3 million in 2021.

The inevitable tweets arrived:

This tweet and dozens others were spawned in part by seriously flawed headlines on the Web:

Health-Care Law Expected to Take Greater Toll on Workforce

Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO

CBO: Obamacare to cost 2.3 million jobs over 10 years

CBO: Obamacare Will Lead To 2 Million Fewer Workers In The Labor Force By 2017

Deficit Down But Health Costs to Bleed Red Ink Again

Why Obamacare Will Mean Fewer Hours Worked and (Mostly) Lower Incomes

CBO: Lower enrollment, bigger job losses with Obamacare

Budget Office Revises Estimates of Health Care Enrollment

CBO: O-Care slowing growth, contributing to job losses

The CBO Just Nuked Obamacare

CBO says Obamacare will add to deficit, create reluctant work force

CBO nearly triples estimate of working hours lost by 2021 due to Affordable Care Act

Obamacare Will Cost 2.5 Million Jobs: Report

Obamacare to Cut Hours of Work by Low-Wage Earners, CBO Says

Congressional Budget Office: Obamacare A Tax On Workers

What’s really going on here? Hang on, because it’s a confusing issue.

The Facts

First, this is not about jobs. It’s about workers — and the choices they make.

The CBO’s estimate is mostly the result of an analysis of the impact of the law on the supply of labor. That means how many people choose to participate in the work force. In other words, the nonpartisan agency is examining whether the law increases or decreases incentives for people to work.

One big issue are the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or getting less help with health insurance payments. In other words, they might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)

Thus, someone might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market.

The CBO, in its sober fashion, virtually screams that this is not about jobs.  (Note the sections in bold face.)

“The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).”

The CBO did look at the effect on demand for labor (i.e., jobs) but said that the effects are mostly on the margins or are not measurable. In fact, in contrast to a common GOP talking point, the CBO declares that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.”

Finally, we should note that the figures (2 million, etc.) are shorthand for full-time equivalent workers—a combination of two conclusions: fewer people looking for work and some people choosing to work fewer hours. The CBO added those two things and produced a hard number, but it actually does not mean 2 million fewer workers.

The Pinocchio Test

The Fact Checker takes no position on the implications of the CBO’s analysis. Some might believe that the overall impact of the health law on employment is bad because it would be encouraging people — some 2.3 million  – not to work. Indeed, the decline in the workforce participation rate has been of concern to economists, as the baby boom generation leaves the work force, and the health care law appears to exacerbate that trend.

Moreover, the argument could go, this would hurt the nation’s budget because 2.3 million fewer people will pay taxes on their earnings. That’s certainly an intellectually solid argument — though others might counter that universal health care is worth a reduction in overall employment — but it’s not at all the same as saying these jobs would be lost.

Once again, we award Three Pinocchios to anyonewho deliberately gets this wrong.

Three Pinocchios

 

pinocchio

(About our rating scale)