As stated earlier but repeated here for emphasis:
- Full, accurate Census counts ensure that a state is allocated its fair share of seats in the U S House of Representatives. Since the total number of those seats is limited (435), the allocation means that for one state (like Texas) to gain House seats that some other state must lose those same seats. In recent decades this has meant that New York and Pennsylvania as well as some other "Rust Belt" states have given up seats to the growth areas, including Texas and the rest of the South and West.
- The return of federal tax money to states for agreed upon social and societal reasons (such as Medicare/Medicaid) is based upon data that comes from the dicennial Census counts. Thus the greater the reported population both in total and demographically (# of children) affects the formulae used to allocate federal money.
And, of course, this federal money flows more to help lower income citizens than the wealthy. Thus, it is in the vested interest of many of the same people who are the subject of stated efforts to include all of them in the Census count. But they still avoid being counted and identified. Why?
People in these socio-economic demographic groups fail or refuse to see the vested interest in voting in as great numbers as the more affluent do. They also apparently don't grasp "what's in it for them" if they do or don't get included in the Census counts. Or if they do "get it" they are still not motivated to participate. What are they afraid of? One does not get their drivers license or green card stamped when they successfully participate in the Census. They can still seek the available assistance that flows through unemployment benefits and Medicaid assistance. It apparently doesn't hit home that the total pool of monies available to applicants in the state is partly determined by how many were or were not counted in the Census. This much has been widely reported and discussed.
What doesn't get much attention is consideration of what would happen if states like Texas did solve their internal issues and found ways to count virtually all their residents. Would other states (through their Congressional representatives) readily agree to give up federal dollars to the "growing" states at their own expense? Or would the allocation formulae be subject to modification?
I tire. More later.
3 comments:
Well, obviously the socio-demographic populace that stands to benefit from accurate census counts fear the ramifications (to their immigrant status, or from a goverment presumed similar to the corrupt one left behind, to it effects on benefits (or ignorance of benefits that could be awarded) ect.) from participation. Here is a question i have, if an accurate count were made, and more importantly if more persons eligible were petitioning for and receiving awards, how much would this effect the current "cushion" to the state budget generated by persons not receiving awards/not applying for awards? Is there a cushion in the state budget, a windfall that occurs when all monies allocated to assisting that demographic are not claimed by the demographic? Does not the money not all get used, essentially?
Becasue here is a question, if that is true, if a windfall is generated, that allows Peter to be borrowed from to pay Paul, at it were, in the state's budget, that would seem to be a motivator to not try to educate the demographic standing to benefit from fuller usages of services. Your and my favorite cop has worked on projects to educate immigrant workers of the safety in using banks (i.e. usage that does not affect their status as immigrants or illegals) in order to cut down on their carrying their entire savings and paychecks on them - a practice which makes them targets of robbery in many areas. The workers were at best wary of the cops presence, much more so of using the banks before hand. This is an inherency of that demographic which the state does not seem to be addressing significantly, esp. if local law enforcement has to come up with such a project. Complicate this matter even more is the lack of education that (a)benefits exist despite status, (b) they can access without threat, (c) the greater aspect of that over-all socio-economic demographic not having any sense of they hope or ability to effect change in their situations through the system and what is available therein.
arguably, not educating the demographic but also being accurate in the count could also be a way to generate that windfall as well, but while this would be a motivator to count accurately it still will be a motivator to not educate.
all this is speculation that rests on likely my ignorance of the economics involved, and practices of budgeting/spending... i mean, all monies allocated to assist the poor may be used, despite not being allotted out comprehensively, so it may all be mute...
Excellent questions, Kev. And for some of the pools of money may get allocated to the state merely on the basis of population counts. For most of them, I believe, the federal agency holds ontothemoney and transfers it directly rather than to a state pool.
What about letting the illegals have in-state tuition? Did you see that article yet about the Attorney General's decision- or non decision-?
Post a Comment