Eurasia Review: The Problem With The Census – OpEd

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

By Ryan McMaken*

The Census Bureau has long known
more about my family history than my family does. For instance, it was
through old census forms that I discovered my grandmother changed her
name from “Paula” to “Pauline” at some time after 1930. This was news
even to her children. The 1930 census form also reported her place of
birth — Mexico — and her native language — Spanish. Her occupation is
listed as “cashier.”

Moreover, completed forms from both 1920 and 1930 show the census
taker apparently prodded the family for information on all household
members’ names, their citizenship status, year of immigration, and
ability to read and write. In 1930, the census taker would have been
instructed to to ask if the householder rented the family home, the
householder’s salary, and “marital condition.”

Looking at these forms, those who bring a skeptical mind to
government forms and government programs might wonder why the government
needs to know all this information.

Well, according to a great many politicians, lobbyists, and activists, it’s very important to know this information. But what exactly must be known depends on one’s political agenda.

Trump’s Citizenship Question

For example, the US Supreme Court Tuesday heard oral arguments as to whether or not the 2020 census will include a question about each resident’s citizenship status.

NRP reports
that the court is “split along ideological lines on whether a
citizenship question can be included on forms for the upcoming 2020
census.”

The basic narrative as to the ideological split is this: the Trump
administration has requested a new census question to help identify how
many non-citizens there are in the United States. And where they are.
(The questions on citizenship were abandoned after 1950).

In contrast, the ideological left vehemently opposes the inclusion of a citizenship question for two main reasons:

First, it is claimed that a citizenship question would cause many
immigrants to not fill out their census forms at all. Thus, the census
would become more inaccurate, and be less reliable as a source of statistical information.

Second, a more inaccurate count would impact public policy because the census data is used to distribute welfare-state funds. As the ACLU puts it:

The federal government will use 2020 Census data to
decide how to allocate $900 billion in funding for social service,
health, and education programs. This money goes to everything from Medicaid to school-lunch programs to veterans’ assistance.

If the citizenship question results in a sizable undercount, states
with large immigrant populations could lose funding for programs they
need.

A Rising Tide of Census Questions

The US census — which is one of only a handful of federal programs
written into the US constitution — justified the creation of the program
on the grounds it was needed for Congressional apportionment and
redistricting. To do this, the census need only collect information on
where people live, and how many of them there are. The very earliest
census forms don’t collect much information beyond the total number of
people, whether they are male or female, how old they are, and whether
or not they are slaves.

Yet, by the 1870 census, the government was asking questions about
birthplace and citizenship. Questions about occupation, literacy, and
disability began even before then. In 1860, it was apparently essential for the federal government to know if a person was “deaf and dumb, blind insane, idiotic, pauper, or convict.”

The fact that citizenship questions began is 1870 is significant.
Prior to the 1870s, it was widely believed that the regulation of
immigration was not a responsibility of the federal governments. Some state
governments — especially New York and Massachusetts — enacted
immigration restrictions in the mid nineteenth century. But both
Congress and the Supreme court balked at the idea of imposing federal
limits on migrants.

This changed with sweeping new federal immigration laws passed in 1882.

At roughly the same time, federal policymakers started instructing
the census takers to keep track of matters related to birthplace,
immigration, and citizenship.

As the role of government expanded even further, more questions were
added. These included questions on employment, housing, ethnic group,
and more.

In the 1920s, Herbert Hoover, who support expanding the
statistical-date role of the census bureau, became head of the U.S.
Commerce Department. According to a history of the census by Robert Jenkins,

[Hoover] encouraged the systematization of business and
economic statistics and their orientation toward use by business. Among
other activities, Hoover directed the Census Bureau to compile the
various series of business data and publish them as the monthly Survey of Current Business.

Not all of this information relies on the decennial census. But the
regular census remained the cornerstone of federal data collection.

The role of census data expanded even more with the New Deal. Jenkins continues:

The [New Deal] legislation established new programs in
many fields, including industry, agriculture, welfare, securities and
exchange, banking and home mortgages. Corresponding to this expansion of
government there developed a need fo rstatistical information to aid in
the administraiton of the recovery program.

In other words policymakers needed more and more statistical
information to justify new federal programs, and to claim that resources
were being distributed equitably and rationally.

Murray Rothbard said as much in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 1960:

[S]tatistics are desperately needed for any sort of
government planning of the economic system. In a free-market economy,
the individual business firm has little or no need of statistics. It
need only know its prices and costs. Costs are largely discovered
internally within the firm and are not the general data of the economy
which we usually refer to as “statistics.”

The “automatic” market, then, requires virtually no gathering of
statistics; government intervention, on the other hand, whether
piecemeal or fully socialist, could do literally nothing without
extensive ingathering of masses of statistics. Statistics are the
bureaucrat’s only form of economic knowledge, replacing the intuitive,
“qualitative” knowledge of the entrepreneur, guided only by the
quantitative profit-and-loss test. Accordingly, the drive for government
intervention, and the drive for more statistics, have gone
hand-in-hand. 

It is thus not surprising that opponents of the “citizenship question” oppose only the question on citizenship while also insisting that the census continue to collect myriads of other information.

This is unfortunate. After all, if the left is concerned about both
the integrity of the total resident count — and the possibility of
using citizenship information for anti-immigrant purposes — the solution
is simple: abolish most of the census questions in favor of getting as
accurate count as possible of the total number of residents. Given that
the constitutional mandate makes no mention of counting only citizens, this would make perfect sense.

The left, of course, finds this solution unacceptable because the
census exists for so much more than getting an accurate count of
residents. Nowadays, it’s there to help plan and justify the welfare
state. It’s there to argue for more free-lunch dollars in City X or
County Y. It’s there so ideologues can claim ethnic group A is
“underrepresented” in Congressional district B. (But, if Trump-style
ideologues get their way, they can use census data to argue
welfare dollars ought to go to cities where the poor are citizens rather
than fresh immigrants.)

Is the Data Any Good?

All of this, however, assumes the data is reliable. That’s not necessarily a great assumption.

Once a census taker gets beyond the simple questions of how many
people live in a household, things get iffy. As we go down the road of
asking people about their ethnicity, income, and living standards, we
have good reason to believe people fudge their responses. Or they get
confused. Many people, to this day, are unaware that “Hispanic” — as far
as the census is concerned — is not a racial designation.

Even the relatively simple census forms of old were prone to errors.
For example, on the 1920 census form, my grandmother is listed as a
“son” named “Paul.” No male family member named Paul ever existed in
that family. Who knows what other errors were recorded in other households?

Census takers themselves might also be biased as well as
incompetent. For example, in both the 1920 and 1930 census, for example,
my grandmother is listed as a resident alien. Yet, her children tell me
she always claimed to have been born in the United States. Was she
actually born in Mexico? Did she change her story after 1930? Or did the
census takers in those days just mark down every Mexican-looking person
with an accent as “born in Mexico.” We may never know.

And yet, aggregates of this sort of data are used to justify and plan
a nearly endless array of government programs, plans, and schemes. It’s
all done at our expense, and exists to favor certain interest groups.
Yes, the citizenship question should be eliminated — along with nearly
every other question as well.

*About the author: Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Source: This article was published by the MISES Institute

Eurasia Review


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •