Dishonorable Scum
10-05-2007, 14:08
A disturbing editorial from this morning's New York Times:
The Bush presidency will be history in 2010, the year of the next nationwide census. But the administration’s influence on the count could nevertheless be profound — and not, it seems, for the better.
Among other needs, the Census Bureau told the White House that it would require $18 million in the 2008 budget to begin its partnership program, which is central to the bureau’s strategy for ensuring that all Americans participate in the census. But in its budget proposal, the White House allocated nothing for the program — zero.
Under the program, the bureau would promote the census by teaming up with thousands of organizations — including state, local and tribal governments, churches, schools, corporations and community service groups. More than 140,000 such partnerships were established in the years leading up to the 2000 census and were widely acclaimed as crucial to its success. Racial minorities, in particular, were more accurately counted than in previous attempts. In 2000, the African-American undercount was reduced by more than half — to 1.84 percent from 4.57 percent in 1990. The undercount for Asians, Hispanics and Native Americans vanished.
Without robust partnerships, minority undercounts are likely to revert to earlier levels. That might be good for the Republican Party, because minorities tend to vote Democratic, while white suburbanites, who are generally overcounted in the census, tilt Republican. But miscounts in any direction are bad for democracy. The census is used to decide core issues, like the number of Congressional representatives from each state, the shape of electoral districts and the allocation of federal dollars. To the extent the census is skewed, so is government.
As it draws up a final federal budget this spring, Congress can — and should — pony up the $18 million that is needed to get the census partnerships under way. We know that in the 2008 budget scramble, the needs of a 2010 census look less than urgent. But pulling off an accurate count requires years of preparation. If shortfalls develop now, the next census will suffer, and the country will have to pay the price for a decade, until the census of 2020.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/opinion/10thu2.html
Just so we're clear, this isn't talking about defunding the census altogether, just failing to fund a program that has been highly successful in the past at improving the accuracy of census counts among minority groups. Gee, wonder why the White House would want to do a thing like that? :rolleyes:
In Washington terms, $18 million is pocket change, so arguments about the "high cost" of the program won't cut it.
The Bush presidency will be history in 2010, the year of the next nationwide census. But the administration’s influence on the count could nevertheless be profound — and not, it seems, for the better.
Among other needs, the Census Bureau told the White House that it would require $18 million in the 2008 budget to begin its partnership program, which is central to the bureau’s strategy for ensuring that all Americans participate in the census. But in its budget proposal, the White House allocated nothing for the program — zero.
Under the program, the bureau would promote the census by teaming up with thousands of organizations — including state, local and tribal governments, churches, schools, corporations and community service groups. More than 140,000 such partnerships were established in the years leading up to the 2000 census and were widely acclaimed as crucial to its success. Racial minorities, in particular, were more accurately counted than in previous attempts. In 2000, the African-American undercount was reduced by more than half — to 1.84 percent from 4.57 percent in 1990. The undercount for Asians, Hispanics and Native Americans vanished.
Without robust partnerships, minority undercounts are likely to revert to earlier levels. That might be good for the Republican Party, because minorities tend to vote Democratic, while white suburbanites, who are generally overcounted in the census, tilt Republican. But miscounts in any direction are bad for democracy. The census is used to decide core issues, like the number of Congressional representatives from each state, the shape of electoral districts and the allocation of federal dollars. To the extent the census is skewed, so is government.
As it draws up a final federal budget this spring, Congress can — and should — pony up the $18 million that is needed to get the census partnerships under way. We know that in the 2008 budget scramble, the needs of a 2010 census look less than urgent. But pulling off an accurate count requires years of preparation. If shortfalls develop now, the next census will suffer, and the country will have to pay the price for a decade, until the census of 2020.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/opinion/10thu2.html
Just so we're clear, this isn't talking about defunding the census altogether, just failing to fund a program that has been highly successful in the past at improving the accuracy of census counts among minority groups. Gee, wonder why the White House would want to do a thing like that? :rolleyes:
In Washington terms, $18 million is pocket change, so arguments about the "high cost" of the program won't cut it.