Thune is fighting the redefinition of the metro… on a globalist basis? – Dakota Free Press


Last January, the day before the inauguration, the Federal Office for Management and Budget published a recommendation from its review committee for the standards of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas to change the minimum population to consider a place as a “metropolitan area” of 50,000 to 100,000. This change would re-designate 144 urban areas from metropolitan to micropolitan:

Office of Management and Budget, Metropolitan Areas with 2010 population between 50,000 and 99,999, OMB Document ID OMB-2021-0001-0004, 2021.01.12.

The proposal would leave the lower limit for micropolitan areas at 10,000.

Senator John Thune joined with Arizona Senator Mark Kelly in proposing legislation to prevent the OMB from reclassifying Rapid City, Flagstaff and 142 subways as micropolitan areas. Senator Thune worries that the redefinition would “negatively affect” the redesignated communities by spurring bad population growth policies (what? I thought bigger was always better) want to live in cities with the Metro ™ Mark. (In advancing this thesis, Senator Thune makes Aberdeen, Brookings, Watertown, and other current micropolitan areas of South Dakota look bad, but whatever.) Your socialist leaflet appears again). Pushing 144 cities into the micro category could also move existing micro and rural communities away from federal troughs for small town welfare.

But OMB said its proposal is “not designed to serve as a general-purpose geographic framework applicable to non-statistical activities or for use in program funding formulas.” The only way this redefinition could hurt Rapid City and Flagstaff is for senators like Thune and Kelly to write legislation binding the population to the OMB definition instead of setting their own explicit population thresholds. If existing legislation uses these statistical designations for non-statistical purposes, Congress might as well revise that legislation to replace references to the OMB definition as it does prohibit a government agency from defining its statistical terms.

The best reason I can see to oppose this statistical change is a good globalist statistical argument: doubling the minimum population for what the United States calls a metro would create an arbitrary break in historical data that would run counter to the United Nations standards:

… The recommendation does not provide any empirical and scientifically valid formula or explanation of what will trigger future threshold increases, or how they should be calculated, leaving future changes open to political manipulation. Changing the threshold also creates a break in the series, posing significant complications for longitudinal statistical analysis and monitoring of rural realities over time.

There is no explanation as to whether other options were considered. For example, why push localities to the status of non-metro instead of subdividing urban areas into metropolises and “mega-metropolises”? The recommendation also conflicts with the approval in March 2020 by the United Nations Statistical Commission (the global forum of national statisticians in which the U.S. chief statistician participates) of a standard to facilitate benchmarking between countries. , using 50,000 as the threshold for an urban center. [Anthony F. Pipa and Natalie Geismar, “The New ‘Rural’? The Implications of OMB’s Proposal to Redefine Nonmetro America,” Brookings Institute, 2021.03.18].

So Senator Thune’s proposal to keep the definition of metropolitan areas as “50,000 and over” really puts a blue beret on US statistics and keeps us in tune with the United Nations and world order. Hooray for John Thune’s globalism! Then America finally adopts the metric system!

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.