Thoughts on Moving the Census to the White House?

[Anonymous]

It was announced Friday that the Director of the Census Bureau will report directly to Rahm Emanuel, instead of through the Department of Commerce which has been customary for many, many adminstrations.

Is this politicalization of the Census? Is there an appearance of impropriety here? If you substituted the name Karl Rove for Rahm Emanuel would you feel the same way?

[Anonymous]

Not sure what it's about. But it does seem strange. If anything, it should go to the GAO.

[Anonymous]

The WaPo compares this move to Tom DeLay! Not very flattering...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/02/get_ready_for_the_us_census_fi.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what it's about. But it does seem strange. If anything, it should go to the GAO.

GAO? That makes absolutely no sense. They're not even an executive agency.

Sincerely,
A Former GAO employee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what it's about. But it does seem strange. If anything, it should go to the GAO.

GAO? That makes absolutely no sense. They're not even an executive agency.

Sincerely,
A Former GAO employee

Isn't the Census supposed to be free of political influences since it determines representation in Congress? You can draw districts sorta how you want, but to tinker with the actual numbers? If I didn't see it came from the Obama administration I would have thought it was a Machiavellian Bush admin move.

[Anonymous]

This is an unbelievable move by Obama and company. We are less than 1 month into his administration and this was one of the 1st things on his agenda to get complete. This is nothing more than a power play by Rahm Emanuel. Here is what Gibb's had to say about it:

Has the White House moved the control of the Census Bureau into the White House for the purposes of the 2010 census, and if so why?

MR. GIBBS: No, the -- I think the historical precedent of this is there's a director of the census that works for the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and also works closely with the White House, to ensure a timely and accurate count. And that's what we have in this instance.

I don't recall this coming up in the campaign, nor is listed on the White House website agenda. Must be a minor oversight on their part.

[Anonymous]

Intriguing. There's a backstory here.

[Anonymous]

The back story is called statistical sampling vs. counting the population person by person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The back story is called statistical sampling vs. counting the population person by person.

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

[jsteele]

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.

[Anonymous]

So much for bipartisanship.

[Anonymous]

From Jennifer Rubin (Conservative POV)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/have-they-no-shame-a-power-grab-at-the-census/

And the Wall Street Journal (arguably right leaning)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.htm

"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."

And from Michael Barone, one of the best, if not the best, statisticians working in the MSM...

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/02/09/white-house-census-power-grab-may-violate-the-constitution.html

"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.

However, it is undoubtedly true that the president can fire the secretary of commerce for any reason, including failure to conduct the Census the way he wants the Census conducted. An acting secretary could conduct the Census the way the president wanted, even if the Senate refused to confirm a new secretary of commerce who would. And who would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Census taking? Perhaps the state that, under the statutory formula apportionment House seats among the states, got the 436th rather than the 435th seat, i.e., came close to getting another seat but didn't get it."

It is hard to put anything but a "politics as usual" face on this one...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It is hard to put anything but a "politics as usual" face on this one...

Yes, quoting three conservative sources that support the Republican position is definitely "politics as usual".

[Anonymous]

When Obama nominated Bill Richardson (Democrat) to be commerce secretary, he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.

So bascially what the administration is saying is that had a democrat become head of commerece they could have controlled it from the white house anyway so there was no need to move it. Now in show of bipartisanship we have nominated a republican for the position, but oh wait our first move will be to strip him of the power to oversee the census.

This stinks any way you spin it.

I hope this gets the attention it deserves. It appears the administration was trying to slide this through without the American people noticing. They have everyone focused on the stimulus package that they are hoping no one would notice.

Also not even a mention of it last night in the press conference. We got a question about Alex Rodriquez but nothing on this. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is hard to put anything but a "politics as usual" face on this one...

Yes, quoting three conservative sources that support the Republican position is definitely "politics as usual".

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.