with profound implications for us all. [rquoter]Why Obama Wants Control of the Census Counting citizens is a powerful political tool. By JOHN FUND 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." The decision was made last week after California Rep. Barbara Lee, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Hispanic groups complained to the White House that Judd Gregg, the Republican senator from New Hampshire slated to head Commerce, couldn't be trusted to conduct a complete Census. The National Association of Latino Officials said it had "serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 Census produces the most accurate possible count." 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. 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." The problem of counting minorities and the homeless has long been known. Census Bureau statisticians believe that a vigorous hard count, supplemented by adding in the names of actual people missed by head counters but still found in public records, is likely to lead to a far more defensible count than sampling-based adjustment. The larger debate prompted seven former Census directors -- serving every president from Nixon to George W. Bush -- to sign a letter last year supporting a bill to turn the Census Bureau into an independent agency after the 2010 Census. "It is vitally important that the American public have confidence that the census results have been produced by an independent, non-partisan, apolitical, and scientific Census Bureau," it read. The directors also noted that "each of us experienced times when we could have made much more timely and thorough responses to Congressional requests and oversight if we had dealt directly with Congress." The bill's chief sponsor is New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who represents Manhattan's Upper East Side. "The real issue is who directs the Census, the pros or the pols," says Mr. Chapman. "You would think an administration that's thumping its chest about respecting science would show a little respect for scientists in the statistical field." He worries that a Census director reporting to a hyperpartisan such as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel increases the chances of a presidential order that would override the consensus of statisticians. 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."[/rquoter]
Speculation about the census? This is damning news indeed. Can any administration recover from pure speculation like this?
Great news Republicans have blocked census reform in order to keep down population counts in minority districts for decades. This is exactly the change we need. Oh, and unsurprisingly, there's a lot of science that says satistical sampling combined with a hand count is WAY more effective than a hand count alone. That's why the census bureau wanted to do it. Fund is being disingenuous (shocker). The fact that it pisses off people like basso and John Fund is the icing on the cake.
you apparently didn't read the article: 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." The problem of counting minorities and the homeless has long been known. Census Bureau statisticians believe that a vigorous hard count, supplemented by adding in the names of actual people missed by head counters but still found in public records, is likely to lead to a far more defensible count than sampling-based adjustment.
It'd have been a good idea to get a quote from the Obama Admin as to why he'd want the Census to report to him.
No - I did read it. That's why I said Fund was being disingenuos as you will find plenty of experts who defend statistical sampling - that's why the Bureau wanted to use it. Anyway to you have a link to this dispositive study of yours which proves that, Census Bureau experts, despite lobbying for years to use statisical sampling, now believe they were completely wrong? THANKS IN ADVANCE
I guess the U.S. Code article that put the Census under the control of the Senate approved Secretary of Commerce doesn't mean much when you can just issue an executive order. I guess Rahm wants to make it easier to find his political enemies and threaten them.
So the bulk of the article is based on the gripes of the guy who served under Reagan. Got it. It's particularly funny when he says this: As if Judd Gregg were some kind of statistical science maven.
I'm confused here. We're OK with the Census Bureau being part of the Executive Dept when it answeres to a person Obama appoints, but we're concerned when the Census Bureau is part of the Executive Dept and responds to Obama. Is that correct? This would make sense if the Census was run by the Senate or the House or some other entity - but it's already run by the Executive Branch and so it already answers to the President as-is, with a middle-management layer added in there. I don't see the necessity of the change, but if a President wanted to play political games with the Census, they don't need this change to do it. They just need a loyal Commerce Secretary.
Absolutely - it would be a good question to ask of Obama. At this point, we simply have no idea what the purpose is.
It's even funnier that the National Academy of Sciences and the American Statistical Association among others all filed court papers in favor of statistical sampling last time around when the Republicans were trying to crush it. I guess they were taking some time off from transmutation, crop circles and intelligent design to endorse this obvious quackery.
looks like the Census issue played a major role in Gregg's decision to w/draw his name. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/gregg_out_cites_census.asp [rquoter]Senator Judd Gregg withdraws from consideration for the post of Commerce Secretary. From the release: "I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle. "However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy. The inclusion of the census among the "irresolvable conflicts" Gregg had with the administration is odd. The stimulus has already gone through, and the shape it would take was fairly clear when Gregg first put his hat in the ring. The Obama administration's attempts to hijack the census, however, only became apparent in the last week. Republicans were determined to make an issue out of this at the confirmation hearings, and Gregg would have been essentially neutered if he'd allowed the White House to take the census away from the Commerce Department. Neither does the failure of another nominee help restore the image of competence to an Obama team that just a few weeks ago was considered a well-oiled machine and now sees almost daily unforced errors. It's possible to blame Gregg for this -- that he should have seen these kind of issues coming -- but again, the census issue was not foreseeable, and was perhaps both irresolvable and unacceptable to Gregg. The inclusion of the census in the statement ought to bring increased scrutiny to the Obama administration's attempts to what seems to the untrained eye like a clear attempt to subvert the law governing its administration. (If any lawyers can explain how the statue might be read differently, please drop us an email.) As far as who will ultimately fill the post of Commerce Secretary...third time's the charm. Exit quote, via Politico: "I couldn’t be Judd Gregg and serve in the Cabinet. I should have faced up to the reality of that earlier."[/rquoter]
