instruction:
In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.
question:
San Diego, California (CNN) -- Nearly six years ago, I left Texas to move back home to California. I must have been the only one. U.S. Census Bureau data released this week confirm that, during the last decade, the tide was definitely going the other way. The Lone Star State was the undisputed winner in the 2010 population sweepstakes. Its prize: more congressional seats awarded through reapportionment than any other state. Texas added four House seats and increased its number of electoral votes to 38. That will be second only to California, which has 55 electoral votes. California, which grew rapidly through the 20th century, only increased at the national average in the past 10 years. It didn't add any House seats this year. The other winners in the census lottery include Florida, which picked up two new seats in Congress. Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Utah, South Carolina and Washington all picked up one extra seat. It is a much bleaker story in Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Massachusetts, which lost seats. Why did you move -- or stay -- in the last few years? Tell us on iReport! It makes for quite a sea change. We are seeing the transfer of influence and prominence away from what has long been considered the power corridor of Boston, Washington and New York and toward the Sunbelt. Texas is the buckle in that belt. If you want to catch a glimpse of the future, you don't go to Alexandria or Syracuse or Worcester. You go to Austin, Houston or San Antonio. A generation or two ago, Americans left the Northeast and headed west to California in search of the Pacific, milder climate, bountiful farmland and a spirit of tolerance. Now, they're still leaving the Northeast -- but also leaving California -- to head to Texas in pursuit of lower taxes, less government regulation, lower home prices and a spirit of independence. I have plenty of friends and family in Texas, and they have good reason to celebrate this holiday season. After all, this is a place that is used to coming in second. Texas is the second-largest state in area, behind Alaska. And it's the second-most populous state next to California. But in terms of population growth, it's second to none. Texas is a beautiful and extremely livable state, with scenic vistas and hospitable people. But somewhere in its bloodstream, there is an inferiority complex. It's just as well that my friends in Dallas can fly to Los Angeles or New York in just a few hours, because the city is always aspiring to be thought of as being sophisticated as Los Angeles and New York. While some pundits are saying that this population shift to the Southwest is good news for Republicans, I'm not so sure that's true. Texas is still a red state, but there is some evidence that it's trending purple. Election results confirm that Dallas County and Harris County, which includes Houston, are home to more Democrats than they used to be. There is still a lot of red in the panhandle and western Texas, to be sure. But demographics don't lie. You can't talk honestly about population growth in Texas without acknowledging two things. First, much of it is coming from transplants from blue states such as California. They are packing up preformed liberal tendencies and taking them into the land of the blue bonnets. According to The Dallas Morning News, an average of 80,000 Californians moved to Texas each year from 2006 to 2008. Second, much of the rest of Texas' population growth is tied to the phenomenal increase in the Hispanic population. That's another subset that tends to lean left politically. According to Bill Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, Hispanics made up more than half the new arrivals to Texas. The same goes for Arizona, Florida and Nevada. That's not surprising. The larger story likely to come out of the 2010 census is that the Hispanic population is exploding. The data showing the racial/ethnic breakdown of the U.S. population won't be released until February. But already there is reasonable speculation that the Hispanic population could be somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 million, or about 19 percent of the total U.S. population, which is now 308.7 million. And in Texas, Hispanics will likely account for nearly 40 percent of the state's population. There is no question that, as a result of the population shifts of the past 10 years, Texas and states out West are coming into their own and will have more power and influence to steer a new course for the country. But who will these states be steered by? Whom do you think? Welcome to the new America. Or should I say, "Bienvenidos?" The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette Jr.
answer:
U.S. Census shows growth in Southwest, with Texas gaining quickly .
Lone Star State is gaining four seats in House, the most of any state .
He says people are coming in search of lower taxes, less regulation, cheaper housing .
Growth of Hispanic population is a major factor driving increase in Texas, he says .


question:
(CNN)  -- Be bold! Think big! Barack Obama wants to do just that. An $800 billion economic stimulus plan. Three million jobs. Health care reform. A restructured automobile industry. Obama's popularity with voters will win him influence with political opponents. Obama won the biggest Democratic majority for president in 44 years. His party made big gains in Congress. Democrats now have a majority of nearly 60 percent in both the House and Senate. President Obama's got a mandate. And a majority. What's to stop him? Just this: the U.S. system of government. It is set up to make it difficult to get things done. The Constitution was written 222 years ago by men who didn't trust government. They had just waged a revolution against a king. To the founders of the American republic, strong government meant despotism. So they set up a system with an elaborate separation of powers. The idea was to ensure weak government. The dirty little secret of American government is that it was designed not to work very well. As president after president has discovered, there are innumerable ways opponents can stop measures from getting passed, even if the president's party holds a majority in Congress. The Senate has its own rule that's not in the Constitution requiring a super-majority of 60 Senate votes to control the agenda. A minority of 41 senators can "filibuster'' a measure and prevent it from coming up for a vote. How many votes will Republicans have in the Senate? 41 or 42, depending on the outcome in Minnesota where ballots are still being counted. Presidents often have problems holding their own party together. That's because members of Congress are elected by local constituencies and they are expected to represent local interests. American politicians are independent political entrepreneurs. They are not foot-soldiers of a party. When Bill Clinton first became president, he had a solid Democratic majority in Congress. But he could not get his health care reform plan passed. After an intense advertising campaign by opponents, many Americans were worried that the Clintons were planning a government takeover of the health care system. The Clinton plan failed, and within two years, Democrats lost their majority in Congress. One-party control didn't work any better for George W. Bush. Bush had trouble getting what he wanted -- notably, immigration reform -- from a Republican Congress. Republicans lost their majority in Congress in 2006. But here's another dirty little secret of American government: it often does work. Very well in fact. Under the right conditions, barriers fall away and things get done, sometimes with amazing speed and efficiency. What are the right conditions? An overwhelming sense of public urgency. That sense of urgency certainly existed after 9/11, when Congress quickly passed the Patriot Act. Getting anything big done in American government requires a sense of crisis. That's why politicians in the U.S. are always declaring crises -- a drug crisis, an education crisis, an environmental crisis. Or they're trying to rally the country to fight a war on something -- a war on poverty, a war on crime. If the public urgency is not authentic, however, opponents won't have much trouble stopping things from happening. Obama certainly takes office at a time of crisis, just as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt did. Like them, he has the opportunity to transform American government. Members of Congress who try to block President Obama's program may find themselves in political trouble. Because there is yet another dirty little secret of American government: the United States is the most populist democracy in the world. Here, the people rule. When the people want something, they will get it, whether it's the death penalty or gun rights or lower taxes. Why doesn't the United States have a metric system or dollar coins like other countries? Because the people won't use them. Obama's popularity is soaring right now. When a president is popular, he has clout. Everyone wants to be on his side, even members of the opposition party. They're in business for themselves, and supporting a popular president is good for business. Standing in his way could drive them out of business. American government is not an efficient, well-oiled machine. It was never designed to be. It has to be lubricated by public pressure. If the people are shouting "Do something!'' -- as they are right now -- then something will happen. Even if it means a lot more spending and a lot more government. The people reserve one key right: they will let the government know, rather quickly, whether or not it's working.
answer:
Three secrets behind the way U.S. government works .
It was designed to ensure weak government .
In times of crisis usual barriers fall away .
If voters want something done, it will get done somehow .


question:
New York (CNN) -- The mayor of Newark has called for an investigation into a far-reaching New York Police Department surveillance program that was allegedly conducted in the New Jersey city's Muslim's neighborhoods. "The Newark Police Department was not involved in joint operations with the New York Police Department as was described in the disclosed NYPD report," Mayor Cory Booker said Wednesday, referring to a leaked internal New York police document that allegedly detailed police surveillance of Muslim-owned business and mosques across the city. "I strongly believe that we must be vigilant in protecting our citizens from crime and terrorism but to put large segments of a religious community under surveillance with no legitimate cause or provocation clearly crosses a line," he said. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also called the development "disturbing" and has asked the state's attorney general to investigate. The 60-page report, first obtained by The Associated Press, showed maps of Newark and photographs of Muslim residences and mosques. There was no statement in the document regarding terrorism or criminal activity. The New Jersey mayor's statement comes a day after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the extent of police surveillance against critics who have suggested authorities went too far. "We have to keep this country safe," the mayor told reporters, addressing questions about a separate report, also leaked to AP, that indicated the New York police were closely monitoring Muslim student associations in schools across the Northeast. "If people put things on websites and make them available to everybody, of course the NYPD is going to look at anything that's publicly available in the public domain," Bloomberg said. "And given we've had a dozen people arrested or convicted of terrorist acts who've come from similar organizations, we have an obligation to do so." That report said police have tracked websites, and on one occasion sent an undercover officer with students from the City College of New York on a whitewater rafting trip. "The police department goes where there are allegations," Bloomberg said. But Yale University President Richard Levin described New York's surveillance program as "antithetical to the values" of the New Haven, Connecticut, university and those of the nation. When a reporter asked if police had gone too far by sending the agent on the rafting trip, Bloomberg responded, "No." Police spokesman Paul Browne told CNN that his agency does not monitor students directly but confirmed it monitors websites they use. "In any case where you see an NYPD officer present, it's an indication that we were looking at an individual," he said. The Columbia University Muslim Students Association condemned the police practice in a statement this week. "We are concerned that news reports about NYPD's presence on our campus have a chilling effect on the intellectual freedom necessary for a vibrant academic community," it read. In December, a prominent group of Muslim leaders boycotted Bloomberg's annual interfaith breakfast in protest of the controversial program. The move stemmed from a series of earlier news reports that raised questions about the nature of a CIA partnership with the New York police that allegedly helped to build city intelligence programs to spy on Muslims. The boycott stood in a stark contrast to the goodwill the mayor earned among Muslim leaders when he defended plans for a controversial Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. The CIA later announced its internal watchdog found no issue or evidence of wrongdoing in the spy agency's partnership with New York police.
answer:

Newark's mayor calls for investigation into New York Police Department surveillance .
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also calls the development "disturbing"
Christie asks state's attorney general to investigate reports of spying on Newark Muslim areas .