I read with interest Al Fonzi’s recent opinion, “Myth busting” (Sept. 10). I mean, I like “myth busting” as much as the next person, and I feel obliged to bust a few of the myths in this piece. But, first, I’d like to sincerely thank Mr. Fonzi for his military service to this nation. I strongly believe that our veterans and current servicemen and women are heroes, and I do not think they are “suckers” or “losers.” Unfortunately, Mr. Fonzi’s commentary employs a series of distortions and cherry-picked facts to bolster his contrarian worldview.
While it is true that during his administration, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) did not tackle race issues directly and was, like many presidents before him, basically apathetic to the plight of African Americans, it is a distortion to suggest that he had nothing to do with the civil rights conquests that would result from decisions made by his disciples, including Presidents Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Truman and Johnson, both New Deal liberals, made headway in civil rights by desegregating the military and passing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Fonzi descends into outright lies when he says, “Roosevelt’s economic accomplishments were mediocre.” This lie was originally fabricated by neo-liberal economists in the 1970s in order to villainize Keynesianism. Here are the facts: FDR inherited an economy with contracting GDP and 25 percent unemployment. During the nine years before the U.S. entered World War II and fully mobilized its wartime economy, average GDP growth was above 9 percent, hitting double digits in 1934, 1936, and 1941.
In the same period, the unemployment rate fell by more than 60 percent. In contrast, current GDP growth under what President Donald Trump lauds as the “greatest economy in history” has averaged 2.5 percent and that does not count the current economic recession, which will most certainly drive that average into negative territory. As for unemployment, it looks like at the conclusion of Trump’s term, it will be nearly double what he inherited.
Moreover, FDR created Social Security, which raised millions of America’s senior citizens out of poverty. Before Social Security was signed into law about half of America’s seniors lived in poverty, by 1970 that number had dropped to 25 percent and by 2000 it was at 10 percent. In addition, FDR created the Fair Housing Administration, which enabled millions of American families to buy their own home by insuring those loans.
As for George Floyd, Mr. Fonzi claims that Floyd died from a drug overdose. This is wrong. An independent autopsy labeled Floyd’s death a homicide, while the medical examiner’s report claims he died from “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” We all saw it, it was murder. A cop kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes while he pleaded for his life.
With climate change, I know I’ll never change the minds of the climate-change denialists, but Mr. Fonzi’s rant on “climate hysteria” simply presents more disinformation. Fonzi says sea levels rose 7.5 inches between 1900 and 2010. But what he doesn’t tell you is that half of that increase has taken place in the last 25 years.
Fonzi correctly claims there were more wildfires in the past, but he what he fails to tell you is that today’s “megafires” are far more destructive. In fact, 11 of the top 20 most destructive fires in California’s history have occurred since 2015.
Fonzi also claims the climate will “warm regardless of what we do.” Climate scientists—and I would point out that 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists believe that global warming is “highly likely” due to human activities—believe it is not too late to reverse current trends.
Renowned climatologist Michael Mann contends that with aggressive government action—exactly what Mr. Fonzi warns against—we could mitigate climate change. Again, contrary to what Mr. Fonzi posits, a focus on renewable energy would create good jobs and actually improve our economy. Δ
Michael Smith wrote to New Times from Santa Maria. Send a response to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Student Guide 2020.
I I love it when someone writes such an articulate rebuttal to Al Fonzi’s distortions and lies.
https//livingnewdeal.org is a resource for all things New Deal, including an interactive map and data base that describes more than 16,000 (and growing) New Deal sites, which shows how the New Deal invested in cities and rural areas nationwide. Publishing “alternative facts” seems to be increasingly acceptable. It’s too bad Fonzi’s distortions weren’t fact checked before they went public.
Thank you, Michael Smith, for your calm and fact-filled rebuttal to SLO County’s Tea Party operative and minister of disinformation. The struggle against the right wing’s “alternative facts” continues.
Well written and comprehensive response. Thanks for taking the time to write it….
“Under the official poverty measure, 4.7 million adults ages 65 and older lived in poverty in 2017 (9.2%), but that number increases to 7.2 million (14.1%) based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure (Figure 1). Nov 19, 2018”
“Over 25 million Americans aged 60+ are economically insecure—living at or below 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($29,425 per year for a single person). These older adults struggle with rising housing and health care bills, inadequate nutrition, lack of access to transportation, diminished savings, and job loss. For older adults who are above the poverty level, one major adverse life event can change today’s realities into tomorrow’s troubles.”
“21% of married Social Security recipients and 43% of single recipients aged 65+ depend on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.”
“More accurate measures of economic well-being—including the Elder Indexâ„¢ and the Institute on Assets and Social Policy’s Senior Financial Stability Index—show millions of older adults struggling to meet their monthly expenses,
Lifted us out of poverty? Not all of us.
I searched for cities affected by sea level rise and found not one single instance.
Every mention of sea rise is projections and threats.
Not one example at all.
Hundreds of cities seem to be planning for an event with not one example to show the need.
Now, I am not a climate change denier but I am waiting patiently for the news that one city or one island is underwater other than from a storm or rainfall before I’ll sell out and leave the central coast.
Like the flat earthers of Galileo’s time, anthropogenic climate change is the “truth” of our time, and skeptics doubt this conventional wisdom at their peril.
Responding to Michael Smith. Roosevelt’s economics were worse than mediocre. His economic distortion of resource allocations, before the war, were so bad, it caused the economy to have a depression within a depression beginning 1937. His language proved he had no idea what caused the contraction. A text book example of the opposite is the 1920-21 depression, which the C.P.I. fell further and faster than any time in the 1930’s, yet the economy recovered within a year and a half, because of nonintervention. If Keynesian economics were true then 1920-21 depression should have been much worse.
Regarding climate, the Holocene Epoch is still progressing. Ancient tree rings show in addition to Native Americans annual burns, redwood forests before Europeans, burned every 6 to 25 years, in conjunction with La Nina. Fires now are more destructive from more people and bad policy. The “97% of scientists agree” statement is misleading. That figure is originally 97 percent of 33 percent of the total, from “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature”. “Renowned” Michael Mann can easily be disregarded by looking at unaltered graphs and data (realclimatscience.com). Can we be better stewards? Of course!