PURE GOLD: WHY ARE REPUBLICANS SO SCARED OF THE CENSUS?

Shocked! Shocked! Shocked! House Republicans, whose most recent president politicized many of the Federal government's major agencies, have written a letter to President Obama accusing him of politicizing an important project in 2010—namely, next year's national Census.

The Republicans expressed "great concerns" that Obama will place the Census count in the hands of "White House operatives," taking it out of the control of the Department of Commerce.

Such a move, the Republicans claim, "would result in the unprecedented politicization of the Census and open the door to massive waste and abuse in the expenditure of tax funds."

As the Republicans assert, the Census can affect the distribution of Congressional seats as well as the distribution of $300 billion in Federal funds to local and state governments each year.

The Republicans have some reason to be nervous. A study by the University of Michigan indicates next year's Census will coat $11.3 billion, the most expensive in history. The cost per household is estimated at $72, compared to $56 in the 2000 Census.

The White House denies it is taking control of the Census but says it will follow "the historical precedent for the director of the Census who works for the Commerce secretary and President, to work closely with White House senior management."

Republicans have historically been fearful of Census results. Fearful that an accurate Census next year might further reduce their political power, they have launched a full court press against Obama's participation.

Rep. Darell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, worries about the White House "injecting Chicago-style politics into the Census process." House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), sends congratulations to Obama's third choice for Secretary of Commerce, the former governor of Washington, Gary Locke, but advises him to keep Census control away from "Political operatives working out of the White House."

Conservative TV host Joe Scarborough calls White House involvement "the rawest of raw politics."

And Obama's second choice for Commerce secretary, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), pulled out of the nominating process at least in part because of Obama's increasing interest in the 2010 Census.

On the other hand, the Congressional Black Caucus has endorsed White House involvement on the grounds that minority groups have gotten the short end of the stick in earlier censuses.

In 2000, according to a study by Morley Winograd of the progressive think tank, NOW, Bush sacked a highly professional Census director and put one of his partisan people in charge. The count method focused on households, which resulted in residents with more than one household being counted for each household. This tended to inflate the count for the more affluent while undercounting minorities, including blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans.

Obama's goal, it appears, is to get a more complete Census count. An advertising budget of more than $200 million has been allocated to encourage people to return Census forms. According to CNN, 1.4 million workers will get part-time jobs doing the Census count. Also, the Census Bureau is funneling substantial sums into local communities for office space and other facilities it hopes will increase the outreach to minority groups.

An argument in favor of the Obama approach comes from Barbara Bryant, who directed the 2000 Census before the Bushies took over. She notes:

"I would have liked a little of the bully pulpit help because one of the big things is just to get everyone to answer the questionnaire. The President would have a lot more clout on that than anyone else could have at the Census Bureau." The current President seems willing to use the bully pulpit to maximum degree.

Also encouraging Obama's participation is Rep. William Clay (D-Mo.), chair of the House subcommittee that oversees the Census.

He points out that Obama comes from a state with "a large number of hard-to-enumerate people. He personally understands how damaging an undercount can be to a community and to the nation as a whole."

Republicans have been petrified that a Census count under Democratic scrutiny might lead to a minority overcount. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House during the Clinton presidency, was "paranoid" on the subject, according to Winograd of the NOW think tank.

Gingrich refused to add funding to the Census Bureau's budget, which led him to shut down the House without approving an overall Federal budget. In a showdown with Clinton, he caved.

Actually, a party controlling its state legislature can manipulate Congressional boundaries, no matter what the Census count shows; the best example was Tom Delay's Texas operation several years ago, which gave the Republicans five additional House seats.

During the Clinton years, there was talk of forming a bi-partisan commission to resolve Census issues between the parties. While the commission was never formed, the Democrats indicated how important the Census issue was to them. They were going to name several heavyweights to the commission, including Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes and Rep. Maxine Waters, the California slugger.

Down in Broward County, Florida, the administration is anxious to get an accurate account since "nearly $300 billion is annually distributed for 170 programs" and "Census data is also used to determine the need for additional social services, including community development block grants and other government programs."

The Broward County report contends that the 2000 Census undercounted its population by almost 20,000. The report argued that "many potential residents were scared off by the long forms," but that the 2010 Census forms will be "easier than ever to fill out."

Broward ends wth the belief that "one of the most fundamental philosophical tenets of our nation is that every person deserves to have a voice and be counted."

Actually, Obama would probably agree with the last line of the critical letter sent to him by House Republicans:

"A fair, accurate and trustworthy Census is essential and vital to the American citizens and taxpayers."

The one guarantee about next year's Census count is that at least one party won't like it.