Can someone explain the controversy regarding Obama and the census? I don’t get what the basic issue is, why it is upsetting folks.
Obama wants White House to oversee it, is that right? And this is new thing, so why is he changing it? And what are people afraid will be bad about the change? Or is there a joint overseeing by the commerce department and the White House?
This seems like such a minor administrative issue, but folks are up in arms about it. Why? And why would President Obama want to make the change in the first place?
Ooh, ooh, I know this. There is a controversy surrounding how aggresively Hispanics will be counted and whether illegals will be counted. Gregg came out for a laess aggressive count which pissed off Hispanics. Obama decided to placate them by moving the census off Gregg’s plate and have the WH oversee it.
The Democrats have been pushing to use new techniques in the census - techniques that would likely result in more people being counted in heavily Democratic districts. For example, they’ve complained that the homeless aren’t being counted properly, so they want to use statistical sampling to estimate the population, rather than directly counting them.
The problem with this is that it introduces complexity and the potential for bias into a process that is otherwise pretty objective. But with the Census under their control and organized from within the White House, they can start playing games with the numbers and boost the populations of districts the vote Democrat, allowing them to create new seats in the House that will be reliably Democrat.
I expect the left on this board to shrug and say it’s no big deal. But ask yourself - had this been Bush, and he announced that the Census was going to be run from Karl Rove’s office (which is essentially what this is), would you think there was nothing wrong with it?
You’ve got to be kidding. This is the administration where the Chief of Staff said, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”, as justification for ramming a whole lot of Democratic party perks through the government without the proper debate and scrutiny. The administration where the head of the IRS is a tax cheat. Where several other cabinet members have had to withdraw for various ethical problems. Where Obama’s promise of ‘transparency’ went right out the window when the Democrats drafted the largest bill in American history behind closed doors then rammed it through before anyone could read it. Where the administration has already invoked the states secret act that Democrats previously despised.
Even using a transparent and universally approved methodology this time, can you say that this seems like a good precedent to get into? You might trust Obama to run a clean show, but the next guy in the office is going to inherit the ability to “guesstimate” the number of people. It’s a pretty easy argument to make that this seems an easy path to a slippery slope problem/fallacy.
Whether it’s a real fear or not, who can say. But what’s so busted about counting everyone when you’ve already got the infrastructure in place to do so? Certainly it does miss some homeless people, but is that so busted that it needs to be fixed, particularly via something that has the potential to open a whole new can of worms?
My two cents is that it’s an artificial crisis that the Republicans are trying to invent.
Is the census political? Of course it is and always has been. Democrats try to push it one way and Republicans try to push it another. Nothing new here.
But trying to claim that there’s a secret conspiracy with black helicopters flying around is ridiculous. The Democrats control the White House. They also control the Commerce Department. And both houses of Congress. The Republicans lost control of the 2010 Census last November and they knew it.
Shit, I have no idea, even after reading a few very informative posts, lol.
Seriously, I recently tested to be a census taker this time around and have taken the census myself once (I was amused to see articles about the rate of co-habitation vs marriage based on that census, since we, a co-habitating couple, reported ourselves as “married”, since all the other options (single, divorced, separated, widowed) failed to apply. All others I’ve known in long-term relationships like ours considered themselves married as well, so I MUST wonder how underestimated those stats on co-habitation are. HELLO! We were not counted as co-habitating but we were! lol)
I myself am opposed to illegal immigrants being counted, but I can forgive Obama a great deal, given his positives and his predecesor.
InterestedObserver, just out of curiosity, how did you do on the test, when did you apply, and have you heard anything back? I took the test in another state in December to have it sent over here, and I scored a 98 or 99 or something. I’m still waiting for my call, even though I was given the impression at the test site that I was pretty much going to pick my job with that score.
I don’t understand your second parargraph. If you took part in the official 2000 Census, here is the short Census form that was required to be filled out by most people (warning, PDF):
(A random sample of households had to fill out the long form, which included these questions, plus many more.)
Note that for every person listed after the first, there is a question “How is this person related to Person1?”, with many checkboxes, one of which is “Unmarried partner”
What a daming compilation of heinous crimes! If only I could think of anything the Bushiviks had done that merits comparison to these dastardly deeds! Even just one would make me feel better, but alas! no.
I only hope I can see through the tears to fill out this Republican Party registration form. But wait! What about GeeDub’s sworn enmity to animal-human hybridation experiments! No, dammit! That’s another triumph of civil prudence and statesmanship!
Fundamentally, it comes down to the question of what “enumeration” means. Does it mean a direct count, where each increment of the count corresponds directly to a specific person? Or does it mean a determination, as closely as possible, of how many people there are? If it’s the former, then the use of statistical estimation methods is clearly forbidden, but if it’s the latter, then the use of statistical estimation methods is clearly mandatory.
Quoth InterestedObserver:
Be prepared to pass an amendment for that, then, since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is pretty clear that the Census is a count of persons, not of citizens.
Since President Obama is already the head of of the Executive Branch of the Government, all Departments in the Cabinet, are under his control including Commerce which oversees the Census. It is silly to say he is trying to increase his control over it. President Obama already controls it legally, politically, financially, any which way you want to cut it.
Fight my ignorance. Does that mean that areas with a large population of illegal immigrants have more representation in the government than what corresponds to the number of their citizens?
I haven’t looked at this issue closely but IMO it does create a poor impression. The census may have political implications but that doesn’t mean the process should be politicized. If the administration wants to change the census methodology it should make the case on its merits and execute the changes in a non-partisan manner. Having the WH oversee the census creates the impression of greater political interference regardless of what the reality is.
If they’re not interfering with it for political purposes, there’s absolutely no reason to move it into the White House.
Seriously… Can someone give me a justification for moving the census into the White House’s political office which doesn’t involve manipulating it for political purposes?
Again, what would you all think if George Bush had announced that Karl Rove was going to run the next census? This is exactly what Obama is doing.
As for it being the same thing because both offices are in the executive branch, that’s just ridiculous. In the Commerce department the process is open and the Commerce secretary has to sign off on it and stand behind it. There is established precedent for how to run it. You might as well argue that the White House should abolish all cabinet positions and just let the political machine run everything.
Well, for sure an area that has a large population of legal immigrants will have more representatives than what corresponds to the number of their citizens. That’s always been true. And since census takers are forbidden by law to inquire as to the immigration status of anyone they are counting, I imagine it would also be true of illegal immigrants.
