If You Control the Census, You Control Votes & District Funding
By LisaB on February 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM in Census, Commerce, Current Affairs, Judd Gregg, Rahm Emanuel
As noted here at NQ, there’s an aspect of the Commerce / Judd Gregg story far more relevant to the people’s representation and power in the federal government, along with the all-important funding of Congressional districts, than which political appointee will sit in the secretary’s seat.
On February 6th, NQ featured two posts on this “backpage” issue: (1) SusanUnPC talked about the census and how Rahm Emanuel’s and the White House’s takeover of the process; and (2) I did an earlier piece on the politicization and what it meant for the Dept. of Commerce and its new head.
Bruce Chapman at discovery.org, has a brief run-down of how the BO administration has played this potential move. First, it appeared (at least to MSNBO) that PBO only intended to create some kind of an independent agency for Census. But later [according to newsbusters], Fox news picked up the story that having the Census Director report directly to the West Wing staff is the plan.
Here’s how Fox News covered it on the 9th.
Fox News . February 9, 2009
discovery.org”>Chapman describes the move on census this way:
If so, the Obama Administration is threatening a reckless politicization of the Census Bureau and that, in turn, threatens to pull into unnecessary dispute the fundamental data that sustain almost the entire statistical system of the United States. It has the image of a Chicago-style partisan power play.
————-
Mentioned only by inference in discussions so far is the plain hope that a Census Bureau under the thumb of White House staffers might be prevailed upon to adopt a policy to “adjust” the Census numbers in 20101, using sampling and computer modeling–with all the profound implications that would have for political reapportionment and redistricting that will follow the Census count.
————-
First of all, the White House and its Congressional allies are wrong in asserting that the Census in the past has reported directly to the president through his staff. Directors of the Bureau often brief presidents and their staffs, but, as a former director (under President Reagan), I don’t know of any cases where the conduct of the Bureau was directly under White House supervision. That includes Clinton in 2000, Bush 41 in 1990 and Carter in 1980.They also are dead wrong about the feasibility of using sampling and computer models to make adjustment a credible way to improve the accuracy of the population count for purposes of reapportionment and redistricting.
The WSJ had a piece about this today, quoting Chapman as well.
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.”
————–
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 issue is sampling. Some people think coming up with hard census numbers based on sampling is efficient and accurate. But other people think sampling produces the wrong data and a “hard count” is the only way to get accurate numbers.
Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.
Such a move would prove controversial. “Sampling potentially has the kind of margin of error an opinion poll has and the same subjectivity a voter-intent standard in a recount has,” says Mr. Chapman.
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.”
I would think a better effort at a hard count would be more valuable than sampling. However, the WSJ article ends with a return to Senator Gregg.
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.”
It would be nice to know what Sen. Gregg thinks about all this, but he’s refusing comment. And that, says Mr. Chapman, the former Census director, is damaging his credibility. “He will look neutered with oversight of the most important function of his department over the next two years shipped over to the West Wing,” he says. “If I were him, I wouldn’t take the job unless I had that changed.”
Does Gregg want to be a token? It certainly looks as if he is being set up. Nominated for head of a department he once said should be abolished, Gregg would also find an important part of his job sucked up into the White House. Personally, I don’t understand why Gregg would take that job at all. Aside from the obvious issues, it smacks of condescension and disrespect. Now, while politicians don’t often deserve respect, this seems more than usually emasculating.
(Speaking of which, anyone seen Howard Dean lately?)
Newsbusters again touched on this story as well and noted not a single question was asked at last night’s presser.
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 far (as of Tuesday morning) drawn absolutely no attention from the three broadcast networks, with not a single mention on the ABC, CBS or NBC morning or evening newscasts.
Everyone knows the mantra “follow the money.” Well, Census creates the formulas by which that money is sent. You can only follow the money after Census lays down the tracks for it to flow to municipalities and organizations. If an administration can influence how Census determines the count, it can determine where the money goes without having to engage in earmarking or questionable allocations.
They’ll just say, “hey, we’re just following the numbers and getting the money to where it is needed.” But will we be able to trust THOSE numbers?
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
