Washington Post Fact Checker: No, CBO Did Not Say Obamacare Will Kill 2 Million Jobs

TPM: The GOP Has It Wrong: Obamacare Won't 'Cost' 2 Million Jobs

Gawker: Nope, Obamacare Won't Kill Two Million Full-Time Jobs

THE FACTS ARE CLEAR: CBO DID NOT SAY OBAMACARE WILL COST JOBS

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI): "It Is Not That Employers Are Laying People Off":

"Ryan and Elmendorf combined to explain that Obamacare would lead to a decrease in the number of hours worked by up to 2 percent in 2024. Most of that drop, the CBO said, would be the result of Americans choosing not to work, for various reasons, but not because employers would want to hire fewer workers on account of the law. 'Just to understand, it is not that employers are laying people off,' Ryan said. 'That is right,' Elmendorf said." [TPM, 2/5/14]

Washington Post Fact Checker: No, CBO Did Not Say Obamacare Will Kill 2 Million Jobs: 

"First, this is not about jobs. It's about workers - and the choices they make. ... Look at this way: If someone says they decided to leave their job for personal reasons, most people would not say they 'lost' their jobs. They simply decided not to work. The CBO, in its sober fashion, virtually screams that this is not about jobs." [Washington Post, 2/4/14]

Fact Check.Org: "To Twist The CBO's Projections On Voluntary Job Reductions Into Job Losses Is Misleading":

"House Majority Leader Eric Cantor falsely claims that a new report confirms the long-held Republican belief that 'millions of hardworking Americans will lose their jobs,' because of the Affordable Care Act. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report says more than 2 million people will decide not to work, or will decide to work less, due to the law - not that they will 'lose their jobs.'...Nonetheless, to twist the CBO's projections on voluntary job reductions into job losses is misleading." [Fact Check.Org, 2/4/14]

LA Times Economy Columnist Michael Hiltzik: Why The New CBO Report On Obamacare Is Good News:

"The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily." [LA Times, 2/4/14]

Washington Post Media Critic Erik Wemple: "That's A Far Different Dynamic From Job-Killing.":

"For a while this morning, the Internet was hopping with job-killing hype, when in fact the truth was vastly different. Obamacare's impact, the CBO concluded, would lessen the supply of labor by encouraging certain folks not to work: '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. . . .' For someone approaching retirement, notes Kessler, Obamacare could well mean that they needn't hold onto a bad job just to keep health insurance. That's a far different dynamic from job-killing." [Washington Post, 2/4/14]