Back to Basics

Why should people be forced to answer a questionnaire that will be used to generate more government regulations?  From the WSJ:

The Census Bureau does more than count all Americans every 10 years. It also runs hundreds of other surveys in between. But Americans are only obligated by federal law to participate in the once-a-decade headcount and a massive, continuous data-collection effort known as the American Community Survey. The ACS will reach 3.5 million households this year, using dozens of detailed questions—including asking about a household’s use of flush toilets, wood fuel and carpools—to determine the need for various government programs. The survey’s mandatory status, along with telephone and in-person follow-ups to initial mailings, helps keep response rates near 100%. . . .  The Census Bureau says the very specific questions—which are approved by Congress—are part of what makes the survey useful in helping the government dole out more than $400 billion annually. Tests by the agency indicate a voluntary survey would get fewer responses, particularly by mail, which would make collecting the data more expensive—in-person interviews cost about six times as much as mail per completed survey. . . .

This reminds me of something that Milton Friedman once said.  When he visited Hong Kong in the earlier 1960s he wanted to know about lots of things such as per capita income and poverty rate.  But the Governor of Hong Kong told him that he didn’t compile that information because it would be used to generate support for more government action.

The Barack Obama administration is quietly in the process of rigging use of the US Census of 2010, which deliberately counted millions of illegal aliens, for the purpose of restructuring the apportionment of the US House of Representatives. Accordingly, as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of one of the negatively affected states (Montana), Mr. Bob Fanning and I have joined with several others in becoming amici curiae in a pending federal lawsuit brought by the State of Louisiana against the US Secretary of Commerce, et al., which was filed January, 13, 2012 in the United States Supreme Court.

What has happened is, the US Census Bureau erroneously claims that it “‘is required by the U.S. Constitution count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.’” Accordingly, they have counted millions of illegal aliens in the 2010 Census and are using those figures to apportion the US House of Representatives. If this egregious misinterpretation of the US Constitution is allowed to stand, five states (Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio) will lose representation in the US Congress to which they are lawfully entitled, while three states (California, Texas, and Florida) will be awarded additional representation in the US Congress to which they are not lawfully entitled. And, of course, this will also directly impact the makeup of the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the President of the United States.

Of course, this manipulation of the 2010 US Census also impacts the election of the US President, as those states that are granted more seats in the US Congress are also granted more votes in the Electoral College as the Electoral College is composed of a “Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . .” (Article. II. Section. I. Clause. 2. US Constitution). And, as everyone knows, under the US Constitution, it is the Electoral College that ultimately elects the President of the United States. Thus, the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio, will be unjustly denied their lawful votes in the Electoral College, while California, Texas, and Florida, are being unjustly granted unlawful votes in the Electoral College. Would it not be extraordinary if the margin by which President Obama is re-elected in the Electoral College would be provided by the manipulation of the census data under his control? Again, this would be an outrage!

In essence, the Obama administration is rigging the US Census to steal a congressional seat from the State of Montana. This rigging will keep Montana from having a second congressional representative. If the illegals in California, Texas, and Florida are not included, then Montana will receive two congressional seats and four electoral votes. Under Obama’s rigging plan, Montana will continue to have only one congressional seat and three electoral votes.

Considering the major media and even most “conservative” talking heads have said virtually nothing about this monstrous misallocation of constitutional government is just the latest example of how truly out of touch the people who are entrusted to inform the American people really are.

The plaintiff in this case is the State of Louisiana, which has now been joined and supported by amici U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, U.S.

Conservatives yearn for a big, clarifying electoral victory in November of 2012, but they’re already winning decisively whenever Americans vote with their feet–or their moving vans.

New Census numbers show citizens fleeing by the millions from liberal states and flocking in comparable numbers to bastions of rightwing sentiment. Call it the Great Political Migration.

Between 2009 and 2010 the five biggest losers in terms of “residents lost to other states” were all prominent redoubts of progressivism: California, New York, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey. Meanwhile, the five biggest winners in the relocation sweepstakes are all commonly identified as “red states” in which Republicans generally dominate local politics: Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia. Expanding the review to a 10-year span, the biggest population gainers (in percentage terms) have been even more conservative than last year’s winners: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Texas, in that order.

The shift in national demographics has already rearranged the playing field for the upcoming presidential election. States that Barack Obama carried were the biggest losers in the reapportionment that followed the 2010 Census, with New York and Ohio dropping two electoral votes each. Texas, meanwhile, gained a whopping four votes all by its Lone Star lonesome self. Even in the unlikely event that Obama carried exactly the same states he carried in 2008, he’d still win six fewer electoral votes in 2012. Even more tellingly, if the epic Bush-Gore battle of 2000 played out on the new Electoral College map, with the two candidates carrying precisely the states they each won 11 years ago, the result would have been a far more clear-cut GOP victory margin of 33 electoral votes (instead of the five-vote nail-biter recorded in history books).

Fifty years ago, the United States saw a mass migration from East to West. Today we’re witnessing a comparable migration from left to right.

This significant shift in population not only presents progressives with significant problems in terms of practical politics, but also confronts them with profound ideological challenges.

If liberal approaches work so well, why are so many people choosing to pack their bags and desert some of the most progressive, pro-labor, big-government states in the union?

And if uncompromising conservatism is a cruel, fraudulent disaster, why do small government, pro-business, low tax, gun-toting and church-going states draw such a disproportionate number of America’s internal immigrants?

In the emerging presidential campaign, it’s easy to see a version of these questions dominating the debate. Why should anyone choose to endorse liberal, Democratic policies when a single year (2009-10) saw 880,000 residents packing up their belongings to place Barack Obama’s Illinois in their rear-view mirror, while 782,000 new arrivals helped drive the robust economy in Rick Perry’s Texas?

During the bad-old-days of the Cold War so many people tried to leave East Germany that the Communists built a wall to keep them in. The world rightly took that gesture as evidence of failure and corruption in the Stalinist system.

California can’t raise a wall to prevent people from abandoning the Not-So-Golden State, or somehow deter or return the 2,000,000 who decamped between 2009 and 2010.

The U.S. Census is beginning to release some figures from the 2010 count and there are some tidbits of interest there.

One is the fact that seven of the nine states that do not have a state income tax grew faster than the national average, as noted by Michael Barone in washingtonexaminer.com. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions.

High tax, big government socialist types like to spout the nonsense that the tax structure does not influence business or residency decisions. But 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth — from 281,421,906 in 2000 to 308,745,538 in 2010 — occurred in those nine states. And Texas — the state with the greatest growth — has a diversified economy, is business-friendly and has low taxes.

President Barack Obama and members of Congress bemoan our nation’s dreary economic situation while contemplating increasing taxes and implementing burdensome legislation and standing idly by while government agencies impose oppressive regulation without the Constitutional authority to do so.

The quickest way to kick start the economy — and return to Constitutional governance — is to take an axe to government. I’m not talking about slowing the growth of government, which in legislative doublespeak is called a cut. I’m talking about taking draconian measures like eliminating unConstitutional agencies — the Departments of Education, Energy and Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, the Food and Drug Administration and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for starters — closing down military bases around the world, ending the perpetual wars and bringing all troops home, phasing out social welfare programs and eliminating funding for Leftist boondoggles like the National Endowment for the Arts.

After that, how about we close down the Federal Reserve, return to a gold standard and repeal the 16th Amendment — and end the income tax — and 17th Amendment while we’re at it?

Government types and socialists — is that redundant? — hear suggestions like this and wail. But slashing government and ending its ability to debase the currency would be a giant leap toward Constitutional governance.

Anything less is continued support of tyranny.

The most likely gains or losses in congressional seats occurs in states where there are gains or losses in congressional seats. With respect to the presidential election states that Obama won had a net loss of 6 seats (picking up 4 electoral votes and lost 10 votes). The net pick up for Republicans are 6. Given that Obama won the electoral vote by 365 to 173, this is not a huge change. What really needs to be done here is compare the control of redistricting this year compared to 2000. For example, Republicans controlled the process in Illinois in 2000 but now Democrats control everything so that is one state where Democratic pickups are ripe. By contrast, Republicans controlled Texas both now and for the 2003 redistricting so their pickups for pre-existing seats is fairly limited. Republicans may pick up some seats in California where Democrats have controlled the legislature and governor both times, but now there is an independent commission.

Gains for states that Republicans control legislature and governorship
ARIZONA +1
FLORIDA +2
GEORGIA +1
SOUTH CAROLINA +1
TEXAS +4
UTAH +1

Gains for states that Democrats control legislature and governorship
WASHINGTON +1

Gains for states with divided control
NEVADA +1

Losses for states that Democrats control legislature and governorship
ILLINOIS -1 (Politico mentions that Democrats think that they can pick up as many as five congressional seats in this states — GOP Rep.-elect Bobby Schilling and the four incoming House Republicans in the suburban Chicago area)
MASSACHUSETTS -1 (can only be a Democrat loss because Democrats control all of the congressional seats)

Losses for states that Republicans control legislature and governorship
MICHIGAN -1
OHIO -2
PENNSYLVANIA -1

Gains for states with divided control
IOWA -1
LOUISIANA -1
MISSOURI -1
NEW YORK -2

“Independent” Commission
NEW JERSEY -1

No surprise there, at Fox News, “Illegal Immigrants Factor Into 2010 Census Results, Congressional Makeup“:

Census data released Tuesday reflects how illegal immigration could shape the makeup of Congress, with border states and other immigration magnets registering big gains over the past decade.

Though the latest Census Bureau information does not include breakouts on race or ethnicity, Western and Southern states with large, or at least growing, immigrant populations were generally the ones that gained enough new residents to warrant additional congressional seats.

Illegal immigrants would constitute just one of several factors in the population shifts recorded in that time. But since illegal immigrants are counted in the U.S. Census by law, they have an inevitable impact on the way House seats are divvied up.

“You can see how they can have a big impact on the distribution of seats,” said Steven Camarota, research director with the Center for Immigration Studies. “Michigan and Pennsylvania are going to lose a seat and it’s going to go to some other place … because of the inclusion of illegal immigrants.”

Camarota estimated the total number of illegal immigrants counted in the 2010 Census at about 10 million. Total population growth for immigrants in the United States exceeded 13 million over the last 10 years. With the U.S. population at 309 million, that might sound like a drop in the melting pot. But their numbers start to make a difference on a state-by-state level.

Several states with large immigration populations, both legal and illegal, will gain at least one seat out of the latest census numbers. They include Florida, Texas, Arizona and Nevada. South Carolina, Georgia and Washington state, which all saw unusually high rates of growth in their immigrant populations over the past decade, will also gain a congressional seat each. South Carolina, for instance, registered a 150 percent increase in its immigrant population, according to a CIS analysis.

Camarota said that regardless of whether the changes are coming from influxes of illegal or legal immigrants, more districts are going to be created with swaths of people in them who can’t vote.

Slaves couldn’t vote either, but they bulked up the South’s representation after 1787. The Democrats were for slavery back then too.