What Counts
The White House will be controlling the census, taking it away from the Commerce Department. It's an old story. Once you take over, you suddenly realize the wisdom of centralizing power.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:14 AM
Pajama Guy
"You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances [at ‘60 Minutes’] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”
-Jonathan Klein, former CBS Executive
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Stop The Commencement
- Who Watches?
- Sidin' With Biden
- Fairer To Sarah
- Performance Issues?
- In Case Anybody's Wondering
- No Show Is An Island
- Stabenow In The Back
- So Long, Lux
- Silents, Please
8 Comments:
Because that's where the power really is- in the Commerce department.
Your sarcasm doesn't make much sense. The census is extremely important, and controlling it will help control future political representation. The White House didn't take it over for no reason, after all--they know how significant this is.
I don't think the critique makes sense for a different reason -- the Commerce Department is part of the Executive Branch -- right? So the White House controls it, one way or another. They "took the census away" from the Commerce Department because they are trying to thread the needle by appointing a Republican to the Cabinet, but not giving him control over something he has publicly disdained in the past -- the Census. After the last 8 years, I'm in favor of having people in charge of things that they care about succeeding.
It's allows them to direct the census exactly as they like--perhaps in a partisan way, since the White House is the center of politics, while Departments are less so. It also removes one level from consideration that may let the public know more about the process.
As other have noted, what would people be saying if Karl Rove had made sure to move the census closer to his control?
The Census has been heavily politicized while in the Commerce Department. Point in fact: sampling is considered by mathematicians to be the best way to get the most accurate count -- especially among minority and poor populations that live in less stable and less defined ways. (I.e., no stable address; family members moving in and out; rural populations who live on unnamed streets with unnumbered abodes.) Republicans fight sampling, and insist on "counting" each person. They know this is more expensive and less accurate, but they hope it will lead to undercounting their opponents. Democrats would prefer sampling -- you could argue this is just as self-interested, but the mathematicians think it's more accurate (kind of like the scientists on evolution?). Politicization was easily achieved while the Census was in the Commerce Department.
There are problems with both systems, and it's easier to get results that are way off with sampling--especially if the counting is politicized. Of course, both parties will go with whatever gets them the most votes, as had been demonstrated many times.
The move by the White House to take over the census in this context sounds like an escalation in politicizing the count.
I'd say that's premature. We'll see how they handle it.
We'll see, of course, but if they do anything questionable, by the time it's found out, it may be too late to stop it.
The point is they've taken an unprecedented interest in overseeing the census--that in itself should raise suspicions.
Post a Comment
<< Home