BHO and the census

Can anyone explain why BHO wants to have control of the census? The
Census Bureau has worked for decades to make itself non-partisan.
Judd Greg has pulled his name as Sec. of Commerce because of this.
Good man, btw.

Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Can anyone explain why BHO wants to have control of the census? The
Census Bureau has worked for decades to make itself non-partisan.
Judd Greg has pulled his name as Sec. of Commerce because of this.
Good man, btw.

Dave




This short report seems logical and balanced and shows how BHO is pulled
from both sides and has top try hard and find a middle ground that doesn't
forgo sanity to please wingnuts ... either wing

... beneath the "Attempts to politicize the Census" part way down the
page

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29166218

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:29:54 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
Can anyone explain why BHO wants to have control of the census? The
Census Bureau has worked for decades to make itself non-partisan.
Judd Greg has pulled his name as Sec. of Commerce because of this.
Good man, btw.

Dave




This short report seems logical and balanced and shows how BHO is pulled
from both sides and has top try hard and find a middle ground that doesn't
forgo sanity to please wingnuts ... either wing

... beneath the "Attempts to politicize the Census" part way down the
page

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29166218


He has pulled from both sides? Really? The CB has spent decades
getting itself to be non-partisan, and I believe it is. Why would
Rahm Emanuel want the CB to report to him? It can only be for
political purposes, Larry. Judd Gregg is one of the most honorable
men in DC. Far more honorable than Daschel or the president's choice
for Sec. of Treasury. For him to resign like this can only mean that
he sees something that he feels just isn't right. I know what the WH
and Gregg are saying, but I don't think that we have been told the
whole truth. If Bush had tried this, there would have been shouts for
his impeachment, and you would be leading the shouts!

Leave the Census Bureau alone. Let them do their job without any
politics involved. I am worried about the U.S. becoming a socialist
nation. This CB stuff makes me worry about it becoming a
dictatorship. What's next? Something like Hitler's SS? The
Whitehouse has no business running or even involving itself with the
CB.

Dave

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:08:50 -0500, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

Can anyone explain why BHO wants to have control of the census? The
Census Bureau has worked for decades to make itself non-partisan.
Judd Greg has pulled his name as Sec. of Commerce because of this.
Good man, btw.

Dave

_IF_ he does, it can only be for one (real) reason - to ensure Dems are helped
by it through "minority inclusion" and/or gerrymandering. I heard something
about how his folks were allegedly all upset because homeless people are often
excluded from the Census. Fair enough, but how are you going to assign
_homeless_ people into Congressional districts...?

HTH,
R

"Dave LaCourse" wrote


He has pulled from both sides? Really?



I went back to the link I posted with the idea of copy/pasting the items
that made me say that. Imagine my surprise that the link now leads to a
very different article on the same topic but greatly revised .... so I can't
do that.


Paraphrasing what was there before, the far left thinks that intercity
minorities ( mostly Dems) are undercounted and wants more oversight of
that counting
..... the far right thinks having Dems go uncounted is just fine and has
actively worked to cut funding for the census, partly for the political
reason of avoiding more accurate counts in the most difficult situations.
( thinking either side, far left or far right, is free from political
motive in this is too wingnut prejudiced for even you, isn't it?)

The original article I linked to quoted Obama as saying, ( to a left wing
group ), " I'll work more closely with the Dept Of Commerce on this" or
something real close to that, nothing more aggressive
... pretty unscary and noncommittal from my view here in the middle, but
..... as you can tell by looking at your own face all puffed up and red,
"work more closely" translates into rightwingnut as "take over and control
the world with SS troops"
.... and, for all I know, it very well may translate into leftwingnut as "
take over the census completely and stop counting all white faces with gray
hair, to boot."

..... neither nutgroup is likely correct



I agree with leaving the CB alone. And, since power can have bad effects
on people, I agree that we always need to carefully watch all our
politicians, all 'sides,' all the time, including Obama, but ........ calm
is always a good place to start when thinking is called for

Larry L ( who will continue to look and watch, never really trusting any
politician completely, but is not afraid of all the ones that aren't old,
white, and gray haired, either )

On Feb 13, 6:08*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Can anyone explain why BHO wants to have control of the census? *The
Census Bureau has worked for decades to make itself non-partisan.
Judd Greg has pulled his name as Sec. of Commerce because of this.
Good man, btw. *

Dave

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

Because the results of the census have a knock-on effect on a
tremendous amount of social program funding, and in the past 8 years,
with the general 'science bends to politics' ideology, accountability
to the accuracy of census figures has deteriorated.

This one boils down to a Trust issue....if you trust Obama to work to
generate accurate and repeatable figures so that he can target
programs effectively, then his strategy of having the census folks
answer directly to him is a good strategy. If you think he's on a
misguided power-grab. then it looks like a smokescreen argument.

AFAIK, its pretty undisputable that ANY science or math that came out
of the Bush WH is suspect, so I don't mind that the census bureau now
has to answer to Obama...they will be extra sure to mind their p's and
q's.

The real test will be if he restores the traditional answerability
once everything is jake.

--riverman

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:25:44 -0800 (PST), riverman wrote:

On Feb 13, 6:08*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Can anyone explain why BHO wants to have control of the census? *The
Census Bureau has worked for decades to make itself non-partisan.
Judd Greg has pulled his name as Sec. of Commerce because of this.
Good man, btw. *

Dave

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

Because the results of the census have a knock-on effect on a
tremendous amount of social program funding, and in the past 8 years,
with the general 'science bends to politics' ideology, accountability
to the accuracy of census figures has deteriorated.

This one boils down to a Trust issue....if you trust Obama to work to
generate accurate and repeatable figures so that he can target
programs effectively, then his strategy of having the census folks
answer directly to him is a good strategy. If you think he's on a
misguided power-grab. then it looks like a smokescreen argument.

AFAIK, its pretty undisputable that ANY science or math that came out
of the Bush WH is suspect, so I don't mind that the census bureau now
has to answer to Obama...they will be extra sure to mind their p's and
q's.

The real test will be if he restores the traditional answerability
once everything is jake.

IOW, Myron is convinced that while Bush would have come in his mouth, Obama
would not only warn him, but be a gentleman and shoot off to the side...

Oh, yeah, "shovel-ready" becomes more and more appropriate by the minute...

Sheesh,
R

--riverman

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:11:42 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:

as you can tell by looking at your own face all puffed up and red,
"work more closely" translates into rightwingnut as "take over and control
the world with SS troops"

Wow! That's quite a talent you have, Larry - being able to see me
from way out there. Hate to tell you, lad, that it was neither puffed
up, nor red. You have to ask yourself, however, just what are the
reasons for potus taking over the CB. It is and should be
non-political. It ain't broken. Don't fix it. It smacks of what a
dictator would do.

Dave (pinky faced with a four day beard)

On Feb 13, 8:44*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:29:54 GMT, "Larry L"





wrote:

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
Can anyone explain why BHO wants to have control of the census? *The
Census Bureau has worked for decades to make itself non-partisan.
Judd Greg has pulled his name as Sec. of Commerce because of this.
Good man, btw.

Dave

This short report seems logical and balanced and shows how BHO is pulled
from both sides and has top try hard and find a middle ground that doesn't
forgo sanity to please wingnuts ... either wing

*... beneath the "Attempts to politicize the Census" * part way down the
page

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29166218

He has pulled from both sides? *Really? *The CB has spent decades
getting itself to be non-partisan, and I believe it is. *Why would
Rahm Emanuel want the CB to report to him? *It can only be for
political purposes, Larry. *Judd Gregg is one of the most honorable
men in DC. *Far more honorable than Daschel or the president's choice
for Sec. of Treasury. *For him to resign like this can only mean that
he sees something that he feels just isn't right. *I know what the WH
and Gregg are saying, but I don't think that we have been told the
whole truth. *If Bush had tried this, there would have been shouts for
his impeachment, and you would be leading the shouts!

Leave the Census Bureau alone. *Let them do their job without any
politics involved. *I am worried about the U.S. becoming a socialist
nation. *This CB stuff makes me worry about it becoming a
dictatorship. *What's next? *Something like Hitler's SS? *The
Whitehouse has no business running or even involving itself with the
CB.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Except that during the Bush years it is well acknowledged that Science
took a back seat to politics, so I'm not sure how you can be so
assured that previous census results were entirely accurate or non
partisan. The results of the CB have a tremendous and direct impact on
most, if not all, of the legislation that comes out of DC, and
apparently several minority groups felt that the previous census did
not do them a fair shake. I think the (traditionally staunchly
Republican) State of Utah would agree. In an effort to make the CB
accountable and reasonable, it seems like a good idea to make their
head honcho reportable to the WH....at least until the credibility of
science and math in DC is regained.

Its a trust issue. All of your objections are based on 'what
ifs'....if you trust the President to work to restore confidence and
accountability in DC, the CB included, then you would understand his
'the Buck Stops Here' accountability of the CB to the WH. If you think
its a power-grab, then it all looks like a smokescreen for more
ulterior motives, like dictatorship or Socialism. Now, which seems
more likely?

Personally, I'd like to think that the CB is competely nonpartisan,
and would like it to be offloaded to an independant non-political
organization. But I can't imagine how that could happen...the closest
thing I can think of to a DC-connected nonpolitical organization at
that level is the Fed....and look how that is playing out.

I'd say the litmus test is on you, not the WH. One thing to consider:
why all the 'the sky is falling' warnings coming from the Right Wing,
when in actuality nothing bad has happened yet? At least the Liberals
waited to get viscous on their anti-Bush stance until after he
established a track record, railroaded the UN and took us to war.

And as per your fear of Socialist reforms....would you rather see the
country go down in flames rather than adopt any Socialist platforms?
How did you stand on Social Security, Medicare and Welfare?

--riverman

you have to ask? you must be a dem.....