Joyce, You seem to be a little bit paranoid. Most of the information you say is no ones business but yours, is already public knowledge. I for one am glad they have done more than ask for how many people live in your home, as I would not have been able to find the many family members that I have found by using past census records that list such things as, NAMES, RELATIONSHIPS, OCCUPATION, STATE OF BIRTH, PARENTS STATE OF BIRTH, AGES, and PROPERTY. I for one look forward to the opportunity to fill out my census form when it arrives. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Angela in Oklahoma Joyce Herzog wrote: > > I received this from another mailing list. As a genealogist, I found it > very interesting and thought others might also. If we go along with his > suggestions, future historians will be in a pickle! > > Joyce Herzog > > Tear up that census form > Dateline: 3/6/00 > > I'm looking right now at an official, mis-addressed notice from the > Census Bureau telling me that my census form will arrive next week. > It's stained with coffee grounds since I tossed it in the garbage > first off, then had to fish it out to write this column. The official > census form will be stained too, since, like the > initial letter, it's destined for a resting place beneath chicken > bones and empty beer bottles. And that's all it deserves. > > Why sort of social misfit would condemn the census form to a > moldering death beneath dinner leavings? How could I do such an > antisocial deed even as a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign > warns the nation that our neighborhoods won't get their fair share of > the loot unless we diligently answer each and every question? As the > reminder letter says, "[o]fficial census counts are used to distribute > government > funds to communities and states for highways, schools, health > facilities and many other programs you and your neighbors need." > > Well, I'll tell you what kind of person I am: I'm one to who those > come-ons sound like the endearments of a pusher scaring up clientele > around a schoolyard. Come over here, kiddies, if you want a taste of > the goods. Encouragement of dependency is not a pretty sight. > > Frankly, of the list of programs that I "need," I don't see any in > which D.C. bureaucrats ought to be involved at all. In fact, the > Census Bureau has a hell of a lot of nerve talking about distributing > "government funds" when my recently completed 1040 form sits on my > desk, proclaiming where those funds really originate. > > I'm also the kind of person who's frightened by the long list of nosy > questions tagged on to what's supposed to be a head count used to > allocate congressional representation. Even the short form asks for: > "Tenure (whether a housing unit is owned or rented), Name, Sex, Age, > Relationship to household, Hispanic Origin, and Race." The long form > delves into such personal matters as your income, education, value of > your home, and how many porcelain thrones you squabble over with your > kids. Is that anybody's business but your own? > > Now, nosiness is a long-time government trait, and just because > federal head-counters want to know if our toilet paper rolls hang over > or under doesn't mean that the information will be misused. More likely > than not, all the data will be filed away harmlessly, if expensively. > > But that's a lot of information. A lot of personal information. And, > thought it probably won't be misused, it could be a real annoyance in > the wrong hands — and the wrong hands are those of any government > official. > > According to the Cato Institute's Solveig Singleton, "Federal agencies > and employees have used information stored in federal systems to carry > on personal or political vendettas, or violations of rights... Past > abuses include: During World War II, U.S. census data was used to > identify > Japanese-Americans and place them in internment camps." > > That's a nasty thought. Even as Americans bicker over whether the > money picked from their own pockets will be "fairly" ladled out if > people check multiple racial categories instead of the single one of > censuses past, nobody considers that a checkmark in one box or another > could determine who gets sent to a concentration camp during the next > "national emergency." > > That sounds awfully dire and unlikely, of course. But census data can > come back to haunt us in situations far less apocalyptic. Anybody who > follows the news knows that IRS agents are caught abusing tax records > on a seemingly annual basis. They paw through the files for dirt on > ex-wives, feuding neighbors, and celebrities. They mine the records out > of malice, curiosity, or for a few bucks from a private investigator. > > Does anybody really believe that census workers are cut from radically > different cloth than tax collectors? > > I'm not alone in my concerns. The Libertarian Party recently sent out > a press release calling on Americans to answer only the > constitutionally mandated head-count, and to ignore the gratuitous > snooping that follows. The party's national director, Steve Dasbach, > was quoted saying, "[y]ou can strike a blow for privacy, equality, and > liberty by refusing to answer every question on the Census form except > the one required by the Constitution: How many people live in your > home?" > > To my taste, even that's giving up too much. I see no evidence that > the existing political system is so responsive that the shuffling of a > few politicos among the states will improve my life. Frankly, I'd > rather throw a monkeywrench into the gears than pretend that I believe > in the creaky machinery. > > Granted, the feds try to discourage such unpatriotic non-compliance. > Minor legal penalties are threatened for those of us with such a > terrible lack of community spirit. The faint of heart might want to > simply input nonsense information into the system. Is a census worker > drawing temp pay really going to call you a liar if you swear that your > home is occupied by seven Samoans making $150,000 each per year and > living without benefit of indoor plumbing? > > But the potential risks and consequences of tossing the form in the > trash seem rather low. > > Others apparently have the same idea, and it's spreading. The Census > Bureau itself admits that "[w]ith each decade, it has become > increasingly more difficult to count everyone in the decennial census. > The percentage of people from all housing units who mailed back their > census forms declined from 78 percent in 1970 to 65 percent in 1990." > > Good. Let's see if we can bring the response rate down even lower. If > you want to help, just tear up that census form.