Wednesday, February 24, 2010
2010 Census More Than Mere Enumeration?
According to our Constitution, Congress is to enumerate (count) the citizens every ten years. Here's what is actually stated in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution:
It seems odd, then, that the census in its current state does so much more than merely enumerate the citizens. In fact, the video clip below by Jerry Day (Matrix News Network), reveals a bit more of what we can expect to see on this year's census. But is it constitutional? Or is it asking much more than what is required to merely enumerate the citizens?
I found a sample of the 10-question census form for 2010 in PDF format here. It seems to me that nine out of those ten questions are illegitimate according to the charter for such a device as is found in the Constitution. You might not have a problem with answering the questions, which is fine. But I've got a problem with these questions being asked without authority to do so. I don't see how my sex, age, and race fit into the enumeration requirements that confine the business of the census to its rightful scope.
But according to the 2010 Census web site, answering all the questions will "paint a portrait of America". That's nice. It's also expensive. In another area of the Census Bureau web site, we see how expensive counting 300 million people (and painting portraits) can be:
Funny how the costs keep rising every ten years. Is that inflation, or perhaps getting distracted with "painting portraits"--or both? Did you know that according to this new estimate of $14.5 billion for the census, that comes to $47.69 per person counted (see PDF spreadsheet here for population numbers and sources for numbers). What a bargain. I'm fairly confident I could contract my official counting services to Uncle Sam for that amount and end up a multi-millionaire for my efforts (and that's including paying workers a fat wage to run around and count people, too!).
Enjoy the video clip:
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. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.The first sentence quoted above covers what is to be done, and we get a sense of why it is to be done by what follows--this has to do with proper representation of the citizens in changing state populations.
It seems odd, then, that the census in its current state does so much more than merely enumerate the citizens. In fact, the video clip below by Jerry Day (Matrix News Network), reveals a bit more of what we can expect to see on this year's census. But is it constitutional? Or is it asking much more than what is required to merely enumerate the citizens?
I found a sample of the 10-question census form for 2010 in PDF format here. It seems to me that nine out of those ten questions are illegitimate according to the charter for such a device as is found in the Constitution. You might not have a problem with answering the questions, which is fine. But I've got a problem with these questions being asked without authority to do so. I don't see how my sex, age, and race fit into the enumeration requirements that confine the business of the census to its rightful scope.
But according to the 2010 Census web site, answering all the questions will "paint a portrait of America". That's nice. It's also expensive. In another area of the Census Bureau web site, we see how expensive counting 300 million people (and painting portraits) can be:
The life cycle cost for the Reengineered 2010 Census was estimated at $11.8 billion in the FY 2009 Budget Request, including $1.8 billion for the American Community Survey which replaced the long-form. The new estimated life cycle cost for the 2010 Census is $13.7 to $14.5 billion.
Since the 1970 Decennial Census, costs have risen substantially from one decennial to the next. In 2010 dollars, the 2000 Census life cycle would have cost approximately $8.2 billion; a 100 percent increase over the 1990 Census ($4.1 billion); which was about a 58 percent increase over the 1980 Census ($2.6 billion); which was a 160 percent increase over the 1970 Census ($1.0 billion).
Funny how the costs keep rising every ten years. Is that inflation, or perhaps getting distracted with "painting portraits"--or both? Did you know that according to this new estimate of $14.5 billion for the census, that comes to $47.69 per person counted (see PDF spreadsheet here for population numbers and sources for numbers). What a bargain. I'm fairly confident I could contract my official counting services to Uncle Sam for that amount and end up a multi-millionaire for my efforts (and that's including paying workers a fat wage to run around and count people, too!).
Enjoy the video clip:
Labels: 2010, census, Congress, Constitution, enumeration, expensive, Jerry Day
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Speaker of the House LAUGHS at Constitutional Question
You may have wondered whether our representatives have been taking the Constitution seriously lately. There seems to be so much evidence to the contrary--that the Constitution is ignored, despite the fact that each of our representative servants takes an oath to uphold this document while in office.
In an editorial at the Las Vegas Review Journal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laughs off the question of whether provisions of health care bills being debated in Washington are constitutional:
One of the missions of the Southern Colorado Patriots Club is to educate our citizens about what--specifically--the Constitution says. And in doing so, we hope to turn our nation around and once again see this nation governed by this powerful, simple document.
When you contact your representatives, ask them about the conformity of what they do or propose with the Constitution. After all, they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Don't you think they should honor that oath?
In an editorial at the Las Vegas Review Journal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laughs off the question of whether provisions of health care bills being debated in Washington are constitutional:
When a reporter for CNSNews.com last Thursday asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., where the Constitution delegates Congress the specific power to order Americans to buy health insurance -- a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of Obamacare -- Ms. Pelosi responded: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"As you can see, whether proposed legislation is or isn't in accord with our Constitution is simply a silly question to ask. What oath? What Constitution?
"Yes, yes I am," the reporter for CNSNews.com replied.
Ms. Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter, never giving an answer. Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then advised CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Mr. Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
One of the missions of the Southern Colorado Patriots Club is to educate our citizens about what--specifically--the Constitution says. And in doing so, we hope to turn our nation around and once again see this nation governed by this powerful, simple document.
When you contact your representatives, ask them about the conformity of what they do or propose with the Constitution. After all, they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Don't you think they should honor that oath?
Labels: Congress, Constitution, patriots club, Pelosi
Sunday, November 8, 2009
House Passes H.R. 3962
Coming down to a weak 220 to 215 vote, H.R. 3962 passed last night. That means if only three more members of Congress voted against this bill, it would have failed. Make no mistake--we've seen far more controversy over this bill than unanimity. Why?
Many point to this bill as missing its intended purpose, which is stated to solve our broken health care condition in this country. I don't dispute our current health care is sub-par and could use big improvements. However, is this within the realm of the federal government? If so, to which part of the Constitution is the federal government granted powers to enact such laws? Shouldn't this be--at most--an issue for the states? Is anyone in Washington even asking such a question with the bills they "write" (but don't read) anymore? It would seem not.
H.R. 3962 is a bloated stack of kludges that nobody has read. I wonder, then, how our representatives can demonstrate they're maintaining their vow to uphold the Constitution of these United States, if they repeatedly vote bills into law without even reading them. I wonder, also, who is writing these bills? Whatever happened to the promise to make such bills available to the American citizens several days before a vote? Was the full bill even available to those expected to vote on it several days before the vote? If not, isn't it safe to say upholding their Constitutional duties is impossible with behavior of this sort?
Anyway, it seems the real purpose of this bill has been diluted into solving the problem--not of access to good, affordable health care for U.S. citizens--but of an unacceptably low percentage of citizens holding health insurance. (Nothing like aiming high, eh?) What is ultimately the solution proposed in this bill? Simple. Citizens are now mandated to have health insurance, never mind the cost. Oh, that was easy--why didn't we do this before? If you don't get "acceptable" insurance, you'll be slapped with a fine. If you don't pay the fine, you can be criminally prosecuted for tax evasion.* Nanny state to the rescue, though I can find nothing in the Constitution to even allow such "rescues".
Of course, it's easy to throw stones (and particularly easy to throw stones at our so-called representatives), but that still leaves us with the problem of sub-par health care, doesn't it? How might a reasonable person address this problem?
I've recently read an excellent article in the fall edition (Southern Colorado) of the Good American Post by Sean McCarthy, which draws, in part, from another article in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods Market) which I highly recommend reading as well for eight solid health reform ideas.
If you look around, you might locate a copy or two of this edition of the Good American Post around town, and I highly encourage you to read it and consider the ideas therein. McCarthy's basic assertion in his article is that--as with all government programs--discouraging a particular activity (such as smoking) uses tools such as regulation and taxation, whereas encouraging a particular activity requires relaxation of these tools. Therefore all the options being discussed in Washington regarding health care appear to be headed in exactly the wrong direction, by increasing both regulation and taxation!
With all the good ideas available out there in tackling this health care issue, isn't it a wonder that our servants in Washington haven't stumbled across any of them? Of course a cynic like myself might wonder if that's really their intended purpose in the first place. From their poor approval numbers, it looks like I'm not alone.
Please make a priority to inform yourself of viable, Constitutionally-sound alternatives to the broken proposals seen on Capitol Hill. Learn, think, debate, and contact your representatives and let them know what you think. After all, they don't even read the bills they pass into law--how can you expect them to read your mind?
Remember, this recent legislative disaster passed the House with only three votes' margin. Could your involvement with your representative have changed that outcome? What will you do when this bill hits the Senate floor? Anything?
*Edit: I've found several articles backing up these claims, as well as the language in the H.R. 3962 bill itself, and decided to add it to this post, for reference. See Section 59B under Part VIII for the special tax on individuals without "acceptable" health insurance coverage. Because this is a special tax, it's subject to enforcement by the IRS. See this article at the National Underwriter for why non-payment of the special tax can result in criminal prosecution. And this article at the National Federation of Independent Business details 15 reasons why this bill is necessarily bad for independent/small businesses.
Many point to this bill as missing its intended purpose, which is stated to solve our broken health care condition in this country. I don't dispute our current health care is sub-par and could use big improvements. However, is this within the realm of the federal government? If so, to which part of the Constitution is the federal government granted powers to enact such laws? Shouldn't this be--at most--an issue for the states? Is anyone in Washington even asking such a question with the bills they "write" (but don't read) anymore? It would seem not.
H.R. 3962 is a bloated stack of kludges that nobody has read. I wonder, then, how our representatives can demonstrate they're maintaining their vow to uphold the Constitution of these United States, if they repeatedly vote bills into law without even reading them. I wonder, also, who is writing these bills? Whatever happened to the promise to make such bills available to the American citizens several days before a vote? Was the full bill even available to those expected to vote on it several days before the vote? If not, isn't it safe to say upholding their Constitutional duties is impossible with behavior of this sort?
Anyway, it seems the real purpose of this bill has been diluted into solving the problem--not of access to good, affordable health care for U.S. citizens--but of an unacceptably low percentage of citizens holding health insurance. (Nothing like aiming high, eh?) What is ultimately the solution proposed in this bill? Simple. Citizens are now mandated to have health insurance, never mind the cost. Oh, that was easy--why didn't we do this before? If you don't get "acceptable" insurance, you'll be slapped with a fine. If you don't pay the fine, you can be criminally prosecuted for tax evasion.* Nanny state to the rescue, though I can find nothing in the Constitution to even allow such "rescues".
Of course, it's easy to throw stones (and particularly easy to throw stones at our so-called representatives), but that still leaves us with the problem of sub-par health care, doesn't it? How might a reasonable person address this problem?
I've recently read an excellent article in the fall edition (Southern Colorado) of the Good American Post by Sean McCarthy, which draws, in part, from another article in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods Market) which I highly recommend reading as well for eight solid health reform ideas.
If you look around, you might locate a copy or two of this edition of the Good American Post around town, and I highly encourage you to read it and consider the ideas therein. McCarthy's basic assertion in his article is that--as with all government programs--discouraging a particular activity (such as smoking) uses tools such as regulation and taxation, whereas encouraging a particular activity requires relaxation of these tools. Therefore all the options being discussed in Washington regarding health care appear to be headed in exactly the wrong direction, by increasing both regulation and taxation!
With all the good ideas available out there in tackling this health care issue, isn't it a wonder that our servants in Washington haven't stumbled across any of them? Of course a cynic like myself might wonder if that's really their intended purpose in the first place. From their poor approval numbers, it looks like I'm not alone.
Please make a priority to inform yourself of viable, Constitutionally-sound alternatives to the broken proposals seen on Capitol Hill. Learn, think, debate, and contact your representatives and let them know what you think. After all, they don't even read the bills they pass into law--how can you expect them to read your mind?
Remember, this recent legislative disaster passed the House with only three votes' margin. Could your involvement with your representative have changed that outcome? What will you do when this bill hits the Senate floor? Anything?
*Edit: I've found several articles backing up these claims, as well as the language in the H.R. 3962 bill itself, and decided to add it to this post, for reference. See Section 59B under Part VIII for the special tax on individuals without "acceptable" health insurance coverage. Because this is a special tax, it's subject to enforcement by the IRS. See this article at the National Underwriter for why non-payment of the special tax can result in criminal prosecution. And this article at the National Federation of Independent Business details 15 reasons why this bill is necessarily bad for independent/small businesses.
Labels: Congress, Constitution, H.R. 3962, health care, health insurance, Senate
Sunday, October 11, 2009
FTC Attacks Free Speech
Have you heard of this little issue? The FTC has decided to begin policing things people say on blogs, ostensibly to limit the degree to which readers might be falsely swayed by something such as a product review. I guess the intention is to mandate full disclosure, such as when products reviews were based on product samples given to the blogger at no cost.
But can the federal government assault the first amendment in the name of full disclosure? Isn't this an abridgment of free speech, after all?
Well, what's at stake? As I see it, the cure is much worse than the disease. The proposed punishment for such deviant bloggers is up to $11,000 per infraction! But how can this possibly be enforced, anyway? And on what legal grounds does the FTC have jurisdiction over the content of what people write in what are, essentially, on-line journals? (After all, "blog" stands for "web log".)
I suppose, by writing here, I'm at risk of being hit with an arbitrary, subjectively-enforced fine of up to $11,000, despite what our very Constitution might say against the legality of such a ridiculous penalty. Alex Newman, writing at JBS.org, has an interesting article on these new rules that may be of interest for more detail, an excerpt of which follows:
In addition, the rules purport to require everybody to disclose “typical” results of using a product, to be determined by the FTC on a case-by-case basis. “The new rules would require bloggers to clearly disclose what type of results they should expect to receive from a product. Currently, advertisers only have to display a small "results not typical" tagline if they feature an endorser who had an unusual level of success with their product. Now, they have to disclose what the average consumer should expect,” notes PC Mag.
The new advertising regime also covers celebrities, research funding, and even people posting a message through a social networking website. A writer for PC World points out that they can even apply “to anyone commenting on blogs, in forums, and in chat rooms. They apply to employees of a company who become a 'fan' of their employer on Facebook or say something nasty about a competitor's product on Yelp.”
Happy blogging!
Lame obligatory "full" disclosure:
This post was written on Google's Blogger software, offered without cost to the author. The author has no idea what sort of results you may expect with Blogger software, as this may well depend on your technical and writing abilities. The author strongly urges you to let your representatives know what a fine job they're doing on your behalf in the name of keeping you protected from the scary ideas of people authoring blogs.
But can the federal government assault the first amendment in the name of full disclosure? Isn't this an abridgment of free speech, after all?
Well, what's at stake? As I see it, the cure is much worse than the disease. The proposed punishment for such deviant bloggers is up to $11,000 per infraction! But how can this possibly be enforced, anyway? And on what legal grounds does the FTC have jurisdiction over the content of what people write in what are, essentially, on-line journals? (After all, "blog" stands for "web log".)
I suppose, by writing here, I'm at risk of being hit with an arbitrary, subjectively-enforced fine of up to $11,000, despite what our very Constitution might say against the legality of such a ridiculous penalty. Alex Newman, writing at JBS.org, has an interesting article on these new rules that may be of interest for more detail, an excerpt of which follows:
In addition, the rules purport to require everybody to disclose “typical” results of using a product, to be determined by the FTC on a case-by-case basis. “The new rules would require bloggers to clearly disclose what type of results they should expect to receive from a product. Currently, advertisers only have to display a small "results not typical" tagline if they feature an endorser who had an unusual level of success with their product. Now, they have to disclose what the average consumer should expect,” notes PC Mag.
The new advertising regime also covers celebrities, research funding, and even people posting a message through a social networking website. A writer for PC World points out that they can even apply “to anyone commenting on blogs, in forums, and in chat rooms. They apply to employees of a company who become a 'fan' of their employer on Facebook or say something nasty about a competitor's product on Yelp.”
Happy blogging!
Lame obligatory "full" disclosure:
This post was written on Google's Blogger software, offered without cost to the author. The author has no idea what sort of results you may expect with Blogger software, as this may well depend on your technical and writing abilities. The author strongly urges you to let your representatives know what a fine job they're doing on your behalf in the name of keeping you protected from the scary ideas of people authoring blogs.
Labels: blogs, Constitution, fines, FTC
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]