The 11 Senate Republicans who voted for the $17 billion Porkulus II jobs bill

The tax breaks and projected jobs in the Senate jobs bill are illusory. The $17 billion package circumvents pay-go rules. But no matter. The Senate passed the Porkulus II today by 68-29 — with support from 11 Republicans.

Here’s the roll call vote:

The Republicans who sided with the endless spending-spree Democrats:

Alexander
Bond
Scott Brown
Burr
Cochran
Collins
Inhofe
LeMieux
Murkowski
Snowe
Voinovich

***

GOP Sen. Gregg wondered on the Senate floor before the vote:

Much of the bill is financed over the coming decade by cracking down on offshore tax havens, though it would add $13 billion to the debt in the coming three years.

“When are we going to stop spending money around here as if there’s no tomorrow?” said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. “Because pretty soon there’s going to be no tomorrow for our children as we add this debt to their backs.”

Tell it to your 11 GOP colleagues who supported more generational theft…

Obama is giddy:

President Barack Obama is thanking lawmakers — and Republicans especially — for their help sending him a jobs bill…He said he looked forward to bipartisan support on other measures in Congress.

JACK BAUER AND LADY GAGA: WHEN CULTURE PARODIES ITSELF

A little change of pace from me over at PJ Media today. Two pop culture icons — one falling, the other rising — demonstrate a capacity for mocking the culture that created them.
A sample; first, on Bauer:
The sense of duty is still there, but to what? All Bauer seems to have left is a personal [...]

Even In California, Incumbent Dems Are Vulnerable

Senator Barbara Boxer, a three-term California Democrat, is facing stiff competition in her re-election bid. In a state where Obama won with 61 percent of the vote, and where ObamaCare is favored more than nationally, and where Obama’s favorability numbers are greater than nationally, Boxer is in a fight for her political life.

Not only does she have three Republican hopefuls within striking range of her, with one deemed by Rasmussen in a virtual dead-heat, she also has to face the very likely possibility of a Democrat Primary challenge. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and businesswoman Carly Fiorina both trail Boxer by 46 to 40 margins, well within striking distance, while former Congressman Tom Campbell trails Boxer by a 43 to 41 margin (a virtual dead-heat). As Rasmussen states, and logic strongly suggests, any incumbent with poll numbers below 50 percent this close to an election is vulnerable. And Boxer polls below 50 percent against all three Republican hopefuls. Remember, this is in a state that voted 61 percent for Obama, has a stronger favorability for Obama than nationwide and has a stronger favorability for ObamaCare than nationwide. And yet, Boxer is vulnerable to all three Republican challengers.

But Boxer’s problems don’t stop at the Democrat/Republican divide. She has a challenger from within her own party in Mickey Kaus. Now, my reading of the Kaus Files suggests Kaus favors ObamaCare as does Boxer, but I did find some interesting reading, which could turn a few heads. Mickey Kaus is not necessarily as pro-union as many Democrats, but rather he favors personal responsibility more than some unions.

I know this item reads like it was written in 1984 (when Gary Hart made an issue of firing incompetent teachers in his campaign against Walter Mondale). That’s because the situation in the unionized public schools has not improved markedly in 25 years. Believe me, I wish the neoliberalism of the late ’70s weren’t so relevant. … The only hope in L.A. seems to be the non-trivial inroads made by independently-run charter schools. The union is staging a candlelight vigil tomorrow [pdf file] to try to stop their progress.

Other heads could possibly turn by this Kaus quote:

“I have no special beef with the incumbent,” Kaus said in his announcement. “She is a state-of-the-art Democrat. But to be state-of-the-art “in our party is not such a good thing anymore. State of the art” means the incumbent has learned to please the party’s interest groups, often at the expense of the needs of average individuals and the party’s own ideals.”

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/03/blogger-mickey.html#ixzz0iNnn71FL

Liberal Democrat Barbara Boxer has to fight off a Democrat challenger in a largely Democrat state and then face one of three Republican challengers, all of whom could defeat her. That is, if she doesn’t fall in the primary.

I think I need to buy more popcorn.
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor

Wreckonciliation Tweet of the Day; Update: Bobby Gibbs squirms; Capitol switchboard meltdown

From @johnthune2012, a perfect summation of the last year in the Age of Obama/Pelosi/Reid:

***

As noted below in comments by Dan, our Texas blogger friend Kathleen McKinley said it first last week: “We’ve Moved From Passing Bills Without Reading Them to Passing Bills Without Voting On Them.”

***

Related: Via Allahpundit, Bobby Gibbs discovers it’s not just the right-wing Tea Party mob raising objections to the Slaughter House:

***

Rush urges listeners to make their voices heard.

Capitol Hill switchboard melts down.

Left-wing cries of fascism in 3, 2, 1…

***

Once again: Who has seen the bill, neither you nor I…

PUSH IS COMING TO SHOVE FOR DEMOCRATS

They all sound so confident, don’t they? Gibbs says that this time next week, health care reform will be passed. Pelosi says she has the votes now (I call bullsh*t on that – as does Pelosi’s own whip Rep. Clyburn). Axelrod, who must have been drunk yesterday morning, dared the GOP to run in the [...]

Liberal Racism And Historical Revisionism

I have previously reported on liberal racism on several occasions, such as Let’s Talk About Racism, which is my personal experience facing racism, Liberals Are Racists, which is my personal experience on “Sadly, No!”, a brain-dead liberal blog which uses profanity and a lack of logic to push the left agenda, Democrat Civil Rights History, where I gave a long history of Democrats opposing the granting of civil rights to blacks. (I did not research that history. I copied it, with permission, from Black&Right.)

Remember this Democrat Party line:

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.

That is blatant revisionist history. That is a blatant lie. As the Democrat Civil Rights History article showed, Democrats have been on the front line, fighting against equal opportunity for all Americans. On the vast majority of civil rights issues, Democrats have been forefront in opposition, as history shows. Where Democrats have been in favor of civil rights for all, it has been on issues of personal choice and not issues of personal being.

And even in the realm of personal choice, Democrats are racist and exclusionary. This is very obvious. Try being a prominent black Conservative, or weaker, a prominent black Republican. According to a huge number of Democrats, especially in positions of power, those blacks are race-traitors. Hispanic Republicans and Conservatives are also race-traitors. My article showing my experience at “Sadly, No!” proved it, case closed. The person going by the moniker “Some NY Guy” very clearly said, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any non-whites who vote Republican are traitors to their race. And that is a clear example of racism and the exclusionary nature of “personal choice” that Democrats would love for you to ignore, while they claim to be the champions of the opposite.

But you needn’t go to the outrageously inflammatory and intellectually vacuous site “Sadly, No!” to see the inherent racism among Democrats and Liberals. You only need witness the left’s treatment of Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes, both staunch Conservatives, JC Watts, a Republican I believe to be a staunch Conservative, Condoleezza Rice, a hispanic woman who I believe is a Conservative and is most definitely a Republican, and Michael Steele, a wishy-washy Republican. Steele actually had oreos thrown at him! And, of course, Thomas is castigated by members of the left for doing the unthinkable: marrying a white woman. Talk about racism.

In many cases, today’s Liberals and Democrats are no less racist than those of yesteryear. And today’s Liberals and Democrats, many of them, focus on racism when anyone attempts to counter anything the current half-white President pushes. It is a major wedge issue those on the left use, while hoping most of the population never learns the truth. And the truth is Democrats and Liberals have been wedded to racism for over 150 years.

I have shown how today’s Liberals and Democrats are very much racist, calling any non-white “race traitors” and hurling insults and objects at non-white Conservatives and Republicans. I have given a link showing the very long history of Democrats fighting against equal treatment of blacks. I have given the quote showing the very blatant Democrat revisionist lie. Today’s “affirmative action,” which had its uses back in the day (remember your history regarding Democrats and Liberals), is another example of racism. If you’re a member of the “wrong race,” you get extra points on your test scores for college placement and job placement. That means, if you’re a member of the “wrong race,” you’re too dumb and unqualified to get the job without special assistance. What could be more underhandedly racist than that?

But there are those of the left who always try to shift the goalposts. They don’t want to talk about the history they lied about. They don’t want to talk about current events they lie about. They want to bring up another subject, which they also lie about. And here’s the current revisionist Big Lie: Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans. That’s right, somewhere along the lines, everyone switched sides. And, amazingly, many people who actually hear about the history of Republicans and Democrats actually buy that lie.

I got this comment from my Democrat Civil Rights History article:

[T]hose whom you quoted as white southern democrats now affiliate themselves with the republican party. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

If you disagree there are plenty of places to start at wiki. And if you disagree with wiki, pickup a high school American History textbook. It’s all spelled out in history’s narrative.

Now the full comment was an attack-and-condescension-filled comment, as if I didn’t know anything about anything. But there was another comment I recently read on a different topic by a different commenter whose chosen moniker is unfit to be used on my site.

The real Constition, JH, not the one the Texas Textbook Taliban fantasizes about when they rewrite history.

So it’s obvious the left wants to focus on history books, but only the history books the left writes. Without revisionist history or total ignorance, the left loses. And, unfortunately, many Americans do not know their own history, nor do they care about history at all. Let’s take this idea that Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans, as that commenter on my site suggested (along with a large number of leftists). When did this happen? Before or after the Democrats fought every effort to make blacks equal to whites (where they dishonorably claim to the uninformed they fought for every effort to make blacks equal to whites)? Apparently, they choose to suggest to the moderately informed that the change occurred during the Dixiecrat days. Or they suggest the “everybody switch sides” event occurred at the famous “Democrat” civil rights victory of 1964. This is merely a furtherance of lies and revisionism.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, over which a Democrat President presided, was made possible by Republicans in spite of, rather in cooperation with, Democrats. Yes, Democrats were the major blockage. The true history shows:

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

Mackubin T Owens provides more insight into the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.

So, obviously, the purported 1964 Democrat victory was actually a Republican victory in furtherance of black rights, despite revisionist leftists’ claims. So the sudden “let’s switch parties” game happened after 1964. After the then-102-year history of Republicans supporting equal rights for all races and both genders and Democrats fighting against civil rights for some races and females, everybody switched sides. Think about that. Is there any logic in that at all?

But leftists like to claim that southerners quit being Democrats and became Dixiecrats and then became Republicans, which made the entire change for both parties. Nevermind that the Dixiecrats were very much regionalized to the former slave states. Nevermind that the Dixiecrats reached their zenith in 1968, where they won 4 states and garnered less than 10 percent of the overall vote during the Presidential general election, where the Republican garnered nearly 56 percent of the overall vote. Forget about the fact Robert Byrd filibustered the bill for 14 hours all by himself. Forget about the fact Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr (recognize the names?) both voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Forget about the 21 Democrat Senators voted against the bill, which would, at the very minimum, equal 10.5 states while the Dixicrats won only 4 in 1968. Ignore all those facts.

According to Democrats, when talking to people who actually know a thing or two about history, everyone switched sides between 1964 and the Reagan Revolution of 1980. The goalpost-shifting left, when talking to people who actually know history, ignore their lies about the longitudinal racist nature of the left and push lies about short-term history and push the totally unbelievable concept that everyone switched sides over a brief 16-year span. They claim a large group of Democrats became Dixiecrats and then all the Dixiecrats became Republicans, when the facts show the vast majority of Dixiecrats returned to the Democrat Party.

The left hopes you don’t know your history at all. And when the left finds out you do actually know history, they try to revise recent history in absurd ways without even so much as a mea culpa about longitudinal history. All the while, the left continues its racist agenda, overt and covert alike.
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor

A SHORT, PUNGENT POST ON MEDIA BIAS

I write a lot less about media “bias” these days because I’ve come to the conclusion that the topic is overblown.
What some see as bias, I think it more appropriate to chalk up to laziness or even ignorance. That, and the narrow perspective that many reporters bring to their job makes what might be construed [...]

WHAT’S THE BEEF? THE SLAUGHTER RULE IS JUST A LITTLE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Here we go again, conservatives blowing something way, way out of proportion that when smart people think about it, doesn’t deserve all this hand wringing and angst-ridden diatribes on the right. When are conservatives ever going to learn that all this talk about the Constitution is just a distraction? What everyone should be looking at [...]

Pink Floyd – The Wall

Pink Floyd – The Wall

When the album first came out, I was rather indifferent to the whole enterprise. While some of the songs were good, it basically came off as the self-indulgent whining of a multi-millionaire rock star blathering on about how tough his life was. I was working as a busboy at the time, and my attitude was pretty much Boo effin’ hoo, cry me a river already! 

Well, I just bought the film version on DVD, and talk about a 180 degree change of opinion! This movie is, in a word, awesome. Rarely has a piece of music been better suited to be set to a video format. All of the stuff Roger Waters was singing about becomes crystal clear as we see “Pink” (played masterfully by fellow musician Bob Geldof) go down the rabbit hole of self-loathing and madness. The scenes are all powerful, but none more so than the one in which Pink completely loses his marbles as he leads his fanatical fans in a Neo-Nazi style rally as the song “In The Flesh” blasts at full volume.

Pink apparently does not like women, or at least feels he has been mistreated by them as he cowers in fear of first his mother and then his ex-wife, shown in cartoon version as a venomous insect like creature. And later he rails against rampant consumerism ad he starts building his Wall while pictures of Mercedes Benzes and Cadillacs flash on the screen.

Anyway, this movie is first rate, defintely a buy, not just rent, DVD.  

HOWELL RAINS AND JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS

In many ways, I agree and sympathize with Howell Rains who bemoans the loss of journalistic integrity in this Washington Post op-ed. What is truly unfortunate – and a little bizarre – is that Rains only sees a lowering of standards at Fox News.
Is he trying to be funny? Or just very selective in his [...]

Virginia Rejects ObamaCare

HT Rush Limbaugh

From The Washington Post via Smart Brief comes this good news:

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia’s General Assembly became the first in the nation Wednesday to approve legislation that bucks any attempt by President Barack Obama and Congress to implement a national health care overhaul in individual states.

The Republican-ruled House of Delegates, with wide Democratic support, voted 80-17 without debate for the largely symbolic step aimed at the Democratic-backed reforms pushed by Obama and stalled in Congress. The vote sends the measure to Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell who intends to sign it.

Thirty-four other state legislatures have either filed or proposed similar measures – statutes or constitutional amendments – rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

(snip)

More distressing for Virginia Democrats was that 21 of their 39 delegates in the 100-member House sided with the GOP in defying the initiative that is their party’s national priority.

This will likely get tied up in courts for some time should ObamaCare pass, but Virginia (and the other 34 states) cannot be good news for ObamaCare supporters. It is definitely good news for freedom fighters.
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor

THE ‘ANYTHING GOES’ HOUSE

Just when you think you’ve seen just about everything in politics, one party or the other bites you in the ass to let you know that authoritarian tactics fit easily and comfortably over the democratic template laid down by the Founders.
It really is seamless at times. Witness the Tom DeLay move to keep the vote [...]

Eric Massa Flames Out

Everyone who is paying attention to politics knows about Eric Massa by now. And, everyone who pays attention to politics also likely knew Massa would be spending an hour on Glenn Beck’s TV show. Even in the UK, they know about Massa and about the interview. At the end of the program, Beck apologized for what he deemed was a first-time event for his TV program: wasting “an hour of your time.” And The Guardian appears to agree.

Glenn Beck’s Massa attack

Maybe it takes one to know one, but Glenn Beck wasn’t buying any of Eric Massa’s stream of gibberish last night

As a rule: an interview where Glenn Beck comes out as the sane and rational one means you’re doing it wrong.

While I will not agree with The Guardian’s position that Beck comes across as insane or irrational, it is worth noting that The Guardian considered Massa as the more insane or irrational of the two.

Earlier I asked a question and answered it myself. “So, did he leave the leftist reservation? You bet he did.” I have to retract that. Massa did not leave the leftist reservation. He was further left than what was being voted on and he voted “no” because it wasn’t far enough left. It is still possible he left the Obama reservation. And it is still possible he is being Alinskyed due to that.

At a time when Democrats rule the roost, things that Massa are alleged to have done get swept under the rug so long as the Democrat votes right. Witness Rangel, Dodd, Frank, “cold cash” Jefferson (who “got it” from a non-political justice system), etc, ad infinitum. And the speed at which Massa’s alleged impecadillos have been used against him, considering he is a Democrat, is very interesting to say the least.

I have decided Massa is, indeed, a scuzzball along the lines of Rangel, Dodd, Frank, “cold cash” Jefferson, et al. But, since he didn’t play along with the other scuzzballs, he got outed. And, like Dana, I have little use for him. Massa ducked, dodged, dived his way through an hour-long interview where he had every opportunity to set all sorts of records straight. He tried the tactic of “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” and failed. He groped someone but it wasn’t sexual? Are you kidding me?

Since this Massa kerfuffle broke out, I have learned more information about Massa. Back in 2007, Massa was one of the crowd of Democrats demonizing Rush Limbaugh for calling certain people “fake soldiers.”

That long video advertisement was chock full of lies and Democrat talking points and inflammatory rhetoric. Concerning Limbaugh’s “fake soldier” statement, someone went to jail. It wasn’t Limbaugh. It was the fake soldier.

Lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, Jesse MacBeth, who was the phony soldier that I called a phony soldier. Jesse MacBeth, back in September 2007: “Man who posed as military hero sentenced to five months in prison.” This is from the Seattle Times. He was a phony soldier. I was dead right about everything I said. And now the media, in trying to lump me with Eric Massa… I mean, what are they actually trying to do here? They’re actually trying to chide me for believing something a Democrat says? Are we not supposed to believe Democrats? So I’m now associated with this kook? What is their headline here? “Massa New Conservative Media Hero?” Here’s the bottom line: I’ve done more for Eric Massa — I’ve done more to illustrate that this guy is a lunatic fringe kook in the last ten minutes — than he’s been able to do himself his entire life.

Here is that Seattle Times article. It’s a short article. And one line, among all the other highly damaging lines, stands out to me. “MacBeth spent 44 days as a private at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2003, but was released ‘for issues related to entry-level performance and conduct,’ according to court papers.” Now Massa and all the other Democrats swept that little issue under the rug, as is SOP. No need for truth when there is a dishonorable agenda to further.

I reported on another out-and-out lie the Democrats used to further their agenda and then swept under the rug when Patterico brought the truth out for the public to see. Sheila Jackson Lee planted a fake doctor, who was an Obama delegate, in her Town Hall meeting to spread a lie in furtherance of ObamaCare. But the Democrats are not distancing themselves, and have never distanced themselves as far as I know, from the Houston Democrat’s dishonorable staging of abject falsehoods in furtherance of the Democrat goals.

Massa further claimed the unions were telling him if he didn’t vote the way they wanted him to vote, they’d cease giving him campaign money and asked the rhetorical “isn’t that bribery”. I, at first, considered that to be highly likely. But I have since changed my mind. That’s what people do with their campaign contributions. They send the money to politicians who support their agenda and cut politicians off when they don’t support their agenda. That’s politics. And, that’s First Amendment free speech rights. People send money to politicians to help the politicians further speak out on issues the people want pushed. Campaign money is speech.

Massa’s problem isn’t that he’s a known entity; it’s that he forgot what the team rules were. Massa is a far-left scam artist who uses lies to further his agenda and tries to redefine “is” to escape the results of his actions. Even when he accepts responsibility for his actions, he redefines his actions to avoid that responsibility. But that is nothing new. We had a recent Democrat President convicted of suborning perjury who did the exact same thing. Massa’s problem, as I see it, is that he’s so far around the bend that he forgot to play ball with his own team. And his own team is well-known for cannibalizing their own to further their agenda.

That’s Massa’s problem. I believe it was Glenn Beck who stated my position on Massa’s value before I got more information. Massa could be described not as a quality individual whose words are unassailable but rather as a member of the “mob” who turns State’s evidence. He’s a low-life who can be used to sink other low-lifes. But, on further review, he’s really not even worth that.
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor

8 EXAGGERATIONS AND MYTHS PUSHED BY CONSERVATIVES ABOUT OBAMA

It is difficult to be on the outside looking in when it comes to the exercise of power. For 8 years, it caused hysterical derangement on a very large slice of the left who tried to promote the idea that George Bush was a fascist, or a theocrat intent on establishing an authoritarian “regime” – [...]

Adam Kokesh: An anti-war smear merchant in “Republican” clothing

Before there was a nationwide, grass-roots Tea Party movement, there was another nationwide, grass-roots movement that brought thousands of Americans to Washington, D.C. They called themselves the “Gathering of Eagles.” I covered two massive, GoE rallies against the Soros-funded, anti-war Left in March 2007 and September 2007. GOE activists continue to expose the transnational progressives, anti-military bullies, and phonies who operate under the “peace” banner.

One of the groups that GOE dogged was Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) — whose members have included bomb-threat bullies and death-threat nutballs who threatened to assassinate me, fake Army vet Jesse MacBeth, and another prominent member who smeared the Young America’s Foundation by faking an anti-Muslim hate flyer and smeared David Horowitz with similar race-card playing flyers, then weaseled out of the attacks by claiming they were “satire.”

The last two incidents involved an IVAW member named Adam Kokesh. He marched in uniform in mock patrols for the anti-war movement, paraded around holding an upside-down American flag (see Jonn Lilyea for more), was arrested for defacing signs, and traveled to Germany to urge soldiers to abandon their posts and seek aid and comfort with his anti-war minions.

Kokesh, believe it or not, is now running as a Republican candidate for Congress in New Mexico. And, believe it or not, he is getting positive exposure on at least one Fox News show. He has the backing of Ron Paul, the Republican Liberty Caucus, and the 9/12 Project.

The New Mexico Republican Party has its head in the sand. If you have friends and family in New Mexico, make sure they know who the real Adam Kokesh is.

He is an anti-war smear merchant in GOP clothing. Spread the word.

The “pre-Census” letter: Your tax dollars hard at work

Got home this afternoon, checked the mail, and what did I see? A letter from the Census Bureau informing me that … I’d be receiving the Census in about a week, along with a note that it was important that I fill it out.

Are you kidding me?

A friend of mine Tweeted last night that she got the letter. In fact, according to the CB itself, approximately 120,000,000 US residents will receive the same letter:

Early Notification Increases Awareness That Census Forms Will Arrive Soon

The U.S. Census Bureau today began mailing advance letters to about 120 million addresses nationwide, notifying households that 2010 Census forms will be arriving March 15-17. The one-page letter urges households to complete the 10-question census form when it arrives and to return it in the accompanying prepaid envelope as soon as possible.

“The advance letter helps people know that their 2010 Census form will be arriving soon,” said Census Bureau Director Robert M. Groves. “It’s an important reminder about the impact the census has on our communities, that the census is important and that everyone needs to participate.”

Census Bureau research shows that reaching out to respondents with an advance letter and reminder postcard if necessary can boost census mail-back rates and save money. For every 1 percent increase in households that respond by mail, taxpayers save about $85 million in operational costs associated with census takers going door to door to follow up with households that did not mail back the form.

The more than 120 million households that receive both the advance letter and 2010 Census form by mail represent about 90 percent of all residential addresses in the country. Census workers last week started hand-delivering census forms to another 9 percent of addresses in areas where many households lack traditional city-style postal addresses. Hand-delivery of 2010 Census forms is also occurring along hurricane-affected areas of the Gulf Coast. Less than 1 percent of households are in areas where it’s more efficient for census takers to conduct census interviews rather than drop-off and require mail-back of the form.

The advance letter includes messaging in five languages other than English (Spanish, Chinese [simplified], Korean, Vietnamese and Russian) directing people to visit the 2010 Web site for in-language assistance. For the first time in U.S. census history, the Census Bureau is sending a bilingual advance letter and form to more than 13 million households in areas where Spanish is predominantly spoken at home.

The text of the advance letter is as follows:

Dear Resident:

About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly. Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely, Robert M. Groves
Director, U.S. Census Bureau

Go to < 2010census.gov> for help completing your 2010 Census form when it arrives. [Note: this sentence is repeated in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian]

Turns out, a lot of people are questioning why the “pre-Census” letters were sent out. The WaPo’s “Behind the Numbers” blog tries to get to the bottom of it all:

As “Census Day” approaches, the U.S. Census Bureau has come under fire for some of its edgier attempts to encourage people to respond to its mailings, and now, some have begun to take umbrage with standard technique – the advance letter.

On National Review’s The Corner, John J. Miller questions the mailing itself while Bill S. on RedState writes, “I’m having a difficult time deciding if this letter is: 1. Supposed to be helpful or informative in some way. 2. A joke. 3. Some sort of Obama stimulus plan for the postal workers. 4. My imagination.”

But to those in the survey research world, including the Census Bureau’s new director, Robert M. Groves, the letters are standard operating procedure. The bulk of the research on the topic finds that advance letters explaining the purpose and benefits of survey research improve response rates.

For an effort like the Census, which attempts to contact more than a hundred million households, the educated bet is that the cost of postage and printing for the preliminary letters saves subsequent future outlays in sending Census workers to follow-up with those who don’t return the questionnaires.

The Bureau’s announcement of the letters puts a dollar amount on response rates, “Census Bureau research shows that reaching out to respondents with an advance letter and reminder postcard if necessary can boost census mail-back rates and save money. For every 1 percent increase in households that respond by mail, taxpayers save about $85 million in operational costs associated with census takers going door to door to follow up with households that did not mail back the form.”

ROTFLMAO. And the Census workers must “follow up” with those households that didn’t take time to fill out the form why, exactly? Why not save that $85 mil to begin with and not have the Census workers going door to door in the first place? I know – what a radical suggestion! Why radical? Because less people returning their Census forms to the USG means the they won’t know as much about how to “properly” and “fairly” “spread the wealth” – and we know that’s most definitely not how the BarryO administration operates. As John Fund wrote last February:

President Obama said in his inaugural address that he planned to “restore science to its rightful place” in government. That’s a worthy goal. But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn’t think it would mean having the director of next year’s Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary. “There’s only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement,” a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. “And it’s called politics, not science.”

The decision was made last week after California Rep. Barbara Lee, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Hispanic groups complained to the White House that Judd Gregg, the Republican senator from New Hampshire slated to head Commerce, couldn’t be trusted to conduct a complete Census. The National Association of Latino Officials said it had “serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 Census produces the most accurate possible count.”

Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses the Census to prepare the economic data that so much of business relies upon. “If the original numbers aren’t as hard as possible, the uses they’re put to get fuzzier and fuzzier,” says Bruce Chapman, who was director of the Census in the 1980s.

Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.

Such a move would prove controversial. “Sampling potentially has the kind of margin of error an opinion poll has and the same subjectivity a voter-intent standard in a recount has,” says Mr. Chapman.

[...]

The larger debate prompted seven former Census directors — serving every president from Nixon to George W. Bush — to sign a letter last year supporting a bill to turn the Census Bureau into an independent agency after the 2010 Census. “It is vitally important that the American public have confidence that the census results have been produced by an independent, non-partisan, apolitical, and scientific Census Bureau,” it read.

The directors also noted that “each of us experienced times when we could have made much more timely and thorough responses to Congressional requests and oversight if we had dealt directly with Congress.” The bill’s chief sponsor is New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who represents Manhattan’s Upper East Side.

“The real issue is who directs the Census, the pros or the pols,” says Mr. Chapman. “You would think an administration that’s thumping its chest about respecting science would show a little respect for scientists in the statistical field.” He worries that a Census director reporting to a hyperpartisan such as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel increases the chances of a presidential order that would override the consensus of statisticians.

The Obama administration is downplaying how closely the White House will oversee the Census Bureau. But Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insists there is “historical precedent” for the Census director to be “working closely with the White House.”

Uh huh.

As to the cost of the mailings, Minnesota Public Radio’s Bob Collins did the math and came up with these numbers:

There were 105,480,101 households in 2000. At 500 sheets of paper per ream, that’s 210,960 reams of paper for the letter. It’s cheap paper, though. At $40 a case, Office Max has the cheapest price I could find online, so that’s $843,000 for the paper.

Five-hundred envelopes go for $30. That’s another $6.3 million (I’m rounding up and down here; it’s the government afterall).

Finally, there’s the cost of mailing. It’s presorted first-class mail. According to the U.S. Postal Service Web site, pre-sorted mail costs .335, although a standard rate letter could be sent for 17 cents. But this was first-class. Total: $35,335,833.83.

Total: $42.5 million (although I remain somewhat skeptical about the postage) to send you a letter to tell you you’re going to get another letter next week. Oh, and sending a postcard would’ve been $15.8 million cheaper.

The average person pays $13,000 in federal taxes per year. So it took the annual federal taxes of nearly 327 taxpayers to send you the letter.

To borrow a line from Collins, sending out advance letters notifying you that you will soon be receiving the Census is an idea that just doesn’t make census. That is, unless you’re a career bureaucrat/”healer” who enjoys seeing government grow and grow and grow and …