A question for the census

The census is derived from the following clause in the constitution:  “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Number… The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

Basically, the purpose is to make sure the number of representatives in the House is still sufficient, and that taxes are distributed to areas that need them.  If an area has, say, 100 more kids than it did 10 years ago, then more money needs to be sent to the public schools to pay for more teachers.  Without the census, there'd be no official way of knowing.

The census has only those two purposes and can't be used for anything else.  Only the U.S. Census Bureau has access to the forms (though the statistical results are published).  The FBI, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and IRS cannot use the forms to track down anyone.  Even if the forms somehow fell into their possesion, it would be illegal to use them as evidence of any sort.  But we know that.  That's not my point.

The Census asks for age, sex and race.  I am curious why any of those matter.  Aren't we just counting people?

Well, age is important to know.  A lot of 20-30 year olds have different public (tax-funded) needs than 40-50 than 70-80, and needing to know how many are under 18 is also very important for the obvious reasons.

Sex is less important, but if we're willing to assume women mean potential children, then funding preschools (each census needs to cover the next 10 years) is the proper reaction.  And a man and woman living together can give the same result - but if they are 60 years old, perhaps kids aren't to be expected.  Is it sexist?  Sort of - but women can make babies and men cannot.  There is a purpose, however crude, to asking about sex.

However, I am curious why the census asks questions about race.  There is, or supposed to be, no difference between capabilities of those of a different race.  Whites and blacks and hispanics and Asians can accomplish the same goals, given equal opportunity.  That's the theory of diversity anyway.  Or: every race has certain strengths and weaknesses, and they all balance out so that no race is better than the others.  In any event, there's no difference in tax-funded needs.  All races use roads, need disaster relief, fire departments, a national military, public schools, etc.  So what's the point of asking?

Granted, there is no danger of being "caught" by admitting to a certain race, there is also no use for asking, and asking makes some people nervous, and then they don't answer the census at all, and then the whole area loses money and representation.  So why ask the question at all?  I understand the desire for statistics and it is good to have the information to compare to economic data to see the socio-economic conditions of certain areas, to compare it both with race populations and the past, to see if an area is becoming richer and if there is an ethnic migration.  But at the risk of getting no information seems stupid.

This is my favorite question.  It is question 8 and comes BEFORE the above question.  This question definately looks suspicious.  Consider that question 9 DOESN'T have Hispanic etc as an option.  It does make it look like the Census is making a distinction between Hispanics and every other race.  And given Hispanic/Latino/Spanish is just the proper way of sayng what "American purists" call "Illegal Immigrants" AKA "Mexicans," it's no wonder people are nervous.  Why area Hispanics given an entirely seperate question?  It's........ it's ridiculous!  Absolutely ridiculous.

If anyone wants to read all the question on the census, the site I used was http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/interactive-form.php

James Thomas must be disbarred!

Tea Party Critique

I'd like to draw your attention to the sign at the top of this picture, in between the two arrows.  I'd like to suggest the answer is, must be, no.  No, no no no and no.  No, you can't, and no, there's no rational argument that you can.  The only time you can get away with not paying taxes is by leaving the country.  Because simply by living in a community protected by a police department means you benefit from tax dollars.  What would Tea Party-ers say to Americans who would refuse to pay taxes in protest of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars?  This just cannot be done.  See Stranger than Fiction: You get audited, and you will lose.

Taxes pay for:
Police, Fire Fighters, Military, Medicare/Medicaid, Public Schools, Street Signs, Coast Guard, Road Maintenence, Welfare, Social Security, Public Campaign, Finance, NOAA (which tracks the weather), Customs, FBI, CIA, Courtrooms, Prisons, Garbage Collection, Nuclear Weapon Upkeep/Security, Foreign Aid, Disaster Relief, Snow Removal, NASA, Water Treatment, The Post Office and my God the list goes on!

I can't see anything there to actually disagree with.  Nonetheless, by living in America, one benefits greatly from tax dollars.  Simply by having a police force, crime is lowered.  Or rather, without a police force, crime will rise.  The CIA prevented various terrorist attacks.  You can argue the methods were unnecessary, you can argue the methods spurred more attacks, but you can't argue that some attacks were prevented.  I'm trying to think of something paid for by taxes worth disagreeing about and can't think of anything whatsoever.

I personally cannot understand the distaste towards taxes people have.  Taxes provide an incredible number of services, and those usually help in times of crisis.  You don't need to pay the police to pursue a thief, because you already have.  And the police don't serve rich people more than poor people, the money all comes from the same place (though tax-funded services tend to be better in richer districts than in poorer districts).  So in response to the picture on the left, yes, the federal government is definately dependent on your taxes.  And you are dependent on their services.  Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) suggested a $300 tax break for all Americans, and this idea was rightfully shot down.  Better use $300 X (# of Americans) for a large and substantial investment, than to give it back.  The public investment could help people.  All the $300 would do would make people feel better and they would deposit the money in their bank account, or pay back a loan (or interest on a loan).  None of that stimulates the economy at all.

The final issue is taxation and representation.  The idea of representation is this: you can only tax me if I give my consent.  Well, sort of.  Well, kind of.  Well, not really at all.  History lesson:

Under British Constitutional law (yes, they had a constitution), all taxes had to be voted on by Parliament.  Parliament was made up of representatives voted in by the citizens of certain provinces to represent them.  And so the people's representatives voted for taxes.  Except the colonists had no representatives.

This is utterly not true in America.  We have elections every 2 years, which given the amount of time needed for campaigns is about as often as is practical.  You can disagree with an elected official, and you can even disagree with the elected official you voted for, but to say you aren't represented is just foolish.  If you really no one is representing your views, vote in elections and lobby congresspeople.  It might help to make sure you have a bloc of people who will also vote for your representative,  but you can't say your suffering "taxation without representation."  To claim that you either must be a liar or not understand how representative democracy works.  Or you live in Washington DC, which does actually have taxation without representation. Hence the license plate.

James Thomas must be disbarred!

Welcome!

Welcome friends! In high school I had what I suppose could be called a personal blog. Then in college I had a philosophical blog. And now it is time to throw my hat into the world of political blogs. I'll be chiefly writing on American domestic politics and American-Israeli relations, but I suppose I say that mostly because those are the most urgent things on my mind now. In a few weeks, I'm sure I'll be covering something else.

I'm not going to be reporting any news, but I'll summarize whatever news story I'm talking about for those who perhaps haven't heard yet. In general, my information is from NPR, Colbert Report, Daily Show and/or The Boston Globe. I'll mostly be giving my perspective on the news, not for the sake of getting my voice out there, but in the hope of putting some fresh light on an issue, or bringing up an idea I don't think is being investigated. I hope to stay relevant and interesting and please tell me if it sounds I'm becoming self-indulgent.

I'll try to update this at least twice a week, and whenever I do I'll announce it on Facebook.

Ok, awesome! I'll have the first post up by, say, Saturday...


James Thomas must be disbarred!