Thoughts on Moving the Census to the White House?

[Anonymous]

In all seriousness, can someone explain to me what the big deal is about this? Whether it is WH v. Commerce?
And, are we all supposed to be counted under the current method? If so, I was not last time around. Didn't get anything related to a questionaire, phone call . . . zippy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Washington Post was quoted earlier with the same conclusion. Surely the Post is not a GOP mouthpiece. What is curious is why this is being ignored by left leaning press (there really isn't any center in the media any longer sadly). If you substituted Karl Rove for Rahm Emanuel, you would have the Huffington Post all over it - no?

Surely an accurate Census is in everyone's best interest - left and right.

What was quoted was a washingtonpost.com blog post that only quoted Republicans sources. Not one Democratic voice was included. I think everyone will concede that Democrats support statistical sampling while Republicans don't. Also, you can bet that if a census were being taken while Bush were in office, Rove would have been all over it. There was not one department that was not politicized during the last 8 years.

There are several issues being overlooked, with everyone simply jumping to the conclusion that this is a bad move:

1) there is a legitimate debate concerning which method of counting is more accurate. Nobody is suggesting that census numbers be fudged. To the contrary, supporters of statistical sampling believe that is the most accurate method.
2) Gregg, as a Republican, has opposed statistical sampling and Gregg previously opposed funding requests for the census;

Hence, if you believe that statistical sampling will yield the most accurate results, and the record suggests that Gregg will not promote statistical sampling or even an adequately funded census, then moving control of the census is a move toward improving its accuracy.

Frankly, rather than have this controversy, I think Gregg should ask that his name be withdrawn and Obama should simply nominate a Democrat. Problem solved. After all, Greg has not even supported the economic stimulus plan that Obama says is critical for the future of the nation. How can you have a Commerce Secretary who does not support something that is critical to the nation's future?

[Anonymous]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Supreme Court already rule against statistical sampling?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Supreme Court already rule against statistical sampling?

The Court ruled very narrowly that statistical sampling could not be the basis of apportioning House seats.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So which side is the White House taking and is that why it's going directly under the White House's control?

The Democrats support statistical sampling. It's being moved directly under the White House because the Secretary of Commerce nominee is a Republican. Senate Dems might not vote to confirm him if he had control of the census.

Exactly. Part of the deal to get the new Sec of Commerce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In all seriousness, can someone explain to me what the big deal is about this? Whether it is WH v. Commerce?
And, are we all supposed to be counted under the current method? If so, I was not last time around. Didn't get anything related to a questionaire, phone call . . . zippy.

The Dems want to be sure all the poor and disenfranchised groups (who might not have a permanent address/phone, etc.) are counted because they vote Democratic (and maybe it would be more accurate!) Other methods tend to undercount these groups.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read enough about this issue to have a definitive opinion but it does remind me of when I received a Republican Party fundraising letter. The letter pointed out that national opinion polls are based on only a 1000 people, implied that this was unfair because only a 1000 people got to voice their opinion and were making all the decisions, so certainly I, as the recipient of this letter, should donate money to the Republican Party so I could make sure my voice was heard, given that I wasn't one of the lucky 1000.

Wow, statistically based sampling is keeping my voice from being heard and letting those power-mad 1000 people run the country!

[Anonymous]

I have a hard time believing that in the 21st century, with all the technology available to us, that statistical sampling is the most accurate method for a census. Perhaps some of the stimulus funding could be spent on a non-partisan accurate census.

[Anonymous]

From the Media Research Council, a conservative media "watchdog"...

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2009/cyb20090211.asp#6

" The Obama administration's decision to have the White House supervise the 2010 Census -- a response to left-wing complaints that the Census was too important to leave under the authority of Republican Judd Gregg, the nominee for Commerce Secretary -- has thus (as of Tuesday morning) far drawn absolutely no attention from the three broadcast networks, with not a single mention on the ABC, CBS or NBC morning or evening newscasts.

This would undoubtedly be a huge story if the White House were still in Republican hands and it was the GOP that was attempting to take over the Census. As the Wall Street Journal's John Fund reported on Tuesday: "'There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement,' a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. 'And it's called politics, not science.'"

[This item, by the MRC's Rich Noyes, was posted Tuesday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Blogging at U.S. News & World Report on Monday, Michael Barone -- who knows more about the nuts and bolts of U.S. politics than practically anybody -- suggested the move could even be ruled unconstitutional: "Here's an argument that it's unconstitutional for the President to take over the Census from the secretary of commerce. It goes like this: Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for an 'actual enumeration' and a statute passed by Congress provides that the duties under this clause are to be performed by the secretary of commerce. Article I (as Joseph Biden didn't know in debate) is about the legislative, not the executive branch. Hence, it is argued, the president can't substitute a sampling for the enumeration required to be done by the secretary." See: www.usnews.com

But at Monday night's presidential news conference, there were zero questions about the Census, or about the tax troubles of multiple Obama cabinet nominees -- although a Washington Post reporter did ask the President about the reported steroid use of baseball player Alex Rodriguez. The New York Times has been silent on the White House's intrusion into the Census process, but did gripe in a Thursday editorial that Obama was somehow jeopardizing the count by putting Gregg in charge:
"Mr. Gregg was never a friend of the census. As chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the Commerce Department's budget, he frequently tried to cut the bureau's financing. In 1999, he opposed emergency funds for the 2000 census requested by President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled House....In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Gregg must explain what he would do to get the 2010 census back on track. Before that, Mr. Obama must choose a competent director and pledge his administration's full support to spend whatever is necessary to salvage the count." See: www.nytimes.com

In the run-up to the 2000 Census, the Democratic (Clinton) White House tried to push for statistical sampling as a way to create a supposedly more accurate count. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that for the purposes of drawing of congressional district boundaries, the Constitution required an actual enumeration of citizens, not an extrapolation based on statistics. Last week's move suggests the Obama White House is attempting to re-fight the same battle, perhaps believing (as the New York Times seems to believe) that liberals will benefit politically if the Census moves away from the traditional decennial head count.

In his Wall Street Journal column, Fund reviewed some of the issues raised ten years ago:

Starting in 2000, the Census Bureau conducted three years of studies with the help of many outside statistical experts. According to then Census director Louis Kincannon, the Bureau concluded that "adjustment based on sampling didn't produce improved figures" and could damage Census credibility.

The reason? In theory, statisticians can identify general numbers of people missed in a head count. But it cannot then place those abstract "missing people" into specific neighborhoods, let alone blocks. And anyone could go door to door and find out such people don't exist. There can be other anomalies. "The adjusted numbers told us the head count had overcounted the number of Indians on reservations," Mr. Kincannon told me. "That made no sense."

The problem of counting minorities and the homeless has long been known. Census Bureau statisticians believe that a vigorous hard count, supplemented by adding in the names of actual people missed by head counters but still found in public records, is likely to lead to a far more defensible count than sampling-based adjustment.

The larger debate prompted seven former Census directors -- serving every president from Nixon to George W. Bush -- to sign a letter last year supporting a bill to turn the Census Bureau into an independent agency after the 2010 Census. "It is vitally important that the American public have confidence that the census results have been produced by an independent, non-partisan, apolitical, and scientific Census Bureau," it read. "

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Frankly, rather than have this controversy, I think Gregg should ask that his name be withdrawn and Obama should simply nominate a Democrat. Problem solved. After all, Greg has not even supported the economic stimulus plan that Obama says is critical for the future of the nation. How can you have a Commerce Secretary who does not support something that is critical to the nation's future?

Ask and you shall receive. Gregg has withdrawn.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Ask and you shall receive. Gregg has withdrawn.

Excellent. Now, if only more senators would take my advice.

[Anonymous]

What do I think...that if Karl Rove did this the liberal media would go nuts. It is nothing but a very scary political move

[Anonymous]

I am happy to see that there are both democrats and republicans that believe statistical sampling is a scary move. I do hope the media finally covers this as I think most Americans would not be happy with this move. The census shoud be completely apolitical and there should be checks and balances to make sure it stays that way no matter who is in power.