NEWS RELEASE
Lutz for Congress 2010
http://www.VoteRayLutz.com Media Contact: Brennan Purtzer, Media Director
619-447-3246 / brennan@VoteRayLutz.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Lutz slams Filibuster of $30B Bill for Small Business
REPUBLICANS ARE "SABOTAGING" OUR ECONOMY FOR POLITICAL GAIN
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY VIOLATED BY REPUBLICANS, SAYS LUTZ
SAN DIEGO COUNTY (July 29, 2010) - "This is destructive and intentional: I'm telling you all - it's sabotage," said Ray Lutz, the Democratic Challenger to California's 52nd Congressional Seat (East San Diego County). Lutz was responding to Senate Republicans who filibustered a bill that would create a $30 billion lending fund for small businesses.
"These clowns are working against America, fighting a bill to help the small business fabric of America, the workhorse of job creation," Lutz said. "While they cater to their Wall Street masters, they are shirking their fiduciary duty to work FOR America. Republicans are hoping the recession "double-dips" before November, so they can 'win.' The fact that our political system produces officials who actively work against our economy shows us that the system is truly broken."
Lutz has proposed a green energy plan that would create 1.5 million jobs and cure the nation's dependency on foreign oil, pushing for solar and biofuel development in a modern "war on energy." "We have plenty of work to do, plenty of jobs in our new green economy, but we need to embrace the future and move away from our broken past. My opponent, Duncan D. Hunter, is part of that past and part of the 'just say no' Republican Party that is betting against our country."
The Lutz campaign has a VIP and fundraiser event tomorrow, Friday, July 30, 4-7p.m., in San Diego's Gaslamp District at the Tequila 100 Bar & Grill, 756 Fifth Ave. Everyone is invited.
Today is going to be an excellent day for California High Speed Rail and our state's economic future. California has been awarded $2.35 billion in federal passenger rail stimulus funds. $2.25 billion of that goes directly to high speed rail, the other $100 million goes to other passenger rail projects.
• $2.25 billion for high speed rail funding in the SF-SJ, Merced-Fresno-Bakersfield, and LA-Anaheim corridors, as well as for Phase I planning. There is some debate about whether these are specifically programmed to each corridor, or whether Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and/or the CHSRA will determine the final allocations.
• $99.4 million for upgrades and track work designed to produce faster speeds on other passenger rail routes, including the Pacific Surfliners, San Joaquins, and Capitol Corridor.
There is no specific detail about whether the Transbay Terminal got funded or not, which has been part of an ongoing battle between the California High Speed Rail Authority and San Francisco. That might be part of the "to be determined" portion of how the money is to be allocated, if the reports are true that the FRA is leaving that decision up to the state.
Still, this is a major victory for the California high speed rail project. $2.25 billion, with $100 million for other passenger rail, is an unprecedented level of federal investment in California rail.
It's also a repudiation of the "go slow" argument on the Peninsula. Mayors Rich Cline of Menlo Park and Pat Burt of Palo Alto have openly derided the value of the stimulus and suggested the state not pursue the stimulus funds, even as unemployed workers explained the desperate need for new jobs. President Obama has rejected this insane approach, and said that instead of going slow, we need to go much faster - at high speed.
Just as the November 2008 approval of Prop 1A by California voters signaled that high speed rail really was going to happen, the infusion of a significant amount of federal money is further proof that despite all the deniers and critics, HSR remains not just popular, but a major element of this country's economic recovery plans.
It's also a reminder that, as many of the experienced land use planners and infrastructure builders explained at last week's State Senate hearing in Palo Alto, we're currently at the most difficult part: hashing out the details of where exactly the trains go, and how exactly the tracks will be built. Once dirt is turned and steel put in the ground, all this difficulty will begin to fade.
We still have some way to go on this. And if indeed the Governor gets to decide how the $2.25 billion for HSR is allocated, some of the corridor battles are still yet to be fought. But it gives us another chance to advocate for getting this money out the door as fast as possible to ensure that we start putting people back to work, weaning California off of oil, addressing global warming, and building a 21st century transportation system.
According to the CBO, in the third quarter of this year alone, 600 thousand to 1.6 million jobs were directly created or saved by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, reducing our country's unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.9 percent. This is an especially important finding for my home state of California, which at 12.3 percent, suffers from the third worst unemployment rate in the nation.
Indeed, it's worth noting that the CBO report does not measure indirect job creation. Jobs created through most sub-contractors and vendors are not included in the report nor are the jobs created at local businesses when 1.6 million Americans have sufficient wages to put their money back into the economy.
They say all politics is local, and that may or may not be true, but it's certainly the case that all jobs are local. When I talk to constituents, I hear from understandably frustrated people who think the stimulus has been ineffective. I understand that 1.6 million jobs created is just a statistic when you are still unemployed, when your family is still struggling, when your phone is ringing off the hook from relentless creditors, when you're falling behind in your rent or mortgage payments.
In the months following the end of George W. Bush's disastrous term as President, my Congressional colleagues and President Barack Obama worked tirelessly to create an economic recovery plan that could begin the difficult process of creating jobs and rebuilding our economy. Had I been in Congress at the time, I would have gladly voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and as a recent New York Times article by Jackie Calmes and Michael Cooper reveals, "the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working."
They continue: "The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama's promise to "save or create" about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers."
"It was worth doing - it's made a difference," Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group, explained in the article. "I don't think it's right to look at it by saying, 'Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn't work.' I'm afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus."
So despite the consternation of some pundits, it turns out the President was right. Stimulus relief worked, and Democrats in Congress keep working. Since I joined Congress earlier this month, my House colleagues and I have backed a number of bills that will strengthen small businesses and create more jobs.
We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
(It looks like this might happen... - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
When Toyota announced last month it was considering closing the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) plant in Fremont, the focus was on the potential loss of the 4,700 critical regional jobs at the auto plant, and understandably so. But the ripple effect of NUMMI's closure wouldn't stop in the Bay area. Most counties in the state have a vendor that serves NUMMI in one capacity or another, and if the plant closes, California will face an estimated loss of another 20,000 to 35,000 jobs indirectly.
Of the approximately 1,186 supplier companies with NUMMI contracts, all but five are in California. Of the 35 California counties home to at least one NUMMI supplier, the five counties with the most suppliers include Alameda (389), Santa Clara (204), Los Angeles (126), Contra Costa (79), and Orange (73). And of course, all corners of our state will feel the strain of lost tax revenue and an increased reliance on social services.
The legislature has authored bills to help. Senator Elaine Corbett's (D-San Leandro) SB 483 would create an enterprise zone in Fremont, while Assemblymember Alberto Torrico's (D-Fremont) ABX4 31 would provide a sales and use tax exemption for capital equipment used by automobile manufacturers. Senator Roderick Wright's (D-Los Angeles) SB 830 creates an enterprise zone and tax benefit incentives for automobile manufacturing plants within California.
NOTE: These are my prepared remarks for today's keynote address as the Scripps Seaside Forum, sponsored by the Sustainability Alliance of Southern California, Heartland Foundation-United Green and Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
It's great to be at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, one of our country's most important research facilities. The work of this institute has led the way in understanding climate change, the effect of the warming oceans and how we can adapt to the inevitable changes in our environment.
I'm here today to talk to you about the next industrial revolution. The world's economies are fueled by carbon based fuels that have polluted our atmosphere and set up a warming climate. Now when I talk about the next revolution, I don't mean the coal-and-oil fueled economy of yesteryear. The irrefutable science of climate change requires that we take a different path, and with sound investments in renewable energy, green technology, and education, we can create a new green industrial revolution that will put countless thousands of our residents back to work.
President Obama understands what's at stake. Under his stimulus package, California is expected to receive more than $1.5 billion for job-creating alternative energy, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and other energy and climate related efforts. Included in this estimate, the U.S. Treasury and Energy Departments announced that at least $3 billion in competitive grants will be distributed nationwide to support an estimated 5,000 biomass, solar, wind, and other renewable energy projects. Note to Secretary Chu: consider using some of the $3 billion as a loan guarantee, thereby expanding the use of the funds.
Incentives for renewable energy generation and installation are also fueling the growth in green jobs. In just the first four months of 2009, solar installations nearly tripled compared to the year prior. Homeowners, businesses, and government all benefit from the California Solar Initiative (CSI), which provides incentives that reduce the total cost of installed systems by an average of 20 percent. Signed into law in 2006, the CSI aims to install 3,000 MW of new solar power by offering $3 billion in solar rebates over 10 years. Additionally, businesses and homeowners qualify for a federal investment tax credit of 30 percent on renewable energy systems. According to the California Community Colleges Centers of Excellence, the solar industry in California is on pace to produce 40,000 new jobs by 2016.
Following up on Robert's post, there's this from Arnold's Twitter feed:
http://twitpic.com/5iew4 - Just met with Sen Boxer. Working hard to get CA the right to make the cuts we need.
about 2 hours ago from TwitPic
Sen. Boxer looks less than thrilled to meeting with the Governor. We need to be sure that the President stands up to the Governor's pleas for cuts. The stimulus was not intended to be for enabling the state to cut more jobs, more services, and create more pain for the state. We need a bailout, but not one that allows Republicans to Shock Doctrine the state.
(Some notes on organizing from our LG. Also see his diary from today. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Today I'll be joining Vice President Joe Biden in San Diego to promote job growth in California. At a time when California's unemployment rate is at 11.2 percent, the highest rate on record, it's certainly premature to declare that happy days are here again. But in this time of economic uncertainty, it's nice to know that our leadership in Washington is in tune with the needs of everyday Californians.
President Barack Obama's stimulus package wisely addresses both short term needs and long term goals in a way that prepares our country for an internationally competitive, green by necessity economy. The stimulus package passed in February includes $144 billion for state and local fiscal relief, $53 billion for priority education spending, $111 billion for infrastructure and science projects, $43 billion for energy needs, $81 billion in funds to help protect the vulnerable, and $288 billion in targeted tax cuts. The package also calls for doubling our renewable energy production in three years.
In California alone, it will create or save 396,000 jobs. Job-creating projects include $1.5 million for alternative energy efficiency grants for business and workforce housing in Livermore, $500,000 for affordable housing in Palm Desert, $200 million for flood levy improvements in Natomas, and $250,000 for storm water capture in Pasadena.
During the Memorial Day break, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers will invite congressional representatives to tour union job-training centers around the country to show them why they are the right choice when it comes to creating a renewable energy work force.
(Bumped. Disclosure: Todd Beeton, who originally bumped this post, is doing blog outreach for Eric Garcetti. Garcetti's blog is here. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Last week, I announced the formation of the Los Angeles City Council's Ad Hoc Committee on Economic Recovery and Reinvestment. The goal of the committee is to develop strategies to help Los Angeles win the maximum amount of federal stimulus dollars for which we're eligible and to create a plan for allocating the funding to most efficiently and effectively meet the needs of the city's businesses and residents.
You may recall that in February, President Obama put local governments on notice, calling on us to "spend that money wisely, free from politics, free from personal agenda." That's precisely the spirit in which I convened the first meeting of the committee last Tuesday. At that meeting, we established a set of 9 guiding priorities by which we intend not only to fulfill the president's vision for efficient allocation of the stimulus funds, but also to make Los Angeles the most accountable, transparent, and effective city in moving economic recovery programs forward. We'd like to see these priorities serve as a model for local governments all over the country, particularly in our nation's cities where "urban acupuncture", or the careful targeted allocation of funds to projects that have the most combined benefit, can be used to best effect.
Those priorities are over the flip (edit for space by Brian).
Easy for them to say, I suppose, but Mike Honda and a bunch of California Congressional Dems want the stimulus money to go to education. At least they've noticed that a ridiculous number of teachers are being laid off. All the while, President Obama is cheering on the Governator who is gobbling up every last dollar and slashing services. Perhaps they can talk to the President about not enabling Herr Schwarzenegger.
Here's the money quote:
The purpose of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is to help stabilize local government budgets and minimize or avoid harmful cuts to education programs and services, to keep teachers in the classroom, and to support modernization, renovation, and repair of school facilities. It is imperative that local educational agencies receive stimulus funds as soon as possible so they can appropriately adjust their budgets to address these challenges.
Thousands of California teachers will be laid off in coming weeks without the infusion of ARRA funds. We implore you to provide for the immediate needs of the state's already cash-strapped schools by taking all available steps to prevent these layoffs. It has been brought to our attention that there may be unresolved issues at the state level about the administration and allocation of the federal ARRA funds that could delay distribution. We encourage you to address these issues quickly. The U.S. Department of Education stands ready to provide technical assistance to you in these matters.
In a recent op-ed, Congressman Tom McClintock (R- Roseville) made the claim that Obama's stimulus bill would cost over $200,000 per job, and that conservative free-market policies would ultimately prevail in the end over the "tax-borrow-and-spend policies" of the Democratic Administration.
And who did he blame for those policies???
The guy he just barely beat in the race for Congress, Charlie Brown.
On Monday I traveled to Washington, D.C. with a delegation of Southern California elected and business leaders to meet with administration officials and members of congress to advocate for federal funding for our area. With 22 million people, Southern California alone is more populous than 48 states; 43% of all goods that enter through America's ports come through Southern California; we have an unemployment rate over 11% and our homeless family population has increased by 28.3% in six months. My message to Washington leaders this week: investing in Southern California is crucial to the nation's economic recovery.
It's been an extremely rewarding trip and, I think, quite productive. Some highlights:
- Senator Boxer spoke to us about the job growth potential of clean technology and alternative energy. We met with Energy Secretary Steven Chu as well and specifically made the case to him that Los Angeles is poised to be a market leader in green job training. We have a real opportunity to lead the nation in a green jobs revolution and I have no doubt that with Van Jones at the helm, California will be central to the administration's green job investment plan. Chu challenged us to not just push for green-designed buildings, but to monitor energy use (and to push white roofs.)
- We talked to White House officials about the importance of an urban-based strategy for recovery, where a combination of public works projects, stalled private developments in need of public dollars, and strategic sector initiatives could help put people back to work in our urban centers. Cities are the economic drivers of our nation and for the last 8 years, we've seen investment dry up. I'm heartened to see the new administration's commitment to the renewal of our cities. The stimulus dollars we'll be getting over the coming months are extremely precious and can go further if properly directed to the right urban renewal projects.
- Yesterday we had a bipartisan lunch with 12 members of congress and Northern Californian counterparts like David Chiu, my equivalent at the SF Board of Supervisors. At the meeting, we discussed the importance of moving CA from a "donor state" (in taxes spent versus money we get back) to a more evenly-balanced state. For every dollar Los Angeles sends to Washington, we get 73 cents back. That's got to change.
- We also spoke to Obama's economic advisers about the importance of solving the housing crisis at the heart of the economic downturn. We discussed the need to focus on ways to write down mortgages on homes or promote short sales to forestall even more foreclosures. I had a great conversation with Rep. Maxine Waters about home foreclosure and eviction prevention.
- Today we met with Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis about workers' issues, Attorney General Eric Holder on public safety, Education Secretary Arne Duncan about education issues and Larry Summers to discuss the overall economic stabilization strategy.
The access has been incredible. In fact, we appear to be among the few people having these meetings, getting this access, and helping shape policy early. I've just been really impressed with the amount and quality of time they've devoted to us and the very real commitment they've demonstrated to smart investment not only in California, but around the country to get us on the road to economic recovery.
(It is practically criminal that Schwarzenegger is being such a hypocrite about this. Aside from changes to unemployment law, the state risks leaving $11 billion in Medi-Cal funding on the table if they don't change the eligibility rules in the next couple days. It's crazy to leave money out there in the midst of a crisis. We are such a badly run state. - promoted by David Dayen)
(Posted by Steve Smith, California Labor Federation)
Good economic options have been noticeably absent from Sacramento recently, but in the usual March legislative lull, a bill to draw down billions of dollars in free federal funding is starting to get some serious momentum. The bill, ABx3 23 (Coto/Arambula) would extend unemployment benefits by up to 20 weeks for the long-term unemployed and update the state's outdated eligibility rules for unemployment insurance - all courtesy of the federal stimulus package.
To get the full effect of the federal money and start helping workers immediately, the bill will need to muster a 2/3rds vote in each house. On its merits, this bill should be a no-brainer. The bill essentially involves driving a U-Haul to Washington, filling it with cash, and distributing that money to some of the state's most cash-strapped residents and communities. Unfortunately, like so many things in Sacramento, the debate on this bill hasn't been about its merits.
During debate in the Assembly Insurance Committee last week, the bill was opposed by the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups. They argued that we shouldn't rush into taking the federal funds - that legislators should push off $839 million in federal aid and wait until we have a comprehensive fix for unemployment insurance. That "comprehensive fix" though, will involve raising unemployment taxes - a fact the Chamber is fully aware of and a policy they've fought for a decade. Their plea for a go-slow, comprehensive fix was code for trying to kill the best shot California has at economic stimulus.
But the Chamber's subtle attempt to squash workers' hopes wasn't even the most galling performance of the day. Demonstrating his trademark connection with working people, Assemblymember Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) actually suggested that the unemployed could just wait three months - with no source of income - before applying for assistance.
And where was the governor's office during all this? While Schwarzenegger himself had trumpeted his support for federal stimulus funds - "I'm more than happy to take his money or any other governor in this country that doesn't want to take this money" he told George Stephanopoulos on national television - his staff began backtracking from that support during the hearing. His Assistant Secretary of Labor hemmed and hawed her way through questioning, never officially taking a position, but doing her best to throw up roadblocks at every turn.
The bill will hit the Assembly floor next week. Passage will mean more than $5 billion in free federal funds for unemployed workers and the state's economy. Using even the most conservative economic estimates, that will mean upwards of $9 billion in increased economic activity for our floundering state with unemployment rates over 10%.
It's time for Republicans - of both the legislative and executive variety - to make it clear where they stand once and for all. Voting to accept free federal funds for the unemployed isn't a potential career-ender. It isn't an ideological issue. It's a simple decision about whose interests they're really serving in Sacramento.
Recession-related job losses are threatening health coverage for many families. To help workers maintain their health coverage while they are between jobs, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provides a 65% reduction in the premiums payable by involuntarily terminated workers and their families for health care continuation coverage under COBRA. This premium reduction will last for up to 9 months. Workers who have been involuntarily terminated during the period from September 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009 and their families are eligible. This premium reduction also applies to health care continuation coverage that may be required by states for insurance policies sponsored by small employers (so called state mini-COBRAs) and public employees. This provision will help 7 million people maintain their health insurance by providing a vital bridge for families when workers have been forced out of their jobs as a result of the recession.
Despite the numerous statements from President Obama, the media hasn't yet really grasped the concept that spending is stimulus. As the President said, "that's the whole point."
Yet, today we get the Washington Post passing off some press releases from a few anti-tax groups as original research and "news."
The compromise stimulus bill adopted by House and Senate negotiators this week is not free of spending that benefits specific communities, industries or groups, despite vows by President Obama that the legislation would be kept clear of pet projects, according to lawmakers, legislative aides and anti-tax groups.
The deal provides $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, for example, including money that could benefit a controversial proposal for a magnetic-levitation rail line between Disneyland, in California, and Las Vegas, a project favored by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). The 311-mph train could make the trip from Sin City to Tomorrowland in less than two hours, according to backers. (WaPo 2/13/09
I don't know if any of these anti-tax zealots have been on I-15 between Las Vegas and the LA area, but it's a mess. An absolute cluster&*$%. Trips that should take four hours, at most, take six or seven hours. People end up just sitting on the freeway for hours at a time. And it happens every. single. weekend. Every Friday, going from LA to Vegas is impossible. And every Sunday the trip back is just as bad. I just did a search on Google Images and I got a slew of images of people stuck in traffic. I liked this one best because people were just kind of hanging out in the middle of the highway. Here's a flickr search for the same topic with similar copious results.
When I spent a summer in Orange County a few years back, I made the trek up to Vegas. It's not a bad ride. I mean, it's pretty if you like desert and dusty mountains. Gets kind of repetitive after a while, but the asthetics are quite striking. You really are driving through the middle of the desert, with nothing really around. When an accident occurs, you get massive delays. Anybody who has ever done the trip understands why relaxing on a train would be a boon to the travel industry.
While there are other projects as worthy of support as this one, this one certainly will be a good investment. It will save and create jobs now, and it will create jobs for the long-term. The amount of time wasted on the 15 is an incredible inefficiency. It discourages people from traveling between the two tourist regions and spending money. Building this project will be an enormous job boon.
After all this is what this is about right? Jobs? Or can you not see past your ideological blindspot. Infrastructure = jobs = economic stimulus. And this project is a perfect example of that. It's just too bad that the Washington Post didn't bother to actually, you know, think about why the project is necessary rather than transcribing anti-tax talking points.
According to Joe Romm at Climate Progress, the compromise version of the Stimulus package dropped some $50 Billion in pork for the nuclear power industry. If that is where they got their savings, let's give a big Hurrah.
Of course, you will need to call an ambulance as Chuck Devore has a fit of apoplexy over this.
• Intel has plans to invest during the down-turn. They'll be retooling some of their facilities for the next generation of chips.
• Supervisors from across the state will be lobbying for a budget in Sacramento. Perhaps some of them can convince a few Republicans. If they did, it would be a greater contribution than Arnold Schwarzenegger has made to the process.
• And some leaders are heading to Washington. The Mayors of San Jose, San Diego, and LA will be pushing for aid to their cities in the stimulus package. Perhaps Mayor Sanders could prevail upon Brian Bilbray to vote yes for once?
• There's a very good investigative series going on by former UK Independent writer Andrew Gumbel at a new site called The Wrap. Gumbel has twostories up about the Motion Picture & Television Fund and their closing of a convalescent home for aging actors last month. Gumbel accuses the foundation of lying about the reasons for the closure, and he has the tax returns to prove it (their assets actually increased in 2006 and 2007). In the companion piece, Gumbel finds that the CEO of the MPTF took a $600,000 salary right before closing the home due to the "financial strain." Six former residents have died in the past month, so this isn't an abstract story. The MPTF will respond to the charges in a tele-conference tomorrow. This is a great example of online investigative journalism making a difference.
• Apparently there will actually be a bottom for the home prices in the Sacramento region, we just aren't close to it yet. While the crash just seems to continue, Moody's thinks much of the Sacramento market will hit bottom by Q4 2009, with the remaining coming around by Q1 2010.
• You know how the crisis has been lead by residential foreclosures? Well, economists issued a report in San Diego yesterday warning about commercial foreclosures. With rising vacancy rates, some commercial real estate interests might not be able to keep up with payments.
• We have a full-fledged water crisis in Los Angeles, despite the fact that it's rained almost every day for a week and another three-day storm is on the way. The word "unsustainable" leaps to mind...
Did FDR's Jobs and Spending Programs Make the Depression Worse?
A HISTORY LESSON FOR OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
During the debate on President Obama's stimulus package, I was astonished to hear Republican Congressional leaders argue that history shows us that massive government spending programs make economic crises worse. As an example, they invoke the jobs and public works programs of the Roosevelt Administration, which, they claim, lengthened the Depression rather than ameliorated its impact.
Their arguments are based on a 2004 book called "Roosevelt's Folly" by a resident scholar with the Cato Institute named Jim Powell, a book that has been rejected by most historians of the period as unbalanced and inaccurate. There is no question that Powell is right that FDR's policies did not lead to full recovery from the Depression- that only came as a result of World War II.
But his argument that reliance on the free market would have produced better results than government job creation, public works and encouragement of collective bargaining is not only impossible to prove , it flies in the face of the common sense understanding held by most Americans of what FDR achieved, as well as the assessment of FDR's policies offered by most scholars in American history.
