President takes responsability of Census away from Commerce. [Archive] - Dallas Cowboys Forum

View Full Version : President takes responsability of Census away from Commerce.

ABQCOWBOY

02-09-2009, 04:10 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/gop-sounds-alarm-obama-decision-census-white-house/

GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House
A number of Republicans are joining the fight to put the census issue into the political spotlight "before it's too late."

FOXNews.com
Monday, February 09, 2009

Utah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers.

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department.

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

FOX News' Bill Sammon and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

-----------------------

Those who do not trust this Administration will view this with an eye of distrust. Those who believe in this Adminstration will justify this, although I must admit, I'm not certain how. In any case, surely this is not the most important thing on the agenda is it? Why now?

theogt

02-09-2009, 04:20 PM

Repost. And to this I say, Obama took responsibility for the Census away from one department under his control and gave it to another department under his control?!?!?!?!?!

The audacity!

ABQCOWBOY

02-09-2009, 04:54 PM

Repost. And to this I say, Obama took responsibility for the Census away from one department under his control and gave it to another department under his control?!?!?!?!?!

The audacity!

Untrue. The Census Department reports into Commerce, who is responsible to, among other things, Congress, Judicial and Executive. This move would put the reporting directly to the President, which is not how it's supposed to work but again, I did say that it would be explained away.

I'm not surprised but I'm also not enlightened as to why this is a good thing.

However, you have my appoligies for the repost.

theogt

02-09-2009, 05:11 PM

Untrue. The Census Department reports into Commerce, who is responsible to, among other things, Congress, Judicial and Executive. This move would put the reporting directly to the President, which is not how it's supposed to work but again, I did say that it would be explained away.

I'm not surprised but I'm also not enlightened as to why this is a good thing.

However, you have my appoligies for the repost.Uh...the Department of Commerce is a part of the executive branch and as such the President appoints the Secretary of Commerce, among other positions within the department, which then exercise control over the department.

ABQCOWBOY

02-09-2009, 05:14 PM

Uh...the Department of Commerce is a part of the executive branch and as such the President appoints the Secretary of Commerce, among other positions within the department, which then exercise control over the department.

Their is a difference between appointing somebody to head up a Branch of the Government and reporting directly to somebody. The President appoints members to the Supreme Court as well but they do not report directly to him.

iceberg

02-09-2009, 05:28 PM

ABQCOWBOY

02-09-2009, 05:37 PM

then since you seem to have all the answers, tell me this.

why? why do it?

This question is asked with regards to many areas of President Obama's plans but it's never answered.

Why attach all these extra projects to the Stimulus Project? You have the votes to pass them as independant legislation if they are solid. Nobody ever answers that question.

"One last question, before I call
Airmen O'Malley and Rodriguez.

If you ordered that Santiago wasn't
to be touched, -

- and your orders
are always followed, -

- then why was Santiago in danger?

Why would it be necessary
to transfer him off the base?

:)

theogt

02-09-2009, 05:42 PM

Their is a difference between appointing somebody to head up a Branch of the Government and reporting directly to somebody. The President appoints members to the Supreme Court as well but they do not report directly to him.I guess you missed the distinction between EXECUTIVE BRANCH and JUDICIAL BRANCH when thinking of that analogy. The Department of Commerce is part of the executive branch. The President appoints the senior leaders in the department. Everyone in the department reports to the senior leaders who report to the President. The Supreme Court doesn't report to the President.

then since you seem to have all the answers, tell me this.

why? why do it?I have no idea and I don't have all (or any) of the answers. Just pointing out why I think it's a non-issue.

iceberg

02-09-2009, 05:44 PM

ABQCOWBOY

02-09-2009, 06:03 PM

I guess you missed the distinction between EXECUTIVE BRANCH and JUDICIAL BRANCH when thinking of that analogy. The Department of Commerce is part of the executive branch. The President appoints the senior leaders in the department. Everyone in the department reports to the senior leaders who report to the President. The Supreme Court doesn't report to the President.

I have no idea and I don't have all (or any) of the answers. Just pointing out why I think it's a non-issue.

But you still did not address the issue. The fact of the matter is that a seperate buruau was created to manage information, which is used by all branches. Their funding is approved by Congress and they are answerable to Congress for appropriations etc. They are also answerable to Security agencies as well. All parts of our Government, in theory, are answerable to Judicial. So again, it doesn't matter if they are part of the Executive Branch or not. They were designed to be autonomous because amoung other things, they also collect very select data ranging from economic status to political affiliations. While the President can certainly ask for any information from Census, it has to be done through a formal request. A record of it has to exist. By bringing it in house, the President can then review any information on anybody anytime for any reason.

In addition to this, as was discussed in the previous thread, which you obviously read and are aware of, they are also responsible for the following.

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=What+Is+the+Purpose+of+the+Census+Bureau&page=1&qsrc=2070&zoom=Job+US+%3CKW%3ECensus+Bureau%3C%2FKW%3E%7CWha t+Is+the+Mission+of+the+US+%3CKW%3ECensus+Bureau%3 C%2FKW%3E%7CHistory+of+%3CKW%3Ethe+Census+Bureau%3 C%2FKW%3E&ab=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUnited_St ates_Census_Bureau

Main article: United States Census
The Constitution of the United States directs that the population be enumerated at least once every ten years and the resulting counts used to set the number of members from each state in the House of Representatives and, by extension, in the Electoral College. In addition, Census data directly affect how more than $300 billion per year in federal and state funding is allocated to communities for neighborhood improvements, public health, education, transportation and much more. The Census Bureau is mandated with fulfilling these obligations: the collecting of statistics about the nation, its people, and economy. The Census Bureau's legal authority is codified in Title 13 of the United States Code. The first population census taken was in 1790. The Census Bureau now conducts a full population count every 10 years in years ending with a 0 (zero) and uses the term "decennial" to describe the operation. Between censuses, the Census Bureau makes population estimates and projections.[1]

In addition, the Census Bureau also conducts surveys on behalf of various Federal Government and local government agencies on topics such as employment, crime, health, consumer expenditures, and housing. Within the bureau, these are known as "demographic surveys" and are conducted perpetually between and during decennial (10-year) population counts. The Census Bureau also conducts economic surveys of manufacturing, retail, service, and other establishments and of domestic governments.

It is wise of you to admit to ingnorance of why this must be done in a time such as this. So many problems face our nation yet this one is amoung the very first that is delt with by President Obama.

I think the Lawyer in you is coming out. No point in trying to defend a position that is undefensable. Better to just plead ignorance of the subject matter and live to fight another day.

:)

theogt

02-09-2009, 06:20 PM

Congress funds all of the executive branch, and the judicial branch. It's called the 'power of the purse.' Every year you see the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court head on up to Congress and beg for more money to be spent on the judiciary, but that doesn't make him anymore answerable to Congress than it does the Census Bureau.

They were not designed to be autonomous. They answer to the Commerce Secretary who answers to the President.

http://www.commerce.gov/About_Us/ssLINK/PROD01_004984

Check out the organizational flow chart on the first page of document. Yup, answers to the Commerce Secretary. You don't see Congress in that flow chart do you? Now, tell me again, who's holding the ignorant, indefensible position?

ABQCOWBOY

02-09-2009, 06:26 PM

They were not designed to be autonomous. They answer to the Commerce Secretary who answers to the President.

This is not accurate. What's more, I explained to you the difference between how the Census used to work and how it could work if moved into the direct responsability (direct report) of the President.

Your first post was to inform me of the fact that this was a re-post. I read that thread, as did you apparently, yet you say that you have no idea why the POTUS might want this to happen.

OK. If it makes you feel better to believe this, OK. In the end, we will all be on the for these decision.

theogt

02-09-2009, 06:34 PM

This is not accurate.Yes, it is.

ThaBigP

02-09-2009, 06:45 PM

Uh...the Department of Commerce is a part of the executive branch and as such the President appoints the Secretary of Commerce, among other positions within the department, which then exercise control over the department.

Two points...first, Obama reached across the aisle to appoint a Republican over Commerce...you know, in an olive branch of bipartisanship. Then, promptly cut Commerce out of the census loop.

Furthermore, this has HUGE ramifications in regards to apportionment. What if they decide (since they are now demanding the authority to) that California suddenly had a huge uptick in population? This could come any number of ways, but most likely by changing the methodology by which the homeless/addressless are counted, as well as illegal aliens. Up until now it has been required to physically count an individual to include them in the census. The wonderful new Progressive idea kicked around the last few counts is to simply "guess" as to the number of homeless. How easy it would be to simply "guess" inflated populations where such fuzzy math would help the party in power? And, that's the point. What about Texas? Suddenly our homeless population could be found to be highly inflated, and our population in the census reduced as a result (as well as the compantion reduction of representation in the House).

iceberg

02-09-2009, 07:04 PM

Two points...first, Obama reached across the aisle to appoint a Republican over Commerce...you know, in an olive branch of bipartisanship. Then, promptly cut Commerce out of the census loop.

Furthermore, this has HUGE ramifications in regards to apportionment. What if they decide (since they are now demanding the authority to) that California suddenly had a huge uptick in population? This could come any number of ways, but most likely by changing the methodology by which the homeless/addressless are counted, as well as illegal aliens. Up until now it has been required to physically count an individual to include them in the census. The wonderful new Progressive idea kicked around the last few counts is to simply "guess" as to the number of homeless. How easy it would be to simply "guess" inflated populations where such fuzzy math would help the party in power? And, that's the point. What about Texas? Suddenly our homeless population could be found to be highly inflated, and our population in the census reduced as a result (as well as the compantion reduction of representation in the House).

does that answer the question of "why" he would do it?

theogt - i don't want to get into the smoke and mirror argument and get the 'why" lost.

WHY is this is a non-move, did it get moved? you think a politicians just does things for the heck of it w/o a plan?

i wanna know why he's doing this.

theogt

02-09-2009, 08:41 PM

Two points...first, Obama reached across the aisle to appoint a Republican over Commerce...you know, in an olive branch of bipartisanship. Then, promptly cut Commerce out of the census loop.

Furthermore, this has HUGE ramifications in regards to apportionment. What if they decide (since they are now demanding the authority to) that California suddenly had a huge uptick in population? This could come any number of ways, but most likely by changing the methodology by which the homeless/addressless are counted, as well as illegal aliens. Up until now it has been required to physically count an individual to include them in the census. The wonderful new Progressive idea kicked around the last few counts is to simply "guess" as to the number of homeless. How easy it would be to simply "guess" inflated populations where such fuzzy math would help the party in power? And, that's the point. What about Texas? Suddenly our homeless population could be found to be highly inflated, and our population in the census reduced as a result (as well as the compantion reduction of representation in the House).Oh, I agree that there could be a significant funny business going on with the census, but that could happen regardless of whether this recent move happens or not. That's my point.

does that answer the question of "why" he would do it?

theogt - i don't want to get into the smoke and mirror argument and get the 'why" lost.

WHY is this is a non-move, did it get moved? you think a politicians just does things for the heck of it w/o a plan?

i wanna know why he's doing this.I have no idea why. I don't read minds. Maybe there's some sinister motive, I don't know.

burmafrd

02-09-2009, 08:42 PM

Its not even a month into his term yet he pushes this. Tell me there is not something pretty big involved? Those saying this is nothing are frankly either STUPID or know what it is and want it.

iceberg

02-09-2009, 09:13 PM

Oh, I agree that there could be a significant funny business going on with the census, but that could happen regardless of whether this recent move happens or not. That's my point.

I have no idea why. I don't read minds. Maybe there's some sinister motive, I don't know.

and don't seem to care.

theogt

02-09-2009, 09:20 PM

and don't seem to care.Like I said, anything mischievous could happen regardless of this move. So, it's a non-issue.

iceberg

02-09-2009, 09:29 PM

Like I said, anything mischievous could happen regardless of this move. So, it's a non-issue.

maybe.

but i won't blow it off. if a non-issue, nothing has changed -

why?

you ever take your underwear out of the drawer just to move it around and put them all back?

this was done for a reason and i'm curious as to why.

JBond

02-09-2009, 09:37 PM

maybe.

but i won't blow it off. if a non-issue, nothing has changed -

why?

you ever take your underwear out of the drawer just to move it around and put them all back?

this was done for a reason and i'm curious as to why.

The obvious answer to me would be to consolidate power. If they had another good valid reason, I think they would have mentioned it.

He won the election and he is going to do things his way. If that includes skewing census results to suite his needs, than so be it. You need to remember where Barack came from and how he gained power and the answer becomes clear in my opinion.

Redistricting is nothing new in Chicago. Obama used every trick at his disposal to get where he is. Moving a few lines around on a map is not going to bother him in the least.

theogt

02-09-2009, 09:37 PM

iceberg

02-09-2009, 10:16 PM

Do you just assume there's something negative every time something changes with the government?

didn't say it was negative, did i?

only wanted to know why.

ZeroClub

02-09-2009, 10:31 PM

JBond

02-09-2009, 10:38 PM

burmafrd

02-09-2009, 10:54 PM

He comes from Chicago. A place NOTORIOUS for tricks and dead people voting and all sorts of shenanigans. Now he want to do something with the census which is critical to re districting congressional seats.
Only an idiot would say that nothing is going on here.

ABQCOWBOY

02-10-2009, 09:57 AM

Yes, it is.

If you say so Theo. As I've said many times, proof is in the pudding and I've a funny feeling we are all in for a very steady diet of crap sandwich very soon.

iceberg

02-10-2009, 10:01 AM

What a horribly slanted article. Nothing even remotely evenhanded about it. Virtually no coverage of Obama's rationale for the switch, virtually no reactions to the alarmists' charges, and a reference to Joseph Stalin thrown in for good measure.

What silly tabloid journalism ....

can't argue much with this because this is what i was asking for - why?

maybe it's a non-issue. maybe not. but i don't see a president moving things around w/o a purpose. i'd like to know what that purpose is.

some people are just agosh with surprise someone gives a damn what goes on up there.

WoodysGirl

02-10-2009, 10:35 AM

After a quick search, this is what I found.

Administration Plans to Bypass Commerce — and Gregg — on 2010 Census
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
The director of the Census Bureau will report directly to the White House and not the secretary of Commerce, according to a senior White House official.

The decision came after black and Hispanic leaders raised questions about Commerce Secretary nominee Judd Gregg ’s commitment to funding the census.

Gregg, New Hampshire’s senior senator, voted in committee and on the floor for a 1995 Republican budget that envisioned the elimination of the Commerce Department. Of even more concern to black and Hispanic leaders, Gregg battled President Clinton over a request for “emergency” funding for the 2000 census.

“Secretary of Commerce-designate Judd Gregg ’s record raises serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 census produces the most accurate possible count of the nation’s population,” the National Association of Latino Elected Officials said in a release on Tuesday, the day Gregg was named to the post. “Policymakers and planners at all levels of government rely on these data to make important decisions about their services, such as the number of teachers that will be needed in their classrooms, the best places to build new roads, or the best way to provide job training.”

The selection of Republican Gregg for Commerce — a plum post often given out to a big fundraiser or personal friend in the president’s own party — left many Democrats scratching their heads and others fearful that Gregg might not defend favored agencies and programs with the department.

“Sen. Gregg’s record of previously voting to abolish the Commerce Department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton’s efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns regarding his commitment to the department’s core missions,” Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee , D-Calif., said Tuesday.

It was not immediately clear whether the White House plan to circumvent Gregg on Census Bureau matters would assuage lawmakers who raised questions about his nomination.

“We have no comment at this time,” a Lee spokesman said late Wednesday.

Gregg is expected to sail through the confirmation process, and a spokeswoman for him said earlier this week that the senator “has a strong record of working aggressively to preserve the policies of Commerce.”

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003024858
Gregg mum on Census Bureau

By JOHN DiSTASO
The Union Leader
updated 1:17 a.m. CT, Fri., Feb. 6, 2009

MANCHESTER - Sen. Judd Gregg yesterday declined all comment on reports that the White House will strip him of his authority over the federal Census Bureau even before he becomes Secretary of Commerce.

Gregg spokesman Laena Fallon said all comment would come from the White House.

A White House spokesman last evening said, "From the first days of the transition the census has been a priority for the president, and a process he wanted to reevaluate. There is historic precedent for the director of the census, who works for the Commerce Secretary and the president, to work closely with White House senior management -- given the number of decisions that will have to be put before the president. We plan to return to that model in this administration."

The Census Bureau is a key part of the Department of Commerce.

The Capitol Hill publication Congressional Quarterly yesterday reported that the White House, responding to minority groups' concerns about Gregg's commitment to funding the census, has decided to have the director of the Census Bureau report directly to the White House.

Minorities are traditionally concerned about an accurate count because the census numbers are used to apportion political power, through redistricting, and federal funding, reflecting demographic changes over the past decade.

The White House move angered some House Republicans, who called it a power grab directed by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Last, Congressional Quarterly updated the story, noting, "The White House took a small step back from what the senior official told CQ, releasing a statement late Thursday that couched the relationship between the Census Bureau director and the West Wing as one in which the director would work with the high-level officials rather than report directly to them."

Gregg was nominated for the Commerce post on Tuesday by President Obama, a move described as a show of bipartisanship and an effort to bring contrary opinions to his Cabinet.

But the nomination angered minority groups, who charged that Gregg has been an opponent of the federal census process.

According to several reports, Gregg, as chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Commerce Department, opposed a 1999 request by President Bill Clinton for emergency funds for the 2000 census. In 1995, he voted in committee and on the floor for a 1995 GOP budget that would have eliminated the Commerce Department.

Gregg has said this week that he has been a strong supporter of the department and while he served as subcommittee chairman, the budget for the department increased substantially.

He has not commented directly on the Census Bureau since his nomination.

The census is taken every 10 years, and the bureau is gearing up for the 2010 count.

Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said in a statement Wednesday, "Two of the most important responsibilities of the commerce department are to ensure that minority-owned businesses are fully integrated in our nation's economic recovery and to conduct the decennial census."

Lee said, "... Sen. Gregg's record of previously voting to abolish the commerce department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton's efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns regarding his commitment to the department's core missions."

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) also voiced concern.

"Secretary of Commerce-designate Judd Gregg's record raises serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 census produces the most accurate possible count of the nation's population," a NALEO spokesman told Politico.com.

The Hispanic newspaper La Opinion, in an editorial yesterday, urged caution, saying, "Gregg's history on this issue is not good," adding that it is "deeply concerned about the Gregg appointment."

"We believe that he will follow Obama's directive for the agency that oversees a wide variety of areas. ... Our fear, though, is that other priorities may also push aside the importance of national headcount or that it will be undertaken reluctantly due to the Commerce Secretary's lack of conviction and interest in the value of the census. We cannot afford this risk."

The New York Times yesterday editorialized, "In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Gregg must explain what he would do to get the 2010 census back on track."

Noting that a Census Bureau director has yet to be named, the Times said, "Mr. Obama must choose a competent director and pledge his administration's full support to spend whatever is necessary to salvage the count."

According to Congressional Quarterly, two key 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.

Issa and North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry, the top Republican on the subcommittee that oversees census issues, reportedly sent a letter to President Obama detailing their concerns.

"Requiring the census director to report directly to the White House and placing responsibility for administration of the Bureau outside the Department of Commerce may even violate federal law," they wrote.

UnionLeader.com (click for link):Your source for stories and breaking news from New Hampshire.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29046718/

iceberg

02-10-2009, 10:58 AM

so we'll nominate a repub to "reach across" then take away his power because of past issues in credibility?

well good thing the dems given high level seats have no credibility issue, huh?

wait...

and, we're only counting every 10 years, and suddenly, obama gives the ability to "the other side" then takes it away.

very very odd. thanks for digging that up WG. anxious to hear other takes on it.