Fleeing the Heat

Gotta get out of town. Temps above 100 are making me crazy. Been a week or more here, losing track.
We're going to pack up (along with the grandsons & their Mom) and head over to the Gulf Coast. Spend a couple of days on the beach at Galveston. (Probably wouldn't have picked that destination, but they need the economic help after IKE.)
We'll come home in time to celebrate the nation's birthday.

Can Census Accuracy be Bought?

So, we've previously seen how and why some Texans might not be as committed to an accurate Census count has they claim. What's the other side of the coin? Why and how are inducements applied to encourage Texans as well as other states to count every possible inhabitant/resident?
As stated earlier but repeated here for emphasis:

1. 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.
2. 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.

The Coming Census Count

Today's local newspaper has an opinion piece masquerading as a news story. (But then seems like all local newspapers do some of that these days.) The gist of the piece was that Texas needs to figure out how to "count" more of its residents in next year's census. We should do this to avoid "losing" one billion or more dollars in federal largesse and entitlements over the course of the following decade. The article mostly addressed two aspects of the issue. It quoted various "experts" who assert that Hispanics and presumably some other minorities are undercounted by the census. There was some discussion of why this occurs even though full counting would ostensibly benefit those who are undercounted, lavishing them with federal dollars for various public service purposes, including healthcare and other federal aid. The article also mentioned in passing that apportionment of U S House seats is based on the dicennial census and that Texas can expect to gain seats in a couple of years.
This article, however, failed to explore indepth the reasons for the undercounting. It also totally ignored some realworld realities. If the main purpose of the census, besides getting a reasonably accurate estimate of total number of inhabitants of the country at a specific point in time, is to decide how to divide up the "pie", well that has no impact on the size of the pie or whether or not it grows. Whether Texas "gets" 10% or 11% of all available federal dollars ends up being great for Texas. But it doesn't change the potential size of the available pool of federal dollars.
I think I will quit with this introduction. Future posts will look at the two separate issues: Why and how we historically haven't had good census counts in Texas (if that is in fact true); and the bigger picture if Texas were magically able to count all its inhabitants next time - (Does this assume other states are not similarly attempting the same thing? If they are successful, then we don't gain percentage share, do we?)

Them Amusing Repubs

I see where the latest "rebranding" effort by the Republican leadership involves not their own party, but the other one. They want to convince the electorate, independents, whoever that the Democratic Party ought to be called and thought of as the "Socialist Democratic Party".
har, har, har That's a good one.
Sure hope the Democrats don't respond by labeling their anemic opponent the "Republican Nazi Party". Ah, but they won't do this. If they were going to they would have back at the height of the blitzkrieg. And besides, they don't need to pile on. The Republican tagteam seems intent on bodyslamming each other.
Let the games continue !!

Another Media Lament

It happens with cable talking heads and news bunnies. It happens with local affiliate news personalities. It may happen with the "major broadcast network" people as well, though I don't see it there as much.
I'm talking about the strained efforts by those mentioned to demonstrate to their public and to whoever they are interviewing that they have done their homework.
"You say in your book that . . . blah, blah, blah . . . Why did you say that ?? "
Don't get me wrong. I do want them to actually do their homework. I just don't want them to be so obvious that they are trying to prove to everyone that that's what they are about.
And in this vein, I would offer a recommendation to the culprits who are not as smooth and professional as they shouold be. They should spend several hours observing, listening to Diane Rehm on NPR (I think it's called "the DR Show") midmornings on your favorite NPR station. Diane is the absolute best radio interviewer in the business today.

Republican Dilemma

Much of what has filled up time on the 24-hour cable news channels since November has been a discussion of what the Republican Party needs to change in order to become competitive once again. Many of the debates attempt to study strategy, looking out how the party can frame its appeal and ideology in ways that will be more attractive to more voters. These efforts assume there is nothing wrong or unappealing about that ideology. Advocates of winning through better strategy believe that the average citizen is slightly or somewhat "right of center" in their political ideology. Thus, they conclude, the message is not the problem. Must be the messenger.
There are, however, important power centers in the party that reject the notion that inept messaging was the problem. They see efforts to repackage Republicanism in more attractive terms as being insidious attempts to alter the ideology. Trying to show how their worldview can appeal to people who have not been voting with them is viewed by these party purists as caving in on ideology. They believe that the true road to success lies in going the opposite direction. They want even more ideological purity. And this includes both economic conservatism and social conservatism. One who wants small, efficient government but is open-minded about abortion is simply not welcome on the Republican reservation. "Log Cabin" Republicans simply cannot be accepted, no matter how pro-business they might be. Purity (of ideology) is essential to finding their way out of the wilderness and back to the Promised Land.
What is sort of left unsaid, but to me would be essential, is how these Republican power-brokers intend to succeed given this apparent dichotomy. In order to win as a "pure" ideological party they will need to devise some kind of evangelical message to win over those moderates they have been purging and shunning. If the specific issues they wish to live or die on are that important to them, then they must figure out how to convince people who don't share those views on those issues, and are in fact seemingly moving the other direction.

Local Public Radio

It's that time of year. The area NPR radio stations are in their semi-annual fund drive. A week enduring the predictable drivel from the local disc jockeys.
To be clear, I understand that these are non-commercial stations and that they must substitute donor money for the funds they otherwise they'd get from selling advertising time.
But I do not enjoy these days. I am and have been an occasional contributor. I do really like a number of the programs on public radio. But it annoys me that the fund drive organizers every year resort to the same trite pleas.
The most annoying of the all the gimicks is the "matching funds" scam. Some benefactor, sometimes named, othertimes remaining anonymous, agrees to match donations pledged by new or renewing contributors. They talk as if and try to get listeners to believe that those funds will not be given by the benefactor if those being solicited don't respond in sufficient amounts and quickly enough. What?? Will these benevolent companies and foundations just keep their money if it can't be matched? One grows skeptical. If the given deadline for some match challenge is not met, don't they just turn around and make the same offer a day or two later?
It might make some people feel good about themselves to think they are magically multiplying their personal contribution. But it sure appears to me a ruse. Instead of droning on and on about the "match" why don't they spend some time informing their audience of how they are striving to be good stewards of what they do receive, how they seek to be efficient. They could also describe some of the unusual, unexpected costs that they occasionally encounter. This would, in my humble opinion, be a better use of their air time.