Here’s a look at how some of President Biden’s claims and those of the senator who delivered the Republican response, Katie Britt, stacked up.
By The New York Times
March 8, 2024Share full article
President Biden delivered his third State of the Union address on Thursday, arguing that life in the United States had improved on his watch — a message that effectively served as a campaign message as he faces off against his predecessor and rival, Donald J. Trump.
Republicans offered their own take, with Senator Katie Britt of Alabama giving a rebuttal that argued that the country was worsening under Mr. Biden.
Mr. Biden’s address largely consisted of political messages and factual statements, but some of his comments warranted additional context. Ms. Britt also made some misleading statements.
Here’s a fact check.
Mr. Biden is correct that from January 2021 to January 2024, the United States added nearly 14.8 million jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
That is a growth of about 10 percent in three years. However, it is worth noting that Mr. Biden came to office as jobs were beginning to return after huge losses during the coronavirus pandemic. Total jobs are now about 3.5 percent higher than the prepandemic peak in February 2020. About half of the 22 million jobs lost in 2020 had returned by the start of the Biden administration.
This figure is a White House estimate of private investments made in various industries during the Biden administration. Officials calculate it by looking at public announcements of investments — not necessarily dollars spent — across industries targeted by Mr. Biden’s legislative accomplishments. Those include the CHIPS and Science Act, Inflation Reduction Act and $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law.
Mr. Biden has a goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States roughly in half by 2030. But it is not at all clear the policies he has put in place will get the country there.
The Inflation Reduction Act, Mr. Biden’s landmark climate law that invests $370 billion in clean energy, helps put the country on track to cut emissions by about 40 percent. But some big things still need to happen to realize those cuts, like changes to permitting to help build more transmission to connect clean energy to the grid.
Meanwhile, some of Mr. Biden’s big climate regulations on things like automobiles and power plant emissions are undergoing changes, making it even more difficult to reach that 2030 goal.
Under Mr. Biden’s watch, the federal deficit dropped to $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2022 from $3.1 trillion in fiscal year 2021 — but much of that reduction was attributed to the expiration of coronavirus relief spending. The deficit then rose in 2023, to about $1.7 trillion.
And the deficit actually grew larger than the official numbers suggest: When adjusting for a student-loan forgiveness program that was factored into the numbers, but then struck down by the Supreme Court, the deficit in 2022 was actually closer to $1 trillion and $2 trillion in 2023.
The deficit remains higher than it was before the coronavirus pandemic. In fiscal year 2019, the deficit was about $984 billion and lower in years prior. And the national debt has grown to about $34.4 trillion today, from about $27.8 trillion in January 2021.
Mr. Biden was referring to a White House study, released in 2021, that used a “more comprehensive measure of income” than is currently assessed. But it is not technically the tax rate paid under existing federal law.
The report in question included gains made in unsold stocks, which are not taxed until the asset is sold. It estimated the average federal income tax rate paid by the 400 wealthiest families in the United States to be 8.2 percent.
Under the law now, the top 1 percent of earners in the United States are currently estimated to pay an average federal income tax rate of more than 20 percent, according to an analysis by the Treasury Department in November.
The White House has argued its report presents a more accurate view of the tax rate paid by the wealthy.
Republicans are not currently calling for cuts to Social Security, though some have in the past suggested changes, such as having the program be brought up for regular renewal rather than treated as mandatory spending. Many have distanced themselves from that concept.
Mr. Biden also could have been referring to a budget put forward last year by a large conservative group on Capitol Hill, the Republican Study Committee.
That plan, light on details, called for “modest changes” to the Social Security for people who are “not near retirement” — including benefit formula adjustments and shifting the retirement age for future recipients “to account for increases in life expectancy.”
But it did not outline specific figures and emphasized that it would not affect benefits “for any senior in or near retirement.”
It’s unclear whether such a proposal would gain enough support among Republican lawmakers to pass. Former President Donald J. Trump said in a video address last year that “under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security.” (He, like Mr. Biden, has also not put forward a clear plan for keeping the program solvent.)
The Republican Study Committee, for its part, said in its budget that not addressing the program’s finances will lead to cuts. Social Security’s main trust fund is currently projected to be depleted in 2033, meaning the program would then be able to pay only about three-quarters of total scheduled benefits.
