In his first address to a joint session of Congress, President Joe Biden got some facts wrong and stretched others, mainly repeated claims we\u2019ve heard before:<\/p>\n
Biden\u00a0spoke\u00a0on April 28, one day shy of his 100th day as president.<\/p>\n
Biden early in his speech spoke about inheriting an economy severely battered by COVID-19, the \u201cworst economic crisis since the Great Depression,\u201d he said. The economy was struggling, but it had improved some by the time he was sworn in.<\/p>\n
\u201cI stand here tonight, one day shy of the 100th\u00a0day of my administration.\u00a0One hundred days since I took the oath of office and lifted my hand off our family Bible, and inherited a nation, we all did, that was in crisis,\u201d he said. \u201cThe worst pandemic in a century. The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.\u201d<\/p>\n
As we\u00a0explained\u00a0in January, the U.S. lost 22.1 million jobs in March and April 2020 \u2014 and then regained about half of those by November (though, some jobs were lost in December).<\/p>\n
The unemployment rate\u00a0reached\u00a014.8% in April 2020, but by January that figure had dropped to 6.3%. (It has since dropped to 6% as of March.)<\/p>\n
And in the second quarter of 2020, the gross domestic product \u2014\u00a0used\u00a0to gauge the health of an economy \u2014\u00a0dropped\u00a0by 31.4%. But the GDP then\u00a0increased\u00a0by 33.4% in the third quarter, followed by 4% in the fourth quarter of 2020.<\/p>\n
The U.S.\u00a0closed\u00a02020 with an economy that had contracted about 3.5% from 2019 \u2014 the\u00a0biggest drop\u00a0since 1946.<\/p>\n
So while the U.S. was no doubt grappling with the COVID-19 crisis and the economic fallout when Biden took office \u2014 and it still is \u2014 the country\u2019s hurting economy had recovered some from its low point earlier in the pandemic.<\/p>\n
In discussing the need for the U.S. to compete with the rest of the world, Biden briefly deviated from his prepared remarks and injected into his address a debunked falsehood about his travels with Chinese President Xi Jinping.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs Secretary (of State Antony)\u00a0Blinken can tell you, I spent a lot of time with President Xi,\u201d Biden\u00a0said. \u201cI traveled over 17,000 miles with him. Spent [over] 24 hours in private discussions with him.\u201d<\/p>\n
But Biden did not travel \u201cover 17,000 miles\u201d with Xi.<\/p>\n
The president has touted that figure before. Our fact-checking colleagues at the Washington Post\u00a0thoroughly\u00a0examined this claim\u00a0in February and could not arrive at anywhere close to that figure.<\/p>\n
When he was vice president, Biden did meet with Xi on many occasions \u2014 including in China in\u00a02011,\u00a0in the U.S. in\u00a02012,\u00a0again in China in\u00a02013\u00a0and once more in Washington in\u00a02015. We note that some of those instances included multiple meetings (for example, in 2012, they met on\u00a0Feb. 14\u00a0and then again\u00a0three days later\u00a0in Los Angeles). But the only time that the two appear to have actually traveled together, according to the Washington Post\u2018s findings, was when they\u00a0visited\u00a0a high school in Dujiangyan during Biden\u2019s 2011 trip to China.<\/p>\n
An unnamed White House official told the\u00a0Post\u00a0that Biden\u2019s figure was actually a \u201creference to the total travel back and forth \u2014 both internally in the U.S. and China, and as well as internationally \u2014 for meetings they held together.\u201d\u00a0Even then, the\u00a0Post\u00a0could not ascertain exactly how the 17,000-mile figure was calculated.<\/p>\n
Biden referred to the American Jobs Plan creating \u201cmillions of jobs\u201d and generating \u201ctrillions of dollars in economic growth,\u201d citing \u201cindependent experts.\u201d<\/p>\n
The jobs estimate is accurate, although barely by one measure, and the economic growth projections are mixed.<\/p>\n
Biden\u2019s infrastructure plan, which will cost more than $2 trillion,\u00a0is projected to add 2.7 million jobs over 10 years, according to an\u00a0analysis\u00a0by Moody\u2019s Analytics.<\/p>\n
As we have\u00a0reported\u00a0before, Moody\u2019s analysis concluded that the U.S. economy would add 16.3 million jobs over the next decade even if the American Jobs Plan does not pass. If it does become law, the Moody\u2019s analysis concluded the American Jobs Plan would provide an additional 2.7 million jobs for a total of 19 million over 10 years.<\/p>\n
In a separate report,\u00a0Georgetown University\u2019s Center on Education and the Workforce projects\u00a0the Biden plan would \u201ccreate or save 15 million jobs over 10 years.\u201d<\/p>\n
The report does not break out the number of new jobs created, saying only that \u201cthis investment could create and\/or save 15 million jobs by generating opportunities for new jobs that did not exist before the stimulus as well as providing the necessary investment to save jobs that would otherwise be lost due to state and local government budget shortfalls.\u201d<\/p>\n
As for the economic growth, the prognostications vary greatly.<\/p>\n
Moody\u2019s Analytics said the plan would boost real gross domestic product, although in the short term it would reduce growth.<\/p>\n
In early 2022, the plan would \u201cmarginally reduce growth, as the higher corporate taxes take effect right away while the increased infrastructure spending does not get going in earnest until later in the year,\u201d Moody\u2019s said. But \u201cby 2023 and throughout much of the midpart of the decade the ramp-up in infrastructure spending significantly lifts growth,\u201d the report said. \u201cThe apex in the boost to growth from the plan is in 2024 when real GDP is projected to increase 3.8%, compared with 2.2% if the plan fails to become law.\u201d<\/p>\n
Penn Wharton Budget Model, on the other hand,\u00a0projects\u00a0that the plan would increase federal deficits, crowd out private investment and reduce economic growth.<\/p>\n
\u201c(T)he tax and spending provisions of the AJP would increase government debt by 1.7 percent by 2031 but decrease government debt by 6.4 percent by 2050,\u201d the Penn Wharton report said. \u201cThe AJP ends up decreasing GDP by 0.8 percent in 2050.\u201d<\/p>\n
Biden suggested former President Donald Trump\u2019s administration ended a program to address the causes of migration to the U.S. from Central American countries \u2014 a program that Biden helped secure funding for when he was vice president. That\u2019s not what happened.<\/p>\n
Biden:\u00a0We also have to get at the root problem of why people are fleeing particularly to our southern border from Guatemala and Honduras and El Salvador. The violence. The corruption. The gangs. The political instability. Hunger. Hurricanes. Earthquakes. Natural disasters. When I was vice president, the president asked me to focus on providing help needed to address the root cause of migration. And it helped keep people in their own countries instead of being forced to leave. The plan was working but the last administration decided it was not worth it. I am restoring the program and asking Vice President Harris to lead our diplomatic effort to take care of these.<\/em><\/p>\n Biden appeared to be referring to the \u201cU.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America,\u201d which was funded with as much as $750 million during the Obama administration in fiscal year 2016.<\/p>\n As\u00a0we\u2019ve written\u00a0before, the annual budget for that initiative declined significantly during Trump\u2019s presidency.\u00a0According to\u00a0the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, appropriations for the program declined to $685 million in FY 2017, $615 million in FY 2018, $528 million in FY 2019, $533 million in FY 2020 and $506 million in FY 2021.<\/p>\n But the initiative wasn\u2019t completely eliminated, as Biden\u2019s speech may have led viewers to believe.<\/p>\n The president may have been referencing the fact that the Trump administration did reallocate or temporarily suspend some of the money that Congress authorized for use in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.<\/p>\n As a January\u00a0CRS report\u00a0said: \u201cFrom FY2016 to FY2020, Congress appropriated more than $3.1 billion to improve security, governance, and socioeconomic conditions in Central America as part of a whole-of-government initiative to address the drivers of irregular migration. However, in March 2019 \u2014 less than two years into the initiative\u2019s on-the-ground implementation \u2014 the Trump Administration suspended most foreign aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The Administration proceeded to reprogram approximately $396 million of aid appropriated for the Northern Triangle countries in FY2018, reallocating the funds to other foreign policy priorities within, and outside of, the Latin American and Caribbean region.\u201d<\/p>\n CRS explained that the Trump administration \u201cwithheld most of the assistance Congress appropriated for Central America in FY2019 while it negotiated a series of agreements intended to stem the flow of migrants and asylum-seekers from the Northern Triangle to the United States.\u201d That led to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development closing down or canceling some planned projects and activities.<\/p>\n However, the report also said that \u2014 because some members of Congress argued the funding freeze was counterproductive \u2014 aid to the Northern Triangle countries that was previously held back began to be released late in 2019. And \u201call of the previously suspended assistance for the region\u201d had been \u201cprogrammed\u201d by June 2020.<\/p>\n The Biden administration\u00a0has announced\u00a0it will restart the Central American Minors Program, which the Trump administration ended in 2017. But that program allowed qualified immigrant parents legally living in the U.S. to request that their children in El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras be brought to the U.S. as refugees.<\/p>\n The program aimed to provide a \u201csafe, legal, and orderly\u201d way for children to come to the U.S., the Biden administration said \u2014 not ultimately \u201ckeep people in their own countries,\u201d as the president said in his address.<\/p>\n Referring to the entire population of people living in the U.S. illegally, Biden said: \u201cOn Day One of my presidency, I kept my commitment and sent a comprehensive immigration bill to the United States Congress. \u2026 If you believe in a pathway to citizenship, pass it. Over 11 million undocumented folks, the vast majority of here overstaying visas.\u201d<\/p>\n But the majority of the people in the U.S. illegally didn\u2019t overstay a visa, according to independent estimates.<\/p>\n A\u00a0February 2020 report\u00a0written by\u00a0Robert Warren\u00a0of the Center for Migration Studies of New York estimated that, of the 10.6 million people in the U.S. illegally in 2018, \u201cabout 5.7 million (54 percent) entered across the border, and 4.9 million (46 percent) entered with a temporary visa and overstayed.\u201d<\/p>\n The report does make the point that a majority of the unauthorized population who arrived between 2010 and 2018 originally came to the U.S. legally.<\/p>\n \u201cOf those, 2.6 million (66 percent) overstayed their temporary visas, and 1.3 million (34 percent) entered illegally across the border,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n Still, a spokeswoman for the Migration Policy Institute,\u00a0Michelle Mittelstadt, similarly told us in a February email: \u201cIf you look at the overall unauthorized population, we believe that slightly more than half crossed a border illegally to get here. This is because the overall unauthorized population is a long settled one \u2013 we estimate that 60 percent have been in the U.S. a decade or more \u2013 as well as the fact that in earlier periods illegal entries outpaced visa overstays.\u201d<\/p>\n As he has in the past, Biden claimed the 10-year assault weapons ban that he helped shepherd through the Senate as part of the 1994 crime bill \u201cworked\u201d and should be restored. But as\u00a0we wrote\u00a0in March, the academic evidence isn\u2019t clear about that.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what Biden said: \u201cIn the 1990s, we passed universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that hold 100 rounds that can be fired off in seconds. We beat the NRA. Mass shootings and gun violence declined. \u2026 But in the early 2000s, that law expired and we\u2019ve seen the daily bloodshed since.\u201d<\/p>\n Later in his speech, Biden said, \u201cAnd we need a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don\u2019t tell me it can\u2019t be done. We\u2019ve done it before, and it worked.\u201d<\/p>\n Biden is referring to his work as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when he\u00a0sponsored\u00a0and largely shepherded the\u00a0Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act\u00a0into law in 1994. That law, among other things, included an \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban, which prohibited the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity magazines that could accommodate 10 rounds or more. (Existing weapons on the banned list were \u201cgrandfathered,\u201d meaning people could keep them.) A sunset provision, however, meant that the ban expired in 10 years, in 2004.<\/p>\n Biden\u2019s mention of passing \u201cuniversal background checks\u201d refers to the\u00a0Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required background checks for gun sales between licensed importers, manufacturers, or dealers and an unlicensed individual. Although Biden referred to it as \u201cuniversal background checks,\u201d that\u2019s not what it was, at least not according to Biden\u2019s\u00a0use of the term\u00a0in recent years. He has used the term to mean\u00a0requiring background checks\u00a0on \u201call gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members\u201d (as he put it on his presidential campaign website) \u2014 even those between private parties.<\/p>\n A RAND\u00a0review of gun studies, updated in 2020, found there is \u201cinconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings\u201d and that \u201cavailable\u00a0evidence is\u00a0inconclusive for the effect of\u00a0assault weapon bans on total homicides\u00a0and firearm homicides.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t think there are great studies available yet to state the effectiveness of assault weapons bans,\u201d Andrew Morral, a RAND senior behavioral scientist who led the project, told us in March. \u201cThat\u2019s not to say they aren\u2019t effective. The research we reviewed doesn\u2019t provide compelling evidence one way or the other.\u201d<\/p>\n There is more research, however, to back up Biden\u2019s claim with regard to the second part of his proposal: banning large-capacity magazines. Growing evidence suggests that such a ban might reduce the number of those killed and injured in mass public shootings.<\/p>\n For example,\u00a0research\u00a0published in 2019 in\u00a0Criminology & Public Policy\u00a0by Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, found that while the assault weapons ban did not appear to have much of an effect on the number of mass public shootings (after controlling for population growth), the incidence and severity of mass public shootings, meaning the number killed and injured, has increased over the last decade, after the ban had expired.<\/p>\n Research published in\u00a0Criminology & Public Policy\u00a0in January 2020 concluded that assault weapons bans \u201cdo not seem to be associated with the incidence of fatal mass shootings.\u201d However, state laws requiring handgun purchasers to obtain a license and state bans of large-capacity magazines did appear to be \u201cassociated with reductions in fatal mass shootings.\u201d<\/p>\n In\u00a0separate research\u00a0also published in\u00a0Criminology & Public Policy\u00a0in January 2020,\u00a0Christopher S. Koper, principal fellow of George Mason University\u2019s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, argues that the \u201cmost important provisions of assault weapons law\u201d are restrictions on large-capacity magazines, because \u201cthey can produce broader reductions in the overall use of high-capacity semiautomatics that facilitate high-volume gunfire attacks.\u201d<\/p>\nIllegal immigration and overstaying visas<\/h3>\n
Assault weapons ban \u2018worked\u2019<\/h3>\n