Is it time to get rid of mandatory government surveys?

Why should people be forced to answer a questionnaire that will be used to generate more government regulations?  From the WSJ:

The Census Bureau does more than count all Americans every 10 years. It also runs hundreds of other surveys in between. But Americans are only obligated by federal law to participate in the once-a-decade headcount and a massive, continuous data-collection effort known as the American Community Survey. The ACS will reach 3.5 million households this year, using dozens of detailed questions—including asking about a household's use of flush toilets, wood fuel and carpools—to determine the need for various government programs. The survey's mandatory status, along with telephone and in-person follow-ups to initial mailings, helps keep response rates near 100%. . . .  The Census Bureau says the very specific questions—which are approved by Congress—are part of what makes the survey useful in helping the government dole out more than $400 billion annually. Tests by the agency indicate a voluntary survey would get fewer responses, particularly by mail, which would make collecting the data more expensive—in-person interviews cost about six times as much as mail per completed survey. . . .

This reminds me of something that Milton Friedman once said.  When he visited Hong Kong in the earlier 1960s he wanted to know about lots of things such as per capita income and poverty rate.  But the Governor of Hong Kong told him that he didn't compile that information because it would be used to generate support for more government action.

Breaking down the Census news by who controls the redistricting process

The most likely gains or losses in congressional seats occurs in states where there are gains or losses in congressional seats. With respect to the presidential election states that Obama won had a net loss of 6 seats (picking up 4 electoral votes and lost 10 votes). The net pick up for Republicans are 6. Given that Obama won the electoral vote by 365 to 173, this is not a huge change. What really needs to be done here is compare the control of redistricting this year compared to 2000. For example, Republicans controlled the process in Illinois in 2000 but now Democrats control everything so that is one state where Democratic pickups are ripe. By contrast, Republicans controlled Texas both now and for the 2003 redistricting so their pickups for pre-existing seats is fairly limited. Republicans may pick up some seats in California where Democrats have controlled the legislature and governor both times, but now there is an independent commission.

Gains for states that Republicans control legislature and governorship
ARIZONA +1
FLORIDA +2
GEORGIA +1
SOUTH CAROLINA +1
TEXAS +4
UTAH +1

Gains for states that Democrats control legislature and governorship
WASHINGTON +1

Gains for states with divided control
NEVADA +1

Losses for states that Democrats control legislature and governorship
ILLINOIS -1 (Politico mentions that Democrats think that they can pick up as many as five congressional seats in this states -- GOP Rep.-elect Bobby Schilling and the four incoming House Republicans in the suburban Chicago area)
MASSACHUSETTS -1 (can only be a Democrat loss because Democrats control all of the congressional seats)

Losses for states that Republicans control legislature and governorship
MICHIGAN -1
OHIO -2
PENNSYLVANIA -1

Gains for states with divided control
IOWA -1
LOUISIANA -1
MISSOURI -1
NEW YORK -2

"Independent" Commission
NEW JERSEY -1

UPDATE: An official at the NCSL claims:

Tim Storey, an expert on redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said that Republicans were in their strongest position to draw lines in decades. Of the districts drawn by state legislatures, he said, Republicans have the power to unilaterally draw 196, four times as many as the Democrats. A decade ago, he said, Democrats had the advantage. . . .

Political analysts said that Republicans were poised to add anywhere from a net of 3 to a net of 15 Republican-leaning seats. But they note that the impact can be short-lived.

In times of upheaval, said Michael Barone, who covers redistricting exhaustively as a co-author of “The Almanac of American Politics,” it can be hard to predict how voters in some districts will behave. “When opinion changes,” he said, “it turns out some of those 53-percent districts aren’t yours anymore.”

New Census Numbers show who will gain and lose seats in Congress

The new estimates are from Election Data Services:

A new estimate of House reapportionment gains and losses resulting from this year’s Census reveals a larger-than-expected impact on Florida and New York. According to Washington-based Election Data Services, which reviewed new Census data from a private-sector demographic firm, Florida would gain two House seats and New York would lose two seats.

They would join two other states that already were projected to have multiple-seat changes. Based on the tentative Census data, Texas is expected to gain four House seats and Ohio likely will lose two seats.

According to the EDS estimate, six other states each would gain one seat: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. Eight states would each lose one seat: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. . . .

Some questions about the Census's accuracy

Stephen Robert Morse has this discussion over at BigGovernment.com.

Just spend a day working in PBOCS, the Paper-Based Operational Control System which processes enumerator questionnaires from the field, or MARCS, the Matching Address Review Coding System which shows a data capture of every questionnaire that was scanned at the Baltimore Data Capture Center and you will see the poor quality of work. . . .

If the Census is making up numbers on the number of jobs created, what are we to believe from them?

This doesn't instill must confidence. From the NY Post:

You know the old saying: "Everyone loves a charade." Well, it seems that the Census Bureau may be playing games.
Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.
The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department.
Below, I have a couple more readers who worked for Census 2010 and have tales to tell.
But first, this much we know.
Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs.
Labor doesn't check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month.
One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor . (I've been unable to get Census to explain this to me.)
Here's a note from a Census worker -- this one from Manhattan:
"John: I am on my fourth rehire with the 2010 Census.
"I have been hired, trained for a week, given a few hours of work, then laid off. So my unemployed self now counts for four new jobs.
"I have been paid more to train all four times than I have been paid to actually produce results. These are my tax dollars and your tax dollars at work.
"A few months ago I was trained for three days and offered five hours of work counting the homeless. Now, I am knocking (on) doors trying to find the people that have not returned their Census forms. I worked the 2000 Census. It was a far more organized venture.
"Have to run and meet my crew leader, even though with this rain I did not work today. So I can put in a pay sheet for the hour or hour and a half this meeting will take. Sincerely, C.M."
And here's another: . . .

Republican states expected to pick up House seats

Who knows how badly the Obama administration is going to muck around with the census count, but based on the current census projections the Republicans would have gotten seven more electoral votes in 2008 if the census changes had been in effect back then.

The projections offer some long-term encouragement for Republicans. President Barack Obama won nine of the 10 states slated to lose seats, and Democrats hold congressional delegation majorities in all but one (Louisiana).

"Based upon the results of the 2008 election for president but with the electoral vote for the 2012 election, the Republicans would see a slight gain under the projected apportionment of 7 votes," Polidata's Clark Bensen told POLITICO on Thursday. "Twelve of the 18 states with shifts voted for Obama in 2008 while 6 voted for McCain. Nine of the 12 Obama states would lose seats, while five of the six McCain states would gain." . . .

ACORN and the census

I am not sure what the term "provide" means here. Presumably the individuals provided are not still working for the groups who provided them, but this article raises some interesting questions.

Criminal Charges Against ACORN Raise Concerns About Its Partnership With Census Bureau
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer


Seal of the U.S. Census Bureau
(CNSNews.com) – Criminal charges filed in Nevada against ACORN, a liberal activist group that is under investigation in several other states for alleged voter registration fraud in 2008, have sparked increased concerns about the organization’s partnership agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau to help recruit workers for the 2010 Census.

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is among 281 non-profit groups and 111 corporations that have signed partnership agreements with the Census Bureau as of April 13. Those partners will help provide 1.4 million workers to conduct door-to-door operations. (See Partner List)

“The Bureau needs to reconsider ACORN’s involvement as a partner in light of these new charges in Nevada,” Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told CNSNews.com.

“I previously spoke about ACORN’s involvement in the Census,” said McHenry. “But in light of these charges, I think it makes clear that they should not be part of the partnership program with the Census.” . . . .

ACORN to help do US Census

Fox News has this unbelievable story:

The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States -- currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

A U.S. Census "sell sheet," an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN "play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful," including by "help[ing] recruit census workers." . . .

Can Obama get the census directly overseen by the White House?

Strangely, Obama doesn't seem to trust his newly nominated Secretary of Commerce and the guy isn't even confirmed yet. Possibly one of the couple most important jobs of Commerce is to oversee the census, so much of the government depends on that being done properly. Well, it turns out that the Obama wants the White House and not the new Secretary of Commerce to run the census. There is only one little proble: the law seems to say that its the Secretary's job.

Congress has “directed” in Title 13 that the Census be carried out by the Bureau of the Census “as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce.” 13 U.S.C. 2. The Secretary of Commerce is directed to carry out the duties of this title and while he can delegate “the performance of such functions and duties,” he can only do so to “officers and employees of the Department of Commerce.” 13 U.S.C. 4. So what Obama is doing by having the Census Bureaus report directly to the White House is not authorized by federal law. Also, only “sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau” are allowed to examine individual census reports. This is part of the confidentiality requirements of Section 9 of the law. Depending on what kinds of reports and information would be given to the White House, there could also be a violation of this confidentiality requirement.

What they are proposing to do is illegal.