Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California says census missed 1.5 million residents (want more in their begging bowl)
Los Angeles Times ^ | December 24, 2010 | Seema Mehta

Posted on 12/25/2010 11:42:19 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

Edited on 12/26/2010 7:43:24 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

California officials estimate that the U.S. Census Bureau failed to count 1.5 million of the state's residents, a discrepancy that if true could cost the state billions of dollars in federal aid over the next decade and perhaps an increase in its representation in Congress.


(Excerpt) Read more at articles.latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; census; federalfunding
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Only the government of the United States of America has sufficient amounts of time, money and Hubris needed to calculate exactly what it doesn't know, to 3 decimal places. California will just have to accept the numbers, as determined by the judges who will agree to hear this case.
21 posted on 12/26/2010 1:36:24 AM PST by Bernard (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, Three if by Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer
My time in Canada exposed a continuing fight between provinces which received more tax money than they paid to Ottawa and those who paid in more tax money than they received. Of course, it was the western provinces which paid in the money and the eastern and northern provinces which received it.

I would like to know how it breaks down in the U.S. I bet the long held Democrat states are the receivers!

22 posted on 12/26/2010 1:36:50 AM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
....Illinois played the game best in the very first year the spoils were distributed. The northeastern states resisted due to their Yankee frugality and belief that the federal dole was destructive of the nation’s core principles, but quickly fell in line. One of the senators from Oklahoma fought the dole for the same reason and was quickly thrown out in favor of a senator who fought for the state’s “fair share” of the loot. ...

Once the camel's nose is in the tent, it's the beginning of the end. U.S. education springs to mind -- those old purse strings always come with conditions.

23 posted on 12/26/2010 1:47:22 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife (Allhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2122429/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

California still has over 50 seats and gives a huge advantage to whoever California votes for in a presidential election. They act like they are deprived or something. Texas is next but still has a small amount compared to California.


24 posted on 12/26/2010 1:47:25 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

There is a simple way to balance the books: send 1.5 million illegals back to Mexico.


25 posted on 12/26/2010 2:16:49 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer

What would really puy an end to it would be to stop sending the money to Washington in the first place. Leave it in the community. If they don’t have enough money, that’s their own fault.


26 posted on 12/26/2010 2:49:12 AM PST by ratsreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Well, Texas got 4 more seats in the House.

Nice that the citizens of seven states now have less representation because of this decennial kabuki dance called redistricting.

435 is not chiseled in stone!

27 posted on 12/26/2010 2:53:04 AM PST by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer
The best resolution to this would be for the federal government to be required to dole out all domestic spending in proportion to how it was recieved, down to the district level.

I'd agree, except how do you avoid the "Yankees" syndrome -- the wealthiest districts get the most gain, which they reinvest in advancing their attractiveness to business, which makes them more wealthy, which they reinvest . . . you get the drift.

Another suggestion? RUN A BUDGET like real businesses do.

After paying for the necessary stuff -- defense, law enforcement, debt reduction, salaries, etc., tally up what's left.

Divide the amount among the congressthings -- senators get X amount, representatives get Y amount.

Each congressthing then has fairly wide latitude to put the funds to use in his or her district or state -- OR, combine the funds with those of other congressthings in the same, or neighboring, districts or states (senators could cooperate with representatives) to accomplish bigger things for mutual benefit.

Polticians would truly have to be statesmen, rather than robber barons.

They would have specific moneys to work with, rather than what taxpayers' money that they used to buy and sell votes.

Pork would become pretty much a thing of the past.

If the U.S. budget ran a deficit, then not only would the congressthings not get taxpayer money to play with, why not also dock their salaries and office funds by a percentage equal to the portion that the budget deficit was of the GDP?

So if the deficit equaled 15 pct of the GDP, each congressthing would lose 15 pct of their salary, office funds, staff support -- why not cut their retirement and perq values, also?

28 posted on 12/26/2010 2:53:52 AM PST by Quiller (When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Nice that the citizens of seven states now have less representation

If the census was done correctly (I know, pretty big 'if', but you gotta start somewhere), then it would indicate that the citizens of those 7 states (California being one, apparently), were over-represented, and having less representation was actually a correction to an error.

Given the condition of California, I'm thinking that tossing the government and putting the state in receivership might be a better start.

Let them have representation back when they get their debt sorted out.

29 posted on 12/26/2010 2:57:57 AM PST by Quiller (When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Quiller

Stop juggling the 435! 435 is nowhere in the Constitution as two Senators per state is. Reduce the districts to 100,000 people each, get 3,000 reps down there and nothing would “get done”... Perfect.


30 posted on 12/26/2010 3:30:22 AM PST by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: meyer
How about bringing back this clause of the U.S. Constititution?

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. - (I.2.iii)

OK, California, instead of 37.3 million people, you've got 38.8 million people. You can fork over $383 billion for the next ten years.

31 posted on 12/26/2010 3:30:49 AM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: meyer
How about bringing back this clause of the U.S. Constititution?

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. - (I.2.iii)

OK, California, instead of 37.3 million people, you've got 38.8 million people. You can fork over $383 billion for the next ten years.

32 posted on 12/26/2010 3:30:49 AM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Quiller

Nope, CA wasn’t happy even staying at zero. They wanted to gain.


33 posted on 12/26/2010 3:32:01 AM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: metesky

I wouldn’t count on that.


34 posted on 12/26/2010 3:32:58 AM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Sounds like Cal wants another 1.5 million illegals counted


35 posted on 12/26/2010 3:38:08 AM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Whenever something is "Global"...it means its bad for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“It cuts away at our share of the $400 billion a year that the federal government doles out to states.”

That’s the new American way - if things don’t work the way you want them ton sue. Really though, how could Californians elect such a dolt? That statement alone should have had him committed to the Home for the Critically Insane!

News flash to Monnbeam: Lay oof the stash before speaking in public. The federal overnment has ZERO money to “dole” out. If you want more money, don’t send it to Versailles on the Potomac in the first place. Secondly, by wanting more “doled” out money, you are making the state subservient to the federal government; instead of the constitutional reverse. Lastly, you want redistribution; you got it.


36 posted on 12/26/2010 3:43:15 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
I’m sure the 1.5 million are here legally. /s

I notice they call them residents, not citizens.

37 posted on 12/26/2010 3:43:56 AM PST by Moonman62 (Half of all Americans are above average. Politicians come from the other half.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Stop juggling the 435!

???

Who's juggling?

I didn't mean to imply that the reps from one state were re-allocated to another state. Your reply indicates I seem to have come across that way, and if so, I apologize for the confusion.

Reps are based on population, so if the population goes down, the number of reps go down; that doesn't translate to a corresponding increase in an equal number of reps in another state, unless that state has coincidentally increased in population.

But I think you're right -- sometimes, it would be better to just have the gridlock of a rediculously large number of reps, than the 'accomplishments' of fewer.

38 posted on 12/26/2010 4:35:14 AM PST by Quiller (When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

http://www.coachisright.com/slightly-expand-the-house-the-permanent-apportionment-act-of-1929-has-outlived-its-usefulness/


39 posted on 12/26/2010 4:40:34 AM PST by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

FDR effectively took us very far down the road toward nationalism away from federalism.


40 posted on 12/26/2010 5:13:19 AM PST by VRW Conspirator (If raising taxes on an activity reduces such an activity, let's tax liberalism to death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson