the messenger is the cbo. the cbo you know and i know, whatever they put forth is practically irrefutable, carefully done. >> it's not original research. >> john, you asked what the political i am pact would be. i'll tell you what it would be. the minimum wage thing will be dead because the republicans have very powerful forces against it. now they have argument from this neutral group which says it will cost 500,000 jobs on top of the obama report on obamacare will cost 2 million jobs. they'll say these guys are job killing liberals and that will kill it. >> and they'll be right. john, the cbo attempts to go down the middle here. 500,000 jobs lost. the other thing it points out is only about 19% of the people that would be helped by this are actually in poor households. it has a huge downside. it's poorly targeted. if juan to do something create i have to get a by par san consensus, help low income workers. don't destroy jobs at the same time. >> by keeping the had minimum wage low we're subsidizing the big e

forget the cbo for a second. i know that there are several major companies saying, we will hire more part-timers and fewer overall workers. as an economist, can you back me up on that one? >> absolutely. everyone i know, every employer that hires below average wage workers, is doing exactly that. the cbo was talking about the supply side of the market. you're talking about the demand side, the employer side. if you combine those two effects, and when they add together, we have major, major job loss. >> jamie richardson, you're at white castle. tell me the impact on jobs at white castle of obamacare. >> stuart, from a white castle perspective, it's microeconomic because we sell small hamburgers. before the affordable care act was passed we have 416 restaurants. today we have 400. and we hear about up equality. there will be inequality of scheduling if congress doesn't act to restore 40 hours as part-time. >> i take it the workers at white castle don't feel they've been liberated as the cbo suggests, they've been l

>> our goal is to first out reach to the cbos. because we want this opportunity to be successful. and so, we are advertising through the cbos so that their client base would get the technical assistance ongoing technical assistance, so that we have a successful opportunity. >> but we could make it broader if that is your direction. >> i think that you should go both, i mean that it seems like you could say that if somebody had less experience, they should work with the cbo, but if they are qualified as an lbe and have experience, why would we force them to go through a channel that they may or may not need. it seems like, that since you have a panel that could evaluate this, they would be able to evaluate but maybe, we are assuming that, if you go through a cbo it is because you need their help. in some way in terms of the ongoing technical assistance and there may be a qualified lbe that could apply and should be evaluated and i don't see why we would close that door. >> so we will include that and we have a network of publications that go out to small business entities and also

the messenger is the cbo. the cbo you and i know, whatever they put forth is practically ire irecutable. >> the republicans have a very powerful force. now they have this argument from this neutral group that will cost 500,000 jobs on top of the obama report on obama care will cost 2 million jobs and say these guys are job killing liberals and that will kill it. >> and they will be right. the cbo attempts to go down the middle here. 500,000 job loss. the other thing it points out, only 19% of the people that will be helped by this are in poor households. so it has a huge downside. it's poorly targeted. if you wanted to do something creative that you get a bipartisan consensus, you would focus on the intc that helps low income workers and doesn't destroy any jobs. but the democrats love the minimum wage, because the political and the unions love it. >> by keeping the minimum wage low, we are subsidizing the big employers. mcdonalds and the wal-marts because they encourage their people to call and find out about

media matters offering this analysis of the cbo report and the coverage, the cbo makes it clear thatkers more than 2 million of them, is not due to jobs being lost -- what? that's my what. rather the aca will allow workers to choose to work less. the projected change is in the supply of labor, not the demand for labor. and thus the cbo noted that the decrease would not lead to a corresponding increase in unemployment or underemployment emphasis added. i get it, the new normal by the obama administration at least, substitutes lower labor force participation rates as economic and moral equivalent of a higher percentage of the population working productively. you follow that, right? thanks to media matters, we now understand obama economics far better. those who are withdrawing from the labor market should send thank yous to the white house for those new part-time jobs, higher taxes and freedom brought by government imposed health care and they should fall to their knees in gratitude for mr. obama's ever larger government and redistributionist emphasis. it's all so clear now, isn't it?

the top story the white house scrambling to spin the cbo negative findings on obamacare. today's deal bobby administration went up with straight up denial here is the president's spokesman and jay carney. >> what about the component there may be the disincentive for work? >> i want to commend the many news organizations that issued corrections to the initial headlines that misrepresented on a factual basis. they continue to be touted by republicans and now works as fact it is false then you saw the testimony today that is now with the report said. lou: as our colleagues have fox make clear we report you decide here is the testimony that party refers to delivered by the author of the report this cbo director speaking in direct contradiction to what carney had just tried to spend as false reporting. please. >> the suggested is the equivalent of two and 2.5 million reduction of full-time equivalent employment by providing heavily subsidize health insurance to those with low income then to withdraw those subsidies it will act to create the disincentive for people to work rela

on the effect of the health care law on the economy, from the cbo, quote, the reduction in cbo's projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time equivalent workers of 2 million in 2017 rising to about 2.5 million in 2024. cutting through the washington-speak, the cbo says the decline in the number of americans working is largely about people's desire to remain in the workforce, not about whether employers think the law is too costly to hire people. quote, workers will choose to supply less labor given the new taxes and incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive. for example, under the health care law, 62-year-old worker might decide to retire from his job because he can obtain health insurance on the exchanges or expanded medicaid rather than through his employer. the cbo make it is clear, by saying this way, quote, 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 an increase in employment, more worker seeking but not finding jobs,

cbo. >> nonpartisan, bill. as you are saying and what we are looking at another round of devastating numbers for all americans. because of the results of this is there will be fewer jobs as you said and they projected that obama care would eject jobs and now they are saying 2.3 million in response to the burdens that are created by obama care. and built in to this is another number that is deeply troubling and that is projected budgets. had been set at just about six and half trillion dollars. just over $6 trillion. and they rise to 7.3 trillion in deficits. there is no good news in this for the obama administration and yet we just received this. if you have time for me to say the head line from the press secretary at the white house saying that with many factors affecting job growth and the actual performance of business. the affordable care act would hurt the economy. this is a campaign document. it is not a release from serious individuals that govern. this is a devastating report. it said that the cost at $

the cbo report underscores that. it also finds there's absolutely no evidence that there has been any sort of growth in part-time work at the expense of full-time work as a result of the affordable care act. whatct, it reiterates other economists have found, which is that in fact, part-time work is growing at a smaller pace than full-time work. in other words, we're getting more full-time employment in this country relatively less hard time employment, and the part-time employment we are getting is also voluntary. it is people who don't want to work a full day or full hours because they do have family obligations or other obligations. so the cbo really did confirm what everybody else has seen and it should, in the real world, or in the same world, put to rest this idea the affordable care horde ofeating a part-time workers. >> the people want to work fewer hours, doesn't mean there will be more jobs available? >> in fact, one of the things the cbo report did say is it to certain aca extent will spur more employment.

i want to talk about the cbo report, which you're very familiar with here, the cbo director testifying on capitol hill right now, which is where we started the hour. take away here, is the u.s. economy slowing down, due to baby boomers retiring and shrinking and the labor force shrinking with them, but passing the reform would add millions of jobs and that's been the estimation so far. does the cbo report help your argument? >> you know, it's kind of interesting, cbo report on the affordable care act, you know, the republican leadership is using that like a bludgeon to talk about deficit and job losses. that's not really what the report said, but on the other hand, on immigration is that $1 trillion reduction in the deficit and up to 2 to 3 million jobs created across this country would be the benefit of comprehensive immigration reform. the fact it's falling on deaf ears in the republican leadership leads one to wonder if the cbo report is a political convenience, on the other because it isn't a political convenience, doesn't support any arguments they have against immigration, they d

cbo says they are going to get to 6 million.t to see this to believe it. >> me, too. >> all right. we're in the early part of february. march 31st is the deadline. more or less at the beginning of january the 3 million number was put out. jim jordan, they may wind up not getting anything close to the 6 million. the 6 million is less than the 7 million and now it's got to deal with employer-based walkouts. so, again, i ask you, when will the administration come to the table and try to try something different? >> i'm with you, larry. i'll believe it when i see it. i think it's going to be significantly less. and let's be honest. i don't think they will see it until we pick up six seats in the united states senate and the united states senate is in the republican hands and there's additional pressure, additional push for the president to come to the table and say, this law is not working. it needs to be changed and repealed and we need to start over with something that empowers families. >> scott gottlieb, one other thing caught my

elmendorf became director of the cbo in june of 2009 and brings an impressive background to the assignment. his undergraduate degrees from princeton phi beta kappa and his masters and doctorate in economics or from harvard. he a4 been named cbo director he taught at harvard and was on the staff of the council of economic advisers and the federal reserve ordinance served as treasury secretary for economic policy. just before his selection as head of the cbo he was senior fellow in economic studies program at brookings. the biographical portion of our program has ended and now on they botanical details as always we are in the record here. please no live blogging or trading or other means of riling while the breakfast is underway. there is no embargo when the session ends except that our friends at c-span have agreed not to air the video of --

what is your reaction to what we have heard from the cbo? >> well, there are really two things that the cbo is saying. one is that there may be people who decide not to work or not to have a full-time job when a part-time job provides them with better, if you will, subsidized benefits from the government. and that's going to cost some jobs. the other side, of course, that they're also talking about is some employers are deciding not to bring in additional personnel as well ozbay thele fat if they do so, they won't be required to either make certainly payments or provide health insurance, so the net of this is it's going to see a couple million fewer jobs in this country. this is not the time for fewer jobs. and we have been saying that now for years, which is that obamacare in the teeth of a severe economic crisis with so many people out of work is not the right course for america. that obamacare is hurting employment, is hurting people who want full-time jobs, i heard one comment that, you know, this choice will give people the chance to pu

cbo.hat's the high end. up to a million people could lose their jobs if the -- if the minimum wage goes up to 10 bucks but it's offset by maybe half a million people getting better wages. but the cbo says is, that doesn't all go to people who live below the poverty line. >> right. >> that goes to, you know, a lot of people who, you know, have teenagers working. >> that's right. >> transitional work. >> it's a balancing act and all these people that say there's not a study out there that says raising, you know, minimum wage costs jobs, no, it could cost up to a million jobs here. >> the thing about this that i -- the minimum wage has always kind of scratched my head on, businesses bake this into what they do. >> right. >> so, you know, if they get the sense -- this is why businesses like to plan. they like to see if the congress is talking about the minimum wage they begin to bake this into how they hire, fire, rearrange their work force. this draconian result -- >> how much will they charg

now, the cbo is non-partisan. it advises congress. and when there's a piece of legislation, the cbo tells you what it's going to be. now, the cbo projects fewer workers in the labor force in 2017 with obamacare than if the law had never been passed. let's be clear. the cbo projects that it will grow, but the growth will be less than it would have been without obamacare. before the republicans start making too much hay with this, the reason why the cbo says it will be less workers, it's not about laying off more employees, as some choose to obtain coverage, some of them might want to keep their income low to qualify for subsidies or medicaid. if that happens, the cbo projects that it will come down 1%. equivalent to 2 million full-time workers in 2017. and as that becomes complicated, that rises to 2 and a half million workers by 2024. the obamacare obviously doesn't want the president's signature law to be seen as a job killer, so the president's aids were quick to respond to the report. and mike has more from the white house. >> repo

as i look at the most recent cbo report it is good news/bad news story. the good news is we have seen economic growth over the last few years and continued economic growth going forward. the economy has added over 8.2 million private sector jobs over the last 46 months. on the other hand, this report projects very sluggish growth in the job market. in fact as i read it you project the average unemployment rate in 2014 will actually be higher than the unemployment rate in december of last year and that clearly is not good news. page 3 of your report sums of this next story when it states, quote, economic growth is projected to be solid in the near term but weakness in the labour market will persist and that sums up our challenge and it seems to me we should therefore take actions that are within the control of this congress. congress can change that trajectory. your report is based on current law but congress can take action to date that will actually change that story for the remainder of this year and increase job growth and the president and house democ

cbo is bipartisan office. he worked as an economic staffer in the clinton white house the democrats cannot accuse him of spikeing the numbers. >> remember he was very, very important for the white house in terms of putting out estimates of how positive the obama care bill would be. the cbo said maybe we were wrong about those numbers. but this is a man who is an ally of the obama white house. >> and republicans took the cbo report as vindication of their claims that it would cost jobs. it would be a devastating blow for the people who need help in this economy. what does obama do ignore the cbo or go on. >> the democrats are shouting down the cbo and saying their numbers are wrong. and this is not bibliical, right. the cbo is not the last arbiter of this. but the republicans need to talk about how to create jobs and raise gamings and tax cuts and derugulation and stim lating the energy. they have to create jobs and not destroy. >> steve moore, thank it you very joining us. >> guess what is back? warning u.s. a

generally the president likes cbo reports. yesterday for whatever reason republicans loved it and twisted it and turned it. they come up with an idea this health care plan is killing jobs when what does the plan say? >> this is another cbo report that generally the white house probably likes because it projected the unemployment rate to go down to 5.8% by 2017 and projected robust economic growth year over year and anticipated the deficit will go down, all good things. on page 39 of the report it had that one paragraph where it said you will see a reduction in the hours worked potentially of workers that is the equivalent of some 2 million workers and never said in the report and i did spend the day reading through the report and also reading the washington post fact checker, it never said job being lost. if you are talking about job loss you would be saying the demand for labor would go down and businesses would want to hire fewerer people or people who wanted to look for work wouldn't be able to find it. this is about supply

all interested in the cbo, or i hope you did, the cbo report yesterday. >> the cbo report that we haves so eloquently. i love numbers, they're so precise. >> she loves the numbers, charles! >> they love numbers except when they come out on the wrong side. but here is why the democrats are so upset about this obvious result. because we know that democrats like to redistribute income. and they pretend it is always from the rich to the poor. what the cbo has shown absolutely clearly is that when you raise the minimum wage, you redistribute the income from one set of low income people to another set of low income people. there are some who will get a raise and who will be better off. but there are others who are going to lose their job, lose everything, as i said going to go from $7 an hour to nothing. going to lose their opportunity. and the irony is that the winners get a marginal advantage. but for the losers it is devastation. and you don't really think about this administration as sort of robbing the people it says it really wants to help. and that is why they have to run away from th

that wasn't even analyze inside the cbo report. there were a bunch of promises made and none are being kept. you could keep your health care. >> let's stick to this issue and to the question at hand. you brought up the american worker senator portman but you voted this week against extending unemployment benefits for those out of work. it's striking. i wonder what you say to those as been reported in your own state, more than 50,000 ohio residents who had unemployment benefits end in december. those folks really hurting. why did you vote against that? >> well, david, first of all i'm one of six republicans that voted to allow the debate to go forward. unfortunately the democrats wouldn't negotiate with us how to pay for it. but again, let's get back to the problem at hand. i said we've got a 35-year low in terps of the numbers working and the participation rate. we are record numbers of people long-term unemployed. the democrats answer to that is let's add more to the 26 weeks of unemployment insurance but do nothing to reform the

it said the cbo estimated the aca will boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years. the director directly refuted the claim that the aca is one gigantic job suck. >> we think people choosing not to work because of the incentives provided by the affordable care act would have no effect on the unemployment rate. we said that very clearly in our report. >> what the cbo actually concluded is that many workers will choose to withdraw from the labor force because many low income workers and those close to retirement will no longer experience job block. once you read the fine print, or the actual print, getting freed from job lock is not exactly a terrible thing. >> it allows americans to choose to spend more time with their family or pursue their dreams, and that is not a bad thing. it's a good thing. >> this isn't employers cutting jobs. it's newly empowers workers choosing to go a different path. >> freeing americans from job lock, this is the very thing that conservatives and paul ryan have been calling for. this is paul ryan in the year 2009. >> the key question

as i look over the most recent cbo report it's a good news bad news story.he good news is that we have seen economic growth over the last few years and project continued economic growth going forward and the economy has added over 8.2 million private-sector jobs over the last 46 months. on the other hand this report projects very sluggish growth in the job market. in fact as i read it you project that the average unemployment rate in 2014 will actually be higher than the unemployment rate in december of last year and that clearly is not good news. in fact page three of your report sums up this next story when it states quote economic growth is projected to be solid in the near term but weakness in the labor market will persist and that sums up our challenge. and it seems to me we should therefore take actions that are within the control of this congress. congress can change the trajectory. your report is based on current law but congress can take action today that will actually change that story for the remainder of this year and increase job growth. the pre

now hearing jay carney calling the cbo inaccurate, what do you make of that? >> there's no much choice. they have to dispute it and they have. they can't dispute the numbers. they say the press has gotten it wrong. focusing on the number of people who are going to have an incentive to work less as you've heard, you're talking about 2 million people who choose to drop out of the labor force, essentially work less or work not at all because subsidies make it a better economic decision for them. if they make more money they lose those subsidies. they will choose to remain out of the workforce. >> of course has he to defend it. here is my question. what happened to the american dream that you and i grew up with where getting a job was pretty important? it seems to me this is creating some sort of new welfare system. correct me if i'm wrong. >> behind all the numbers, what you said is exactly what this is about. the white house defense is this is an issue of choice. these are folks giving them the choice. they can either get these subsidies, remain at home, take ca

live by the cbo, die by the cbo. this is so nuance. i said before, nobody knows how the health care act is going to play out. conservatives think it's going to be bad, liberals think it's going to be worse. we do know what this is going to do to 30. second ads. >> less jobs. even the response of you have the opportunity to choose more does not refute that. however you nuance it, there is no intelligent, smart, 30-second rebuttal to that. this is a huge, huge win. >> okay, so -- >> and, mika, the bigger problem is about an issue that democrats have always been uncomfortable running on. i say democrats. congressional democrats have never liked to go home and campaign on the affordable care act. now this on top of -- >> because it's an acknowledgement of exactly how it's going to play out over the years is very hard to pin down overs long term because it may cut health care costs in e.r.s and other ways. it may balance out flp's also, sam, another way to look at this headline and see it could be a tad bit misleading. >>

and among policymakers and commentators outside of cbo. it doesn't surprise us nor does it have any effect on the work that we do. >> host: back at our table michael hirsh of the "national journal" chief correspondent to talk about the stimulus bill 5 years later. the white house released a report over the weekend and looking at the impact of it. what did they say the impact of the stimulus has been? >> guest: not surprisingly there were extremely positive both in terms of how many jobs it either created or saved. they say it was 1.6 million jobs a year from the start of mid-2011 i believe and they also said it added two to 3% growth to gdp. somewhat controversially they claimed it didn't add much to the long-term debt because it added growth of the economy so it was you know quite a rosy picture from what has been from the start in what became particularly in the 2012 presidential campaign a real lightning rod of controversy. >> host: what did they promise when the stimulus bill was signed into law as far as jobs saved and are these claim

the cbo projects u.s. debt will grow to 74% of gdp this year. >> that's the highest level since 1950. it expects debt to hold at this level until 2019, after which, it will resume growing. what you don't know about your bank account could back to bite you. next, why overdraft protection if you are not careful could do you more harm than good. many people are convinced twitter can help them make money. we will explain how the social media site is used to gauge stockmarket sentiment. >> and more as "real money" continues. keep it here. >> every sunday night, join us for exclusive, revealing and surprising talks, with the most interesting people of our time. >> i've always been a huge fan of space >> the world's not enough for you... >> he's creating an environment where the greatest minds... >> i don't care where you went to school, what you've ever done before... >> ...can invent , profit, and change the world. prizes could spur innovation in extrodanary ways... >> ex prize founder, peter diamandis talk to

the cbo projects u.s. debt will grow to 74% of gdp this year. >> that's the highest level since 1950. it expects debt to hold at this level until 2019, after which, it will resume growing. what you don't know about your bank account could back to bite you. next, why overdraft protection if you are not careful could do you more harm than good. many people are convinced twitter can help them make money. we will explain how the social media site is used to gauge stockmarket sentiment. >> and more as "real money" continues. keep it here. >> no doubt about it, innovation changes our lives. opening doors ... opening possibilities. taking the impossible from lab ... to life. on techknow, our scientists bring you a sneak-peak of the future, and take you behind the scenes at our evolving world. techknow - ideas, invention, life. on al jazeera america >> every sunday night, al jazeera america presents... award winning films telling stories... >> she doesn't wanna come as someone who was manipulative. >> revealing se

whatever cbo, if you are worth a certain amount to your employer -- >> in a perfect world. i want to get you on the record on this. are you saying there is not a single worker in this country that is being under paid? >> of course. and overpaid. >> but the point here is we have workers across the country being under paid. you have majorer corporations like wal-mart -- >> here is the thing. government can't make you by some unilateral announcement, make you more valuable to your employer than you are. >> this is the argument i would use in this case. in some ways you are both right. there are workers that are overpaid. they eventually do lose their jobs and go off someplace like china. there is no recourse for workers that are under paid. corporations like wal-mart are shifting costs to the public sector. one championed anti-affirmative action stuff has a ballot option in californiat that will raise minimum wage in california because he wants to pay what they are worth. >> why not $14? why not $16? >> why not none according to you guys? >> why not $20. >> you don't have to c

track record -- cbo says this, cbo says this, well, because they use some pretty strange accountingions that aren't used anywhere else in the world. here in washington, d.c., i mean, any place else in the world, you would be in jail. >> times have changed, now conservatives are endorsing cbo reports, i think we're going to see some real movement on capitol hill, starting with ending austerity. the cbo says the sequester, which the gop has fought to extend could cost up to 1.6 million jobs. how about ending the madness, john boehner? immigration reform passed the senate last year, but has yet to be brought up for a vote in the house. passing the senate's immigration bill would grow the economy and shrink the deficit. don't you think it's time for a vote? and then there's extending unemployment insurance. a bill republicans in the senate have blocked for months. the cbo found it would increase gdp and increase employment. what do you say, mitch mcconnell? over the past 36 hours, conservatives have decided to care about the employment prospects of low wage workers, disingenuously beati

i wonder why there's so much excitement about the cbo report. >> cbo projecting the debacle will cost nearly 2 1/2 millions jobs. >> obamacare killing the american dream. >> an extra 1 trillion dollars added to the deficit. >> 10 trillion dollars to the deficit. >> they will employ far fewer full-time people, more part-time people. >> this is the american way? i'm not sure. >> you seemed pretty sure that it's not. there's only one small problem with the apocalyptic predictions from the cbo in that the report did not in any way say any of those things. >> the net effects of the affordable care act is to reduce our national deficits, isn't that right? >> that's right, congressman. >> you point out there's no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the affordable care act, is that right? >> yes, that's right, congressman. >> in other words, this isn't employers cutting jobs, newly empowered workers choosing to go a different path. >> yes. >> that sounds like a guy who is ready to get [bleep] out of there. >> so the main talking point against obamacare,

as i look at the most recent cbo report it is good news/bad news story. the good news is we have seen economic growth over the last few years and continued economic growth going forward. the economy has added over 8.2 million private sector jobs over the last 46 months. on the other hand, this report projects very sluggish growth in the job market. in fact as i read it you project the average unemployment rate in 2014 will actually be higher than the unemployment rate in december of last year and that clearly is not good news. page 3 of your report sums of this next story when it states, quote, economic growth is projected to be solid in the near term but weakness in the labour market will persist and that sums up our challenge and it seems to me we should therefore take actions that are within the control of this congress. congress can change that trajectory. your report is based on current law but congress can take action to date that will actually change that story for the remainder of this year and increase job growth and the president and house democ

the cbo report. if you work 65 hours it is okay to work 35 or 40. are earning losses and productivity and reflected in real numbers and not just politics. we look at productivity of 36 years lows in this country and part- time jobs becoming the norm. it is dishonesty by the democrats, >> can you refought that? which part. i would need a five- minute segment to go through all of those issues. first of all the cbo number. that is the republican interpretation of it. and i think if people. >> but david's point that the democrats voted for it? >> they did vote for. it everyone is not running away from the president. you have a handful of people in red states and it is notes inially over obama care. it is the key stone pipeline in a couple of instances and i don't think it is accurate to say every democrat is running away. >> there will be more time to debate this. see you soon. >> thank you. >> and have you heard about can vs. and what will you not find on store shelves anymore. will thissy set a trend for other big retailers to follow. >> and irs pushi

cbo's projection of the labor force participation. most notably in this report, is that cbo also says that government policies, especially the president's health care law, are discouraging work. washington is making this problem worse. this does not have to be our fate. >> all right, so without getting too technical here, the cbo cites four reasons for the reduction in full-time workers, primarily health care subsidies and medicaid expansion. basically, in order to maintain eligibility for either some workers -- in order to maintain eligibility, some workers will decide to reduce the hours that they choose to work, either to part-time hours or completely. as "the washington post's" fact checker glen kessler put it, if someone says they decided to leave their job for personal reasons, most people would not say they "lost" their job, they simply decide ed not to work. republican congresswoman marsha blackburn of tennessee. welcome, congressman. good to see you as always. >> good to see you, yes. >> first of all, just give me your take o

and today, duke university study confirms what the cbo says. here is a portion of what the survey of top company officials found. nearly half of u.s. companies are reluctant to hire full-time employees because of the affordable care act. the study goes on. one in five firms indicates that they are likely to hire fewer employees. and another one in 10 may lay off current employees in response to the law. other firms will shift towards part-time work. it could not be clearer. here to bring the bright light of reason to the latest developments on obamacare and speaker boehner's decision to put the brakes on immigration legislation, we are joined by a former member of george bush's staff, georgetown professor brad blakeman. it's good to have you with us. also juan williams and it is so great to have you with us. let's start with you. this is the white house trying to pull back its initial statements trying cbo report because it was so disastrously a campaign document. why can't the democratic leadership look at what is before them and acknowledge t

that is not what cbo said. the head of cbo literally said on our not that what happens.ly holding on to jobs because of health care will be leaving jobs -- let me finish my sentence. martha: go ahead. >> that creates jobs openings. that creates jobs. opposite what you're arguing. martha: we made very clear we're not talking about those jobs, we're talking about loss of hours, that equates to the number of jobs. >> what is the other part, what is the other part though of that equation? sure some people may say to get a subsidy i'll work less hours because it is worth it to me to have someone else pay for my health care. >> that is not -- >> excuse me. employers who are now mandated to give health insurance, if they have a certain amount of workers who are more than full-time workers are going to then decide, they're going to cut those hours involuntary littlely for that worker. worker who has a full-time job they like will not have the job and keep it because their employer gets to decide they get to work a part-time job why they're delaying mandate again. >> if more peop

the cbo says raising minimum wage to $10 .10 per hour from $7.25 would eliminate about a half million jobs compared to staying at the current wage. $10.10 is the amount the white house and congressional democrats favor. it also considered a $9 per hour wage, which predicts would cut about 100,000 jobs in 2016. a spokesman for john boehner pounced on minimum wage being a jobs killer. saying, quote, this confirms what we've long known. while helping some, mandating it would cuts jobs. our focushead be creating, not destroying jobs for those who need it most. late today, the chairman of the council of economic advisers focused on those who would benefit from higher pay and ripped the cbo's findings. >> cbo's central estimate is that raiding the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would lead to a 0.3% decrease in employment, and cbo acknowledges the employment impact could be essentially zero. but even those estimates do not reflect the overall consensus view of economists. >> it is an issue the president and his allies have been planning to hit hard leading up to the 2014 election which he s