What will you tell the census taker?

[Ted]

Got a call from someone in one of my subdivisions wanting me to explain where all the future houses would be; they had a plat which shows all future lots. They wanted me to explain it all to them and asked if I has something better for them to look at. I referred them to city hall as that is all public information. They wanted me to drive out and explain it all to them at which time the phone connection seemed to get real bad before they were somehow disconnected. Strange, I usually have pretty good ground line connections; problem must have been on their side <g>.

Well played, Dave!

"Oh golly, how will they ever know how many buses to buy????"

Maybe, like, ask the bus drivers, "Dude, your buses filling up?"

Way, way too simple, Spike.

 

[weilke]

If I am called or visited for the ACS, I think I will politely tell the Census employee that I need to check with Starfleet Command before providing any information.

-Rich

Ask for the form in Bork.

 

[weilke]

Maybe, like, ask the bus drivers, "Dude, your buses filling up?"

Why should the goverment buy buses in the first place ?

Tell me that you need to know how many young couples are in an area so you can budget for school construction down the line, but buses....

 

[tonycondon]

for public transportation?

 

[Ted]

Why should the goverment buy buses in the first place ?

Tell me that you need to know how many young couples are in an area so you can budget for school construction down the line, but buses....

Tell that to people who live in New York City.

For some areas public transportation makes zero sense and has no place. For other areas it's a necessity.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

for each percentage point that the response rate goes up it saves about $85 million

Or,...they could NOT follow up, and save the whole freakin' thing!!!!
The basic disagreement is; I don't think they need the census results to perform the tasks they have set out as needing it.

 

[ScottM]

Or,...they could NOT follow up, and save the whole freakin' thing!!!!
The basic disagreement is; I don't think they need the census results to perform the tasks they have set out as needing it.

Then you need to petition to change the law. Under the current law, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/13/7/II/221, about the only thing they can't ask is your religion. The US Constitution is very clear and unambiguous on the census.

Article 1 Section 2: 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.

Add to that the ...necessary and proper... clause and there is no doubt as to the constitutionality of what they are asking.

 

[weilke]

Tell that to people who live in New York City.

For some areas public transportation makes zero sense and has no place. For other areas it's a necessity.

The way NYC runs their public transportation is just one way of doing it.

Many other places just license the routes to private operators, if a route doesn't draw enough customers to stand on its own, the muncipality or county can still subsidize it. No need for bus-drivers to have lifetime healthcare and above market rate guaranteed salaries on my tax dime

There are some things only goverment can do, dropping bombs on other countries, re-routing rivers and the like come to mind. Running a bus on time is not one of them.

 

[Everskyward]

For some areas public transportation makes zero sense and has no place. For other areas it's a necessity.

+1. Even if you don't use public transportation in areas that have it you are reaping a benefit by the fact that there are less cars on the road.

 

[SCCutler]

I think public transportation can have an outstanding effect; but, there's no reason why the feds should be doing it. If Dallas wants buses, let Dallas buy buses. The money gets less effective when its filtered through the layers of bureaucracy.

 

[bbchien]

Boy ain't it the truth. Sigh.

 

[tonycondon]

but dallas won't know how many people they have to ride busses if the feds don't count them.

 

[ScottM]

but dallas won't know how many people they have to ride busses if the feds don't count them.

That is true unless Dallas or the State of Texas holds a special census. That happens in many places if the local or state officials need that info and feel that the last Federal Census undersampled, was plain wrong, or that there was a growth/exodus in the area of concern.

The village that I live near did a special census about 4 years ago due to massive construction and wanted to do better planning for the some services and to petition the state for more money.

 

[ScottM]

I think public transportation can have an outstanding effect; but, there's no reason why the feds should be doing it. If Dallas wants buses, let Dallas buy buses. The money gets less effective when its filtered through the layers of bureaucracy.

Doesn't Dallas and Texas in general get highway funds from the feds? Is it cheaper for the feds to spend the money on a few buses or on widening/creating/ roads?

 

[weilke]

but dallas won't know how many people they have to ride busses if the feds don't count them.

The way you count how many buses to buy: Look if the ones you are running are full. If they are full, buy more buses. If they don't fill, buy smaller buses or run them less frequently.

It's really not hard. My grandfather and his brothers figured that one out about 70 years ago.

 

[Trapper John]

These rebel pilots and their census forms!

Next thing you know, they'll be skipping shaving on Saturday, eating their entrees with the salad fork, and watering on even days instead of odd...

 

[JeffDG]

"Oh golly, how will they ever know how many buses to buy????"

Maybe, like, ask the bus drivers, "Dude, your buses filling up?"

I always get a laugh out of that one.

Here's how I see that information being used:

Bus Driver: Hey, boss, my bus is packed every day. I think we need another bus on my route.
Boss: Well, you see, they just sent out the census last year. I can't authorize any new buses until the next census tells us there are more people in the area.
Driver: When will that be.
Boss: In 9 years

 

[RJM62]

The way NYC runs their public transportation is just one way of doing it.

Many other places just license the routes to private operators, if a route doesn't draw enough customers to stand on its own, the muncipality or county can still subsidize it. No need for bus-drivers to have lifetime healthcare and above market rate guaranteed salaries on my tax dime

There are some things only goverment can do, dropping bombs on other countries, re-routing rivers and the like come to mind. Running a bus on time is not one of them.

Actually, NYC doesn't run a mass transit system and hasn't since 1968. That was when the state-owned Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) absorbed into itself the NYC Transit Authority (NYCTA), The Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MaBSTOA), and most importantly, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA).

The TBTA was all they really wanted because under Robert Moses's control, it was (quite literally) the only government agency in the city or state that was financially solvent. Both NYC Mayor Lindsay and NYS Governor Rockefeller drooled over the TBTA's revenue, but Moses had drafted the bonds in such a way that the revenue could not be diverted to anything other than road and park construction.

Robert Moses had his admirers, and he certainly had his detractors. He was no saint, for sure. But even his fiercest opponents had to admit that he was no crook, either. He built practically every highway and park in New York State, held more than a dozen government posts at one time (most of them without pay), completed all of his projects on-time and within their budgets, was never even suspected of corruption, and ran the TBTA as a model public agency where every dime was accounted for and not a penny was wasted. Love him or hate him, everyone agreed that Robert Moses was an honest man, one who got things done, and one who could not be bought.

Needless to say, Governor Rockefeller and Mayor Lindsay hated him.

Moses distrusted and disliked politicians. He refused to address any governor as "Governor" since Al Smith. The rest he addressed by their first names. He'd also carefully protected himself, his agencies, and his programs from partisan politics by carefully wording bond issues to prevent the funds from being diverted elsewhere.

But Moses met hit match in Governor Nelson Rockefeller, whose brother John was head of the Chase Manhattan bank, which acquired the majority share of the bonds. So when the MTA illegally absorbed the TBTA and diverted its revenues to Mass Transit, they got away with it because the biggest bondholder happened to be, in effect, the governor's brother.

So no, New York City doesn't have a mass transit system. They ran theirs into the ground 20 years after taking it over from the private companies that had run it profitably (and without a fare increase) for more than 40 years. Then the MTA took it over, and has since distinguished itself as the single most mismanaged, wasteful, unaccountable agency in the history of human government.

Under government control, mass transit fares in NYC have increased more than 4000 percent, and that's not even counting the billions of dollars siphoned from toll revenues, the many MTA fees assessed against everything from motor vehicle registrations to cell phone bills, and the MTA surcharges levied against every business and self-employed person in the lower part of the state.

Yet the MTA is still going broke; and the only solution that the state will not consider is to declare it a failure and let private companies run the show again.

-Rich

 

[SCCutler]

Doesn't Dallas and Texas in general get highway funds from the feds?

Sadly, yes.

Is it cheaper for the feds to spend the money on a few buses or on widening/creating/ roads?

It is cheaper for the feds to do neither.

 

[Trapper John]

Sadly, yes.



It is cheaper for the feds to do neither.

Don't Federal Aid Highways (which includes Interstates) fall under the Commerce Clause?

The FHWA Federal Aid program grants approx. $40 billion in funding, with an administrative cost slightly less than 1%. That seems pretty efficient to me.

In any case, I've yet to see TX actively declining FHWA funds...

 

[SCCutler]

Don't Federal Aid Highways (which includes Interstates) fall under the Commerce Clause?

The FHWA Federal Aid program grants approx. $40 billion in funding, with an administrative cost slightly less than 1%. That seems pretty efficient to me.

The problem is, no matter how you slice and dice it, it's still another layer of bureaucracy, a diminution in the value of the money used. And, the FHWA admin figures will never reflect the increased cost of state and local compliance with federal bureaucratic mandates, and (of course) the inherent cost of the tax collection and disbursement mechanisms.

You can make a sound and compelling argument for nearly every modest slice of federal spending... but they all, ultimately, aggregate more than they have to spend and, of course, each such modest, justifiable, entirely appropriate, well-intended, good-faith program is another slice in to the corpus of states' power to govern themselves, another step in the death of a thousand cuts.

In any case, I've yet to see TX actively declining FHWA funds...

...nor has there been a rational means of declining to provide the funds, taken under duress from productive and hard-working citizens of the many states.

 

[ScottM]

It is cheaper for the feds to do neither.

But is that really a choice anymore?

Texas is a break even tax state. For about every dollar its citizens pay in federal tax dollars they get back a dollar from the fed for services. If it was possible Texas could stop paying as much in federal taxes, add some other sort of tax and cut out some administration cost and stay about the same in services. Sadly not every state is that lucky. Illinois pays out far more than it gets back. Like California and New York, we are hit so that we can pay for federal services in Iowa, Georgia, etc.

 

[SCCutler]

Every legal option is a possibility. The current model is broken.

 

[dmccormack]

Texas is a break even tax state. For about every dollar its citizens pay in federal tax dollars they get back a dollar from the fed for services. If it was possible Texas could stop paying as much in federal taxes, add some other sort of tax and cut out some administration cost and stay about the same in services. Sadly not every state is that lucky. Illinois pays out far more than it gets back. Like California and New York, we are hit so that we can pay for federal services in Iowa, Georgia, etc.

What's the source for that data? I'm sure it's out there -- just haven't seen it publsihed -- would be interesting to see how the $$ gets transferred...

 

[Trapper John]

The problem is, no matter how you slice and dice it, it's still another layer of bureaucracy, a diminution in the value of the money used. And, the FHWA admin figures will never reflect the increased cost of state and local compliance with federal bureaucratic mandates, and (of course) the inherent cost of the tax collection and disbursement mechanisms.

You've got to collect the funds for roads somehow. I don't see anyone coming up with a more efficient model, either. Just a lot of griping.

...nor has there been a rational means of declining to provide the funds, taken under duress from productive and hard-working citizens of the many states.

"Duress" seems a little over the top, considering TX has 2 U.S. Senators and 32 Congress members, who have responsibility for the tax code, among other things.

 

[ScottM]

What's the source for that data? I'm sure it's out there -- just haven't seen it publsihed -- would be interesting to see how the $$ gets transferred...

The last data I have seen is 2006, here is its source.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html

I had said Georgie in my OP got a positive return, that was a mistake, I had made that claim from memory. Georgia is almost break even.

 

[dmccormack]

The last data I have seen is 2006, here is its source.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html

I had said Georgie in my OP got a positive return, that was a mistake, I had made that claim from memory. Georgia is almost break even.

The only problem with these assessments is that the dollars are all lumped togther. in other words, Virginia has a high rate of return b/c it hosts many, many companies and other recipients of direct fed dollars.

WV has a high rate because its overall GDP is so low, that the fed dollars spent are skewed when compared per capita.

Sure, there's inequity -- but if everything was based on direct 1 to 1 match, we'd be the US of NY and California.

 

[ScottM]

Sure, there's inequity -- but if everything was based on direct 1 to 1 match, we'd be the US of NY and California.

Well that is kind of the point. That together we are stronger than we would be separately. If there was no federal collection and disbursement of funds then most of the middle part of the country would still be using candles to light their homes and driving on dirt roads. But by wealth redistribution from place like CA and NY, the people in the south have electricity thanks to TVA, there are highways stretching across the plains states thanks to the federal highway programs, etc.

 

[dmccormack]

Well that is kind of the point. That together we are stronger than we would be separately. If there was no federal collection and disbursement of funds then most of the middle part of the country would still be using candles to light their homes and driving on dirt roads. But by wealth redistribution from place like CA and NY, the people in the south have electricity thanks to TVA, there are highways stretching across the plains states thanks to the federal highway programs, etc.

Right -- we settled the Union vs Autonomous States thing in April, 1865 -- mostly.

However, the majority of life is better left to the states, the localities, or the people (see Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights).

Thus a concord of homeowners may choose to forbid clothes lines in the neighborhood. Don't need the Feds determining that.

 

[JeffDG]

Thus a concord of homeowners may choose to forbid clothes lines in the neighborhood. Don't need the Feds determining that.

Dear God! Don't you understand...if you let some homeowners choose to forbid clotheslines, yet allow others to permit them, we have unequal treatment under the law.

I demand Congressional action. We need to establish the Federal Building Enforcement Code Authorization Unit for a Safe Environment (BECAUSE), staff it with a couple thousand under-secretaries, deputy under-secretaries, assistant deputy under-secretaries, and maybe even an inspector or two. They will harmonize rules such as these so that every home looks and operates exactly like every other home in America, and we will all have the same result.

 

[Anthony]

I will tell them the same thing Steve McQueen told Eli Wallach in "The Magnificent Seven."

 

[dmccormack]

Dear God! Don't you understand...if you let some homeowners choose to forbid clotheslines, yet allow others to permit them, we have unequal treatment under the law.

I demand Congressional action. We need to establish the Federal Building Enforcement Code Authorization Unit for a Safe Environment (BECAUSE), staff it with a couple thousand under-secretaries, deputy under-secretaries, assistant deputy under-secretaries, and maybe even an inspector or two. They will harmonize rules such as these so that every home looks and operates exactly like every other home in America, and we will all have the same result.

Well, if it's a CRISIS, they'll get right on that....

 

[weilke]

Actually, NYC doesn't run a mass transit system and hasn't since 1968. That was.
.
.
.
.
Yet the MTA is still going broke; and the only solution that the state will not consider is to declare it a failure and let private companies run the show again.

-Rich

Thanks for the insightful history lesson, it actually supports my point that mass transit doesn't have to be run by goverment or goverment sponsored entities.

My lesson from living on the east coast is that the only thing worse than the state running something is if an 'authority' is set up to do it. They combine the inefficiencies of goverment with the autocracy of privately held corporations.

 

[SCCutler]

You've got to collect the funds for roads somehow. I don't see anyone coming up with a more efficient model, either. Just a lot of griping.

Let the states tax for their own roads.

"Duress" seems a little over the top, considering TX has 2 U.S. Senators and 32 Congress members, who have responsibility for the tax code, among other things.

You misunderstand- by "duress," I simply mean that the money is extracted by force of law, with grave consequences for the failure to render.

 

[nddons]

I will tell them the same thing Steve McQueen told Eli Wallach in "The Magnificent Seven."

Don't leave me in suspense - what did he say? Great movie, but I don't remember any quotes.

 

[ScottM]

Don't leave me in suspense - what did he say? Great movie, but I don't remember any quotes.

"we deal in lead friend"

 

[Trapper John]

Let the states tax for their own roads.

Which we used to do, and was found to be unsatisfactory back in the 1920s.

But if a roll-back-the-clock-type of solution is preferred, we could re-implement the mid-1800s Texas solution:

As Erlichman describes it, the standard practice in Texas early days was to maintain local roads by a labor tax. County courts were authorized to require all males between 15 and 50 to work for six days each year on public roads or provide equivalent in cash to the county overseer.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/98

One could argue this method is even better than putting the states in charge, since it's more local-rulish.

You misunderstand- by "duress," I simply mean that the money is extracted by force of law, with grave consequences for the failure to render.

But it's not a matter of taxation without representation, now is it?

 

[SCCutler]

Which we used to do, and was found to be unsatisfactory back in the 1920s.

But if a roll-back-the-clock-type of solution is preferred, we could re-implement the mid-1800s Texas solution:

As Erlichman describes it, the standard practice in Texas early days was to maintain local roads by a labor tax. County courts were authorized to require all males between 15 and 50 to work for six days each year on public roads or provide equivalent in cash to the county overseer.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/98

One could argue this method is even better than putting the states in charge, since it's more local-rulish.

Certain appeal there...

But it's not a matter of taxation without representation, now is it?

Never suggested otherwise.

 

[wsuffa]

Let the states tax for their own roads.

In many places they're pushing toll roads. On top of the gas tax.

In NoVa, they're doing a project to implement toll lanes - never have so many been inconvenienced (during construction) for the benefit for so few.

With all the high-mileage and electric cars coming out, you will see the means of funding roads changing. Can't come from the general funds (need that for social programs & regulatory programs). So we'll end up with something akin to tolls or mileage taxes. I don't have a problem with that as long as the gas taxes used for roads are eliminated & replaced.

 

[ScottM]

In many places they're pushing toll roads. On top of the gas tax.

Well that would not be fair.

Illinois, well Chicago area, has a lot of tollroads. Those are funded through a different agency than the highways which are gas tax supported.

Tollways suck but at least in IL they are not double dipping as far as I know.