Dems struggle (again) to explain why less work is better
Liberals believe in dependence instead of work.
Check it out:
For a second straight week, Democrats find themselves explaining why it’s a good thing for fewer Americans to be employed. Last week, it was a Congressional Budget Office report that said millions would leave the U.S. workforce in order to obtain ObamaCare benefits. This week, the CBO says that the centerpiece of the Obama Democrats midterm campaign pitch, a call to increase the federal minimum wage by 40 percent, will cost as many as 1 million jobs. Democrats aren’t much disputing the finding from the nonpartisan green-eyeshade brigade, but are instead trying to explain why less work is a good thing. Again. The argument is that while those low-wage jobs would be wiped out, the enhanced incomes of those still working will pay dividends in the years to come. It’s a similar argument as last week’s: Fewer people will work, but their being “freed” from unsatisfying employment will create new opportunities and raise overall living standards.
Much as has been the case with the consequences of ObamaCare, the painful process of explaining the real-world disruptions from the application of economic theories is bloody awful work for a midterm campaign message. Unable to continue to effectively blame Republican practices from the previous decade for the unhappy condition of the economy or health sector, Democrats have decided to get proactive. Big mistake. Unfortunately, what Democrats propose fits too neatly into Republican talking points honed over the last four years, namely that President Obama’s policies mean big government and more dependency. While Dems will be torturing the forecast tables of economic reports to explain why lost insurance, higher premiums, lost jobs and more debt are necessary for building a sustainable economy, Republicans will simply say “Obama isn’t working.”