For nearly half a century, Angelo Falcón fought nobly and tirelessly for the Puerto Rican and Latino community. One of his main battlefields was the US Census.
Here is why:
Last year (2018) the US federal government spent $4.11 trillion. A large amount of this spending, nearly $1 trillion, is determined and directed by the US Census.
Next year (2020) the US Census will be conducted online…for the first time ever, in US history. While this offers a potential for better enumeration of Latinos and minority populations, it also creates a tremendous risk…
Of well-funded, highly organized, targeted hacking of US Census digital operations, which could deeply undercount millions of Latinos throughout the country. This would systematically deprive Latinos of trillions…of TRILLIONS of dollars over the next ten years.
If you think that TRILLIONS of dollars is not enough to motivate a widespread fraud against Latinos – a fraud that can emanate from the highest levels of US government – then let’s review the history of “statistical sampling.”
STATISTICAL SAMPLING: A QUICK HISTORY
Do you know the merits of “statistical sampling,” versus “straight headcount” by the US Census? 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.
The US Census numbers are vital…because they determine the amount of federal monies apportioned to school districts, SNAP and pre-K programs; hospital systems, nursing homes and VA health care; Medicare Plan B subsidies and rate reductions; Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement programs; home health aides, meals, and direct assistance for senior citizens; highways, roads, and mass transit systems; public housing projects and affordable housing developments; revenue-sharing block grants; EB-5 investment projects; federal contributions to unemployment insurance payments; and thousands of other health, education and welfare programs.
Nearly a trillion dollars per year are 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 2019 NY state budget was $175 billion, and the state Medicaid expenses were $70 billion. The US Census figures were critical for apportioning this $70 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 LATINOS NATIONWIDE
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 to pay for his Wall Street giveaway, Obama snuck the “straight headcount” methodology back into the US Census.
He 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 . . . particularly US 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 – was planned and timed to serve 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 that he silently engineered the denial of trillions 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.”
And if a charismatic black president — the first black president in the history of the US — could do this to the Latino community…if a supposedly “liberal” Democrat contrived and executed this slick plan in the White House, to deprive Latinos of TRILLIONS of dollars…do you really think that in the era of President Trump, Ann Coulter and white Nationalists, there will NOT be any clandestine “tinkering” and “tweaking” of the first online Census?
In honor of Angelo Falcón and everything he stood for, Latinos nationwide need to pay attention and take firm action, to protect the integrity of the 2020 US Census.
For a history of the War Against All Puerto Ricans, read the book…
Buy it Now
Si prefiere ver la página web en español por favor visite: http://www.guerracontratodoslospuertorriquenos