On Weekend Edition, Simon and Schorr misrepresented census policies of Clinton, Obama
SUMMARY: On Weekend Edition Saturday, NPR's Scott Simon and Daniel Schorr suggested that the Commerce Department under President Clinton was opposed to calls by "minority groups and the black caucus" to use statistical sampling for the decennial census. In fact, the Clinton administration did plan to use sampling for the 2000 census. Additionally, Schorr claimed that the Obama White House said that the census "won't be under the Department of Commerce. We'll take it to the White House." But the Obama administration has repeatedly denied that it intends to "remov[e] the census from the Department of Commerce."
On the February 14 broadcast of NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, host Scott Simon and senior news analyst Daniel Schorr misrepresented the policies of the Clinton and Obama administrations on the census. Schorr stated that "minority groups and the black caucus have objected to having the census come under a Republican conservative, because they say that there was an undercount in the census of up to 6 million in the last census." Simon replied, "But that was under the Clinton administration. That was under a Democratic administration." Schorr agreed, saying, "It was under a Democratic administration." In fact, contrary to Simon's suggestion that the Commerce Department under Clinton was opposed to the calls by "minority groups and the black caucus" to use statistical sampling for the decennial census, the Clinton administration did plan to use sampling for the 2000 census; however, the Supreme Court decided that while the Census Bureau could use sampling for some purposes, a federal statute barred its use for the reapportionment of congressional districts. Subsequently, the Bush administration reversed the Clinton administration's plan to use statistical sampling for census data released to states for the purposes of congressional redistricting.
Additionally, Schorr claimed that the Obama White House said that the census "won't be under the Department of Commerce. We'll take it to the White House." In fact, while a February 5 CQ Today article stated that according to an unnamed "senior White House official," "[t]he director of the Census Bureau will report directly to the White House and not the secretary of Commerce," the Obama administration has repeatedly denied that it plans to, in the words of White House spokesman Ben LaBolt, "remov[e] the census from the Department of Commerce."
Contrary to Simon's suggestion that the Clinton administration opposed the use of sampling in the census, the Supreme Court stated in the 1999 case Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives that the Commerce Department under Clinton "announced a plan to use two forms of statistical sampling in the 2000 Decennial Census to address a chronic and apparently growing problem of 'undercounting' of some identifiable groups, including certain minorities, children, and renters." In the case, which dealt with statutory and constitutional challenges to the Commerce Department's plan, the court stated in its majority opinion that the Census Act "prohibits the proposed uses of statistical sampling in calculating the population for purposes of apportionment." As Media Matters for America has documented, the court also explicitly stated that it was not deciding whether the Constitution banned sampling for that purpose.
The court decided that the Census Act did not bar the Commerce Department from using sampling in the decennial census for other purposes. Discussing amendments to the Census Act passed in 1976, the majority opinion stated:
[T]he amendments served a very important purpose: They changed a provision that permitted the use of sampling for purposes other than apportionment into one that required that sampling be used for such purposes if "feasible." They also added to the existing delegation of authority to the Secretary to carry out the decennial census a statement indicating that despite the move to mandatory use of sampling in collecting nonapportionment information, the Secretary retained substantial authority to determine the manner in which the decennial census is conducted. [emphases in original]
Subsequently, however, President Bush's first commerce secretary, Don Evans, decided that for purposes of redistricting, the department would release as its "official data" only data that had not been adjusted by sampling, thereby reversing the Clinton administration's policy.
Additionally, during the Weekend Edition segment, Schorr claimed that in response to the concerns of "the black caucus," "the White House said, 'OK, it won't be under the Department of Commerce. We'll take it to the White House.' " In fact, in a February 5 statement, LaBolt stated that the White House planned to "return" to the "model" of the "historic precedent for the director of the Census, who works for the commerce secretary and the president, to work closely with White House senior management." During a February 6 briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether the White House had "moved the control of the Census Bureau into the White House for the purposes of the 2010 census." Gibbs stated: "No. ... I think the historical precedent of this is there's a director of the census that works for the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and also works closely with the White House, to ensure a timely and accurate count. And that's what we have in this instance." Moreover, LaBolt reportedly said on February 11, "This administration has not proposed removing the census from the Department of Commerce and the same congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority."
From the February 14 edition of NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday:
SIMON: President Obama's nominee for commerce secretary, Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, took his name out of the running. He cited disagreement over the stimulus package.
SCHORR: Mm-hmm.
SIMON: There was another reason, though, too, wasn't there?
SCHORR: That is a fascinating story. That had to do with the Census Bureau, which is preparing for the big census in 2010. That's under the Department of Commerce. If he were the secretary of commerce, he would be in charge of it. Except that minority groups and the black caucus have objected to having the census come under a Republican conservative, because they say that there was an undercount in the census of up to 6 million in the last census, and there may be --
SIMON: But that was under the Clinton administration. That was under a Democratic administration.
SCHORR: It was under a Democratic administration. But the black caucus went to the White House and said, "We can't have a census that may work against us and take away some of our voting rights," so to speak. And the result of that was, the White House said, "OK, it won't be in the Department of Commerce. We'll take it to the White House."
At that point, Senator Gregg says, "What, what? One of the big things that the Commerce Department does is run the census, and you're going to take that away?" I have a feeling that that was a triggering mechanism for him to pull out.















So now it's feelings that matter, not facts.
Why do commentators insist on being mind readers when they enterpret what an individual "says".....As far as I know, no one can be a mind reader, that is a proven mind reader. Now, if you'd like to qualify your comments by saying....I believe he really meant this or that, that way you can not be accused of falsefying what an individual says....I know the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannities haves special powers based on their shows...."One says it is a gift from God" and the other says, He is a "Great American"! What losers and liars!
You've got that right!
My theory is that anyone who tells you that they're a Great American, isn't one.
No one has even been able to disprove my theory.
And in Hanratty's case, he proves it daily.
If republicans had their way only homeowners would be counted.
In the south, republcans consider trailer parks homes...
snoop, ole buddy...discounting your attempt at humor...I've got just three words for you...
Bigoted, biased, bullcrap.
I've always regarded your posts as having a little higher standard than the dull bleatings of others...this is not one of them.
But, what the heck...que sera sera...we all have our moments.
Um..... Wesley???
The truth can hurt sometimes.... huh...
Snoopy is spot on.... If the Republicans had not lost control of the Congress in 06 or more so this last election... you can bet your bottom dollar that that is exactly what they would have done! In fact... Tom DeLay even tried that already in Texas a few years back.
Or do you not remember Paul Weyrick when he proudly exclaimed that as the voting populace goes down.... they (rightwing ideologists) gain more power!
So no.... I don't think so pal... Snoopy is not the one being Bigoted, biased, and full of bullcrap... that is the far rightwing wing of the Republican party... who just happen to have a contingent of whack jobs on the radio and over at FoxNoise!
"Or do you not remember Paul Weyrick when he proudly exclaimed that as the voting populace goes down.... they (rightwing ideologists) gain more power!"
To which I should have added.....
Who the heck to you think Mr. Weyrick was talking about..... his fellow rightwing conservatives? I think not!
Wes, the second part was my sad attempt at humor. On the first part I have had several friends tell me that only homeowners should be allowed to vote. And I've seen various versions of that mentioned on the air and internet. Example:
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/2007/03/good-times-at-city-council-district-6.html
Check your history. There are founding fathers who promoted the same ideals (whigs).
FMbanker said that only property owners should count for the census the other day. That doesn't mean it's a typical belief of Republicans, but I've seen that sort of idea floated myself.
And renters 3/5s, children under 18 1/5 and homeless 1/20th.;>)
Unless it's a homeless veteran, in that case they don't exist. ;)
Hey, you are coming around! ;>)
You have to wonder, when legislators like Delay say they want strict interpretation of the constitution, just where does that end? It's a fact that only white male property owners were allowed to vote until 1790, well after the constitution was written. Many republicans have shown utter disdain for other amendments, why should we be surprised if someone suggests they support original voting rights as well?
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html
Snoopy you happen to be right. The trailer park dwellers always vote Republican. Look to history. After President Johnson signed the equal rights bill he told his aid (Bill Moyers) "We've lost the south to the Republicans, for my lifetime and for the rest of yours". Just look at what Tom Delay did to the redistricting in Texas. This was all the result of playing fast and loose with the Census. They did alot of bordering on criminal manuvering whilst poor Clinton was putting out fires.
Daniel Schorr is my hero. Let's cut him some slack. After all, he's 117 years old. I'm sure any mistake he made is an honest one.
This census fetish of mmfa is getting pretty weird.
-- The court decided that the Census Act did not bar the Commerce Department from using sampling in the decennial census for other purposes...
Subsequently, however, President Bush's first commerce secretary, Don Evans, decided that for purposes of redistricting, the department would release as its "official data" only data that had not been adjusted by sampling, thereby reversing the Clinton administration's policy. -- mmfa
mmfa researcher Lily Yan misdirects the question with double talk and mastery of the obvious. The court was very clear in its decision that sampling can be used for anything other than voter apportionment...and Don Evans was simply following the law...and according to Yan "reversing the Clinton administration's policy"...which did not follow the law.
-- we will send unadjusted data to the states for the purpose, and only the purpose, of redistricting. -- Commerce Sec. Don Evans
This particular tactic by mmfa is nothing more than partisan mumbo jumbo...and I'm still left with the nagging question...what is the real reason for mmfa's fetish over the 2010 census?
Misrepresenting the attitude towards the census by the Clinton administration and not telling the truth about the what the Supreme Court rules bothers me. It bothers MMfA too.
The court was very clear that a federal statute prohibited using sampling for the census. The Clinton policy would have been that they wanted a new federal statute that didn't prohibit sampling.
The sensus is such a small part of the commerce secretary's responsibilities that i don't beleive this was the reason for the nomination withdrawl. I think that anyone trying to re-stimulate the anemic economy thru justicious and adroit use of the commerce secretary's job responsabilities will have to have more on ball than old Judd and he knew it! Thank you Judd for saving us from mediocrity.
Simon is a pathetic embarrasment. The whole show is a series of platitudes between him and Shorr. It's enough to know that he had Jonah Goldberg, author of the inflamatory 'Liberal Fascism' on the same show to address the topic, (of all things) 'Can Left And Right Get Along?'
Note, the complement to "Liberal Fascist" expert, Jonah Goldberg was someone from the 'leftist' New Republic. Love the balance!
I saw Geraldo ask Ann Coulter something similar, and I about fell over laughing. It's like asking Al Capone how law enforcement can shut down organized crime. What sort of answer do you expect?
Why are progressives rushing to revise Clinton's record as President? Remember the budget surplus!!!