Why is the anti-immigrant backlash so strong in Arizona

A new analysis by the Brookings Institution sheds some light on the anti-immigrant backlash in Arizona. While 83% of Arizonians over 65 are white only 43% of the state’s population under 18 are white. In other words, most of the young adults and children in Arizona are non-white, largely hispanic/Latino. Bookings says:

Over the past two decades the state has seen its Latino population grow by 180 percent as its racial composition shifted from 72 to 58 percent white…The state’s swift Hispanic growth has been concentrated in young adults and children, creating a “cultural generation gap” with largely white baby boomers and older populations, the same demographic that predominates in the recent Tea Party protests…So in areas where large numbers of new young adults and children are culturally distinct from an older population which does not share familial or personal connections, there is a noticeable gap that involves more than just age. A 2006 Pew survey indicated that more than half the population over age 50 believed that immigrants were a burden because they take housing, jobs and healthcare.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0428_arizona_frey.aspx?rssid=LatestFromBrookings&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BrookingsRSS/topfeeds/LatestFromBrookings+(Brookings:+Latest+From+Brookings)

If we really want to spur economic growth and balance the budget, we should INCREASE taxes.

In a September 2008 report, the Center for American Progress took a close look at the impact of Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981 and Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 compared to Clinton’s tax hikes in 1993 on investment growth, economic growth, income growth, wage levels, employment growth and the federal budget deficit and national debt. Findings. On every measure the country was better off after the tax increase than after the tax cuts.

• Real investment growth after the tax increases of 1993 was much higher than after the tax cuts of 1981 and 2001.
• Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras
• Average annual real median household income growth was greatest after the 1993 tax increases
• Wage levels also did better after 1993.
• Employment growth was weaker during the supply-side eras than during the post-1993 era.
• Federal budget deficits and national debt increased during supply-side periods and decreased following the 1993 tax increases.

So, deficit hawks, how about a tax increase to spur growth and bring down the deficit. It worked before.

Read the report at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html

New poll numbers show Tea Party members are out of touch with mainstreet America

You hear a lot about the Tea Party nuts and that they represent main street America. Not true. Let’s look at the numbers. Turns out Americans are are lot more progressive than most people think and that Tea Party conservatives are the ones out of touch with mainstreet.

62% of Americans think the income tax that they paid in 2010 was fair vs 52% of TPs

76% of Americans say they think Social Security and Medicare are well worth the costs to taxpayers for those programs vs 62% of Tps

58% of Americans think the Roe vs. Wade decision was good vs only 40% of TPs

54% of Americans think it is a GOOD idea to raise taxes on households with income over $250,000 per year to help provide health insurance for the uninsured vs just 17% of TPs.

58% of Americans think Obama understands their needs and problems vs just 24% of TPs.

38% of Americans think providing government benefits to poor people encourages them to remain poor vs 73% of TPs

45% of Americans oppose the health insurance mandate vs 85% of TPs

63% of Americans think gay couples should be allowed to legally marry or form civil unions vs 40% of TPs who think gay couples should have no legal recognition.

Read the results of the poll here: http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters

Unequal Nation

The biggest plague besetting our nation and holding us back today isn't government interference in the economy but government’s failure to create opportunities for economic equality. In short, the government does not redistribute too much wealth, it redistributes too little. Income inequality is a symbol of a failing society. What is important in any society that wishes to remain viable for long is not the guarantee of financial, social and other advancement from one generation to the next but the guarantee of unobstructed opportunity for advancement, the removal of barriers and construction of pathways to a brighter future, the delivery of opportunity sufficient to overcome hopelessness. Individuals can not create such opportunities by themselves nor can they be created by small groups of individuals in most cases. They can be created only by a force large enough and powerful enough to overcome the forces that work against the expansion of opportunity, a force large enough and powerful enough to do battle with the strong and powerful in the name of the less strong and less powerful. That force is government.

We have become a nation of extreme income inequality. In his book Ill Fares the Land, Tony Judt reminds us that “From the late 19th century until the 1970s, the advanced societies of the west were all becoming less unequal…Modern democracies were shedding extreme wealth and poverty.” (Judt, p. 12) Starting in the early 1980s, income became increasing unequal. In 1980, the top 1% of earners in the U.S. received 8% of the total national income of all workers. In 2007, they received 23%. The richest 20 percent of the population of the U.S. today earn nearly 8.5 times the income of the bottom 20 percent. In Japan, Finland, Norway and Sweden—all countries with low income inequality—the richest 20 percent earn 4 are less times the income of the poorest 20 percent. Nowhere is income inequality more evident than in the difference between the pay of CEOs and the average workers in their companies. American CEOs in the 1950s and 1960s earned 25 to 35 times the wage of the average worker in their company. In 1980, they earned 40 times. In 1990, 100 times. And, in 2007, 350 times. In other words, the average CEO today earns as much in one day as the average worker earns in almost an entire year. It is worse the larger the company. In 1968, the CEO of the U.S. largest company at that time, GM, earned 66 times the pay and benefits of the average employee in his company. In 2005, the CEO of America’s largest company, Walmart, earned 900 times the pay and benefits of the average employee in his company.

It is not just a matter of unfairness, inequality has consequences, severe consequences. Income inequality is associated with increased crime and the need for more prisons and more police, more drug abuse, more mental illness, increased obesity among children and adults, shorter life expectancy, increased infant death, increased teen pregnancies, increased homicides, lower student math and literacy scores, higher high school drop out rates, and lowered aspirations of young people for obtaining more than low-skilled work. (See Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger for a good analysis of the impact of income inequality.) Additionally, income inequality makes social mobility (the ability of children to be better off financially than their parents) more difficult. From 1950 to 1980, the percentage of a son’s income that could be explained by his father’s income declined from 15% to 10%. Between 1980 and 2000 it increased to 20% in 1990 and 33% in 2000. If you are born poor today, you are likely to remain poor regardless of your talents and efforts to improve your condition.

If we want a future as a country, then we must become less of an unequal nation. How? I'll suggest what we might consider doing in another post.

Tea partiers are upset becauses they pay their fair share of taxes

In a recent CBS news poll, 52% of tea party members say the income tax they paid this year were fair. Does that mean that they are protesting taxes because they want the taxes that they pay to be UNFAIR? Or is it that they just don’t know what to think so they turn all that “thinky, thinky” stuff over to Glenny and Paliny.

Read it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002487-503544.html

No/Nothing Repubs say no to financial reform.

Republicans say they are totally opposed to financial reform. So, what is it that they oppose? The No/Nothing Repubs:

• Don’t want consumer protections,
• Want to keep writing checks to bail out financial firms that fail,
• Don’t want any advanced warning systemm to detect systemic risks,
• Don’t like transparency in banking,
• Think loopholes in current law that allow risky and abusive practices are okay,
• Don’t want supervision of banks by the Fed,
• Don’t want shareholders to have a say on executive pay and corporate affairs in financial firms,
• Don’t want protection for investors, and
• Don’t want regulators to enforce the regulations already on the books.

What do Republicans want to do about financial reform? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Here is a summary of the key provisions of the Senate version of Financial Reform.

Consumer Protections with Authority and Independence: Creates a new independent watchdog, housed at the Federal Reserve, with the authority to ensure American consumers get the clear, accurate information they need to shop for mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products, and protect them from hidden fees, abusive terms, and deceptive practices.

Ends Too Big to Fail: Ends the possibility that taxpayers will be asked to write a check to bail out financial firms that threaten the economy by: creating a safe way to liquidate failed financial firms; imposing tough new capital and leverage requirements that make it undesirable to get too big; updating the Fed’s authority to allow system-wide support but no longer prop up individual firms; and establishing rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses.

Advanced Warning System: Creates a council to identify and address systemic risks posed by large, complex companies, products, and activities before they threaten the stability of the economy.

Transparency & Accountability for Exotic Instruments: Eliminates loopholes that allow risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated - including loopholes for over-the-counter derivatives, asset-backed securities, hedge funds, mortgage brokers and payday lenders.

Federal Bank Supervision: Streamlines bank supervision to create clarity and accountability. Protects the dual banking system that supports community banks.

Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance: Provides shareholders with a say on pay and corporate affairs with a non-binding vote on executive compensation.

Protects Investors: Provides tough new rules for transparency and accountability for credit rating agencies to protect investors and businesses.

Enforces Regulations on the Books: Strengthens oversight and empowers regulators to aggressively pursue financial fraud, conflicts of interest and manipulation of the system that benefit special interests at the expense of American families and businesses.

Read a full summary of the Senate bill here:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/FinancialReformSummary231510FINAL.pdf

To see a comparison of the House and Senate versions of Financial Reform go here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/16/business/financialreform-billcompare.html?ref=business

Who will replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court?

Wondering who Opama might nominate to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court? Here are the seven most likely candidates.

Merrick Garland, Judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Jennifer Granholm, Michigan governor.

Elena Kagan, U.S. solicitor general.

Harold Hongju Koh, Legal adviser to the State Department.

Janet Napolitano, Homeland security secretary.

Deval Patrick, Massachusetts governor.

Diane Pamela Wood, Judge on 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Learn more:

Here is a link to a site that provides profiles and pros/cons of these top possible picks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100411/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_possible_nominees

Links to sources of information on health reform

HEALTH REFORM:

Still have questions about health reform and what it means to you? Here are some links to answers to frequently asked questions about health reform and opinions for respected legal scholars on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT HEALTH REFORM

The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting

AARP

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/health_care_explained.html

THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE:

Still questioning whether the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is constitutional? Here are links to the opinions of five constitutional scholars on the constitutionality of the individual mandate:

Edwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and founding dean of the University of California, Irvine Law School: “Health Reform Is Constitutional,” Politico, October 23, 2009, available online at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html

Mike Dorf, professor of law at Cornell University: “State Anti-Mandates,” Dorf on Law, February 2, 2010, available online at http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2010/02/state-anti-mandates.html and http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20091102.html and http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20091021.html

Stuart Taylor, a legal scholar and Brookings Institution Fellow: “Is a Health Care Mandate Constitutional?” National Journal, December 12, 2009, available online at http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20091212_6842.php

Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School : “Constitutional Objections to Obamacare don’t hold up,” LA Times, January 20, 2010, available online at http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/20/opinion/la-oe-amar20-2010jan20

Mark Hall, a professor of law and medicine at Wake Forest University The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance (Washington: Georgetown University O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, 2009), available online at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/national-health-law/legal-solutions-in-health-reform/Individual_Mandates.html .

Obama is America’s most centrist president ever

Newt calls Obama a radical. Wrong Newt. Totally wrong. Obama is the most centrist president we have ever elected. On every issue, he has adopted the middle road. Consider:

The economic crisis: A conservative president would have cut taxes. A liberal president would have passed a much, much larger stimulus and created a New Deal-like Work Progress Administration to provide government jobs to get people back to work.

Health reform: A conservative president would have allowed private insurance companies to sell whatever they wanted to sell across state lines with no regulation, would have implemented tort reform to make it impossible for patients to sue doctors and hospitals, and handed out health insurance vouchers to the uninsured that would have come no where near covering the cost of individual insurance. A liberal president would have insisted upon a single payor system or Medicare for all.

Off shore drilling: A conservative president would have let oil companys drill wherever they wanted. A liberal president would have blocked all off shore drilling.

Iraq and Afghanistan: A conservative president would have kept large numbers of troops in Iraq indefinitely and sent large numbers of troops to Afghanistan also to stay there indefinitely. A liberal president would have pulled troops out of both countries as quickly as possible.

Don’t ask, don’t tell: A conservative president would have continued and toughened Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to drive as many gays out of the military as possible. A liberal president would have immediately ended the policy.

Abortion: A conservative president would have expanded the prohibition on spending money to fund abortions accept in the case of incest, rape or when the woman’s life was in danger to ban funding of any and all abortions. A liberal president would have removed the ban on funding abortions completely allowing the woman and her doctor to decide.

Education: A conservative president would have kept and expanded No Child Left Behind. A liberal president would have abolished No Child Left Behind.

On each of these issues, Obama has adopted a reasoned, logical, middle-of-the-road centrist policy. Radical, Newt? I think not. You are the radical. Obama is a centrist, the most centrist president we have ever had.

Who are these Tea Party people?

A new poll is out that sheds some light on who are the Tea Party people and what issues matter to them. The poll is by the Winston Group which is a conservative think tank run by David Wilson a former advsior to Republicans and Director of Planning for Newt when he was Speaker. You should take that into account when considering these numbers. Also, I haven’t seen the survey questions so don’t know if they were biased or not. That said, here are some of the results.

17% of the registered voters surveyed in December 2009 and February 2010 said the were “part of the Tea Party movement.”

Not surprising, Tea Partiers are primarily Republicans (57%) but also include Independents (28%) and a few Democrats (13%).

Almost 2/3rds are self-identified Conservatives and another 26% say they are moderates.

The are mostly male and over 55. 70% are over 45.

Most get their news from Fox (47%) as their primary source or CNN (14%)

54% report incomes over $50,00 per year (vs 51% of all voters) with 32% reporting incomes over $75,000 (vs. 34% of all voters.)

Tea Partiers’ top issues are the economy/jobs (36%) and national deficit/spending (21%). Compared to voters overall in the study Tea Partiers are less concerned with the economy/jobs that voters as a whole (36% vs 45%) and more concerned with national deficit/spending (21% vs 10%).

83% of Tea Partiers say increased taxes will cause job losses vs. 53% of all voters.

87% say the stimuls is not working vs. 54% of all voters.

Interestingly when given the choice of balancing the budge or reducing unemployment to 5%, Tea Partiers are for reducing unemployment (63%) which is about the same as for all voters. That final finding suggests that a lot of the Tea Party anger comes from the job loses and high unemployment.

So, when the job picture improves as it seems to be doing will the Tea Party movement fall apart? Once the Tea Partiers and their family members get back to work will they remain as angry with the mean old government as they have been or will things look brighter, Obama and the government not look so bad, and Glenn Beck start looking to them like some loony tunes nut case, which of course he is? We’ll see.

See the Tea Party poll at: http://winstongroup.net/2010/04/01/behind-the-headlines-whats-driving-the-tea-party-movement/

Likely outcome of the 2010 election as of now

Someone asked me about projections concerning the upcoming elections and whether the Democrats would lose control of the House, Senate or both. Here are some current projections from Election Projection. See http://www.electionprojection.com/index.php

Senate:

Currently Democrats have 51 seats, Republicans have 48 seats and there are 2 independents that normally vote with the Democrats.

Projection: Republicans will pick up 7 seats. North Dakota is almost certain to go Republican. It is likely that Blanche Lincoln (Dem, Arkansas) will lose. In Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, Republicans have a good chance to take the seat as of now.

Likely outcome: Democrats will control 50 seats, Republicans will control 48, and there will still be 2 Independents. Assuming the Independents continue to caucus with the Democrats, Democrats will retain control over the Senate but just barely.

House:

Currently Democrats have 257 seats, Republicans have 178.

Projection: Republicans will pick up 19 seats.

Likely outcome: Democrats will control 238 seats and Republicans will control 197.

House appears to be pretty safe to remain in the control of the Democrats. However 11 of the 19 seats projected to switch to Republican are open seats—Democratic incumbent isn’t running again—and we don’t know yet who the candidates will be. A strong Democratic candidate a extreme conservative, Tea-Party Republican could pick up enough Indpendent votes to retain the seat. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Visit the Election Projection site for more detail on what Senate and House seats are up from grabs.

See http://www.electionprojection.com/index.php

How is Obama like Reagan?

Chris Weigant of Huffington Post took a look a the approval/disapproval ratings of Obama versus former presidents. Turns out Obama's approval/disapproval polls so far in his presidency track most closely to those of none other than Ronald Reagan during his first term. Take a look at this chart.

The bad news for Democrats is that the first mid-term elections under Reagan (1982) were seen as a referndum on his economic policies--and, he lost. Democrats gained 26 seats in the House, the biggest reversal for the party in power since the fallout from Watergate. However, the makeup of the Senate did not change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/obama-poll-watch----march_b_523979.html

Jobs and the November election-What the new numbers might be telling us.

Employers added 162,000 jobs last month, and employment numbers in the previous two months were revised upward. Nationwide, the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent. That’s good news for America, good news for the unemployed since it appears American companies are ready to start hiring again and appear to be already doing so, good news for Democrats since they will benefit in November from any improvement on the jobs front, and bad news for Republicans since a major portion of their mid-term strategy is built around hoping for a jobless recovery.

Let’s talk about jobs and elections. Obviously, if you are the party in power facing an election year, you don’t want high unemployment since, regardless of who is to blame for the job troubles, voters will punish the party in power. However, there is a caveat to that wisdom. Voters vote less on existing conditions than on their expectations about future conditions. In other words, if voters believe that the job picture is bad and likely to get worse then the party in power is in big, big trouble. Look out. However, if voters believe the job picture is still bad but starting to improve, if they think that six months are a year from now things will be better, they are less likely to punish the party in power. If you are the party in power, you will get hit but not nearly as bad as you would if voters saw only doom and gloom. You might even benefit for the sudden voter optimism.

The recent jobs reports suggest strongly that businesses have stopped cutting jobs and are beginning to hire again. Here’s more evidence.

Labor productivity grew by another 6.9%, while labor costs fell by 5.9% in the fourth quarter, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s good news for the jobs picture. Why? Labor productivity is high not because of investments in technology but because employers have demand and gotten increase output from workers. Essentially, workers have agreed to give 110%, 120%, 150% and more because businesses demand greater performance and workers were terrified that they might lose their jobs. But, there are limits on how long businesses can keep getting productivity gains or even sustain them by asking more and more and more from workers. At that point businesses have no choice but to begin hiring again. That seems to be happening and potentially could accelerate.

And there is more evidence.

In 2009 we witnessed the most dramatic decline in labor costs—17.3%--for any year going all the way back to 1947. Labor costs are back to 2006 levels. Lower labor costs mean more money available to add workers.

Now, think about this. What happens if next month and the month after that we continue to see job gains? What happens if productivity in the first quarter levels off from last year or even begins to decline while labor costs stay at their current low levels? We could see a spurt in hiring. That in turn might encourage people who have given up looking for a job to start looking again with improved expectations that this time they will actually find something. The unemployment rate would not necessarily go down even if business are adding jobs. After all, people who had stopped looking and therefore were counted are now looking again, so unemployment stays high, say even 9% or more even up to the elections. But—big but—the dynamics have changed. Jobs are being added. People are getting interviews for openings or, at least, hear about others getting interviews. Businesses are posting job notices. Suddenly the outlook is different. Unemployment is still high but the expectation of what the job picture will be like in six months or a year is good. The present may still look dark but the future looks bright.

People vote based upon their expectations for the future and the November election scenario is a whole lot different. Democrats might hold there on. Hey, they might even gain ground.

You heard it first hear.

Is the individual mandate to purchase health insurance constitutional?

Here is an interesting quote from no other than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia relevant to the issue of the individual mandate.

In 2005’s Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California and even conservative justice Anthony M. Kennedy “joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients.”

Scalia wrote the following in his concurrence with this decision:

The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.

It would be hard to argue that the effort to control healthcare costs that represent such a large part of the economy is not an effort toward "a legitimate end under the commerce power."

So, is it possible that Scalia of all people might rule that the individual mandate is constitutional? Nah….but maybe. Wouldn't that come as a surprise to Repubs?

Here is another interesting argument for the individual mandate from Jon Healey writing in the LATimes. He says:

The courts have already held that health insurance is interstate commerce subject to federal regulation. The healthcare reform law would build on existing rules in an effort to extend insurance to more people, in part by prohibiting insurers from rescinding policies or denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But that regulatory regime would be undercut by "free riders" -- people who wait to obtain insurance until they need expensive treatment. Another aim of the new insurance rules is to slow the growth of costs. But people who don't obtain insurance can undermine that effort by failing to obtain preventative care and relying on the most expensive venue for treatment: the hospital emergency room.

In sum, the bill regulates a form of interstate commerce, but that regulation would be ineffective without an individual mandate.

Healey then goes on to discuss that argument that many conservatives make that if the government can make me buy health insurance then why couldn’t it make me buy other things, like guns or a particular brand of car.

It's hard to make a similar case for a mandate to buy guns or GM cars. Start with guns. Assume the overall regulatory regime is designed to promote public safety, as brianb2970 suggests. Would it be undermined if some people chose not to own guns? That would be tough to prove.

The federal government regulates car manufacturing to protect public safety, improve air quality and reduce energy consumption. Would that regulation be undermined without a requirement that Americans buy Chevys (or any other brand)? Of course not.

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/03/an-individual-mandate-to-buy-a-malibu.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Here is another interesting argument from Richard N. Fogoros, a former professor of medicine:

[ The section of the health reform bill dealing with the individual mandate] “Subtitle F - Shared Responsibility For Health Care,” is carefully designed to defeat any constitutional challenge.

The meat of Subtitle F is contained in one sentence (Section 5000A), to wit: “An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.” This sentence takes up about 20% of one page. Most of the remaining 42.8 pages of Subtitle F creates a protective shell against constitutional challenge. It does this in two ways.

The first protection against a constitutional challenge is the more obvious. In fact, before we ever get to the individual mandate itself, we are treated to five pages that detail the multitude of ways in which “individual responsibility” in healthcare (i.e., the mandate to buy insurance) “is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).” In other words, the individual mandate is wrapped by a formal “finding of Congress” that this mandate is subject to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution….

He goes on:

But this first protection against a constitutional challenge only covers the first five of the 43 pages of Subtitle F. Most of the remaining 38 pages establishes the second protection. This one is more subtle than the first, but, DrRich thinks, it will be the more difficult one to overcome.

That remaining portion of Subtitle F deals largely with the penalties to which individuals would be subject if they failed to comply with the mandate to buy health insurance. It describes in detail how the mandate is to be complied with, how compliance is to be documented, and how the mandate is to be enforced. This long section of Subtitle F reads like tax law, like IRS code. As well it should. For, what it establishes is that the individual mandate is actually a tax, that is treated like any other tax in its documentation, collection, and enforcement, and indeed, that the IRS will be running the whole show.

http://covertrationingblog.com/cardiology-topics/the-individual-mandate-will-stand

Interesting stuff.