Making People Count
February 27th, 2009 | Published in Blog | 1 Comment
The startling fact is: when you go to the US Constitution to remind yourself of the origins of the decennial enumeration of Americans we call the census, you’re reminded first that, from the very beginning, not everyone counted.
As we report this week, the counting has been politicized to this day. But it’s what you would expect. The numbers are vitally important to politics and politicians. But they’re also vitally important to nearly every social service program in the nation that relies on some sort of Federal funding.
How to count? Who to count? What does “count” mean? These almost-Clintonesque questions will occupy many for the next few years. We welcome your comments and suggestions for future coverage on the program.
Email This
March 1st, 2009 at 9:05 pm (#)
I listened as a man from a special interest group tried to characterize the withdrawal of Sen. Gregg’s nomination as Commerce Secretary and further, as he discussed the coming census, with great disdain. There was an essential disconnect between the two topics that cannot be reconciled. The man kept explaining how, with regard to Sen. Gregg, there was no way that the census could be interfered with by the President because the law is established and because the Census Bureau is a professional organization. And thus any explanation of Sen. Gregg’s withdrawal on that ground was a “straw man.” But then he went on to discuss how important it will be for politicians that support his constituency to work to somehow effect a more favorable result in the coming census? This conundrum begs the question: how in the world can politicians affect a process that is already run by a “professional” department under the guidance of an established body of law? Answer: they will try to get the politicians (now a majority of whom are in their corner) to stretch the Constitution, the federal law prohibiting sampling (13 U.S.C. § 195), and the Supreme Court case of Utah v. Evans to somehow try and use sampling nonetheless, so that that they may increase their numbers improperly. Apparently for these groups and in this case, the end justifies the means. I say to the speaker and his interest groups: play fair! If you think there is an under-count, then encourage people to respond, don’t try and cheat!