|
2010 Census Funny
Business
|
|
Representation and
direct Taxes shall be apportioned among
the several States which may be included
within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers ... . The actual
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."
-- Article I,
Section 2 of the Constitution of the
United States
The first census
was in 1790. It has been under the
Department of Commerce since 1903 and up
until recent times it has been free from
political meddling. In the Clinton
administration, Democrats and
organizations that pander to minority
groups pressured the government to
discard counting people one by one in
favor of statistical sampling. These
groups argued that more minorities would
be counted by statistical methods
(guesses) than by actually counting
heads. The Bush administration
disfavored statistical methods and
continued with the time tested way of
determining the population. Counting
people by statistical means is rather
like finding “uncounted” ballots in the
trunk of an election judge’s car, like
we see in so many elections when a
Democrat is behind and demands as many
recounts as is necessary to find “all”
the votes. There’s too much room for
fiddling the numbers.
The new
administration of “hope and change” is
talking about removing the Census Bureau
from the Commerce Department and moving
it to the White House, so that White
House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel can
keep an eye on things—no doubt like he
did in Chicago politics. ABC News’ Rick
Klein Reports: “The Obama administration
is moving to exert more direct White
House control over the Census Bureau, in
time for the once-a-decade national
headcount that determines states’
representation in Congress.
Under the new
management structure, the director of
the Census Bureau will report to “White
House senior management” as well as to
the Commerce secretary, where President
Obama wants to install a Republican --
Sen. Judd Gregg -- who in the past has
clashed with Democrats on issues related
to the Census.
The Obama White
House says the decision is based on the
model used by the Clinton
administration, and reflects the fact
that the president will have to make so
many decisions associated with the
massive undertaking that is the federal
Census.”
Caroline Shively,
writing for Fox News reported that, “the
census count is supposed to be a
nonpartisan process. But it also helps
to determine how congressional lines are
drawn. And it shows the demographic
changes of the nation of the past 10
years, which could shift billions of
dollars in federal funding for things
like schools and roads and job training.
Some Republicans
suspect this could be a move by the
White House to gerrymander those
political boundaries so they benefit
Democratic candidates.”
When asked about
this at a press conference, House Press
Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “I think
the historical precedent of this is
there’s a director of the Census that
works for the Secretary of Commerce
[and] 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.” Just
because Bill Clinton had his nose stuck
into the census, it hardly qualifies as
any sort of valid precedent.
John Distaso wrote
in the Manchester, NH, Union Leader,
“It was written in the Congressional
Quarterly, two GOP House members
criticized the plan to strip the Census
Bureau out of the commerce department
and questioned its legality.
‘Any attempt by the
Obama administration to circumvent the
census process for their political
benefit will be met with fierce
opposition as this ill-conceived
proposal undermines a constitutionally
obligated process that speaks to the
very heart of our democracy,’ said
California Rep. Darrell Issa, the top
Republican on the committee.”
One wonders why the
new president, a man with virtually no
experience of any substance or gravity
wants to micromanage the 2010 census. It
isn’t as though he hasn’t anything
better to do. He has several enormously
challenging problems facing him. There
is the economy. Then the problem of how
to convince sensible people that
spending a trillion dollars of the
taxpayer’s money on Democrat welfare
giveaways is a good idea. Then there is
the war in the Middle East and the
trouble makers in Moscow. These things
would keep most people busy--much too
busy to meddle with the census.
|
|
