- Author of Waller's manuscript rewarded for helping feds (1/13/18)
- Police: Man dies from self-inflicted gunshot after standoff in south Cape (1/14/18)3
- MCA calls for protection of those found not guilty of animal abuse (1/10/18)2
- Scaling up: Long John Silver's adding an A&W (1/10/18)3
- Word to your superintendent: Glass rocks Vanilla Ice parody to announce cancellation (1/13/18)3
- Southeast to cut workforce to meet budget needs caused by state cuts (1/10/18)7
- Jackson Area Chamber of Commerce recognizes commitment to community at annual awards banquet (1/13/18)
- Church, businesses set up pop-up homeless shelter as winter storm approaches (1/12/18)1
- Plaintiffs' attorney wants jury to see basement steps at Cape courthouse (1/10/18)
- City of Oran water rates violate state law, auditors find; report details financial-management problems (1/13/18)2
Funding will be based on actual census
The Census Bureau made the right decision to permit allocation of $185 billion in federal funds based only on raw numbers, not statistically adjusted numbers.
Democrats have argued such distributions should be made based on adjustments because minorities, the poor and children historically are underrepresented in the census. Therefore, they claim, basing the allocation on adjustments means more money for Medicaid and a host of other programs goes into cities where it is needed most.
But Americans are enjoying the most accurate census in history. Acting Census Bureau director William Barron said the 2000 undercount -- those who didn't fill out their census forms as they should have and thus weren't counted -- was less than 1 percent. In 1990, it was 1.6 percent, or about 4 million people.
And Republicans are correct when they say the money might not end up in the right neighborhoods if distributed based on adjustments.
Besides, when has tinkering with numbers been considered a good thing?