Posted on 06/19/2002 10:07:48 AM PDT by browardchad
President Bush devoted his Saturday radio address this week to home-ownership and, in particular, the racial "gap" therein. He declared that "while nearly three-quarters of all white Americans own their own homes, less than half of all African Americans and Hispanic Americans are homeowners." And so, of course, we must "close this home-ownership gap." Not only the government, but the private sector, must be mobilized "in a major nationwide effort to increase minority ownership." He gave a speech in Atlanta two days later to the same effect, adding a graceless attempt to tie home-ownership to the war on terrorism. (I kid you not.)
I am reminded of the "missile gap" between the United States and the Soviet Union that presidential candidate John Kennedy (wrongly) accused the Eisenhower administration of allowing, and of the "mine shaft gap" that General Buck Turgidson agonized about in Dr. Strangelove. There are lies, damned lies, and gaps.
Who would we expect to own homes? People with a good income and a good credit rating, since houses are expensive and generally require loans. Home-ownership fits in with certain lifestyle decisions, too, so we'd expect to find more homeowners among people who are married, and probably are approaching middle age or, at least, are young adults. Land is less expensive in the hinterlands, so we'd expect that people who live in the suburbs or in rural areas are also more likely to be homeowners. Conversely, we would not expect people below or near the poverty level, with bad credit ratings, who are very young, who are unmarried, and who live in the center of a metropolitan area to be as likely to own homes.
As it turns out, all of these factors have some correlation with race and, in particular, all of them would make us expect that whites would be more likely to own homes than blacks and Hispanics. That is, whites are, statistically speaking, more likely to have high incomes, good credit ratings, and to be married. Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to live in urban areas and are generally younger.
So, some of the reasons for the gap may indicate that there is no problem at all, and other reasons may be only symptomatic of an underlying problem. For instance, it is certainly not a good thing that blacks have poorer credit ratings than whites, but one can hardly expect this fact to be ignored in the lending process. Likewise, the fact that young and unmarried people prefer to live in apartments in the city rather than split-levels in the suburbs is not a problem at all. The raw statistical disparity cited by President Bush is alarmist and pointless.
It gets worse, though. Trying to eliminate racial gaps that are not a result of discrimination will result in pressure being brought to bear on government agencies and private lenders to favor some groups over others on the basis of race. Suppose you've gotten a directive from above that your agency or bank is supposed to do its part to narrow the gap, and you want to get a good evaluation. You will start putting your thumb on the scale, and giving a preference to applicants who are the "right" skin color. And, of course, that is exactly what President Bush wants to happen.
It is frequently asserted that lenders discriminate against blacks and Hispanics. For instance, the Urban Institute this spring has released a careful study documenting such discrimination in Los Angeles and Chicago. On the other hand, other studies of this sort have been shown to have important flaws. Lots of variables have to be controlled for, and the "testers" on which many studies rely have to be honest and well trained. Another study this month — by an African-American professor, incidentally — found that minority-owned banks are at least as likely to reject mortgage-loan applications from blacks and Latinos as white-owned banks are. And, a Los Angeles Times article last fall reported "a surge in discrimination by immigrant landlords from many nations who refuse to rent outside their ethnic group."
Qualified blacks and Latinos are generally able to get loans, and now more than ever before they are able to buy houses wherever they like. There are still instances of "steering" minorities to some neighborhoods and away from others, but this is aberrational, and housing patterns increasingly reflect this, as documented by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom's America in Black and White (1997) and by William A. V. Clark's chapter in Beyond the Color Line(2002).
The point is that it is not at all clear how much of the home-ownership racial gap is a result of discrimination. And while some discrimination undoubtedly exists — will always exist — it doesn't follow that the best way to fight it is by doing anything other than enforcing the laws against such discrimination.
There was an unfortunate tendency during the Clinton administration for the government to look for the racial angle in every socioeconomic disparity, and then to assume that it must be a result of discrimination. Worse, the solution was never simply to find and fight actual discrimination, but rather to eliminate perfectly legitimate selection criteria that have a "disparate impact" — i.e., disproportionate effect — based on race, and for the government to mandate goals and timetables — i.e., quotas — to eliminate the gap.
Unfortunately, President Bush is falling into the same trap. It will likely get worse; this week the Fed will announce a new, ill-advised rule requiring banks to ask the race and ethnicity of people applying for home loans over the phone. The data will likely be misused.
One would think that this insistent focus on race must be irritating to many African Americans and Hispanics. No matter what, you can count on white politicians, bureaucrats, and intellectuals to shake their heads disapprovingly and cluck, "Tsk, tsk. Still not measuring up. My, my. We've got to help these people some more. Oh, sure, there's lots of white people who don't own homes, more white people at the poverty level than anyone else, lots of white people with problems. But let's not talk about them, and let's not talk about the successes of African Americans or Latinos. Let's continue to jabber about the failures of blacks and browns. Jabber, jabber, jabber."
— Roger Clegg is general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity.
(From the other thread on this subject...)
I don't know what a "Sodomized Goat Republican" is, but I guess I do identify as a RINO shill.
Remember the "Broken Glass Republicans" who would supposedly crawl over a field of broken glass to get to the polls on election day and vote for Bush? I was one of them as probably were you. I've come up with a similar term to describe some of the Republicans I've encountered here on Free Republic and elsewhere. A "Sodomized Goat Republican(tm)" is a Republican who, if George Bush was to go on national TV and sodomize a goat, would immediately applaud and defend the action as part of Bush's grand plan to obtain more support for the war effort and to win over the sodomite/pervert/deviant vote in the next election cycle so that the Republicans would regain the majority in the Senate. And Miss Marple, the SGR poster child, would find some reference to goat sodomy in a Bush campaign or acceptance speech and be on here telling us how we knew he was going to sodomize the goat, it was a campaign promise, and that all of us mean misogynists should just shut up.
Stop the injustice!
A down-payment as a birthright perhaps?
It's balderdash BTW...lol
Oh, with experience like that, you must live in the southwest region of the United States.
Thanks for that bit of knowledge gained by experience.
I would tend to agree. However, the people who you have observed all EARNED their home ownership. The outcome might not be the same for the welfare homeowners that Bush will create.
We have now ventured into a key aspect of statistical analysis: causation. Here is an important concept: correlation does not prove causation. For example, whenever I take my umbrella to work, my shoes get wet. There is a correlation, but clearly common sense tells us that taking an umbrella does not cause rain. There is a third factor involved in this example (e.g., I observe a weather report or notice dark clouds). In your example, I would argue that you have causation backwards: Minorities who have conservative values are more likely to make the effort to own a home. Just because we give a liberal a home will not make that person more likely to be conservative.
I haven't read through all of the details of Bush's plan, so won't comment on it, beyond hoping it's not a complete give-away program.
It seems I heard somewhere that 'habitat4humanity' homes have a huge default rate.
*Offer valid only to current US citizens, offer void except where prohibited by law. If your name is Alec Baldwin, you may already be a winner!
Why?
There are only two ways to get around it, 1. Get a dictator. And have no elections or 2.wave your magic wand and make the sheeple wake up to the Dems intransigence...
Given the unpalatable flavor of the first and the sheer fantasy of the second, looks like we're stuck with pandering for now..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.