I propose a more objective metric of performance: rather than pointing to a development (poverty rates for African American children decline from 36% in 2000 to 30% in 2002), why not point to actual policies implemented that might have led to such an improvement? Otherwise, this becomes an exercise in data mining. There are literally scores of social indicators collected on the African American community, and in most cases, some will improve while others will deteriorate. Many will improve because others deteriorated.

The Bush Administration made the case to the AA community that reducing taxes and regulations would stimulate the economy and increase all incomes. This has been a touchstone of Black conservatives since Reconstruction. Problem: for 25 years or so, AA unemployment rates had been 2.5x that of whites (for adults); income statistics also moved in formation, with economic expansions failing to close the gap between the communities. Hence, when the business cycle ended, African American households were traditionally back in the same place.

In assessing the impact of Bush policies on the AA community, it must be acknowledged that this community has a range of different interests; 1.5% of AA households, for example, are in the top 5% of American households. That's about a quarter-million Dr Huxtables. Additionally, a gigantic share of the AA community reside in urban areas that are highly mixed--i.e., employees of large firms whose fates are dependent on that of the big firm. So I'll acknowledge that a substantial cohort of AAs will have essentially conservative economic outlooks.

However, the poverty rate measures income, not benefits; it's not an human development indicator for the poor. Hence, a collateral benefit of slashing welfare benefits is to compell millions of urban residents to get jobs, pushing themselves out of "poverty" but suffering a decline in actual utility.

A more traditional conservative outlook--as opposed to the trendy one of today--is that non-interference in AA affairs (as, e.g., by intrusive White liberals and their social worker goons*) accompanied by economic stimulus thereof. The underlying principle here is that, as long as AA households have the dough they can take care of their own affairs. As we've seen, especially with the 104th COngress and DC municipal administration, white "conservatives" are quite activist in micromanaging the private lives of African Americans, but I digress.

-------------------------------------
* FULL DISCLOSURE: "intrusive White liberals and their social worker goons" is a paraphrase of rhetoric from vociferous Black Conservative Tony Brown

Traditionally conservatives favored defense of local cultural norms over economic dogma; hence, the early GOP (pre-1964) favored tariffs, while the Democrats opposed them, on the grounds that tariffs protected American industry, thereby increasing jobs for workers. Economic orthodoxy contradicted this; rarely do economists acknowldge the historical evidence, that industrial policy has accompanied most industrializations around the world, from the USA to the UK to continental Europe, Scandanavia, Japan, S. Korea, PRC, and the RSA.

So why not the AA community? We have an industrial policy in place now--it subsidizes automobile usage at about $200+ billion per year, urban sprawl, logging, oil recovery and big box (What, don't tell me you though Walmart is a market success story? And you believe in Santa Claus, too?).

Leftists willfully forget that the stock market burst and we were attacked on 9/11. That USA is bouncing back is great, as it would've crippled lesser nations. And in typical leftist fashion, you ignore illegal immigration - the #1 outsourcing problem hurting black folks.

I ask again, show me cases of folks who were discriminated against due to the faith-based initiative.

I'll take the positive reviews from African themselves re: the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act expansion, per the African articles that we linked on our website. And the jobs that it's created, and the multi-billion-dollar trade bump vs. no citation from you. And why wouldn't black people vote for Bush on this issue, or are Africans not black?

I cited examples of how the black Cabinet members affected the Bush administration on several issues, ranging from Sudan, AGOA, and school vouchers. Shall I note the recent state progress report showing racial academic achievement gaps closing thanks to the No Child Left Behind legislation?

Your claim that Alphonso Jackson said that "blacks are too stupid to know their best interests' is a lie. He said that black "leaders" too often play into victimology, and thus harm black folks' interests. He also said that we should focus on younger blacks, who don't swoon nearly as much at these "leaders'" feet as do our older folks.

My comments about India and Pakistan were to counter your claim that George Bush's black appointees should only care about black interests, and that certain issues ain't black concerns.

Military deaths are unfortunate, but they did **choose** to serve. And I support the Iraq war because it took out a **brutal** dictator who killed upwards of 20,000 Iraqis per year (and that ain't including the folks he allowed to starve while he flouted U.N. resolutions) - especially since USA helped put him there in the first place. Unlike your position, **that** is the compassionate view. That moves me to vote for George Bush.

Re: marriage penalty relief, don't confuse the 70% illegitimacy rate with the assumption that 70% of black families. The U.S. Census shows that **52%** of all black families are single parent (43% single female, 9% single male) and 48% are two-parent families. You're not accounting for the significantly higher birth rate among unmarried women.

Re: affirmative action and your "teaching white folks to accept blacks" comment, therin lies our difference. I'm not concerned with white folks accepting black folks, so I'm not obsessed with whiteness as you are. I'm concerned with **black** folks accepting black folks, and improving our social and economic situation.

Unlike you for whichever candidate you support, I gave reasons -- 11 -- why black folks should vote **for** President Bush. That you don't accept how black progress has risen under his administration is your issue.

You think you're ready to talk like a grownup with the name-calling?

Leftists willfully forget that the stock market burst and we were attacked on 9/11.

I guess not.

Well, complain to some leftists. I pointed out your assumption that Black people were given all this help and made all these improvements while the rest of the economy was going to hell in a handbasket was absurd.

Libertarians may not forget the stock market burst, but it seems they forget what they've read recently.

I ask again, show me cases of folks who were discriminated against due to the faith-based initiative.

When you show me cases of folks who wouldn't have gotten help without the faith-based initiatives. You're the one making assertions. I have nothing to prove.

I cited examples of how the black Cabinet members affected the Bush administration on several issues, ranging from Sudan, AGOA, and school vouchers. Shall I note the recent state progress report showing racial academic achievement gaps closing thanks to the No Child Left Behind legislation?

No. Because I didn't ask how Black cabinet members affect the Bush administration. I asked why their existence is reason to vote for George Bush when they don't impact how he deals with the Black constituencies. You have no answer.

Your claim that Alphonso Jackson said that "blacks are too stupid to know their best interests" is a lie. He said that black "leaders" too often play into victimology, and thus harm black folks' interests.

And we follow these "leaders"? Which makes us stupid.

Or your mainstream types operate from ignorance by attending to them.

Military deaths are unfortunate, but they did **choose** to serve.

And you don't care about their deaths came in a voluntary, unnecessary war.

How anti-intellectual and uncompassionate.

And I support the Iraq war because it took out a **brutal** dictator who killed upwards of 20,000 Iraqis per year

No one's ever been able to document that 20,000 per year.

Unlike your position, **that** is the compassionate view.

*****yawn*****

Re: marriage penalty relief, don't confuse the 70% illegitimacy rate with the assumption that 70% of black families. The U.S. Census shows that **52%** of all black families are single parent (43% single female, 9% single male) and 48% are two-parent families. You're not accounting for the significantly higher birth rate among unmarried women.

I'm fully aware of the situation.

The disproportionate effect of the changing the tax structure in that particular fashion is interesting. Since the marriage penalty…one of the few case where the Bush administration's description isn't entirely full of shit…is the same no matter what your income, that it is disproportionate merely reflects the 3:5 Black to white income ratio. Talk about lemons into lemon flavored water (lemonade must be sweet).

Re: affirmative action and your "teaching white folks to accept blacks" comment, therin lies our difference. I'm not concerned with white folks accepting black folks, so I'm not obsessed with whiteness as you are.

Where did I say that? You either don't or can't read.

All I said is, that was the purpose of the program. I ain't holding my breath for white folks to change.

I can find lots of places where you give a white guy credit for Black people's hard work. I wonder why that is?

Unlike you for whichever candidate you support, I gave reasons -- 11 -- why black folks should vote **for** President Bush

All of which require you to repudiate your Libertarianism. All of which require you to credit George Bush with things that happened before he was elected. All of which are wrong.

Abandoning your principles for politics is pretty weak.

Other than that, all you've got is opinion, to which you are entitled.

"The black homeownership rate will reach majority status for the first time ever. Clearly monetary policies - low inflation, tax cuts, FHA loan expansion, and marriage penalty relief - the latter two of which disproportionately benefited blacks - play no role to you."

I happen to know a great deal more about housing than Molotov apparently does and I would like to respond specifically to his claims in this regard. This current effort on the part of Republicans and Democrats to cut the so-called disproportionate homeownership rate between, say, blacks and whites represents another failure on the part of Republicans and Democrats to seriously think through a housing policy for the nation. The fact that blacks own homes at a lower rate than whites is NOT proof of disproportionality.

This misunderstanding began taking on a life of its own during the Clinton Administration when it was picked up by Fannie Mae and others and turned into a national outreach program, which then opened the gates for Democrats and Republicans to further compete against each other in terms of creating a minority outreach homeownership program. The reality is that urban blacks regardless of income level and education tend to purchase homes at lower rates than whites. This statistic is all the more puzzling when the results of mobility studies have tended to show that blacks are much more willing than Hispanics and Asians to travel further from their old neighborhoods and communities than are Asians and Hispanics to purchase homes. Even when you control for such factors as racial discrimination in the home mortgage field blacks, again, regardless of their income and educational level show less interest in purchasing homes than whites.

My belief is that we need to do more attitudinal studies to better assess what is going on with blacks who can purchase homes but choose not to do so. This is preferable to setting up programs that may, for example, simply encourage people who are only marginally able to afford homeownership thus setting them up for certain failure, i.e., defaulting on their mortgage loans. Many middle-class black families are probably not participating in Fannie Mae's programs and other state HFA agencies offerings because their total household incomes exceed the limit of what is allowed under the current regulations. This means that less financially stable families are using these programs.

I don't think any blame can be placed at the White House's door regardless of who the current tenant may be but I am leery of any public offciaI wanting to claim when credit for increasing rates of black homeownership when we don't know if that is a desireable end for many black families. am not singling out the Bush Administration for any criticism on this issue. What I am objecting to is the process by which folks - Democrats and Republicans - have set out to address a problem without coming to an appreciation of the problem itself.