Clarence Speaks

Yesterday Associate Justice Clarence Thomas spoke publicly from the bench for the first time since Feb. 22, 2006. According to the Supreme Court’s official transcript, Thomas broke his almost-seven-year silence with the words, “Well – he did not —.” One Court analyst called those four words “perhaps the most important speech in Thomas’ 21-year career on the bench” – although no one in the courtroom seems to have any idea what the enigmatic jurist actually meant. Professor Emily I. Dunno, who teaches linguistics and constitutional law at Southern Indiana Law School, pointed to the dashes for insight into his potential meaning. “Half as many dashes as words,” said Dr. Dunno. “That’s a lot of dashes.”

There are various explanations for Thomas’ taciturnity. He has written that he is self-conscious of his rural southern accent, and at other times has said he comes to listen not to talk, and that his verbose colleagues make it hard to join the discussion. My own thought is that asking questions will only muddy the thoughts in Thomas’ rigidly made-up mind.

It hardly seems more than two decades since the Bush administration cynically pushed through a man, who openly resented the idea of affirmative action, to replace Thurgood Marshall, the civil-rights titan who insisted on the justice of such action to confront three centuries of slavery and Jim Crow. Thomas was confirmed 52-48, the smallest margin in over a century, and his subsequent silence has obscured the extremity of his opinions on an increasingly right-wing Court.

Our Trillion-Dollar Baby

I had somehow missed the discussion about the trillion-dollar platinum coin, which the Treasury Department would mint under a creative reading of a 1997 law that authorizes the production of commemorative coins. The coin would be deposited at the Federal Reserve Bank, where it would sit in splendor, like a beneficent monarch, enabling its country to carry on without Congressional action on the debt ceiling. The idea has met with much ridicule. But I love it. It brilliantly combines the hard currency demands of those who support a return to the gold standard with the cheap money of the Populist free silver and greenback traditions. All of American history can be read as a recurrent battle between the advocates of “hard” money (let’s call them Creditors) and “soft” money (let’s call them Debtors). Creditors want money to be as rare as possible so they can squeeze the blood out of those in their debt. That’s why we call them bloodsuckers. Debtors, by contrast, want cheap money so they only have to pay back 47 cents for every dollar they borrowed. That’s why we call them the 47 percent.

The plan is that, when Congress finally raises the debt ceiling and the coin is no longer needed, it will be destroyed. But that seems like a terrible waste of money – and obviously we are going to need that coin soon again. So I think we should give it to the Chinese as a memento of our entangling financial relationship . . . and as full payment on a trillion dollars of debt.

And the Democrats?

What are their ideas for the country’s future? Obama has learned that much of governing requires pragmatic deal making for marginal progress. But that is not all of governing, and I believe the Democrats need to renew the vision of a diverse, just and vibrant America that excited the electorate in 2008 and was noticeably subdued last fall. For me, the big issues we face are:

  1. The growing disparities between rich and poor.
  2. The devastation of our environment.
  3. The militarization of everything – from China’s saber rattling to Iran’s nuclear threat to ivory poaching in Africa.

These are not unrelated. The huge gaps between rich and poor, both within America and around the world, are creating expanding pockets of misery and despair. These mock the idea of a community of all people, and encourage environmental destruction by creating some classes who amass nature’s fruits for their private enjoyment and others who must do whatever they can to survive. Such a world creates opportunities for heavily armed gangs, terrorists groups, and rogue armies to sell themselves to the highest bidders.

A country as divided as we are threatening to become internally – and as isolationist externally – ignores these issues. We rightly make much, for example, of the nation’s 7.8% unemployment rate. But we barely notice that half the people of Detroit are out of work.

Obama’s promise was to build a national community of our diverse parts. We are headed in the other direction. He needs to lead us back.

The Hollow Men

The Republican Main Street Partnership yesterday removed the word “Republican” from its title. But “we have not changed our values or our mission, “ said its president, former Congressman Steven LaTourette (R-OH), “ We will continue to . . . represent the governing wing of the Republican Party." This might be a good place for the GOP to focus its frenzied efforts at self-analysis in the wake of its election losses. Its nominee had spent hundreds of millions polishing the very presidential bona fides (business executive, governor, Olympics guru) with which his primary opponents filleted him (vulture capitalist, Massachusetts moderate). Romney could have stood out from the crowd by standing up for his carefully created image. True, he might have lost, but it’s hard to imagine one of his primary opponents as an actual presidential candidate (Santorum? Herman Cain? Newt?). But Romney caved to the party's know-nothings . . . and then was required to execute another about-face in the summer. No wonder people were incredulous. The Obama team didn’t come up with the term “Etch-A-Sketch;” Romney’s top adviser did.

As the election showed, the “social issues” do matter. Our core beliefs are the heart and soul of our identities as people and as political parties, and while we don’t seem to think much of our politicians right now, we do expect them to stand for something. What stronger signal could a party send of its current hollowness than to have the group that claims to represent its governing wing remove Republican from its name?

Congress is Back (to be read aloud)

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ooooohhh Ho Hee Ho Hee Haw Haw Oh, my sides hurt. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho  Oh . . .  My . . . God . . . Ooooohhh! Stop! Stop! You’re killing me! Ho Ho Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ho . . . Congress is back! Like in session? Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho. That’s so funny. Ooooohhh Ho Ho Ho. Hah. Hah.  Hee. Hah. Ohhhhhhh. Too funny. What for?

Thelma and Louise

The 1991 film ends with Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon floating timelessly above the Colorado River, having just driven their car over the Grand Canyon cliff. Spared the bloody crash that must come next, gullible movie fans could dream of a miraculous escape. Just like last night. To save itself from a disaster it had created almost entirely by itself, Congress passed a bill that solves virtually nothing. But it had no choice. For while the bill enshrines most of the odious Bush tax cuts and does nothing to address the questions our children must face, it just might stave off the recession that Republicans seem eager to trigger by destroying our government when we need it most.

That concept was lost on both the liberal lobby group, moveon.org, and the Tea Party, which demanded that their followers oppose the legislation. But leave it to Congressman Darrell Issa of California to capture the utter irresponsibility of the Republican right. “I thank all of you who will vote for [the bill],” he said. “I cannot bring myself to vote for it” (i.e., thank you for bailing me out, so I can save the only job I care about – my own).

With the cliff momentarily averted, Democrats must now show they are serious about entitlement reform – not by neutering Medicare, but by ensuring the future of the most important social program we have. Caring for its sick is a fundamental responsibility of every human community.

Who Elected Grover Norquist Anything?

Senator Saxby Chambliss, (R) Georgia, suggested last week that he might renege on the “taxpayer protection pledge,” which has been a litmus test for Republican politicians for over 25 years. Dreamed up in 1986 by Grover Norquist, and signed by 95% of all GOP federal officeholders, including Chambliss, the pledge requires signees to vote against any tax increase in whatever costume slippery liberals try to dress it. Naturally, Mitt Romney was the first presidential candidate to sign the pledge, which he had refused to sign as governor of Massachusetts. Every other Republican hopeful, except Jon Huntsman, followed suit. This kind of lockstep simple-mindedness is at the root of Congressional gridlock. It is the main reason we have to watch John Boehner feign bipartisanship while robotically repeating that Republicans will oppose any deficit plan that increases taxes on anyone – any plan, in other words, that is actually bipartisan.

It is mind-boggling that Norquist has gained such power by enforcing political thoughtlessness – not just on taxes but on the role of government itself. His most famous utterance, “I am not in favor of abolishing government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" – with its pleasant image of drowning babies – continues to be smugly quoted by politicians who have spent their professional lives feeding at the public trough.

Perhaps it’s finally dawning on Chambliss and others that we would have a better government if those who live off it treated it with more respect.

MaineStream

As I drove east through Ohio and Pennsylvania after Election Day, listening to Rush Limbaugh spew his relentless rhetoric of hate-filled racist and nativist venom, delivered in Stepinfetchit dialect and Latino accent, I thought, what hope have we of coming together? And what would it look like if we did? As I entered Maine (where Limbaugh has a big radio audience), I wondered if a piece of the answer might be here. Maine has been a reliably blue state in presidential elections for 20 years, although it had earlier been solidly Republican (one of two states to vote for Alf Landon in Roosevelt’s 1936 landslide). But consider:

  • Its two senators are moderate Republican women, although Independent Angus King, a popular former governor, will replace the retiring Olympia Snow.
  • Its governor is a Tea Party Republican, elected with just 38% in a three-way race.
  • While both members of Congress are Democrats, one is a liberal woman, the other the only New England member of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.
  • The state legislature is narrowly Republican.
  • After rejecting same-sex marriage in 2009, Maine voters approved it last week.
  • It has implemented one of the country’s most successful dam-removal programs.

But Maine is not some political nirvana. Its governor has been disastrous, and an unholy alliance of left-wing demagoguery and corporate greed killed a broad-based sustainable forestry initiative several years ago. So what lesson can we take from its kaleidoscopic political landscape that produces disproportionately good candidates across a spectrum of strongly held beliefs?

I’ll try to answer that tomorrow.

King Coal

Both sides in the election campaign made impossible promises about economic growth based on unconscionable pledges to develop energy sources: drill, baby, drill; go nuclear; frac that shale; build that pipeline and, above all, remove those mountaintops and strip that coal. At least the president consistently included alternative energy sources in the mix, for which the Republicans consistently ridiculed him. Amid all the talk of moving forward, we got paeans to coal, the engine of the 19th century. In the midst of one of history’s most destructive storms, we heard nothing about global warming. We must change the conversation about growth and energy, and only the Democrats seem willing to do it. And no matter how shrill our environmentalist warnings, they will not reach the hearts of those struggling just to get by.

So instead of going after the bad guys in the GOP who won’t listen, why not begin with the Democratic senators from coal states? There are a lot of them, and they tend as a group to be more “moderate” than their caucus. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania is pro-life; West Virginia’s Joe Mancin refused to attend his party’s convention; Jon Tester just scraped through a close election in Montana. And Jay Rockefeller need not rely on coal companies for money. While their constituents depend on coal jobs, they are also the front-line victims of the environmental contamination that accompanies production. And they are increasingly organizing on behalf of their families’ health and quality of life.

Their leaders need to get ahead of them on this issue. In 2012, the only Cole that should be King is Nat.

Immigrants and Others

For the immigrant families, both working- and middle-class, I have met in my few days in Ohio, the vote is an almost mythical thing. Unlike many people whose doorbells I have rung, new citizens seem grateful I have come to urge them to vote. They have not taken Ohio’s early-voting option because they want to go to the polls in person today and stand in line with their fellow citizens. Several plan to take their children to see the process of a democracy in which they still strongly believe, at least on this one day. The people of color with whom I have spoken – native-born and immigrant – are overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama. Does that mean that race is the driving force in this election? I believe it is one of them. But those who play the “race card” are not those seeking the minority and immigrant votes, but those who have written them off. Voter suppression is a big issue in Ohio, as it is elsewhere, and it is the Republicans who are most intent on using it, while its victims are overwhelmingly minorities, immigrants and the poor.

Yet those are the people who have said to me, “We are all in this together,” which is exactly the opposite message the Republicans have been sending overtly until a few weeks ago – and continue to signal to their core.

In a changing country, I think it is both a reprehensible and a losing strategy.

The sun is out this morning in Cleveland for the first time in a week. I take it as an omen.

Notes from Ohio

Day 1: (Cleveland) No one answered the door at my first house, which was listed as the residence of an old woman. As I was leaving the porch, a car sped up with its hood raised. The driver angrily asked me what I was doing, and I told him I was looking for Mrs. ____. “She’s not here.”

“Do you know when she’ll be back?”

“She won’t be back.”

“Is she dead?"

“Yeah.”

“I’m sorry. Do you know you’re driving with your hood up?”

“I saw you snooping around my property and came over to blow your head off.”

And he threw it in reverse and roared back to the repair shop across the street.

Day 2: Now in the suburbs, I spent the day in McMansion ghost towns – sprawling subdivisions of huge houses on eerily empty streets. While the houses are all different, the mailboxes are identical. Here is where the housing bubble burst, as people watched their impossible dreams turn into defaulted mortgages. Several of those I talked to were immigrants, who had recently bought from the original owners. Many houses appear vacant. I did not see a single child playing outside.

Day 3: I talked to young middle- and working-class couples who remain undecided two days before the election. Because they are struggling so in this economy, they are focused, not on ideology, but on things that affect them directly. Romney’s extreme makeover and mendacious TV ads do not seem to enrage them. They are not mean-spirited; they are worried about their families and their future – and they feel their politicians have betrayed them.

Mysterious Democracy

Dateline: November 1, 2012. Ramada Plaza, I-95, Albany, NY . . . home of the world’s slowest Internet . . . but halfway to Cleveland. There is a good deal of time to think on my drive, and one thing that occasionally pops into my passive brain is polling. This is not an especially enlightening internal discourse, but polls are in the news a lot these days, and everybody this side of George Gallup seems as confused about them as I am.

Polling has become a sophisticated science, driven by complicated mathematical formulas that make possible statistically significant results from a tiny sampling. And while everybody has a story about how wrong polls have been (DEWEY WINS), they seem to be predictive most of the time.

But other than that this election will be close, the current glut of polls seems unable to predict much of anything, including what their numbers will look like tomorrow. While the change is small each time (partly because polls use such small samples), it seems real – and very confusing. Do some people change their minds every day? Are the polls finding the rare voters who remain undecided?

I don’t know who will win this election, and I’m pretty sure my vote won’t be the deciding one. So why bother? And why go to Cleveland? If I stayed home, it would mean one fewer vote out of millions and a handful of Ohioans who won’t go to the polls. Peanuts.

I can’t explain it, really, but I believe the efforts of each of us are part of something larger and that somehow they make all the difference.

Obama

Delayed by Sandy, but not denied, I am heading to Cleveland to do what I can to help re-elect the president. When I came of age, I realized that the things I most cared about were: ensuring civil rights; eradicating poverty; caring for the earth and ending war.

They still are, and for me Barack Obama remains the embodiment of that unfulfilled agenda. Mitt Romney is its antithesis.

It is neither an easy nor a popular agenda, and we are engaged in a battle whose outcome is uncertain, and some of the reason for that falls on people like me.

Drawn to Obama’s humanness, we turned him into an icon . . . and then expressed our disappointment when he showed himself to be human.

We loved his innocence . . . until it became his inexperience.

We resonated to his appeal across race, class, gender and ideological differences . . . except when it led him to compromise on issues we held non-negotiable.

But it was more than just his frailties or our expectations. He inherited a global depression that was created by the values he opposed and was creating an America we would not recognize. He faced two off-the-books wars and policies that made us loathed around the world. And he encountered implacable opposition that was as well-funded as it was mean-spirited.

He accomplished much, from health care to Iraq, that is significant and lasting.

He is not prefect, but I believe that Barack Obama has been one of the best presidents of my lifetime, and he has the chance to help transform this nation.

This is my 200th post. Thank you for being a part of it. If you know others who might like to read it, please invite them to www.jamesgblaine.com

Just Wondering

Sorry for the delay. Technical difficulties this morning. Unknown if they are related to Sandy. Would you be intimidated if you got a letter from your boss that said “another four years of the same presidential administration” threatens your job?

Of course not. You would see through such strong-armed tactics and, thanks to the secret ballot, retaliate without fear in the voting booth.

But would you wear your Obama pin (to date, all letters have backed Mitt Romney) to work? Or park your bumper sticker in the company lot?

These company-wide letters, which several large employers have recently sent out, might be counterproductive in individual cases. But their overall effect is chilling. Just as your boss didn’t build his (the senders are male) business by himself, so you can’t build your rebellion by yourself. It requires communication, the exchange of ideas, open discussion. No one will note who is wearing a Romney pin, but it takes courage to show the other guy’s face.

These small things matter. When was the last time you saw a national politician without an American flag in his lapel? For me, it was in 2008 when someone asked Obama why he didn’t wear one? He does now. It’s part of the uniform.

When I taught school, I didn’t say the pledge of allegiance. I didn’t make a spectacle, but stood respectfully, because I don’t believe in rote oaths of fealty. Some of my students noticed and asked me why I didn’t say it. They did not ask those who did.

I hope some day one of them will.

Sacred Cows

NPR, which, along with Planned Parenthood, has become the focus of the administration's extremist funding priorities and out-of-control spending, ran an interesting series last weekend on All Things Considered. “A Tax Plan That Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)” asked five politically diverse economists to come up with policy changes that would drive the economy and stem the red ink. Here are six proposals on which they all agreed:

  • Eliminate the home mortgage deduction, perhaps the country’s most popular entitlement program.
  • End the tax deduction companies receive for providing health care to their employees.
  • Eliminate the corporate income tax.
  • Eliminate all income and payroll taxes.
  • Tax carbon emissions . . . and so drive up the price of gasoline.
  • Legalize marijuana.

At first blush this lists seems closer to Ron Paul or the Libertarian platform than to either of the major parties – and in the latest polls the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, stands at a whopping 3%. Indeed, when NPR presented the economists’ platform to two experienced political consultants, they responded with something less than enthusiasm.

“You’re insane,” said one, calling it “a radical plan to bankrupt families.”

“You should move to another country,” said the other.

But in fact, not only is there is something in the plan for everybody to hate, there is also a good deal to chew on . . . once you have adjusted to seeing a landscape strewn with the carcasses of sacred cows or looked at the world through the haze of your now-legal joint.

We’ll look more closely tomorrow.

Cabinet Making (2)

The re-election campaign has caused the president to consider major changes in his second-term cabinet in response to Republican criticisms of his World Apology Tour, runaway spending, the unappreciated role of the cavalry, the central importance of Bill Clinton and the shifting landscape.

  • Secretary of State: Ima Sari
  • Secretary of Defense: Smarty Jones
  • Secretary of the Treasury: Outsourced to the idle printing presses of the Gannett Corporation
  • Secretary of the Interior: To be abolished, as Republican-led state legislatures push ballot measures to take over western federal lands, including the Grand Canyon.
  • Secretary of Health and Human Services: With GOP senate candidates declaring that pregnancies from rape are either an impossibility or a gift from God, the department will be downsized while Democrats bone up on other medical procedures besides abortion.
  • Ambassador to the United Nations: Robert Toll of Toll Brothers (so we can do some nation building here at home)
  • In addition, the Ambassador to Kenya will be elevated to full-cabinet status.

All other cabinet positions will be overseen by Bill Clinton, who will also be in charge of redecorating the White House for the 2017 inauguration of President-elect Hillary Rodham (Clinton).

Because of the magnitude of his two roles, the former president has assembled an advisory panel composed entirely of private citizens:

  • Foreign Affairs: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Sofitel Hotel, New York City, and Paris, France.
  • Domestic Affairs: Eliot Spitzer, New York, NY
  • Public Affairs: Anthony Weiner, Brooklyn, NY
  • Private Affairs: “That woman . . .

Cabinet Making

With their talking over, the candidates have turned to the substance of governing, and speculation is rampant about who will end up in each man’s cabinet. Here is what a Romney cabinet might look like, in order of official rank. ▪   Secretary of State: Judging from last night’s debate, we don’t need one

▪   Secretary of the Treasury: Herman Cain, 9-9-9, Atlanta, Georgia

▪   Secretary of Defense (which will take back its traditional name, the Department of War): Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, the world’s largest private army

▪   Attorney General: Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania; long-time resident of Great Falls, Virginia.

▪   Secretary of the Interior (now the Department of Oil): David Koch, philanthropist, Wichita, Kansas

▪   Secretary of Agriculture: Hugh Grant, Chairman and CEO, Monsanto

▪   Secretary of Commerce: The donor wishes to remain anonymous

▪   Secretary of Labor: Abolished

▪   Secretary of Health and Human Services: Todd Akin, Congressman, Wildwood, Missouri

▪   Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Kerry Klinger, former CEO of the former Washington Mutual, Inc.

▪   Secretary of Transportation: Rex Tillerson, Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil

▪   Secretary of Energy (now the Department of Gas): Charles Koch, philanthropist, Wichita, Kansas

▪   Secretary of Education (abolished along with the public school system)

▪   Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Newt Gingrich, Honorary Veteran, McLean, Virginia

▪   Secretary of Homeland Security: Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff, Maricopa County, Arizona

▪   Chair of the Council of Home Economics Advisors (chosen randomly from a binder): Ann Romney

▪   Administrator of the EPA (Economic Production Agency): Hon. James M. Inhofe (R), Tulsa, Oklahoma

▪   Ambassador (now Minister) to the United Nations: Terry Jones, Pastor, Gainesville, Florida

Tomorrow: Obama’s cabinet.

The Bipartisan Fable

One of the ironies of the campaign is how the Republican ticket has assigned itself the role of bipartisan compromisers and painted its opponents as shrill ideologues trying to push a big-government agenda down the throats of a resistant people. This message was reinforced by last night’s debate, as Joe Biden, eager to rescue his party from the charges of lethargy leveled by angry Democrats, came out with his eyeballs rolling. His aim was to pump some vigor back into the base and to establish clear differences between the two platforms.

But this image of Democratic intransigence and Republican bipartisanship simply defies recent history. Bill Clinton may now be the GOP’s favorite Democrat, but Republican lawmakers reviled him during his presidency. Indeed, they impeached him. Clinton’s great sin in their eyes was that he effectively adopted some of their positions, including demanding a balanced budget, pushing for free trade, and declaring, “the era of big government is over.” Yet the budget that set it all rolling was passed by one vote – and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, who cast that vote, was turned out with 33 other Democrats in the Republican landslide the following year.

It was George Bush and, particularly, Dick Cheney who declared that bipartisanship was for wimps and minorities were losers. In 2008, Barack Obama’s plea to Americans to come together across the old partisan, racial and economic divides was the defining message of his candidacy. Republicans have not only fought him every step of the way, they have made “principled” intransigence their signature issue.

Or at least they had until Tip O’Neill became their second-favorite Democrat.

Momentum

Most people believe that Mitt Romney clobbered Barack Obama in last week’s debate. That number includes all those who didn’t watch the debate, as well as many who did. Most important, the people of the press, of all persuasions, reported on a focused and more accessible challenger and a dispirited and uninspiring president. As a result, the momentum has changed. It is particularly notable in the words we read in headlines. Romney is now described as energized, forceful, accessible, whereas Obama has become listless, a loner, tired. All the words add up to the new presumption that one man has fire in his belly and the other does not.

Momentum feeds on itself. The words we read and hear do affect our views of the candidates’ personalities and their performances. Momentum has a way of fulfilling itself.

And yet, what really has changed? The issues that have made the campaign so divisive have not changed. This is still an election in which we are asked to choose between two contrasting views of America’s character and its future, and as such it remains one of the most important elections of our lifetimes.

Momentum is not about changing minds. It is about exciting your base and depressing your opponent’s. And that is what is happening here. This election will be decided, not by attracting new voters, but by which party gets its people to the polls in a few swing states.

That . . . and the huge amounts of SuperPAC money about to be unleashed.

Satirony

My daughter Annie told me I should have labeled Friday’s post as satire, lest people think that Mitt Romney had actually said all the things I attributed to him. Because I clearly need to polish my ironic tone – or “satirony” as George Bush famously might have said – let me clarify. All Romney’s quotes from the past were verbatim, while those in the present tense, he has not said . . . at least not yet, for Mitt Romney shifts his positions radically and unapologetically to appeal to the audience of the moment. In 1994, when he ran for the United States Senate against Ted Kennedy, he denied any connection to the Reagan and Bush presidencies and took enough positions on social issues that Kennedy said, “I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice.”

In 2004, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney declared: “Deadly assault weapons . . . are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” Two years later he became a life member of the NRA.

In the Republican presidential primary, all the other candidates attacked Romney as a closet moderate, prompting him to insist, “I was a seriously conservative Republican governor” in one of the rare times he mentioned his relationship to Massachusetts.

In last week’s debate he wrapped himself in the mantle of bipartisan effectiveness for passing universal health coverage with a legislature that was 87% Democratic, Ted Kennedy’s help, and the requirement of an individual mandate.