Only 446?
Via TAPPED, the Bush Admin has reversed its awful decision to end the Survey of Income and Program Participation - one of the most important U.S. panel data set for assessing government programs - and replace it with a new, cheaper survey.
As usual with the Bushies, the reversal is pretty disingenuous:
Bush's FY08 budget called for the elimination of the SIPP. Now that it has decided to continue the program, it is unclear how it will be funded. Unless the Bush administration modifies its budget request, Congress may not be able to allocate funds for the SIPP because President Bush has vowed to veto any appropriations above his budget requests.
..."The Census Bureau has recently indicated that, without additional funding, it will start a new SIPP panel with only half of the standard number of respondents. This is unacceptable. Interviewing only half as many people would severely limit researchers’ ability to examine particular government programs, sub-populations and state-level data. Many government programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or child care subsidies, affect only small shares of the U.S. population, so a smaller sample would not provide enough data to properly assess these programs. It would also make it difficult, if not impossible, to assess demographic trends at the state level (such as wealth, childcare usage, etc.), even for larger states like North Carolina or Washington."
No good statistics on poor people or program effeciveness - just the way the GOP likes it!
But my real question is: why did only 446 social scientists sign the letter? Why not thousands?!?
As usual with the Bushies, the reversal is pretty disingenuous:
Bush's FY08 budget called for the elimination of the SIPP. Now that it has decided to continue the program, it is unclear how it will be funded. Unless the Bush administration modifies its budget request, Congress may not be able to allocate funds for the SIPP because President Bush has vowed to veto any appropriations above his budget requests.
..."The Census Bureau has recently indicated that, without additional funding, it will start a new SIPP panel with only half of the standard number of respondents. This is unacceptable. Interviewing only half as many people would severely limit researchers’ ability to examine particular government programs, sub-populations and state-level data. Many government programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or child care subsidies, affect only small shares of the U.S. population, so a smaller sample would not provide enough data to properly assess these programs. It would also make it difficult, if not impossible, to assess demographic trends at the state level (such as wealth, childcare usage, etc.), even for larger states like North Carolina or Washington."
No good statistics on poor people or program effeciveness - just the way the GOP likes it!
But my real question is: why did only 446 social scientists sign the letter? Why not thousands?!?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home