Connect with us

Politics

Fact-Checking Trump’s 2020 State of the Union Address

Published

on

  • Donald Trump gave his State of the Union address Tuesday night. Some of his claims were true, while others were misleading or false.

State of the Union

President Donald Trump delivered his third State of the Union Tuesday, in front of a bitterly divided Congress and their guests.

Amid partisan tensions just one day before the president was acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial, Trump touted his accomplishments on the economy, health care, immigration, and more.

Some of his claims were true, some were false, and others fell somewhere in between. Here is a fact check of some of the president’s remarks.

Tax Cuts

“From the instant I took office, I moved rapidly to revive the U.S. economy — slashing a record number of job-killing regulations, enacting historic and record-setting tax cuts and fighting for fair and reciprocal trade agreements.”

There are a lot of different things Trump mentions in this quote, but the line we are going to focus on first is Trump’s claim that he implemented “historic and record-setting tax cuts.”

That claim is not true. 

First of all, as The Washington Post explains, the best way to look at tax cuts comparatively is to measure them as a percentage of the economy.

According to Treasury Department data, Trump’s tax cut is about 0.9% of GDP while the actual largest tax cut was Ronald Reagan’s 1981 plan, which was 2.89% of GDP.

Second, according to the Treasury Department, when Trump’s tax cuts are measured as a share of the U.S. economy, they rank as the eighth-largest in the last 100 years in the top 10,  but still not record-breaking.

Jobs and Unemployment

“Since my election, we have created 7 million new jobs, 5 million more than government experts projected during the previous administration. The unemployment rate is the lowest in half a century. And the average unemployment under my administration is lower than any administration in the history of our country. If we hadn’t reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration, the world would not now be witnessing this great economic success.” 

There are a few things to pick apart here. 

First, let’s look at the jobs number and the claim that we would not be seeing this success if Trump had not reversed former President Barack Obama’s “failed economic policies.”

Starting off, the 7 million number is falsely inflated. Trump is using the numbers from when he was elected, not from when he actually took office.

When we look at the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics starting in February 2017, we see that there have been about 6.7 million jobs created. 

In contrast, going back to the last administration, Obama created 8 million jobs in the last three years of his presidency. And when we look at monthly averages, we see that job creation in Obama’s last three years averaged 227,000 a month, while under Trump, it’s averaging 191,000 a month.

Additionally, the idea that the economy would not be where it is now is also misleading, especially when it comes to jobs.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. has experienced 110 months of job growth, two-thirds of which were under Obama.

As for Trump’s claims about unemployment, it is true that unemployment is currently at a 50-year low of 3.5%. It is also true that the jobless rate has fallen 1.2% since Trump took office. 

However, it is misleading to say that the average unemployment is the lowest in any administration in history. While technically that is true, Trump has also only been president for three years, and he is comparing himself to many presidents who served for 8 years.

For example, according to the Post, “the unemployment rate average was lower in Lyndon B. Johnson’s second term than it has been under Trump. But when Johnson’s first term is factored in, Trump gains the edge.”

Trade

“Six days ago I replaced NAFTA and signed a brand new U.S. Mexico Canada agreement into law. The USMCA will create nearly 100,000 new high-paying American auto jobs and massively boost exports for our farmers, ranchers and factory workers.”

This claim is not true at all.

According to estimates from the nonpartisan International Trade Commission (USITC), the USMCA would create around 28,000 jobs in the auto sector. 

Even Trump’s own trade representative estimates that the deal would create 76,000 new jobs in the auto in the next five years— a bigger estimate than the USITC, but still a lot lower than what Trump said.

In general, experts have said that USMCA would have a pretty minor economic impact.

For example, the USITC estimated that the deal would raise the U.S. GDP by $68.2 billion— about 0.35%, and employment by 176,000 jobs— about 0.12%.

Healthcare

“I’ve also made an ironclad pledge to American families, we will always protect patients with preexisting conditions.” 

For some context, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, ensures that people with preexisting conditions have health care access. 

In response to this assertion from the president, many people pointed to Trump’s questionable record on this subject.

Trump and his administration have made several different efforts to weaken and repeal Obamacare, through legislation he has supported, regulations imposed by his administration, and a lawsuit the Justice Department is litigating that could make Obamacare unconstitutional. 

Outlawing Obamacare would also be scrapping that guarantee of coverage for preexisting conditions, at least for the time being, and Trump has not announced a plan to fill those gaps.

“I’m calling for bipartisan legislation that achieves the goal of dramatically lowering prescription drug prices. Get a bill on my desk and I will sign it into law immediately.” 

In response to this claim, a number of Democrats stood up and started chanting “HR3.” HR3 is a sweeping bill passed by the Democrat-controlled House that would lower the price of prescription drugs.

While the House has already passed a bill, the bipartisan effort in the Senate has not gotten movement from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and has become one of the bills in McConnells “graveyard.”

Notably, even within his own party, McConnell has been accused of “sabotaging” a bipartisan drug pricing bill proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

Immigration

“As we speak, a long, tall, and very powerful wall is being built. We have now completed over 100 miles and have over 500 miles fully completed in a very short period of time. Early next year, we will have substantially more than 500 miles completed.” 

Trump has promised that the U.S. southern border will see an additional 500 miles of fencing by “early next year.”

However, the Department of Homeland Security has tried to downplay the president’s promises by saying it will have that much built or “under construction” within that timeframe.

But meeting Trump’s goals on the wall, a central campaign promise, would require doubling the current pace of construction.

There is also an issue of private lands. In Texas, a lot of the land Trump wants to build the wall on is privately owned, and the process of the government acquiring that land could take months or even years.

The effectiveness and strength of the border wall has also been called into question.

According to recent reports, immigrants have used power tools to cut through the wall and makeshift ladders to scale it.

“Last year, our brave ICE officers arrested more than 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries, 5,000 sexual assaults, 45,000 violent assaults and 2,000 murders.”

These numbers are technically accurate, but the way Trump used them is misleading.

It is true ICE arrested more than 120,000 illegal immigrants last year. However, most of those immigrants were only ever convicted of illegally immigrating to the U.S. or other nonviolent offenses. 

But the numbers Trump gave for violent crimes are just the number of charges filed— not the number of crimes per person. One person could be charged with multiple crimes, seemingly inflating those numbers.

Additionally, the numbers Trump provided are just charges and not convictions, meaning some of them might have eventually been cleared.

Middle East & Terrorism

“Three years ago, the barbarians of ISIS held over 20,000 square miles of territory in Iraq and Syria. Today, the ISIS territorial caliphate has been 100 percent destroyed, and the founder and leader of ISIS — the bloodthirsty killer known as Al‑Baghdadi — is dead!”

It is true that in Jan. 2017, the Islamic State controlled about 23,000 square miles in Iraq and Syria, but in March 2019, it was pushed out of its last patch of territory in Syria. 

But even after the leader of ISIS in the Levant Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi died, the U.S. military warned that the Islamic State remained a dangerous threat and that his death did not damage the group’s capability.

In fact, in a recent report, the military said that ISIS, “remain[s] cohesive, with an intact command and control structure, urban clandestine networks, and an insurgent presence in much of rural Syria.”

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The Los Angeles Times) (The Washington Post)

Politics

Jan. 6 Rally Organizers Say They Met With Members of Congress and White House Officials Ahead of Insurrection

Published

on

Two sources told Rolling Stone that they participated in “dozens” of meetings with “multiple members of Congress” and top White House aides to plan the rallies that proceeded the Jan. 6 insurrection.


Rolling Stone Report

Members of Congress and White House Staffers under former President Donald Trump allegedly helped plan the Jan. 6 protests that took place outside the U.S. Capitol ahead of the insurrection, according to two sources who spoke to Rolling Stone.

According to a report the outlet published Sunday, the two people, identified only as “a rally organizer” and “a planner,” have both “begun communicating with congressional investigators.”

The two told Rolling Stone that they participated in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of the protests and said that “multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent.”

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the person identified as a rally organizer said. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”

The two also told Rolling Stone that a number of other Congress members were either personally involved in the conversations or had staffers join, including Representatives Paul Gosar (R-Az.), Lauren Boebert (R-Co.), Mo Brooks (R-Al.), Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Andy Biggs (R-Az.), and Louie Gohmert (R-Tx.).

The outlet added that it “separately obtained documentary evidence that both sources were in contact with Gosar and Boebert on Jan. 6,” though it did not go into further detail. 

A spokesperson for Greene has denied involvement with planning the protests, but so far, no other members have responded to the report. 

Previous Allegations Against Congressmembers Named

This is not the first time allegations have surfaced concerning the involvement of some of the aforementioned congress members regarding rallies that took place ahead of the riot.

As Rolling Stone noted, Gosar, Greene, and Boebert were all listed as speakers at the “Wild Protest” at the Capitol on Jan. 6, which was arranged by “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander.

Additionally, Alexander said during a now-deleted live stream in January that he personally planned the rally with the help of Gosar, Biggs, and Brooks.

Biggs and Brooks previously denied any involvement in planning the event, though Brooks did speak at a pro-Trump protest on Jan. 6.

Gosar, for his part, has remained quiet for months but tagged Alexander in numerous tweets involving Stop the Steal events leading up to Jan. 6, including one post that appears to be taken at a rally at the Capitol hours before the insurrection.

Notably, the organizer and the planner also told Rolling Stone that Gosar “dangled the possibility of a ‘blanket pardon’ in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.”

Alleged White House Involvement

Beyond members of Congress, the outlet reported that the sources “also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.”

Both reportedly described Meadows “as someone who played a major role in the conversations surrounding the protests.”

The two additionally said Katrina Pierson, who worked for the Trump campaign in both 2016 and 2020, was a key liaison between the organizers of the demonstrations and the White House.

“Katrina was like our go-to girl,” the organizer told the outlet. “She was like our primary advocate.”

According to Rolling Stone, the sources have so far only had informal talks with the House committee investigating the insurrection but are expecting to testify publicly. Both reportedly said they would share “new details about the members’ specific roles” in planning the rallies with congressional investigators.

See what others are saying: (Rolling Stone) (Business Insider) (Forbes)

Continue Reading

Politics

Jan. 6 Committee Prepares Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon for Ignoring Subpoena

Published

on

The move comes after former President Trump told several of his previous aides not to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the insurrection.


Bannon Refuses to Comply With Subpoena

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection announced Thursday that it is seeking to hold former White House advisor Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena.

The decision marks a significant escalation in the panel’s efforts to force officials under former President Donald Trump’s administration to comply with its probe amid Trump’s growing efforts to obstruct the inquiry.

In recent weeks, the former president has launched a number of attempts to block the panel from getting key documents, testimonies, and other evidence requested by the committee that he claims are protected by executive privilege.

Notably, some of those assertions have been shut down. On Friday, President Joe Biden rejected Trump’s effort to withhold documents relating to the insurrection.

Still, Trump has also directed former officials in his administration not to comply with subpoenas or cooperate with the committee. 

That demand came after the panel issued subpoenas ordering depositions from Bannon and three other former officials: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel.

After Trump issued his demand, Bannon’s lawyer announced that he would not obey the subpoena until the panel reached an agreement with Trump or a court ruled on the executive privilege matter.

Many legal experts have questioned whether Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, can claim executive privilege for something that happened when he was not working for the executive.

Panel Intensifies Compliance Efforts

The Thursday decision from the committee is significant because it will likely set up a legal battle and test how much authority the committee can and will exercise in requiring compliance.

It also sets an important precedent for those who have been subpoenaed. While Bannon is the first former official to openly defy the committee, there have been reports that others plan to do the same. 

The panel previously said Patel and Meadows were “engaging” with investigators, but on Thursday, several outlets reported that the two — who were supposed to appear before the body on Thursday and Friday respectively —  are now expected to be given an extension or continuance.

Sources told reporters that Scavino, who was also asked to testify Friday, has had his deposition postponed because service of his subpoena was delayed.

As far as what happens next for Bannon, the committee will vote to adopt the contempt report next week. Once that is complete, the matter will go before the House for a full vote.  

Assuming the Democratic-held House approves the contempt charge, it will then get referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the matter before a grand jury.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (The Washington Post) (Bloomberg)

Continue Reading

Politics

Senate Votes To Extend Debt Ceiling Until December

Published

on

The move adds another deadline to Dec. 3, which is also when the federal government is set to shut down unless Congress approves new spending.


Debt Ceiling Raised Temporarily

The Senate voted on Thursday to extend the debt ceiling until December, temporarily averting a fiscal catastrophe.

The move, which followed weeks of stalemate due to Republican objections, came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) partially backed down from his blockade and offered a short-term proposal.

After much whipping of votes, 11 Republicans joined Democrats to break the legislative filibuster and move to final approval of the measure. The bill ultimately passed in a vote of 50-48 without any Republican support.

The legislation will now head to the House, where Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said members would be called back from their current recess for a vote on Tuesday. 

The White House said President Joe Biden would sign the measure, but urged Congress to pass a longer extension.

“We cannot allow partisan politics to hold our economy hostage, and we can’t allow the routine process of paying our bills to turn into a confidence-shaking political showdown every two years or every two months,’’ White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement.

Under the current bill, the nation’s borrowing limit will be increased by $480 billion, which the Treasury Department said will cover federal borrowing until around Dec. 3.

The agency had previously warned that it would run out of money by Oct. 18 if Congress failed to act. Such a move would have a chilling impact on the economy, forcing the U.S. to default on its debts and potentially plunging the country into a recession. 

Major Hurdles Remain

While the legislation extending the ceiling will certainly offer temporary relief, it sets up another perilous deadline for the first Friday in December, when government funding is also set to expire if Congress does not approve another spending bill.

Regardless of the new deadline, many of the same hurdles lawmakers faced the first time around remain. 

Democrats are still struggling to hammer out the final details of Biden’s $3.5 trillion spending agenda, which Republicans have strongly opposed.

Notably, Democratic leaders previously said they could pass the bill through budget reconciliation, which would allow them to approve the measure with 50 votes and no Republican support.

Such a move would require all 50 Senators, but intraparty disputes remain over objections brought by Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.), who have been stalling the process for months.

Although disagreements over reconciliation are ongoing among Democrats, McConnell has insisted the party use the obscure procedural process to raise the debt limit. Democrats, however, have balked at the idea, arguing that tying the debt ceiling to reconciliation would set a dangerous precedent.

Despite Republican efforts to connect the limit to Biden’s economic agenda, raising the ceiling is not the same as adopting new spending. Rather, the limit is increased to pay off spending that has already been authorized by previous sessions of Congress and past administrations.

In fact, much of the current debt stems from policies passed by Republicans during the Trump administration, including the 2017 tax overhaul. 

As a result, while Democrats have signaled they may make concessions to Manchin and Sinema, they strongly believe that Republicans must join them to increase the debt ceiling to fund projects their party supported. 

It is currently unclear when or how the ongoing stalemate will be resolved, or how either party will overcome their fervent objections.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading