A gang murder in an Allstar Donuts next to my office at Golden Gate and Hyde Streets, and another neighborhood shooting has provoked discussion of how people with violent records were allowed to remain on the streets. The Allstar killer had two prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, and last May was arrested on a gun charge. But the San Francisco District Attorney’s office was unable to convince a court to return the assailant to jail.

Blame for the other Tenderloin shooting goes to the state regional parole authority, which did not revoke the shooter’s probation when it could have done so. But these killings, like those in other parts of San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Philadelphia, South-Central Los Angeles and urban areas across America, are not a product of uncaring mayors, liberal judges, untrained police forces, inept prosecutors, or other forces in the criminal justice system. Rather, this nationwide epidemic of urban violence is a function of the Bush Administation, which has spawned hopelessness toward the future among the poor, and allowed two million more families to enter poverty since 2001.

As urban America confronts its worse crime wave since the Reagan years, we continue to read multiple explanations for the outbreak. The New York Times had a recent article on the rising homicides in Philadelphia, with one expert attributing it to a younger generation’s greater willingness to resolve minor disputes with guns.

But I have yet to read a story that links increased urban violence to the Bush Administration, even though the crime wave has coincided with its tenure. Americans do not like to blame the federal government for “local” problems like crime and homelessness, even though it is federal policies that are chiefly responsible for both.

Consider: inadequate federal funding for education, the slashing of public and subsidized housing programs, the virtual abandonment of employment programs for “at risk” youth, no increase in the federal minimum wage, a steady increase in the number of families without health care, and an immigration policy that prioritizes crackdowns and arrests over legalization and family stability.

The list of urban America’s unmet needs since 2001 could go on for pages.

In the Tenderloin, Captain Gary Jimenez and his police force are doing a remarkable job. The police are doing everything possible to eliminate drug dealing and gun violence in the community.

I cannot speak to police efforts in other city neighborhoods with violence and drug problems, but our force is highly motivated and Captain Jimenez is providing the best leadership we’ve ever had.

Nor can blame for the recent Tenderloin shootings be foisted upon the District Attorney, judges, or Mayor Newsom. These are easy targets, but they have not created what has become a national climate of urban violence since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

In 1996, Stanford Economics Professor Martin Carnoy published Faded Dreams, a widely overlooked book that speaks well to America’s current climate of violence in low-income communities of color. Carnoy analyzed the three dominant views of economic differences between blacks and whites--that blacks are individually responsible for not taking advantage of market opportunities, that the world economy has changed in ways that puts blacks at a tremendous disadvantage compared to whites, and that pervasive racism is holding blacks down—and concluded that none adequately explain why blacks made such large gains in the past and stopped making them in the 1980s and 1990s.

Instead, Carnoy used a systematic analysis of fifty years of data on income, education, and the variety of jobs that both blacks and whites have held to reach a controversial though spot-on conclusion: African-Americans do better when Democrats are in the White House, and do much worse under Republicans.

What is so persuasive about Carnoy’s thesis is that it works even under Democratic Presidents like Bill Clinton, who many believe failed to provide sufficient economic assistance to low-income people of color. Yet statistically, African-Americans and low-income working people made gains during the Clinton years.

And urban crime fell dramatically during the Clinton Presidency, only to rev sharply upward under Bush.

With the number of American families living in poverty rising from 12 to 14 million during the Bush years, it is no surprise that crime and violence among the poor is on the rise.

In fact, there has not been a single moment since 2001 that Bush has conveyed a sincere desire to help low-income people. And his response to Katrina, his budget cuts, and his Robin Hood in-reverse tax plans have all sent the contrary message, which is that those at the bottom should not bother looking to the White House for help.

Unfortunately, the President and Karl Rove know full well that those most victimized by rising crime and violence live in the urban areas that provide few votes for Republicans. So as with Katrina, the resulting rise in crime, poverty and violence in urban America is no accident, but part of a conscious strategy.

As for the Tenderloin, we survived the difficult Reagan years and will not let George W. Bush stop our progress. Residents, merchants and the police are not demoralized, and should be encouraged that the end of the uncaring Bush regime is near.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org