About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hannity lets Bachmann advance dubious claim that Christina Romer projected "5.5 million jobs lost" under health care bill

December 14, 2009 11:46 pm ET — 7 Comments

On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity allowed Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to baselessly claim that health care reform would "mean 5.5 million jobs lost and that's according to his own economist, Christina Romer." Hannity and Bachmann cited no evidence to support the claim, which Politifact has called false and "problematic"; the claim is further undermined by Romer's prediction that health care reform "would allow lower unemployment in the short and medium run."

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Bachmann: "President Obama's bill will mean 5.5 million jobs lost, and that's according to his own economist, Christina Romer"

From the December 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

BACHMANN: We need bipartisan reform, and we Republicans are there ready, willing, and able. We want bipartisan reform. Let's scrap what we have and let's move forward, because President Obama's bill will mean 5.5 million jobs lost, and that's according to his own economist, Christina Romer.

HANNITY: Congresswoman, you have the distinction of being the second-most hated Republican woman in the country. And I --

BACHMANN: Or second-most loved.

HANNITY: Or the second-most loved. That's fair enough. Does it bother you, all the heat and the criticism you've been taking?

No evidence that Romer ever claimed health care reform would "mean 5.5 million jobs lost"

Politifact: Claim is "problematic and contrary to how Obama's economic adviser said the model should work." According to PolitiFact.com:

Obama's economic adviser -- Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers -- has never said that a tax in the health care bill would cost up to 5.5 million jobs. Republicans have used her 2007 research to develop a calculation for job losses for any type of tax increase. If you have a number for tax revenues generated, then this model will give you a number of jobs lost. But there are factors that make this type of analysis troublesome when it comes to the health care bill. Romer's 2007 research, for example, said that tax increases that fund spending for social programs tend to balance out, and economic growth stays on an even keel. Another problem is that the Republicans take tax increases that happen over 10 years and treat them as if they happen in one year, which inflates the numbers of jobs that might be lost. Finally, this particular Republican analysis includes more taxes than just the surtax of page 336; it also includes the employer mandates of page 313. We find this analysis to be problematic and contrary to how Obama's economic adviser said the model should work. [PolitiFact.com, 11/4/09]

Romer: "Health care reform is an economic necessity." In a June 2, 2009, op-ed, Romer wrote:

Health care reform is more than a social imperative -- it is an economic necessity. A new study by the President's Council of Economic Advisers demonstrates that the current American health care system is on an unsustainable path. Without health care reform, American workers and families will continue to experience eroding health care benefits and stagnating wages caused by the pressure of escalating health insurance premiums. And without reform, rising spending on Medicare and Medicaid will lead to massive and unsustainable Federal budget deficits. [Romer op-ed, Yahoo! News, 6/2/09]

Romer: Health care reform will "allow lower unemployment." Romer also wrote in her op-ed, "Controlling health care cost growth would allow lower unemployment in the short and medium run, without putting pressure on inflation. Employment could be 500,000 higher for a number of years." [Romer op-ed, Yahoo! News, 6/2/09]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by caels (December 15, 2009 2:44 am ET)
      1  
      Actually, if all employers slashed their labor force in such large numbers their production would fall dramatically and reduce their profit, thus it would just have been cheaper to insure them rather than face the output drop.

      While some jobs may be lost (very unlikely and if so, minimally), 5.5 million is literally impossible giving the fundamentals of how a business works. It's cheaper to just give insurance than to slash that many jobs due to the output decrease!

      I could actually do a formal calculation to prove that, but the claim of 5.5 million is so high I can call "bull" flat out without the calculation.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ProgLib (December 15, 2009 3:33 am ET)
      4  
      if you dont show respect for the opposition, you wont receive it. deal with it, crazy woman. and you act as if you have been little miss goodie two shoes this whole time... pathetic.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (December 15, 2009 9:27 am ET)
      3  
      It's not necessary to be tied to reality when you're Crazy Michele.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by edgewaterprog (December 15, 2009 9:52 am ET)
      1  
      Well, the Republicans have sunk to another low that I never thought I would see.

      Ms Bachmann either needs to be locked up in a padded room or she needs to have her mouth washed out with hand soap for spreading lies.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (December 15, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
      2  
      hannity and bachmann the gruesome twosome of the RIGHT WING lying machine.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rrastro (December 16, 2009 2:10 am ET)
         
      5.5 million? seems high but every private sector health employee will be unemployed within a few years as insurance companies are not permitted to rate people in a responsible manner nor to pay claims in a reasonable manner
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.