Personally, I’m beyond excited to get my Census packet in the mail. In fact, the other day, when I got a reminder that the Census would be coming in a week, I was disappointed that it wasn’t the actual Census. But I understand I’m probably the odd one out on this one, so for those or you who are wondering why this is such a big deal, read on:

The U.S. Census and why you should care

This year’s U.S. Census is one of the shortest in history and will begin arriving in mailboxes today. It’s 10 questions that shouldn’t take much longer than 10 minutes to complete. Some of the questions are less invasive than ones you’d answer while shopping online. Yet the Census Bureau is expecting only two thirds of U.S. households to return the forms. Why do people make such a fuss over completing something that is required by the Constitution to take place every 10 years? And why has the Census Bureau spent $133 million on a media campaign to increase public awareness of the once-a-decade population count?

Because the answers to these 10 questions help the government produce data used to determine the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives. Not to mention, $400 billion of federal funding is on the line. The Census data helps communities receive this federal funding for hospitals, job training centers, schools, senior centers, bridges, tunnels and emergency services, according to 2010.census.gov.

About 72 percent of U.S. households returned their forms in 2000, according to a March 15 Associated Press story. The states expected to be hardest hit by the 2010 Census are Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and North Carolina because of the low participation in the 2000 Census, and because “these states have larger-than-average shares of Hispanics and young adults, which are hard-to-count demographics,” according to the Census Bureau.

For the first time, the Bureau is mailing out bilingual English-Spanish census forms to 13 million households.

U.S. residents will receive a postage-paid envelope along with their Census form to return the form to the bureau. If residents fail to complete and return the form, they may receive a follow-up visit from a census taker, which costs the government an estimated $1.5 billion, according to the AP story.

“If the American public comes through in the way everyone is capable of, we’ll have a great census,” Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said.

For residents who fear the Census for privacy reasons, the government site explains that it is against the law to disclose or publish names, addresses including GPS coordinates, Social Security numbers and telephone numbers. Also, “all Census Bureau employees take the oath on nondisclosure (see below) and are sworn for life to protect the confidentiality of the data,” according to the government site.

Census Oath of Non-Dislcosure (from 2010.census.gov)

When hired to work for the Census Bureau, employees must sign a Sworn Affidavit of Nondisclosure.

This obligates those hired to accept the responsibility of keeping all Title 13 data confidential. This constitutes a lifetime obligation, continuing even if you are no longer affiliated with the Census Bureau.

“I will not disclose any information contained in the schedules, lists, or statements obtained for or prepared by the Census Bureau to any person or persons either during or after employment.”

Under federal law, the penalty for unlawful disclosure is a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

Here’s a preview of all the questions you’ll find on your 2010 Census form (2010.census.gov provides this list along with the Bureau’s reasons for each question):

1.  How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?

2.  Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?

3.  Is this house, apartment, or mobile home: owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, occupied without rent?

4.  What is your telephone number?

5.  Please provide information for each person living here. Start with a person here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or mobile home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here. This will be Person 1. What is Person 1’s name?

6.  What is Person 1’s sex?

7.  What is Person 1’s age and Date of Birth?

8.  Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

9.  What is Person 1’s race?

10.  Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else?

Here is a Chicago Tribune Q and A regarding the Census:

Who gets it? 120 million households

When? Beginning this week

How long? 10 questions, including number of residents, type of housing, race, ethnicity, gender and date of birth

Deadline? If not returned by mid-April, a census taker will come to your door.

Who gets the data? Only the Census Bureau. Federal law prohibits sharing the data with other agencies.

Why does it matter? The data will be used to adjust legislative boundaries and allocate billions in federal funds.

What if you leave an answer blank? The Census Bureau will call to follow up, but the remaining answers will be tabulated.

What if you knowingly provide a false answer? It’s a crime. The penalty is up to $500.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/the-problem-solver/2010/03/the-us-census-and-why-you-should-care.html

Russ Feingold, a UW-Madison graduate, has been named one of the smartest US Senators. Check it out!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/smartest-us-senators-phot_n_498787.html#s73849

I can’t believe they’re allowed to do this!! This is why we need education reform. From Huffingtion Post:

Texas Textbook MASSACRE: ‘Ultraconservatives Approve Radical Changes To State Education Curriculum

AUSTIN, Texas – A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.

Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation’s Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state. Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a “constitutional republic,” rather than “democratic,” and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

“We have been about conservatism versus liberalism,” said Democrat Mavis Knight of Dallas, explaining her vote against the standards. “We have manipulated strands to insert what we want it to be in the document, regardless as to whether or not it’s appropriate.”

Following three days of impassioned and acrimonious debate, the board gave preliminary approval to the new standards with a 10-5 party line vote. A final vote is expected in May, after a public comment period that could produce additional amendments and arguments.
Decisions by the board — made up of lawyers, a dentist and a weekly newspaper publisher among others — can affect textbook content nationwide because Texas is one of publishers’ biggest clients.

Ultraconservatives wielded their power over hundreds of subjects this week, introducing and rejecting amendments on everything from the civil rights movement to global politics. Hostilities flared and prompted a walkout Thursday by one of the board’s most prominent Democrats, Mary Helen Berlanga of Corpus Christi, who accused her colleagues of “whitewashing” curriculum standards.

By late Thursday night, three other Democrats seemed to sense their futility and left, leaving Republicans to easily push through amendments heralding “American exceptionalism” and the U.S. free enterprise system, suggesting it thrives best absent excessive government intervention.

“Some board members themselves acknowledged this morning that the process for revising curriculum standards in Texas is seriously broken, with politics and personal agendas dominating just about every decision,” said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for religious freedom.

Republican Terri Leo, a member of the powerful Christian conservative voting bloc, called the standards “world class” and “exceptional.”

Board members argued about the classification of historic periods (still B.C. and A.D., rather than B.C.E. and C.E.); whether students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will).

In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.
Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement.

Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students “explain how institutional racism is evident in American society.”

Democrats did score a victory by deleting a portion of an amendment by Republican Don McLeroy suggesting that the civil rights movement led to “unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes.”

Fort Worth Republican Pat Hardy, a longtime teacher, voted for the new standards, but said she wished the board could work with a more cooperative spirit.

“What we’ve done is we’ve taken a document that by nature is too long to begin with and then we’ve lengthened it some more,” Hardy said, shortly after the vote. “Those long lists of names that we’ve put in there … it’s just too long.

“I just think we failed to keep that in mind, it’s hard for teachers to get through it all.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/texas-textbook-massacre-u_n_498003.html

From WKOW 3/12/2010:

Democrats look to resurrect college aid plan

Posted: Mar 12, 2010 4:44 PM. Updated: Mar 13, 2010 2:44 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) – Congressional Democrats want a stalled overhaul of college aid programs to get strapped onto a fast-track health care bill, giving both Obama administration priorities a better chance of passage.

The student loan measure would be the biggest change in college assistance programs since Congress created them in the 1960s. The bill would end federal subsidies to private lenders and have the government originate all loans to needy students.

Democrats in the House and Senate were working to incorporate the legislation, which passed the House last September but bogged down in the Senate, into a single, expedited budget bill that could pass in the Senate with a simple majority.

After a presidency marked by stalemate, the strategy would give President Barack Obama the best opportunity to achieve simultaneous victories on two of his top priorities in a single, swift act of Congress.

Consolidating the college aid package with health care would create a double sweetener for Democrats. It would make it easier to pass the college aid plan in the Senate, where it seemed unable to muster 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles. And it would give House Democrats a popular incentive to ease their anxieties over voting for health care changes.

The health care bill “is a controversial, difficult bill for a lot of people,” said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J. “The more things that you can go home and say were in the bill that are sort of universally popular, yeah, it helps.”

Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said lawmakers had an opportunity for a “twin victory” by joining the student loan measure to the health care package.

And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the budget package, known as a “reconciliation bill,” would be a means to pass the student aid plan. “This is an important reform for the president,” he said.

To ease the way for the far-reaching health care legislation, Democrats have had to resort to a fast-track process.The House would pass an already approved Senate version of the bill, then use a separate measure to make changes more to their liking. Under the special process, Senate Democrats could approve that second “fix-it” bill with a simple majority.

Momentum for linking the health and college aid measures increased Thursday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that any budget package that made budgetary fixes to health care would also have to include adjustments to legislation under the jurisdiction of Harkin’s committee.

By ending subsidies to banks and other private lenders, the original House bill would have saved $87 billion between 2010 and 2019, with the money used to provide needy students with Pell Grants. But colleges have been shifting to more direct government lending, already reducing the subsidies paid by the government to private lenders. As a result, the savings for 2011-2020 are now estimated at $67 billion.

At the same time, a spike in higher education enrollment caused by the bleak job market has created a massive shortfall in the Pell Grant program.

The student loan plan also would pay for construction at K-12 schools and for new preschool programs.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., said the student loan measure would have to undergo adjustments to address the new, smaller savings picture, likely reducing the size of the grants and other spending. He said Democrats would also address the Pell Grant red ink.

The bill initially envisioned using the subsidy savings to increase the maximum Pell Grant by $1,400 to $6,900 over the next decade. That number would have to be adjusted.

Adding the student loan measure in the Senate could cost Democrats a vote or two, but with the party controlling 59 votes, it can afford some erosion. Even a 50-50 split in the Senate would spell success for Democrats because Vice PresidentJoe Biden would cast the tie-breaking vote.

Republicans broadly oppose both the student loan measure and the attempts to link it to the health care package.

“I’m not sure the public thinks this current debate is about that issue,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “And it would show again the lengths to which they were willing to go to have the government expand its tentacles into absolutely everything.”

___

Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo contributed to this report.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

View article here.

From the Daily Cardinal 3/10/2010:

Walker trying to put state under his small gov’t spell

The conservative mantra of “small government” is not feasible in this economy.

By Jamie Stark

Published: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Updated: Friday, March 12, 2010

Eloquence in print isn’t too hard. It’s a medium that, through the magic and archaic technology of Gutenberg, allows me to spend hours debating between using “brutish” or “bestial” before anyone ever reads my words. After being quoted in our university’s other newspaper, I was reminded that I’m not quite as eloquent live. I must admit I sounded like Sarah Palin.

In my quote, I was discussing government and generalizing between gubernatorial candidates Tom Barrett and Scott Walker. I meant what I said about small government—it’s nice. In trying to begin a non-profit, I’ve experienced how detrimental government red tape can be to the implementation of anything new or positive. I’m the number one fan of efficient, lean government.

However, I hesitate to embrace the conservative talking point that government should be run like a company, a sentiment Walker proselytizes. Most companies are not consistently trying to fire employees and reduce production in the way many pro-privatization conservatives, such as Walker, try to run our government. Constant growth is the definition of a successful business. In many respects, government should not be acting like a company by expanding for the sake of expansion. If we truly believe that our government is composed of “the people,” we must realize profit margins are not the only concern of our body politic. Walker took this to extremes when he spoke out against high speed rail funding for a line from Madison to Milwaukee because of operation costs once built. Tom Barrett has compared that to Wisconsin rejecting interstate money in the 1950s unless the federal government agreed to plow the highways.

The current recession should teach us to live better and govern leanly, and many Americans have been tightening belts and living more frugally. Vacations became staycations. Unemployment is a reality, not a statistic, for the middle class. Hell, Hummer is shutting down.

The economy will improve and the job market will bounce back from its presently gloomy state. But to prevent the return of foolish practices like spiraling consumer debts and the overextension of loans, we should be absorbing lessons from our recent frugal tendencies.

During times of economic downturn, the poorest are hit hardest and first. There must be certain government safeguards in place, not just for the cyclically poor, but also for citizens of the lower middle class who can swiftly plummet into poverty as a result of sudden illness or job loss. Wisconsin insurance programs like BadgerCare provide a safeguard for many children and women. Although former Republican governor Tommy Thompson began the idea of BadgerCare, we can’t afford to have the conservative bastion Walker oversee such a program.

Even under Jim Doyle, enrollment in BadgerCare has been frozen. From public transportation to county union jobs, Walker has worked to privatize everything in his sights in Milwaukee County. He seems bent on privatizing himself right out of a job if elected governor. It’s easy to imagine Gov. Walker selling the Capitol.

Wisconsin lost 130,000 jobs last year. Our unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent, nearly the national average. Actions by Walker, like his recent firing of 76 county employees, throw his promises of job creation into scrutiny. Adding workers to the unemployment line after promising to create 250,000 jobs seems politically dangerous at best.

Walker’s blatant message of “government bad, lower taxes” is brutish and impractical. I disagree with many Democrats bashing Walker for his goal of 250,000 new jobs within four years if he is elected governor—attacking political opponents for worthy, optimistic goals does not make us look good. But the sentiment is understood. The Walker campaign does not seem well planned and instead seems content to parrot basic conservative principles. It is meant to attract tea partiers and conservatives before the Republican primary in September. Aside from the upcoming primary, there is little reason for the lack of a broader campaign on Walker’s part. He has been campaigning since his failed primary bid in 2006 and had an early head start in the 2010 race against Barrett. The only explanation may be that he truly believes in an uncompromising march toward the privatization of everything once deemed communal.

Luckily for liberals, this race is not about the lesser of two evils. Democrats love Barrett, and rightly so. He garnered statewide supporters as early as 2002 with his first gubernatorial run and is beloved by Wisconsin’s largest city, where he served five terms as a congressman and two as mayor. In 2008, Barrett was re-elected as mayor of Milwaukee with 79 percent of the vote.

Soon enough, the whole state will learn to like nice-guy Barrett. His Sunday “Ask Tom” live web chat was a good step in that direction. For a politician, he is remarkably genuine and compassionate, well-informed and has experience running a big city in rough shape.

Of late, Republicans have portrayed themselves as the party of small government, while Democrats have acted as the party of reasonable government. Nationally, many congressional Democrats have acted slowly on plans while Republicans sit off to the side squawking conservative principles. Come fall in Wisconsin, voters may be left with a much starker choice between irrational privatization and measured, people-focused government.

Jamie Stark is a sophomore majoring in journalism and political science. We welcome all feedback. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.

View Article here.

The College Dems wholeheartedly endorsed UW senior Analiese Eicher in the District 5 County Board race. I figured it was about time I chimed in to say why I voted to endorse the lovely Analiese.

I’ve known Analiese for over a year, and was ecstatic to learn she was running for County Board. With her record, résumé and personality, she will be a great representative for District 5 on the County Board. She will always fight to ensure the student perspective is heard, and be so accessible you’ll think Bryon Eagon is a recluse. Her ideas about safety and cleaning up the lakes are in line with my concerns, and the concerns of most students. I don’t live in the 5th District, but I hope those of you who do vote for Analiese in the upcoming election.

Check out Analiese’s website and Facebook page for more information. And most importantly, vote on April 6!

Thrusday I helped out with what our Vice Chair Jamie Stark aptly named the Voter Reg-stravaganza!  We helped register a bunch of new voters and it was tons of fun.  Unfortunately, far too many people walked past and ignored us or declined our offer because they didn’t want to “waste” the five minutes registering would take.  Even more unfortunate was the fact that most people who walked past asked, “Wait, when are the next elections?”

Now on one hand, I can understand that for the average student, spring elections are not as exciting as they are for people like us.  However, it is your own responsibility to go out and get educated.  Not voting because you didn’t know enough about the election is NOT a valid excuse.  There are still more than three weeks before the April 6th election.  Read the papers.  Take five minutes to do some of your own research.  Learn about the races.  Learn about the candidates.  Then, go vote.

As the White House and Congressional democrats make their final push for health care reform over the next week, it is crucial that everybody has accurate information about what this legislation will do for ordinary Americans.  Republicans have dragged this process on for the past year largely by creating public outrage over things that have nothing to do with President Obama’s plan (Can anyone say ‘death panels’?).  Here is an article from Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman debunking some of these falsehoods:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

I was thoroughly impressed by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and his online video chat last Sunday.

The gubernatorial hopeful answered questions submitted from across the state live on his website.

Without a pause, he spoke directly to the camera, argued with specific plans, and offered honest assessments.

Barrett emphasized protecting quality of education, reducing emissions 20% by 2025, and of course, his campaign foundation: jobs, jobs, jobs.

He even mentioned his plan to combat the impending Asian Carp infestation, a legitimate concern of mine.

I enjoyed hearing Barrett speak so candidly. Not to mention the badass cast was entertaining. I’m the first person to defend Gov. Jim Doyle, but it’s a lot easier to get excited about our next guv.

From the Huffington Post, 3/8/10

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care — admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada’s single-payer system.

“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,” Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. “And I think now, isn’t that ironic?”

The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada’s health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and ‘death-panel’-like rationing. Clearly, however, she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska. Up to the age of six, Palin lived in a remote town near the closest Canadian city, Whitehorse.

Officials at several hospitals in that area declined to give out information on patient visits.

Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care