The 2010 census will shift the political center of the US a little farther west. The result will likely be more of an emphasis on topics that are of importance to them. Water rights, English and Spanish language usage, migrant workers, illegal immigrants, use of National Parks by ranchers and farmers, and ecology stewardship will begin to dominate the political landscape in two years time.
Water rights will be a particularly contentious issue as it develops. Usage of Colorado River water, the open sky Arizona water canals, and the need for more water in growing states will fuel the anger of many people making it ripe for political gains when the parties line up their platforms for 2012.
The Great Lakes Basin Compact is an early example of states uniting to prevent the usurpation of their water by other states.
And if you were not aware:
For the first time, the bureau will mail census forms in Spanish to 13 million households. It is buying television, radio, print or online ads in 28 languages (up from 17 in 2000), among them Dinka, spoken in south Sudan; Khmer, spoken in Cambodia; Teochew, spoken in parts of China and other Asian nations; and Wolof, spoken in Senegal.
However, illegal immigration will remain a large headline topic for many years yet to come:
Some critics of the census are angry about the lack of any attempt — this year or in years past — to classify undocumented immigrants separately. They carry the same weight as anyone else when congressional districts are redrawn even though they can’t vote.
“United States citizens in one state should not be losing representation in Congress to illegal aliens in another state,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates tougher measures to stem illegal immigration.
His group calculates that if the undocumented were left out in 2010, California, Texas, Arizona and Florida would all lose seats while Midwestern states such as Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Missouri would gain.
Thoughts on the coming changes? What will be blogging about in 2012?
Here’s a map that I have seen cited more often. Among other things, Texas and Arizona both gain yet another seat, Ohio loses yet another.
http://www.polidata.org/census/st008nca.pdf
Thanks, Alex, for pointing the way. I wonder what’s wrong with Ohio? Anybody know?
I think Ohio’s many rust belt cities are shrinking (or at least failing to grow at the same pace as other cities) along with the U.S. manufacturing sector.
The shifting populations and the impact on representation are mostly just a curiosity for me – aside from the illegal immigrant issue, I just don’t see such a shift having much if any impact on the issues. Specifically, the ones mentioned I think will be just as significant regardless of a handful of seats moving around.
I won’t get into it here since it’s a separate topic all to itself, but this post does make me wonder about the Obama Administration’s changes to the census practices and whether there is truth to the accusations from talking heads on the right about ACORN being involved in collecting census data. I haven’t looked into it enough to form an opinion – could well be hyperbole from the blowhards but if true, I find it very troubling.
The illegal immigration aspect is certainly a big part of this. With a poor economy and high unemployment rates, the “jobs only ‘they’ll’ do” is much less true. This is the one issue more than any other that needs to be addressed comprehensively and I fear our politicians lack the decency to get it done. I don’t believe non-citizens should be counted in determining representation (and for the most part, should not be receiving significant benefits of citizenship). But policy must address both those in the country now, and those who wish to come in. Three facets: secure the border, reform INS so the majority of those who wish to come in, can do so safely and legally, and then finally being very tough on those who break the rules. I think it means growing INS significantly to process applications (and do background checks, etc). This means we charge them money to fund it – either upfront or garnish wages.
Sorry – I was just walking along when this soapbox jumped in front of me. 🙂
I agree with your third paragraph completely. Something is amiss when people wish to come here but not become citizens.
What luster have we lost? When did we lose it?
Oh and just for fun, let’s see how the + and – states rank in terms of total state tax burden. (Apologize in advance, tabular data in posts is tough).
Plus States Taxes (rank)
Nevada 49
Arizona 41
Utah 22
Texas 43
Florida 47
Georgia 16
Oregon 26
South Carolina 37
Utah 22
Average 33.67
Minus States Taxes (rank)
Michigan 27
New York 2
Massachusetts 23
Pennsylvania 11
New Jersey 1
Iowa 31
Louisiana 42
Minnesota 12
Missouri 32
Average 20.11
Just the data, I’ll leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.
source:
<a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html" title="taxfoundation.org"
I don’t know how to interpret this information. I recognize the point that taxes are on the average are lower in the growth areas. I don’t know why people would relocate to these states though. Lower taxes would not be a driving factor although it might be a tipping factor.
Leaving NY, NJ, and Pennsylvania seems to be a no-brainer to me.
While I agree that lower taxes aren’t a significant enough factor that individuals would up & leave – as you say, more of a tipping point. BUT people will pickup and leave for jobs – whether it’s their job being relocated or they lose their job & head for better employment opportunities. And high taxes do send jobs away – because of both taxes that effect employers directly and taxes on individuals that raise the wage levels higher. That’s one thing usually left off the discussion of companies moving. If a company can pay provide employees with the same or even higher take-home pay due to the government taking a smaller bite, but at a lower expense (gross pay) why wouldn’t they move?
I’m not saying it’s all 1 to 1, high taxes = declining population. There are tons of other factors. But right now, the states with declining populations seem to match up pretty will with higher tax burdens and vice versa.