By Daniel Dale |
President Joe Biden sat for an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday.
Biden was usually factual in the interview, much of which aired on Wednesday. But he was wrong on three statistical claims.
The context around two of these incorrect claims recommends they may have been slips instead of purposeful lies. And on the third claim, concerning the history of the Senate filibuster, Biden explicitly told Stephanopoulos that he didn’t believe the numbers he was utilizing were right.
Still, it’s our job to fix the record when the President is incorrect. Here’s a fact-check look at the three unreliable claims and 2 other claims Biden made in the interview.
The circulation of the American Rescue Strategy
Biden, touting the tax benefits of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Strategy pandemic relief law he signed last week, stated, “60% of all these tax breaks go– all these tax breaks go to the bottom 60% of the population.”
Truths First: Biden stumbled his way into inaccuracy here. When asked where Biden got this figure, the White House stated Biden was describing a figure from the Tax Policy Center. But Tax Policy Center senior fellow Howard Gleckman explained to that the center really found that 67.4% of the tax advantages this year from the new law would go to the bottom 60% of homes– not that “all” of the advantages go to the bottom 60% as Biden said.
” He got the very first half of the sentence right and really understated it. However he got the second half of the sentence wrong,” Gleckman said.
Obama-era assistance to Central America
Biden took credit for the passage of an Obama-era initiative to increase federal support to Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, nations from which the United States had actually experienced an influx of unaccompanied minors. He said that “I was able to get a bipartisan costs passed for practically $800 billion to go to the source of why– why individuals are leaving.”
Facts First: The 2015 effort Biden was talking about– which he did, as vice president, play a significant function in getting passed– offered as much as $750 million in US financing for Main American countries, not “$ 800 billion” as Biden stated. We would have let it move if he had actually stated “$ 800 million” instead of $750 million, however “$ 800 billion” is a considerable mistake.
The Central America financing was contained in a broader costs that did pass with bipartisan assistance.
The history of the filibuster
Biden backed a change to Senate filibuster rules, stating senators should when again be required to stand on the flooring and keep talking if they want to impede legislation. Present filibuster policy permits senators to filibuster without making speeches.
Biden said: “Look, I think– don’t hold me to the numbers, George, but I believe between 1960 and 2000, there were– I’m making this number up, I don’t understand– there were, like– you know, 50 filibusters. Now there’re, like, 200 since then …”.
Realities First: As Biden said himself, he didn’t have his numbers directly. While professionals say it is hard even for them to determine the variety of filibusters per year (here’s an explanation of the intricacy), it’s clear that Biden’s figure was too low both for the previous duration and the existing period– though he was accurate on his general point that the number of filibusters has actually increased significantly in the 21st century as compared to the late 20th century.
Molly Reynolds, a Brookings Organization senior fellow who has actually studied the filibuster, said that the majority of scholars believe the best proxy step is the number of motions applied for cloture, a transfer to end a Senate argument. According to main Senate data, there were 755 cloture motions submitted from 1961 to 2000 (which exercises to an average of less than 20 annually) and 1,516 cloture movements filed from 2001 onward (which exercises to approximately about 75 each year).
The Trump tax cuts.
Biden said of Republican politician opposition to his Covid relief strategy: “They don’t like it due to the fact that in truth their– their concept of a tax cut is provide the Trump tax cut, where 83% went to the leading 1% of the people in America.”.
Truths First: This needs context. While it’s right to generally state the most affluent Americans were the greatest beneficiaries of Trump’s 2017 tax cut, the “83%” figure is a forecast about what may happen under specific scenarios in 2027, not about what has actually happened currently.
The Tax Policy Center approximated in 2017 that the leading 1% would get about 83% of the benefits in 2027, if the law’s specific tax cuts (which were designed as temporary) were allowed to expire and the law’s corporate tax cuts (which were designed as permanent) continued to exist. For 2018, on the other hand, the Tax Policy Center approximated that the leading 1% got 20.5% of the advantages, while the 95% -99% group got another 22.1%.
There is certainly a substantial distinction in how the new Biden law and the 2017 Trump law treat the abundant and the bad. For example, the Tax Policy Center discovered that families earning $25,000 or less will get an average tax cut of $2,800 this year from the new relief law, increasing their after-tax earnings by 20%. Under the Trump law, these families saw a $60 average reduction in the first year, or about 0.4% of their after-tax earnings.
Ballot on the American Rescue Strategy.
Mentioning the American Rescue Plan, Biden boasted that “there’s 78% of individuals state they support this program, 52% of Republicans.” He granted that there might be some ballot mistake, saying, “Let’s presume it’s off by 15%.”.
Realities First: This claim is accurate enough; there has actually been some public polling that has actually shown total assistance for the American Rescue Strategy simply shy of the 78% Biden claimed and support among Republicans even greater than the 52% he claimed. Other public polling, nevertheless, has actually discovered lower assistance than Biden declared, both for the general public and for Republican politicians. Poll outcomes have appeared to vary with the phrasing of pollsters’ questions.
An Early morning Consult/Politico poll carried out February 19-22 found 76% overall support for the relief strategy amongst registered voters and 60% assistance among Republican registered voters– after survey respondents were told about the plan’s $1.9 trillion expense and some crucial arrangements, consisting of the $1,400 direct payments. A Morning Consult/Politico survey carried out March 6-8 found 75% overall assistance for the plan and 59% Republican support.
A Monmouth University poll conducted February 25-March 1 found considerably lower assistance for the plan than Morning Consult did, especially amongst Republicans: general support was 62%, while Republican support was just 33%. In addition to standard distinctions in pollster methodology and sampling (the Monmouth poll surveyed grownups, not registered voters in specific), it’s worth noting that Monmouth mentioned the strategy’s $1.9 trillion cost prior to asking participants their opinion but did not discuss the $1,400 payments until after that question.