Political science! Several commenters have pointed this out:
President Obama said in his inaugural address that he planned to “restore science to its rightful place” in government. That’s a worthy goal. But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn’t think it would mean having the director of next year’s Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary. “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.”
The decision was made last week after California Rep. Barbara Lee, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Hispanic groups complained to the White House that Judd Gregg, the Republican senator from New Hampshire slated to head Commerce, couldn’t be trusted to conduct a complete Census. The National Association of Latino Officials said it had “serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 Census produces the most accurate possible count.”
Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses the Census to prepare the economic data that so much of business relies upon. “If the original numbers aren’t as hard as possible, the uses they’re put to get fuzzier and fuzzier,” says Bruce Chapman, who was director of the Census in the 1980s.
*******
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.
The directors also noted that “each of us experienced times when we could have made much more timely and thorough responses to Congressional requests and oversight if we had dealt directly with Congress.” The bill’s chief sponsor is New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who represents Manhattan’s Upper East Side.
“The real issue is who directs the Census, the pros or the pols,” says Mr. Chapman. “You would think an administration that’s thumping its chest about respecting science would show a little respect for scientists in the statistical field.” He worries that a Census director reporting to a hyperpartisan such as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel increases the chances of a presidential order that would override the consensus of statisticians.
The Obama administration is downplaying how closely the White House will oversee the Census Bureau. But Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insists there is “historical precedent” for the Census director to be “working closely with the White House.”
Is what Gibbs says true? Take a poll.
One TRILLION! Ahaha!
Oh, great, more Democratic corruption.
Does it ever end?
That really does seem a bald-faced declaration of “whatever it takes to maintain power”. There really is no legitimate reason for this action.
“bill to turn the Census Bureau into an independent agency after the 2010 Census.”
that’s unconstitutional
If you want to win a loaded dice game, it’s best to control the table and croupier…
And having Gregg as a RethugliKKKan stooge to give it, you know, legitimacy…
All I wonder is did Rahm-bo dream this up, or did Obama learn it in Chicago…
O!
i picked up a flier for census takers at the convenience store. i wonder if acorn will be suppying the census employees.
And that useless trifling bee-otch Barbara Lee…
One of the Democrats chief whines is the reading of ill intent into the political actions of their opponents; but once again, the legendary leftist hypocrisy!…
Playing the identity politics game writ large I think…
Post-Racial!, Post-Partisan!, Unifier!,
O!
Obama’s Crack Science Team Goes to Work!
Dan,
OT, but Shakespeare’s Richard III is on TCM right now, the version with Olivier…
Just thought you might be interested
So is Hillary serving as SecState. So is cheating on your taxes. So are a lot of the things the crap Obama’s doing.
They’re both products of the same political machine. They learned it from the same place.
Bob, I like the Marty Feldman version.
@9
i’m just saying that in order to change the present system would entail an amendment
i wonder if acorn will be suppying the census employees.
Is there any doubt?
So Obama can’t trust his own Commerce Secretary?
Meya, so you assume that any Republican Commerce Secretary would try to undermine the legitimacy of the Census? Not very post-partisan of you. Oh, and while you are insinuating, would you have any evidence that a previous Census was politically interferred with?
oh. There you go. You built it. Will she come you think? I hope so.
“So Obama can’t trust his own Commerce Secretary?”
It looks like the complaint is coming from congress, rather than obama.
It is easier to manipulate the results when you can manipulate the data.
Hello, Rotten Boroughs!
“Why not leave at commerce,”
it’ll be left there per the constitution
hf,
THe current Administration wants to do something that is facially strange looking and does not seem to have any purpose (well, legitimate one). Meya insinuated that the President had to do it because his own Commerce Secretary was a *gasp* Republican! OK, so the PResident is too weak to oversee his own cabinet, pick honest folks to staff it? Or perhaps meya can show the history of Republican meddling in the Census? I am curious to see what is revealed.
Who exactly has standing to challenge the monomaniacally autocratic dipshit in court?
“Why not leave at commerce, in the hands of a republican? No politics there.”
meya, that was your remark – what did you mean by it?
“Meya, so you assume that any Republican Commerce Secretary would try to undermine the legitimacy of the Census? ”
Actually I said that there would be no politics in leaving it in the hands of a republican. Who interestingly enough voted to abolish the commerce department — presumably including the census people too.
However I think that the people complaining about Gregg plainly don’t agree with Gregg’s stated census policies.
an illegal aliens, citizens not so much
oh. Sorry, LTC. I’m on board with your argument. I was being oblique. My comment there meant that I thought this post was framed in a way that might bring our friend nishi back to visit. Or some incarnation at least. I miss her. I didn’t want to just come out and say it cause I’ve noticed in the past that she can be somewhat of a controversial presence.
“it’ll be left there per the constitution”
Interesting. Why does the constitution require it be at commerce?
“Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
23 – it did not come across that way. Also, abolishing the Commerce Department would not abolish the Census – it is a Constitutional requirement.
“Interesting. Why does the constitution require it be at commerce?”
I think the interesting question is “why should it be at the White House”?
Meya knows it’s a crooked setup. She likes it that way.
She’s already made it clear that she believes that the more Barky manages to steal, the more loot will trickle down to her.
She’ll be in for a rude surprise if he manages to pull it off.
If Obama controls the Census (so he doesn’t need her vote any more), she needs to ask herself what other skills or assets she has that will be useful to Obama on an ongoing basis. If the answer is “none”, she can look forward to a nice double-thump sound as the bus wheels roll over her. Don’t believe that it can happen? They’ve already stuck rationing of health care for seniors in the “stimulus” package.
If, as I suspect, meya has no useful skills of any kind, well, it simply won’t be cost-effective for the government to support her.
From the evidence we’ve seen here, her talents are limited to a dull mind and a loud mouth. Neither of those is in short supply, so she really oughta think this through.
“Interesting. Why does the constitution require it be at commerce? ”
i was mistaken and stand corrected
But this conversation, this Census thing. It’s fundamentally not right that we should be arguing this I think. This is prima facie wrong and malignant, and it’s the sort of abuse that freedom of the press was meant to allay. We don’t have one of those anymore. Things will happen very quickly now I think. Baracky just looted a trillion plus dollars with no consequence or accountability. He must be absolutely giddy.
The Constitution makes it clear that the census is a legislative function, not an executive one.
All language related to the census (or “enumeration”) is in Article I.
That Congress has farmed out the job to an executive department doesn’t change the fact that Congress is still in charge.
#29 – now that is an assumption of yours. I want to see what meya says first.
now that is an assumption of yours.
No, she more or less said so the other day.
“the fact that Congress is still in charge.”
you want crazy aunt Nancy and numbskull Harry running the census
you want crazy aunt Nancy and numbskull Harry running the census
It doesn’t matter what I want, router.
That’s what the Constitution says.
There’s a clearly-defined procedure for changing it if some portion of it becomes unsatisfactory or outddated. It’s been done 27 times.
Constitutionally its pretty vague, if Harry, Nancy and Barracky decide to let ACORN declare the population of Chicago to be an even gazillion so they don’t have to worry about over-registering the voters in ’12, well, there ain’t shit we can do about it Constitutionally.
The Constitution is mum on the subject of the Commerce Department, it says:
Congress placed it under the Commerce Department by statute. Obama’s attempt to move it out from under Commerce is illegal rather than unconstitutional.
Given the Democrat-controlled Congress, I’ll be shocked if they make an issue of this, even if it does represent both law-breaking and intrusion into Congressional power. Only slightly shocked, though, because Congress has generally guarded its power regardless of the party allegiances.
Except of an Amendment, I suppose.
@37
at this point the crazies have their hands on all the levers
#35 – OK, but I am still interested in meya’s answer.
Only slightly shocked, though, because Congress has generally guarded its power regardless of the party allegiances.
Yes. The one thing that might stop it is that Nancy Pelosi is a jealous god.
Theoretically, there is. The Constitution requires an actual enumeration — a real count. A swag is unconstitutional, an estimate is unconstitutional, an extrapolation is unconstitutional. Only an actual count is constitutional, which really means that there has to be an auditable, physical trail demonstrating the source of the numbers.
Without the requirement of an “actual Enumeration”, states could simply Make Shit Up in order to fuck up the proportion of representation in the House.
Now, in practical terms, you’re absolutely correct — there’s fuck-all we can do.
I can’t believe there’s not a lawsuit to be filed. No?
We’re all Chicagoans now.
“That Congress has farmed out the job to an executive department doesn’t change the fact that Congress is still in charge.”
Right. I said above it appears that the complaints about Gregg are coming from congress.
“Theoretically, there is. The Constitution requires an actual enumeration  a real count. A swag is unconstitutional, an estimate is unconstitutional, an extrapolation is unconstitutional.”
Is missing a single person unconstitutional? Or is that too textually strict?
Now, here’s an example of chutzpah: The Republicans didn’t get their act together enough to challenge Obama for not being constitutionally qualified to be President as an Article 2 “natural born citizen” so Obama’s White House steals the census from the Commerce Department against the specific instructions of the constitution itself — “actual enumeration” under Article 1
Is missing a single person unconstitutional? Or is that too textually strict?
No, but inventing them out of thin air is.
Ah, complaints by former aide to noted Black Panther Huey Newton, go between for Rep. “Red Ron” Dellums to Marxist governments, that Barbara Lee. I see no problem accommodating such an esteemed person.
Now Detroit can go back to over a million population again. Like Iraq once had a population of 50 million, 25 million people and 25 million pictures of Saddam. Just count all the posters of Obama. Sure fire way to up the count in the right places.
I miss nishi and psycho and buttons and MayBee. That’s four. I don’t think it’s unconstitutional though.
I don’t know the answer to that question, meya. You might try doing a lexis search on USSC cases based on the census. As far as I can recall, the methodology has to be an actual enumeration – no estimates, no extrpolation. Whether everyone is actually counted (which is impossible because people are born and die every day) may not be as relevant as the methodology used by the census takers.
“How many people can we miss without it being unconstitutional?” meya asks.
How do do you enumerate how many are missed? Seems to me you can’t,rendering your question a moot point.
Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, COUPLED WITH HIS UNPRECEDENTED WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF DECENNIAL CENSUS TAKING FROM THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court to refrain from exercising WHAT IS ITS ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.
Ted? Indoor voice, please?
Some of are still hungover from lunch.
ÒõÑÂьüð øýтõрõÑÂýþ !