Political Discussions
White House takes over the Census
Posted by NewBlogger2008 • 2/12/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: census, obama, partisanship
I know this is a little late, but on Monday, Obama's administration announced that it will be taking over the census for 2010. I think that it is a terrible idea and is politicizing something that needs to be and should be objective. This is something that should have people going nuts because Obama is trying to make the census a partisan matter when something as important as the census needs to be kept objective. What do you all think about Obama trying to move the census under the control of the White House?
User Comments
-
I don't know enough about it, but I'm thinking it is less politicization and more because Judd Gregg is on record as having a different take on the thing, and it would have been under his purview otherwise. Is there any good reason for it being under the Commerce Dept? Clarion calls of politicization are probably premature, but to be expected from an opposition still grasping at straws. -
The census determines the makeup of the Electoral College. If one party controls the census, it could try to cement its hold on political power.
The census hasn't been under whitehouse control before. One has to wonder why this is a priority for Obama. -
If you do a search for "obama taking over census," all you get is a bunch of hits from right wing sites. It's just republicans trying to get people scared. If the executive branch having oversight over the census was a viable political tactic, the Bush administration would have done it. -
OH yeah... attack the people raising the question instead of arguing the point.
Show me what the left wing sites and publications are saying about it. -
Why don't we take a look at a non op-ed, blog piece about it?
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/11/gerrymandering/
This year, controversy re-emerged when President Barack Obama announced a decision to cross party lines and nominate U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, to run the Commerce Department.
The move sparked criticism from leaders of minority groups concerned that the Census Bureau under Gregg, who voted to abolish the Commerce Department in 1995, might lack the resources needed to accurately count minorities.
The White House promised to work directly with bureau's director to assuage those concerns, but that response drew further criticism from House Republicans concerned about greater executive influence in the Census Bureau.
[...]
The White House said it recognizes the importance of an accurate census count "free from politicization" and added it "has not proposed removing the census from the Department of Commerce."-
Anok, we all know that reality has a liberal bias. Let's stick to rumors and innuendo.
-
Oh, right... Uhm...
The Liberals are coming! The Liberals are coming!!! And they're going to redistrict! Ruuuuunnnnnnnn aaaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Is that better?
-
Deny deny deny. If we make fun of those that mention it, maybe people will be afraid to mention it.
Not like gerrymandering has every happened before. -
All I did was bring into the debate a non opinion piece discussing the OP's topic, since he neglected to provide anything for us to read.
And, from what it seems, there is a whole lot of chicken little running going on here. The Whitehouse is not removing the census from the commerce department's duties or control.
They are providing oversight to ensure and calm the critics of the republican who was hired to do the job. -
And don't forget... ACORN WILL BE RECEIVING BILLIONS FROM THE BAILOUT!!!
See, it has more credibility when you type in caps. -
Still waiting on those honkey concentration camps...
-
-
As Anok pointed out, this hasn't even happened yet. Moreover, NPR is now reporting that Gregg won't join the Obama administration after all due to serious policy differences, not least the economic recovery act. twitter.com/nprnews/status/1204176927
Edited too add: more on the Gregg withdrawal at Politico, www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18794.html-
Good, someone showing a little spinal fortitude against this insanity.
At least he didn't drop out for being a tax cheat.. That has to count as a small victory for Obama.. lol
-
-
This is a poor idea. This is an exact example of when Federalism is more effective than Unitary systems. Local/State governments will know and represent its people better than the government will. Smaller numbers on a smaller scale are easier to manage, which is common sense. This will only lead to misrepresentation and inaccurate results.-
This has nothing to do with local and state governments. The census is constitutionally mandated. You want local governments to do it instead, you would have to amend the Constitution, which isn't going to happen.
See Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution: www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2 (It uses the word enumeration.)
-
-
Go look at a map of the shape of districts in major cities around the U.S. You'll notice how odd they all are. This is the result of negotiations going back decades between the major political parties. Exactly what the Obama administration is going to do about the census in 2010 remains to be seen. But at least it'll be a chance to employ a lot of people for a constitutionally-mandated activity of govt'.
-
Congressional districts and the census are not the same thing. Congress determines districts, not the Census Bureau.
-
-
markstoneman has it. This is a constitutional issue. Well, not the first constitutional issue Obama has had.
-
?
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
