>>Zoltan!
You taking after ole Pappy Terrence now? Go git him bawh!!
Father (Give 'em hell) Terrence
As you know, sometimes it's just too much to suffer fools gladly. And that particular fool is one of the worst extant. He is an insult to his class of dolt.
Don't Mess With the Census
By George F. Will
Sunday, June 14, 1998; Page C07
On July 11, 1787, the Constitutional Convention discussed what was to
become the requirement of a census by "actual enumeration" every 10
years, to revise the allocation of congressional seats among the states. The
convention made this the national government's responsibility because, said
Edmund Randolph, the states would be too "interested" to be impartial.
The convention made it mandatory because, said George Mason, "those
who have power in their hands will not give it up while they can retain it."
In that July 11 discussion, James Madison said there should be a
constitutional limit on discretion in the conduct of a census because "all men
having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree," given "the
political depravity of man." Speaking of which, President Clinton has found
yet another law to disregard, this time a provision in the Constitution.
For the 2000 census he wants to disregard the Framers' stipulation of an
"actual enumeration" -- actually locating actual people. Instead, he wants
the census to be an enumeration supplemented by statistical "sampling,"
which means by more or less sophisticated guesses.
The 1990 enumeration -- mailed questionnaires, supplemented by
door-to-door interviews -- undercounted an estimated 4 million
Americans, 1.6 percent of an increasingly large and mobile population.
Democrats, who assume that most of the undercounted were poor or
otherwise "marginalized" and therefore prospective Democratic votes,
propose for 2000 a census that would enumerate 90 percent of the
population (down from 98.4 in 1990). The rest would be estimated by
complex extrapolations from a survey of 750,000 households (0.75
percent of all households).
The central problem is the political temptations in sampling: Politics can
shape the assumptions made to frame any formula for making the final
extrapolation. Politics can govern the selection of the final 750,000
households that are surveyed and of the surveyors.
No census is going to be completely accurate. In enumeration, some
people will not be found -- indeed, some will not want to be found. In
sampling, notes David Murray of the Statistical Assessment Service in
Washington, accuracy is a function of inherently imprecise processes of
"estimation, imputation and probability." So, Murray says, the quest for
accuracy must involve one of two risks -- an undercount or a "fuzzy count"
from sampling.
The assessment of what risks are worth running for improved accuracy
occurs in the context of the Clinton administration's contempt for law.
Murray sees the birth of a powerful new political temptation: "The ability to
'create' or 'eliminate' millions of strategically placed citizens with the stroke
of a pen introduces a potent and disturbing new political weapon." No
administration, and certainly not this one, should wield such a pen. Michael
Barone, author of the "Almanac of American Politics," notes:
"This is a White House that had no scruples about getting the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to drop criminal checks on applicants for
citizenship so that more Democrats could be naturalized in time for the
1996 election; why would it suddenly develop scruples about adjusting
census numbers for political purposes?"
Why indeed expect that? This president has written a remarkable record of
lawlessness, of three sorts. One sort arises from his glandular life. A
second arises from his lust for money to finance his life's work, which is
campaigning. The third sort, the most serious, involves constitutional
damage. It is contemptuous disregard for clear laws governing institutional
relations. Three examples:
Clinton could not win Senate confirmation for Bill Lann Lee as assistant
attorney general for civil rights, so he has Lee exercising power illegally as
"acting" holder of that office. Clinton will not submit for Senate ratification
the Kyoto Treaty, which would make America pay for global warming.
Rep. John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat, calls this exercise in American
masochism "the most asinine treaty I've ever seen." The Senate dismissed it
in advance with a 95-0 resolution of disdain. Nevertheless, Clinton
proposes to go on to negotiating expansions of the treaty.
In a third derogation of the Senate's right to advise and consent, Clinton,
without seeking Senate approval, has extended the scope and changed the
substance of the ABM Treaty, a 1972 agreement with a now nonexistent
entity, the Soviet Union. He has made several independent republics from
the former Soviet Union parties to the treaty. And in the guise of
"interpretation," he has made the treaty applicable to theater as well as
strategic systems, in a way that makes it an even larger impediment to
developing ballistic missile defenses.
Clinton's proposal for census sampling -- severing this constitutionally
mandated exercise from its anchor against politicalization -- comes in the
context of Clinton's lawlessness. Regarding the undeniable potential for
political abuse of sampling, Clinton's position is: Trust me.
No.
washingtonpost.com |
