On Wednesday, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma introduced legislation calling for a displacement and boycott of Iranian oil. Though similar sanctions to force Iran to cease its nuclear development programs have previously failed, a report from Roubini-SAFE says that there is enough of a surplus to consider an all-out ban. Past failures have in part come from loopholes that allow Iran to collect gold for its oil, as well as the high energy prices borne by nations such as India and China. The Obama administration worries that such drastic cuts could hurt developing economies and create animosity for US policy.

This supply shock is also being felt in Europe as gas-fired power plants are finding it hard to compete with cheap American coal. As US power generators rely more on natural gas and reduce their demand for coal, cheap coal is exported to Europe and displaces European natural gas. Though American environmentalists herald the national change as a great move toward cleaner fuels, provided the fracking process is regulated correctly, Europeans are left to make their own decisions between cheap fuel and long-term energy goals. Ironically, renewables such as wind and solar energy are also cutting into the market for gas-powered plants and putting more pressure on Europe to transition back to coal.

We have here a tale of two markets. With the success of fracking and energy development previously thought economically unwieldy, the United States finds itself in a sweet spot of political and financial power. Natural gas has already helped America move away from the “dirty energy” of coal; environmentalists may fret about fracking, but the advantage of natural gas over more complex hydrocarbons is clear. Were the US to ramp up its oil shale and tight oil extraction, it may be able to achieve major goals like ending Iran’s nuclear programs and promoting clean energy worldwide. However America’s natural gas has remained primarily in America and it seems likely to stay that way.

The oil market is murky as it is, especially with recent investigations into possible price manipulations in Europe. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is even more unsure territory. Though energy magnate T. Boone Pickens has recently come out in favor of LNG exportation, less than two years prior he said that we would

“go down as the dumbest generation” if we were to trade clean, cheap gas for dirty, expensive oil. His new support dismisses worries about fracking as a new phenomenon and calls approval of Keystone “easy” given the vast reserves available.

Regardless of how such development moves forward, it is essential that the US stands on the right ground before progressing toward these major actions. Expending the political will to get more energy sensitive nations to comply with the sanctions could damage future US policy relations if efforts fail again and Iran can wriggle through another of their “golden loopholes.” With natural gas exportations, the concerns about hydraulic fracturing should be neither overstated nor dismissed.

We should know clearly what we’re dealing with, both below and beyond our feet, without being afraid to take the next step.

In a memo written by President Obama and sent to all heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, he states “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”

Republicans have long bemoaned the hyper-political, not at all transparent Obama Administration.  Were their protestations political?  Yes, everything in DC is.  This critique of Republican criticism is almost nonsensical.  But over the last few weeks, Republicans’ fears and concerns have started to be realized.

First, there was new information concerning the September 11^th terrorist attack on the US facility in Benghazi.  Career Diplomat Gregory Hicks, who was the highest ranking foreign-service officer on the ground after the death of Ambassador Stevens, recounted the events of that night in testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee last week.

Then it was reported last week that “low level officials” at the IRS field office in Cincinnati targeted conservative groups – particularly Tea Party organizations or those with the word “patriot” in their name – for extra scrutiny as they applied for 501(c)(4) status.  In the days that followed, it became clear that, at the very least, some officials in Washington, DC office were aware that this was happening and that the White House was made aware of this story weeks ago.

Finally, on Monday, the Associated Press reported that the Justice Department had secretly obtained two months worth of AP reporters’ phone records as part of its ongoing investigation into a leak that detailed a CIA operation in Yemen last year.  According to the AP, “In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.”

All of these “scandals” are problematic in their own way.  While many on the left and in the media don’t believe there’s much of a story with Benghazi, most on the right do, and are passionate about it.  According to a recent PPP poll, 45% of respondents think it’s a worse political scandal than Watergate.  The IRS story, meanwhile, is one that impacts every American, since every American files their taxes and writes checks to the IRS yearly.  And on top of all that, the AP story, which the average voter probably doesn’t care as much about, has the media en masse up in arms decrying the massive government overreach.

None of these stories is as big as Watergate, where national political figures coordinated and then attempted to cover up a criminal act, though it is fitting that these stories coincide with Watergate’s 40^th anniversary.  But the convergence of all of these stories is enough to create, or in the case of Republicans confirm, a narrative of this President and his White House.

As Alex Burns and John Harris wrote in Politico, “In Obama’s case, the narrative emerging from this tumultuous week goes something like this: None of these messes would have happened under a president less obsessed with politics, less insulated within his own White House and less trusting of government as an institution.”  This narrative was further crystallized by the fact that while these scandals were raging in Washington, President Obama spent all day Monday in New York, attending fundraisers for the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC.

Two-term Presidents historically become embroiled in scandal in their second term (Watergate for Nixon, Iran-Contra for Reagan, Monica Lewinsky for Clinton, Iraq/Katrina/Valarie Plame for Bush).  Maybe it’s the nature of presidential politics that when you serve for eight years, eventually something scandalous will come out.  But for this president, who sought a second term to solidify his legacy as one of the most successful progressive presidents in American history, a second term with zero accomplishments (and let’s face it, that’s what is going to happen) will stain his reputation.

Republicans, particularly those in the House, have been carrying out a concerted strategy to attempt to block the president’s progressive policy proposals since he was elected.  These scandals give them the opening they need to continue to block his proposals.  They now have the ability to both call into question his leadership and philosophy of government and keep Congress bogged down in hearings and procedural action for months on end.

As Ron Fournier wrote in National Journal, scandals like these are damaging because they impact a president’s “moral authority to lead.”  Without that moral authority, President Obama has little hope of passing gun control, a grand fiscal bargain, or climate change legislation in the coming years.

It’s not Watergate, but in this case, it may be the scandalous drip that sinks him.

On top of the recent scandals, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is being accused of soliciting private and non-private companies for donations. Her effort to raise money for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been scrutinized specifically by Republican leaders.

In the Secretary’s defense, Congress has repeatedly rejected the Obama administration’s request for supplemental funds to implement the ACA. This leaves HHS in a troubling situation. As a result, HHS must implement the President’s signature health care law with an insufficient budget.

Sebelius’ possible “illegal” fundraising efforts stems from the lack of financial resources to promote the ACA. The Washington Post was first to report on this matter. The Washington Post states that Sebelius had “made multiple phone calls to health industry executives, community organizations and church groups and asked that they contribute whatever they can to nonprofit groups that are working to enroll uninsured Americans and increase awareness of the law.”

This is a problem because it appears to be a conflict of interest. It is not certain which groups Sebelius has called, but if HHS regulates these organizations, this will unquestionably become a bigger issue than has been presented this week.

Another thing to address is that Sebelius unfairly used her powers to contact the CEOs of for-profit and non-profit insurance companies. It is significant to note because Sebelius’ position as HHS secretary gave her access to organization’s leaders and managers.

As 2014 quickly approaches (it’s already May, seven more months to go!), there is still a lot of work to do before the ACA is fully implemented. Secretary Sebelius is doing her best to promote and to implement the President’s key legislation. However, Sebelius should know that even the HHS secretary must abide by the rules and regulations governing her office.

This is when I can appropriately use the phrase, “desperate times call for desperate measures.”

However, Sebelius’ action raises questions and skepticisms as she is currently making decisions for several components of the ACA. For example, she is consulting with insurance companies for health plans and to set their premium rates. Also, she must confirm plan participations in the ACA’s insurance exchanges. Secretary Sebelius’ fundraising efforts are inappropriate even if the actions are found to be legal.

At the center of the controversy is a tripartite collision of scandals involving a series of federal regulatory agencies that includes the State Department’s handling of Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) announcement of mistreatment of conservative groups. Now the Justice Department, tasked with investigating aspects of these scandals, is fending off criticism that it improperly sought information from the Associated Press. In what has become a tag-team of congressional appearances, the IRS took its turn on Friday morning when out-going IRS chief Steven Miler trudged up to the hill to face scrutiny from a congress patiently waiting to have their questions answered.

Is this process political? Yes, there is no doubt that while both parties and the president have expressed outrage regarding the conduct of the IRS, the Republican Party has sounded the loudest alarm. Republicans are likely unwilling to passively allow this groundswell of criticism and call for investigation to pass with a 2014 fight to retain control of the House of Representatives looming on the horizon.

This does not make this issue any less important. There is no shortage of questions to be answered by administrators regarding their processing of applications from political groups seeking to be identified as 501(c)(4) non-profit entities. USA Today, in a series of articles, has shed light on the possibility that the nation’s top taxing entity knew of the practice of targeting groups that were critical of the government far earlier than the agency initially conceded, perhaps in 2011. It has also been revealed that top agency administrators were briefed about this program, contradicting the agency claim that this behavior was isolated to low-level officers in Cincinnati and did not reach the desks of top officials in Washington.

The ramifications of these breakdowns manifested themselves during the 2012 election cycle. For groups with names that hinted at progressive or liberal advocacy the wait time for application approval averaged nine months. Alternatively, the applications of 100 groups believed by the IRS to have a conservative affiliation were sent to special investigatory teams with nearly half of those groups not yet approved. Most troubling is the revelation that during these heightened investigations groups were asked to provide donor information for an as yet unknown IRS purpose.

It is these uncertainties which have triggered the important inner clockwork of checks within the U.S. federal system.

Despite partisan criticism cascading both directions across the aisle, by virtue of a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans the American people are given the opportunity to see how this government was intended to operate. A very real and egregious miscarriage of responsibility has been committed by the IRS. It is, however, what makes the American system so special that the president’s administrators will subsequently be called before a body of opposition to face withering, and public, questioning as well as expansive investigation.

One acting IRS administrator is already out of a job due to this growing scandal, and more will certainly follow. This process is messy, it is at times inefficient, and it is clearly political. It is, however, also fundamentally tasked with understanding and correcting an imbalance arising from a lack of transparency, oversight, and appropriate discretion by this country’s most powerful enforcement mechanisms.

This process, therefore, is unmistakably American. Born of an administration’s failure to exemplify the most vaunted characteristics of the American ideal, the onslaught of criticism and revelation in the press and on the Hill defines how difficult it is to hide the facts in a country founded on the peoples’ redress of wrongs. These congressional hearings celebrate the notion that this principle still holds true today.

Let it pour.

Hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ has been used in conventional, vertical wells since at least the 1950s.  New developments in directional drilling technology recently allowed the technique to be used in wells that are drilled horizontally. As a result, American companies now have access to the oil and gas trapped in dense, non-permeable shale deposits at an economically acceptable cost.

Widespread use of the technique since 2005 has caused domestic production to skyrocket and the price of natural gas to fall from $12MBTU to $4MBTU. According to a recent paper published by the American Action Forum, there is even more potential for growth, including the possibility that the US becomes a natural gas exporter in the foreseeable future.  Shale deposits of oil and natural gas in the United States are some of the largest in the world.  By some estimates, there is enough gas in US shale to supply a century worth of energy at current consumption levels. The BLM rules will affect 90% of all drilling on federal lands so their impact is potentially tremendous.

Environmentalists are concerned that fracking is dangerous and that the regulations don’t do enough to address their concerns. The Sierra Club even went so far as to release a statement that “no amount of regulation will make fracking acceptable.” The technique, which uses high-pressure water, sand and toxic chemicals to shatter underground rock and release the fossil fuels trapped inside, certainly sounds dangerous.  Chief among the concerns is the possibility that chemicals or even the fossil fuels themselves will contaminate local drinking water. One television commercial opposing fracking in New York  shows a woman lighting the water from her kitchen faucet on fire with a match.

The industry has pointed out that there has yet to be a single case of water contamination where fracking is the culprit. Water is sometimes contaminated but it is usually the result of a leak or crack in the shaft of the well. That can happen whether fracking is used or not and is already regulated by the federal and state laws on well construction.

While the industry isn’t concerned that fracking will contaminate underground aquifers (which are separated from shale deposits by thousands of feet of rock), they are concerned that the federal regulations are duplicative.  The new rules are more deferential to existing state regulation than last year’s.  They also struck a compromise about the controversial requirement to disclose proprietary chemical mixtures used in the fracking process. But additional permits will make development more expensive.

With so much potential for economic growth and cheaper energy, the administration can’t afford to burden the industry with unnecessary regulation. The new rules are a step in the right direction to balance reasonable environmental risks with regulation costs.

Reading the American and Russian press in the wake of the Fogle affair, one is left with two distinct impressions of the spy scandal. Both Western and Russian media coverage ridicule the sloppy, beyond-primitive tradecraft of the alleged CIA operative, but the similarities end there.  Most Russian media conclude that the wigs, cash, compass, and incriminating letter are indisputable proof that Fogle intended to recruit the Russian intelligence officer.  For the American media, such “proof” makes it hard to buy that Fogle was acting on behalf of the CIA and easier to believe that the incident was a setup.

Pointing to the instant availability of photos and video of the detention, some skeptical observers claim that this scandal plays into the hands of the Kremlin just a little too easily. Prominent Russian news agencies, including Kommersant, Rossiya 24, and Pravda.ru, have expressed indignation at the Western press for doubting or otherwise laughing off the allegations that Fogle was working for the CIA.

Much like the scandal itself, tossing around accusations and conspiracy theories does nothing for US-Russian relations; however, one can’t help but notice how this incident coincides with key events that impact cooperation between the two countries:

1. Secretary Kerry’s Moscow visit: Secretary of State John Kerry met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov just weeks earlier. The leaders agreed to host talks to resolve the conflict in Syria.
2. Heightened US interest in the North Caucasus: Since the Boston Marathon bombing, US intelligence agencies have been piecing together the Tsarnaev brothers’ path to radicalization, paying particular attention to Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s 2012 trip to Dagestan. The agent that Fogle allegedly tried to recruit was a North Caucasus specialist. This seems to fly in the face of any progress that FBI Director Robert Mueller’s recent visit to Moscow may have made.
3. Ambassador McFaul’s Twitter Q&A: As news of the incident broke, US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul had just begun a live Q&A session on Twitter, during which he answered questions from followers in Russian and English.  This was likely an attempted PR boost for the ambassador, who has been unpopular with the Kremlin since meeting with opposition members before the 2012 election.

Given the timing and circumstances of the case, it’s easy to see why Western observers have expressed their doubts.  However, the Russian press is also justified in its indignation. When journalist Arkady Mamontov exposed the UK for using a fake rock to exchange information between diplomats and agents in a 2006 TV program, the British Foreign Office and media alike dismissed his claims as ludicrous.  He was vindicated in January 2012 when former Blair aide Jonathan Powell admitted that the rock was, in fact, real.

As NYU professor and Russia expert Mark Galeotti points out, Russia could have expelled Fogle without all the fuss; after all, it’s no revelation that the two countries spy on each other. (Russian officials are now claiming that they quietly showed another US operative the door earlier this year.) Although both sides predict that this will not affect long-term US-Russian relations, the decision to publicize the incident certainly doesn’t help in the short term. And while it may not damage international efforts like Syria, it will have a lasting effect on the opinions of ordinary Russians and Americans.

The interest rate on direct subsidized loans for undergrads is currently 3.4 percent, but it is set to double to 6.8 percent in July. Warren proposes lowering this interest rate to 0.75 percent, the Federal Reserve discount rate at which banks borrow overnight through the primary credit program.

The rhetoric behind the idea is strong: why shouldn’t students get the same deal that banks do? But that’s about all it is — rhetoric. This is because a student loan is not at all like an overnight loan. Interest rates are determined by time horizon (how long it will take to repay) and creditworthiness (how likely someone is to repay), and student loans and overnight loans are very different across both of those dimensions.

—

Time horizon: 10+ years vs. overnight

First, the two types of borrowing are across very different time horizons. A student loan typically takes more than ten years to pay back in full. For example, President Obama announced last year that he only finished paying off his $60,000 in student loans in 2004, thirteen years after finishing law school. In contrast, an overnight loan is exactly what it sounds like. Through the primary credit program, depository institutions can borrow at 0.75 percent for overnight loans. They generally use these overnight loans to cover short-term balance sheet adjustments.

A more appropriate comparison would be the interest rate that the banks pay on long-term loans. For example, the U.S. government, which should receive the most favorable interest rates on its long-term loans, pays an average of 1.8 percent in interest on ten-year loans and almost 3 percent on 30-year loans.

Creditworthiness: Proof of enrollment vs. adequate capital standards

Second, the two types of borrowers have very different levels of creditworthiness. To be eligible for a federal student loan, you just need a Social Security number and proof of enrollment in an accredited institution. You cannot have a previous default on a prior federal student loan, but other than that, there are no credit checks or screening of your creditworthiness.

Banks who are eligible to borrow at the discount window, however, need to be “adequately or well capitalized,” a status that is designated and routinely reviewed by the Federal Reserve. Although some might argue that primary credit lending is still relatively lenient, given that it is administered on almost a “no questions asked” basis, access to primary credit is still restricted by capital standards, while access to student loans is not.

—

Still, many people complaint that interest rates on student loan debt are too high, and delinquency rates are on the rise. As a recent graduate with a lot of student debt myself, I certainly wish that the interest rates were lower. However, I acknowledge that I am in no way like a bank – I’m not going to pay back my debt tomorrow, and I have negative net worth at the moment.

So while Senator Warren’s proposal makes for good press, the economics of it just don’t make sense.

Moving to get out in front of the controversy, today the IRS publicly apologized for the conduct of self-described, ‘low-level’ employees in the department’s Cincinnati office that the agency admitted had unfairly burdened conservative organizations with extra scrutiny not accorded to other organizations participating in the 2012 election cycle.

At issue is the tax-exempt status often referred to simply as 501(c)(4), a classification for which applications have grown increasingly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision. The appeal of this exemption is that it allows charitable organizations engaged primarily in promoting the general welfare and common good of the community to supplement their activity by taking part in lobbying efforts and campaign advocacy. It is this flexibility to allocate resources toward active political initiatives that has motivated the pull toward 501(c)(4) status.

During the campaigns of 2012 many Tea-Party organizations and other conservative policy groups claimed that they were being unfairly targeted by the IRS. Their grievances were often quickly discounted by pundits and media outlets as typical political noise. It turns out we should have been paying attention.

To be fair, the text of the 501(c)(4) exemption does not yield a bright-line rule, but rather clothes this increasingly important rule in vague language that would necessarily require tough value judgment by the IRS. The result is a twenty page application that mandates extensive general reporting. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) the IRS estimates that this application will require 9,692 organizations to spend 291,542 hours filling out the associated compliance paperwork. This translates to 30 hours per entity. Considering that the financial data portion of the application alone is comprised of 43 sub-parts, this hours-per-entity estimate seems, no pun intended, conservative.

This snapshot of the world of regulatory paperwork highlights the ability of the big-data federal agency to manipulate private behavior. Whether the actions of these Cincinnati employees are the product of scienter, or as the IRS claims, a misguided attempt at efficiency, federal regulators have a problem.

At best, this admission reveals an agency struggling to manage the ever increasing regulatory burden of information collection that has not only firmly clamped down on private enterprise, but has now stunted the ability of agency officials to perform their basic investigatory functions without making short-sighted efficiency decisions that penalize the public.

Worse still, the vagaries of federal paperwork obligations have opened the door to concerted manipulation of public behavior by those with ulterior motives.

Either way, this incident taken together with the cumulative impact of this spring’s onslaught of regulatory agency controversies, demonstrates an increasingly apparent lack of oversight.  Not only were these mistakes made but the IRS has also raised the question, by claiming that they addressed the issue last year, of why the public is learning of this systemic lapse in judgment now?

These actions are not without injury, for non-profit organizations which are characteristically short-staffed and supported by limited resources, the continued dedication of employees to answering the dogged requests of regulators for information likely impacted the ability of these organizations to operate effectively.

This post does not portend to offer a solution to what is increasingly becoming a very concerning problem. However the debate that has begun over the need to reform these federal regulatory agencies must continue.

“Mistakes were made,” the IRS told the public today. To miss the growing call to examine how this country regulates would be to turn an agency’s mistake into a government’s failure.

Enter the Heritage Foundation.  During the last immigration reform effort in 2006-2007, Heritage released an influential study that warned against the dire fiscal calamity that would ensue should Congress approve a “pathway to citizenship,” or as some call it amnesty – a term thrown around so rigorously as to render it almost meaningless.  This week they struck again, revising their study and reasserting their position that amnesty will have disastrous consequences.

Their updated version, which can be read in summary here, estimates that the current undocumented population, if legalized, would “receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes.”  Thus, as their homepage banner emphatically states, the cost to YOU of the immigration bill is $6.3 trillion.

After Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, then Heritage President and co-founder Ed Fuelner addressed his staff saying “We are the flagship conservative organization that carries on the Reagan legacy. We are the people conservatives look to stop the Obama revolution in its tracks.”  But in this case, conservative organizations, including Americans for Tax Reform and the Cato Institute, have strongly rebuked Heritage and its findings.

There are various holes to poke in the Heritage study, including the fact that they don’t incorporate economic benefits of immigration and they don’t account for the limitations on citizenship included in the “amnesty” provision.  But many people smarter than me have addressed the flawed basis for the study (read, for example, Doug Holtz-Eakin, Grover Norquist, Matt Yglesias, Dylan Matthews, even Tim Kane, a former Heritage immigration scholar).

I’ll let the economists address the study’s flaws (and there are many).  The other part of this story worth noting is how politically dishonest this document truly is.  As Ryan Lizza wrote in The New Yorker, after 2008, Feulner sought to transform Heritage from an academic quasi-university into a political powerhouse, a process come to fruition with the creation of Heritage Action – its 501(c)(4) arm – and the appointment of former Senator Jim DeMint as President.

They have gained considerable influence – particularly among conservative Republicans in the House – and along with groups like the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity are a force to be reckoned with.  But when it comes to this immigration report, they purposefully muddied the waters, maybe providing political cover to members skeptical of the bill, but losing significant credibility in the process.

For one thing, they tout their study as an analysis of the immigration bill and emphasize the cost of the bill to you, John Q. Taxpayer.  But the study only addresses one part of the immigration bill – the path to citizenship.  It ignores H-1B provisions, a guest worker program, new STEM provisions, new agriculture visas, and much more.  The average voter, who scans political news or receives the Heritage Foundation’s daily email, is not made aware of this fact.  They are only told that the cost of immigration reform is $6.3 trillion.

Secondly, studies of this sort – projections of future costs/benefits – are generally done on a 10 year scale.  That is the standard practice of the non-profit Congressional Budget Office as well as policy papers from think-tanks around Washington.  But the Heritage study, stating that the bill costs $6.3 trillion, projects out over 50 years, but many will assume the usual 10 year scale, making the number all the more misleading.  Once again, this is not a fact that is readily available to the average reader who scans through the report or Heritage press materials.

The Heritage Foundation is a powerful organization with a rich conservative history.  They are an invaluable voice for the conservative movement with unmatched reach and influence both in Washington and around the country.  But this study, both its findings and the way they’re sold, reflects an intellectual dishonesty that is below their stature.

Immigration is as complex and difficult a political issue as exists today.  Accomplishing something significant will require a vigorous but honest debate on the issues that make up comprehensive reform.  Hopefully the Heritage Foundation will decide soon that it actually wants to contribute.

The latest poll from April 2013 shows us that there was a 6% drop in the popularity of the ACA.

Shockingly, only 6 in 10 Americans know that the ACA has passed and is here to stay. As House Speaker John Boehner puts it eloquently, “…Obamacare is the law of the land….”

If only 6 in 10 Americans know about the ACA, then 40% of Americans are unsure or unaware of the law. Kaiser’s health tracking poll shows that 7% of the population thinks that the Supreme Court actually overturned the ACA and 12% of respondents mistakenly believe that Congress has repealed it.

It is obvious that the President’s health care law is unpopular and not well known amongst the American people. The Washington Post examined a survey conducted by a Democratic polling firm, Lake Research Partners, and found that 78% of uninsured Americans qualifying for subsidies were unaware of the new health care coverage options.

How is the President and his administration tackling the issue of the law’s unpopularity?

According to The Examiner and Bloomberg, the President has ordered his Cabinet officials to promote and advocate for the ACA in a positive light, targeting, younger individuals. To be specific, the President instructed the officials to tout the ACA at college commencements. This was also one of the suggestions Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, outlined in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.

It is clear that government officials and even insurance companies are starting to fret about not enrolling enough young and healthy Americans in insurance exchanges.

Why is that?

Well, if not enough younger and healthier Americans join in the exchanges by the time the law is implemented – 2014 – there will be a disproportionate number of older and sicker Americans in the exchanges. As a consequence, premiums and health care costs will increase and young people will be even less likely to enroll.

As Dr. Emanuel points out, insurance companies are already aware of the possibilities that younger people will opt out and pay a penalty instead of joining the health exchanges. In order to protect themselves, the insurance companies have started to raise their insurance premiums. This method only further deters younger people from entering the health exchanges. The American Action Forum found in a survey that premiums would increase by an average of 169%.

There are several uncertainties about the ACA. Gambling on young and healthy Americans entering the health exchanges is too risky. It is important that the President and his administration promote the options and better advocate before the ACA is fully implemented.

As problems continue to escalate due to the ACA, the House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) announced just last week that the House is scheduled to vote on a full repeal of the ACA.

May 8th 2013: @GOPLeader It just keeps getting worse. I am scheduling a vote for next week on the full repeal of #Obamacare.

We will have to wait and see what this means and how it will play out. The enrollment phase of the ACA is projected to begin in October 2013 until March 2014. All we can do as young Americans is to be well informed and educated of the health care law and clue in others. It is part of your civic duty.