Do you know the merits of “statistical sampling,” versus “straight headcount” by the US Census? Not many people do.
The difference is this: in rural, suburban and low-density areas, a straight headcount is feasible. A census enumerator can go door-to-door — “count” every head — and report a reasonably accurate number for the people who live there.
But how can the US Census “count every head” in an environment like this one:
The answer is, they can’t. Not even close. The only way the US Census can reasonably estimate the population of East L.A or Calle Ocho or Washington Heights, is to isolate a few key census tracts…send hundreds of enumerators into those census tracts…and extrapolate their findings onto the surrounding census tracts.
This is called “statistical sampling.”
Especially for crowded Latino neighborhoods, this sampling methodology is the only way to generate a reasonably accurate population report.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SAMPLING
In Washington, D.C. policy circles, it is commonly known that sampling is favored by Democrats and opposed by Republicans – because it increases the number of minority residents that are reported in large, inner-city areas. minority residents that are reported in large, inner-city areas.
The US Census numbers are vital…because they determine the amount of federal monies apportioned to school districts; highways; mass transit systems; public housing projects; revenue-sharing block grants; hospitals; and Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement programs.
In total, more than $400 billion per year is at stake…and the US Census determines who receives it.
To understand the local impact of this, consider the following…Medicaid spending is 40% of the budget of New York State. The 2016 NY state budget was $155 billion, and the state Medicaid expenses were more than $60 billion. The US Census figures are critical for helping New York to meet this $60 billion Medicaid obligation – particularly in low-income areas such as Washington Heights, East Harlem and the South Bronx.
For this reason, when the federal government refused to employ statistical sampling in the 1990 US Census, Mayor David Dinkins and New York City sued the US federal government, to compel the use of sampling. In that lawsuit, Dinkins argued that as many as 450,000 New York City residents would not be counted, without statistical sampling by the US Census.
New York City (and several other cities that joined in as plaintiffs) won this lawsuit against the federal government…and statistical sampling was used in the 2000 US Census.
This brought tens of billions of federal dollars to New York City.
In addition, a 1998 US Supreme Court case prohibited the use of sampling in the re-drawing of congressional seats…but specifically stated that sampling could be used — and in many cases was required — for the distribution of federal funds, grants and resources.
OBAMA PULLS A FAST ONE…ON NEW YORK CITY AND MAYOR DINKINS
A few years later, in 2008, Barack Obama inherited the sub-prime financial disaster. While Obama did not create the problem, his solution was cynical and abhorrent.
He handed a trillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded bailout to the same Wall Street operators who created the sub-prime mortgage crisis…then these operators turned around, and kept the bailout money for themselves! It was Christmas on Wall Street, courtesy of Barack Obama.
Then, in order to pay for his trillion-dollar giveaway to Wall Street, Obama snuck the “straight headcount” methodology back into the US Census.
Obama did this even though New York City and its black mayor had sued the federal government to prevent this “straight headcount” from being used…ever again!
OBAMA USES SONIA SOTOMAYOR…TO COVER HIS TRACKS
From a Machiavellian standpoint…the manner in which Obama snuck the “straight headcount” back into the US Census, was sheer genius. But from a human standpoint, it was a deception and betrayal of nearly the entire American people….particularlyUS Latinos.
Obama nominated Robert Groves to direct the US Census. Groves sailed through his US Senate confirmation hearing – virtually undetected – and then immediately abandoned statistical sampling as the US Census methodology.
Here is the transcript of Groves’ confirmation hearing before the US Senate:
Note the following events in this transcript:
The Chairman of the hearing announces that it will be a quick hearing: “in and out within an hour and a half.” (page 2)
Another Senator jokes about “statistical sampling” (page 3)
Robert Groves states – clearly and emphatically – that he will NOT use statistical sampling as director of the US Census. (page 15)
The Chairman announces his intention “to move this nomination through committee next week…it’s critical that you get confirmed and get started.” (page 26)
HOW DID SONIA SOTOMAYOR FIT INTO THIS?
Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court, in the same week that he nominated Robert Groves to direct the US Census.
The hoopla surrounding Sonia’s nomination enabled the Senate to quietly fast-track the Groves nomination: with a one and one-half hour “hearing” for something…that was already a done deal.
In other words, the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor – and the media circus that accompanied it, and spread all the way to Europe – served as a cover for the real money appointment.
Robert Groves was the main event…not Sonia. But nobody realized it.
THE ROTHSCHILD FORMULA
Through this clever system of appointments, Obama was able to have his cake and eat it, too.
He appeared heroic for appointing a Puerto Rican to the Supreme Court…
At the same time, he silently engineered the denial of hundreds of billions of federal dollars from Latino neighborhoods, and Latino school districts, all over the US.
More than 200 years ago, banker Mayer Amschel Rothschild – the founder of the House of Rothschild – announced “Give me control over a nation’s money, and I care not who writes its laws.”
Obama followed this formula to a “T.”
For a history of the War Against All Puerto Ricans, read the book…
Si prefiere ver la página web en español por favor visite: http://www.guerracontratodoslospuertorriquenos