My Op-Ed ran in today’s Moscow-Pullman Daily News. Enjoy!
As a strict constitutionalist, I support the decennial census the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be used: allocating House seats and determining a head-tax. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution says:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…”
The Founding Fathers were rightly fearful of a direct democracy, and the Senate and House of Representatives were two of many factors designed to ensure a republic. With this setup, there is equal state representation in the Senate. Each state, large or small, is represented by two senators. Until 1913, US senators were chosen by the legislatures of their states, which would also vote to fill any vacancies. These senators were to represent the interests of their respective states (“state’s rights”). This profoundly non-democratic process helped mitigate the evils of a direct democracy.
On the other hand, the members of the House of Representatives are numbered according to population. These Representatives are chosen based on local democratic vote and stand for the interests of the people and their local constituency. If there is a vacancy in the House of Representatives, the state governor must arrange for a special election to fill that vacancy.
Historically, the decennial census could also be used to determine a federal head tax. The amount of direct taxes that could be collected by the federal government from the people in any State would be tied directly to that state’s share of the national population. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 says:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
Capitation is another word for a head tax: a tax that is uniform, fixed, and equal for each taxpayer. It has its roots in Jewish law. Exodus 30:11-16 imposed a head tax of a half-shekel, payable by every man above the age of twenty (“the rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less”). An income tax was ruled unconstitutional until 1913 because it is not a capitation: the amount of tax varies depending on each person’s income.
Fast forward to the 21st century, when the purpose of the US census is spun into receiving federal dollars, not paying them. The US Census Bureau says
“The census results are used to establish local eligibility for government programs,” and “Federal and state funds supporting schools, employment services, housing assistance, road construction, hospital services, programs for the elderly and more are distributed based on census figures.”
As a thought experiment, consider what it would mean if federal taxes were allocated equally by a head tax. Right now, the US debt per taxpayer is over $188,000. That kind of debt is sustainable in the short term only because Republicans and Democrats alike pretend that the wealthy will pay for that debt via progressive taxing schemes. But we could never have gotten ourselves into $23 trillion of debt to begin with if everyone was required to pay for it equally.
Then there are the invasive demographic questions on the census. The 2000 census included Question 13: “Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?” and Question 14: “When did this person come to live in the United States?” Citizenship questions were asked on the 1820-1830, 1870, and 1890-2000 censuses as well. I was in the Navy when President Clinton ordered all active duty military members to completely fill out the invasive 40-page long-form version of the census. Fast forward to 2020 when progressives are suddenly outraged about citizenship questions. Apparently, whether a question is outrageous or not depends upon whether your political party has control of the White House.
When the census pollers come knocking, the only question I constitutionally have to answer is how many people live in my household (a head-count). The other questions (my family’s names, dates of birth, genders, race, home ownership, phone number, or, yes, even our citizenship) are an invasion of privacy. None of the rest is any of their business.
The US Census no longer resembles what the Founding Fathers intended: to count noses in order to apportion seats for the House of Representatives and so that citizens were equally taxed. Rather, it has become a game to see who can find the most people so they can get the most of other taxpayers’ income. What could possibly go wrong?