If you had blinked you may have missed it. But Republican Senator Judd Gregg was, very briefly, Barack Obama's pick to head the U.S. Commerce Department. That nomination came crashing down last week when Sen. Gregg withdrew his name, using the old standby, "irreconcilable differences", as the reason. Some analysts had conjectured Mr. Gregg bailed after doing some soul searching about his willingness to support the president's stimulus referendum, but as the stimulus bill size and likely scope was well known before the senator was even nominated that didn't seem a plausible excuse for withdrawing.
Still more analysts were certain it was a result of the 2010 census and who would have ultimate management responsiblities for it's conduct. Normally the census is under the auspices of the Commerce Department, but the Obama Administration had signaled the upcoming census would be getting some added attention and oversight from the White House. Mr. Gregg denied the census was any big deal, though it didn't discourage some from insisting the census was the raison d'etre for Gregg's withdrawal.
(My own theory? I suspect Sen. Gregg was muscled by the GOP to abandon. The other Republicans nominated by President Obama for cabinet positions (Gates, LaHood) snuck in under the wire, before the Rush Limbaugh "make Obama fail" strategy kicked into full effect. Mr. Gregg got the memo late and, ultimately, abided. He scheduled a news conference on Thursday afternoon just prior to the nightly news (as opposed to late Friday afternoon) and minutes before Mr. Obama was scheduled to make a major address, thereby embarrassing the president. And the senator also announces, at the same news conference, he will not be running for re-election in 2010. By all accounts, Sen. Gregg is a principled, stand up guy. I reckon he was repulsed by the whole thing and wanted no more part of it.)
So, to make a long story even longer; what's the deal with the census and why do Democrats and Republicans battle about who will manage counting the population and compiling its demographics?
Some background first. The census is mandated by the Constitution to occur every ten years. The census figures are based on the number of persons living in residential structures. The conduct of the census has changed over the last two hundred years, from just counting heads of households to including other household members to including slaves and American Indians. The first nine censuses weren't managed by the Executive Branch but, rather, the Judicial.
Now, counting 300 million people, as you might expect, is kinda difficult.
In the 1990 census, about five million people were missed as the (U.S. Census) Bureau relies on citizens to complete and return questionnaires through the mail. The percentage of forms returned has dropped from 78 percent in 1970 to 65 percent in 1990. This decline caused the 1990 census to be less accurate than any before. Due to the undercount, composed mainly of hard to reach population such as minorities and homeless people, states with large underserved populations receive smaller proportions of federal funding for programs.
Statistical sampling is much more accurate than attempts at an actual count. With random samples, the probability of error can be mathematically determined based on the number sampled. (Link)
Not surprisingly, quite a few folks don't return the census questions and are even less likely to go answer the door when a government guy in a suit comes knocking. And that reticence to mail back the forms and answer the door is more prevalent in urban areas with high minority and immigrant populations. In other words, folks who would most likely be Democrats.
And since populations determine congressional districts and, in turn, congressional seats, Republicans aren't particularly enthusiastic about a census process that counts all those potential Democrats. As Ezra Klein puts it, "It's the equivalent of inventing more Republicans, or at least hiding a lot of Democrats."
In addition to undercounting the 1990 census by five to eight million people, it also double counted white Americans by four million. In case you think that's no big deal, House Republicans (led by Tom DeLay) led a redistricting crusade in Texas following the 2000 census and managed to gather six more GOP seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
That's why the boring old census is controversial.











Comments
Change Is What's Controversial
"The reason being?"
"It's now or never."
"Based on?"
"Perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday."
"And the way out?"
"Yes we can."
Why is the Census controversial? Perhaps because these days it's an intrusive multi-page interrogation rather than just the Constitutionally-mandated nose count.
Well said.
How the heck could the census be controversial? When you don't count 20-million illegal aliens.
I agree with geronimo: "Change is what is controversial". But change is coming. "Yes we can!"
Check out my current article on global governance.
The Atlanta Astrology Examiner
I don't think people have a hard time grasping how the Census, or anything else for that matter, can be politicized - don't kid yourself.
Anyway, in terms on Tom DeLay, his plan violated the Voting Rights Act as he cracked minority districts in order to flip six Democratic seats Republican in the US House. The courts have ruled on this, already resulting in the overturn of one of Tom DeLay's altered Texas Congressional Districts.
Tom DeLay's flipping six Democratic seats Republican really had nothing to do with some sort of over counting of white people on the part of the Census Bureau as you imply in this article.
Patricia? Really? You comment is date stamped February 18 and you still believe that change is coming? Oh, I believed it, and would still like to believe it, however the past month has been enough evidence that the same ol' same ol' is taking place.
Where are the new thinkers? All posts are long time polital figures. Nothing new to see here. Disappointed to find I have been duped once again.
Seems there is no way out of this mess in D.C. Do you believe that the White House is not going to create new Democrat seats as Tom DeLay created Republican seats? It is now clear to me that we need change, alright; complete change of our political system. Doesn't matter if there is an "R" or a "D" after the name, they are all crooks. The "R" and "D" are there to place blinders on us so that we belive we are rooting for a favorite team. Yet the players are all on the same team; one that separates the citizens from their money and must control every aspect of the lives of the populace.
Still belive that chnage is coming, huh? That's cute.
Just wait until Obama hires ACORN to do the counting for the census. That will be fun.
"Yes we can!" stop paying our mortgage.
"Yes we can!" have the nanny government take care of us.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!