Martin--forget the 'MAY send' just send it! I know I may going out on a
limb here but for me the strongest argument that gets over looked in all
of this is that our country and public policy is built upon participles
of democracy. Embedded in those principles is the notion that public
policy is open to debate by both the "aristocrats" (senate) and the more
common folk (house of representatives). As the country evolved we have
extended the franchise to the general public and place a high regard on
having a participatory process. What all this means, is if we are
going to have a participatory process, there needs to be some base line
data to inform the debate that everyone will have. To do otherwise
means that only some can participate which flies in the face of where
our public policy has evolved. Forget budgets and logic it is a matter
of principles.
Catala, Martin wrote:
Dear Jonathan,
THANK YOU.
Well said, I may send verbatim to my member of congress.
Thank you for your thoughts…and passion.
Martin Catala
813-974-9791
catala(a)cutr.usf.edu
*From:* ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net
[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Lupton
*Sent:* Friday, May 17, 2013 3:36 PM
*To:* ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
*Subject:* [CTPP] The Case for ACS, the Economic Census, sampling and
Federal data-gathering
The loss of Census sampling (today the ACS), the Census of Agriculture,
the Economic Census, etc., would be disastrous in so many ways I find it
hard to believe anyone – even deeply partisan politicians – would
advocate their demise. The small gain to the Federal government’s bottom
line would be undercut by huge (albeit hidden) losses to the private and
public sectors. The loss would be especially acute for small businesses.
1. There can be no serious doubt that Federal sample products
leverage their cost many times over in benefits to the economy. The
benefits are so widespread, and so implicit, that the burden of proof
must lie on anyone attempting to undo Federal data-gathering. And they
will find no such proof.
2. The U.S. government has, in the past, set the world standard
for data-gathering. The widespread availability of free, accurate data
runs hand-in-hand with upholding the standard as the world’s foremost
democratic society. To surrender the ACS and related products is not
just a bad idea, it is a retreat from leadership.
3. Answering ACS forms, or any other Federal questionnaire, is a
matter of personal responsibility. To survive, democracy depends not
just on the protection of personal rights; it also demands a sense of
responsibility by its citizens.
4. I have never heard of anyone going to prison, or even being
fined, for failing to provide data to Census takers. Everyone knows that
there are people and businesses which refuse to cooperate; the practice
of non-compliance is already tolerated. But compliance is the law, and
this sets a tone of legality which allows the ACS and other projects to
gather the necessary data.
5. If the data business becomes mostly private in nature, the cost
of obtaining data will largely limit its availability to large
corporations that could afford to purchase it, creating another
disadvantage to small businesses and business start-ups.
6. Here in Little Rock we host one of the country’s largest
data-gathering agencies, the Acxiom Corporation. It’s an open secret
that Acxiom, and other companies like it, hold vast amounts of data
about just about everybody. While Census data is protected by
confidentiality laws, disturbingly intimate corporate data can be sold
to the highest bidder.
7. While the anti-census anti-government lobby argues
unconvincingly about government as “Big Brother,” there is therefore
another, less accountable version of “Big Brother,” existing in secret
corporate data-gathering. Such data could become the only basis for
information about our society. Without Federal laws, and Executive and
Congressional oversight, who could prevent this private data from being
falsified? Without the credibility of ACS and related programs as a
“cross-check,” false information could be fed into the system, and could
be manipulated by private power brokers.
8. Here in Little Rock we have a small spinoff company which has
used Acxiom data to attempt census-like products. Around 2009, they
privately gave me a total for the state’s largest county (Pulaski) that
disagreed with my careful estimates. They ended up being high by about 7
percent, compared with the Census 2010 count that appeared a few months
later. My own estimate, based on housing records, was within 1 or 2
percent. A corporate representative thought their figures were
inarguably correct; I thought their methods for counting people were
flawed. Guess who was right.
9. Data-gathering by the Census Bureau and related agencies isn’t
perfect, but it has oversight through the democratic process. I’ll trust
a process that’s been around since 1790 before I trust a private company
that answers first to shareholders.
It is my earnest hope that the effort to kill the ACS is so blatantly
foolish that it will never make it to a vote by the U.S. Congress or
Senate. I ask those who keep their ear to Congress to please keep the
data community well-informed about this disturbing development.
Jonathan Lupton AICP
Research Planner
Metroplan
Little Rock, Arkansas
501-372-3300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net
http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600
Matteson, IL 60443