Judd Gregg gets stung as Commerce loses Census responsibility

Discussion in 'Congress' started by American Horse, Feb 8, 2009.

  1. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    The Obama Administration has usurped one of the most important core activies of that department by removing the taking of the census from his purview, and moving it directly under the executive and the White House. That must grate on Judd Gregg, since his leaving his safe Senate Seat can weaken Republicans in the US Senate.

    Their only justification so far is that “It was that way under the Clinton Administration, before Bush”, as if that makes it right. The census is very important because it apportions representation for US Congressional and state government districts and seats and controls the distribution of government largess to the political structure throughout the country.

    With the 2010 Census going directly to the Executive branch and being taken away from the Commerce Department, doesn’t that remove any congressional oversight from the process? The only way the congress has any say about the administration of the census is through oversight committees through the committee process, and the minority Republicans will now lose any oversight opportunities for that. To call Judd Gregg in to report would be holding him responsible for something he does not control.

    ...
     
  2. WillowTree
    Online

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,091
    Thanks Received:
    10,149
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    The DUmb Democrats don't trust Gregg to count the census in their favor. They want ACORN to do it..


    Gregg should feign his heart attack sooner rather than later! :eusa_eh:
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Indeed, if ever there was a position to say, 'I respectfully decline' it was this. What a tool.
     
  4. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    the commerce dept is part of the executive branch. sorry to be the one to break it to you...
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I hear you, but the census collection is to go to Congress, per constitution.
     
  6. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    and doubtless it will. i don't think it matters if gregg hands it in or some other bureaucrat- i like gregg, but he should have kept his senate seat, IMO. lynch gave it to some nonentity from NH who happens to be republican. gregg had some weight in the senate-that's vapor now.
     
  7. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    Understood Del,

    But the Secretary of Commerce has up to this time been responsible for administering the census, not agents of the president in the White House who will take care of the census, with the S of C being left out of the loop; this informs my second opinion about congressional committee oversight, with the Republican minority likewise removed from it; right or wrong?

    ...
     
  8. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    as SecCommerce is by definition an agent of the president, i just don't see the difference. frankly, i would prefer that SecComm focus on rebuilding the economy. i mean no disrespect, but i just don't understand your concern. i'm happy to learn, though.
     
  9. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    Personally, I would be concerned about groups like ACORN, being involved in the census in a situation like this one, where the immediate oversight of the census goes to the West Wing of the White House. ACORN is being given $5-Billion in the "Stimulus" bill now in Congress.

    If we know anything about Obama, it is that he was above all a Community Organizer. And ACORN above all is a Community organization and of questionable ethical performance.

    I'm certain that Mr. Gregg will give all his attention to the nations business and how that will help the economy; This situation might be a distraction for him at some point in the future.

    Congressional Quarterly
    CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
    Updated Feb. 5, 2009 – 6:34 p.m.
    “After black and Hispanic leaders raised concerns over Commerce Secretary-nominee Judd Gregg ’s commitment to core functions of the Census Bureau, a senior White House official told CQ on Wednesday that the director would report directly to the White House.

    That brought fire Thursday from Republicans, who accused the White House of attempting to gain advantage in the politically delicate process of counting Americans and of violating the law by circumventing the Commerce secretary. The decennial census is used to determine the apportionment of congressional districts among the states and federal funding for numerous programs.

    The White House took a small step back from what the senior official told CQ, releasing a statement late Thursday that couched the relationship between the Census Bureau director and the West Wing as one in which the director would work with the high-level officials rather than report directly to them”
     
  10. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    Let me understand this. This jerk pretends that since his political appointee is a Republican -someone HE personally chose - it also means he can't be trusted to actually do the job? For intelligent people, the first question should be - what is the REAL reason for appointing this guy then instead of someone he believed to be more trustworthy? Obama had two motives -one small and one great big one. By waiting until Gregg accepted and resigned his Senate seat before announcing this, he removed one of the most powerful and influential Republicans within in the Senate. Even if replaced with another Republican, that person will be a junior Senator with no real influence or power. If Gregg didn't think that through for himself - that's just too bad. Gregg got played by a Democrat who proved HE was actually the untrustworthy one here. But Obama's true motive was far worse.

    His primary motive for appointing a Republican was so people would think it RATIONAL, and just COMMON SENSE for him to then turn around and strip the Commerce Department of this authority and lay claim to it himself. After all, he appointed one of those "untrustworthy" Republicans -even though he could have easily appointed a "trustworthy" Democrat instead. So what was rational about appointing a Republican when he is also saying he doesn't trust the man to do the job? And notice how his administration keeps deflecting questions about why he didn't do that. ROFL It is only rational to appoint someone you claim you cannot trust to do the job -when the real motive all along was to corrupt government right under the nose of the people of this country.

    Even while the department officially falls under the Executive branch because its head is political appointment by the President -no one else in that department is the employee of a President, the department does not exist as the political tool of any President and the functions carried out by these departments are not political ones. Neither the President nor his political appointee can fire these people who are actually doing the work. The power of OVERSIGHT of these departments in how it carries out its functions, spends its budget and setting its budget belongs to CONGRESS. Not the President.

    A President is banned from firing civil servants in order to prevent a President from turning the apolitical and vital functions of government intended to serve the nation itself - into his agents whose primary function is to serve his political party. So he can't fire those who refuse to do so and replace them with people who will. But notice how Obama managed to accomplish the same goal anyway. Since he can't fire them -then he need only strip apolitical, non-firable civil servants of ANY responsibility he wants -and then turn around and give that function to his political cronies instead. Thereby turning what was an apolitical function of government, one that is most trustworthy and best done if it remains apolitical -into the political tool of just his own party and another way to reward his political cronies instead. This isn't a dictatorship (at least not yet) where a President gets to lay claim to all sorts of powers and apolitical functions that were given to other government bodies, departments, agencies and entities and bastardize them to become the political tools of his party -especially by bypassing the systems of checks-and-balances intended to prevent him from doing just that in the first place.

    I don't care what party a President is from -this is not acceptable. The motivation here is so blatantly obvious you have to be a moron to not see it. If you can't trust the guy you appointed to head a department -then why appoint him at all instead of someone you can trust? I KNOW Obama appointed a Republican for the SPECIFIC purpose of turning around and PRETENDING to have justification for stripping this department of a critically vital apolitical function and making it the political tool of Democrats instead. This was the only way to do it, because even a Democrat Secretary of Commerce is not capable of manipulating and falsifying results. He simply gets the work product of civil servants who do the census. He knew turning the census over to his political cronies, giving them authority in HOW it is to be carried out - will insure it can and WILL be manipulated for the best interests of the Democrat Party. For the next ten years. At the expense of the best interests of the nation.

    This is no small thing. The census will affect things from apportionment in the House to the amount of federal funds available to individual states. A fine time for a Democrat President to decide to put authority for the census results into the hands of his political cronies. No better way for Democrats to easily increase their political leverage and power while diverting more money and political power AWAY from those "bad" red states and steering it to heavily Democratic ones instead. No one should kid themselves here. The results WILL be manipulated so they best benefit Democrats. Or he wouldn't have done this in the first place. Now we all know the upcoming census is untrustworthy, meaningless bullshit that will be falsified and manipulated for the purpose of benefitting the Democrat Party -and they haven't even taken it yet.

    No one should be surprised that someone who came up through THE singlemost corrupt political machine in the entire nation and is the product of THE most corrupt political machine in the nation -also thinks dismantling the system of checks-and-balances intended to prevent the political corruption of our government in order to benefit his party and assign his political cronies to make sure it does -is a great idea. I wouldn't expect any higher ethical and moral standard from someone whose political career only exists at all thanks to the most corrupt political machine in the nation.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2

Share This Page