Wednesday, July 03, 2024

The Biden and Trump presidencies contrasted

Introduction

This post intends to show that Donald Trump's first term's policies were not significantly correlated to any additional improvement to the American economy, place-in-the-world, world stability (e.g. "no new war"), social, or any other significant improvements.

As such, I hope that whoever reads this can realize that what Trump has actually achieved, is to project his reality-distortion field onto his electorate ( the #TrumpMindVirus ), stoking fear and uninformed nostalgia to make them believe that not only the very real current problems in America (housing inflation, border crisis, social division) have been caused by Joe Biden, but also that they are existential problems that only he (Trump) can resolve.

Meanwhile, the last few years under Joe Biden's presidency have seen very significant policy achievements that, for some reasons, still remain under-reported or, worse, see Republicains take credit for.

Once equipped with facts, voters can make an educated decision as to whom they should vote for. 

The U.S is already energy independent. Trump's "Drill, drill, drill" is, at best, marginally economically beneficial

America produces enough oil to meet its needs, so why does the U.S import crude?


...the U.S. does produce enough oil to meet its own needs, but it is the wrong type of oil.

Crude is graded according to two main metrics, weight and sweetness. The weight of oil defines how easy it is to refine, or break down into its usable component parts, such as gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. Light crude is the easiest to handle, heavy is the most difficult, with intermediate obviously somewhere in between. The sweetness refers to the sulfur content of unrefined oil. The sweeter it is, the less sulfur it contains.

Most of the oil produced in the U.S. fields in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere is light and sweet, compared to what comes from the Middle East and Russia. The problem is that for many years, imported oil met most of the U.S.’s energy needs, so a large percentage of the refining capacity here is geared towards dealing with oil that is heavier and less sweet than the kind produced here."
This quote also answers why more drilling is the solution to the wrong problem; instead, the focus should be on upgrading the refining infrastructure to better fit what type of oil the U.S produces. But even then, it might be more economically advantageous to just let globalization dictate the best way to get the oil, provided that the political aspect is also considered (e.g. becoming independent from dictatorships).

Daily crude oil production has been highest under Biden.



EIA - U.S. strategic oil reserves

As of January 2024, there is the equivalent of 360 million barrel of oil in the U.S' strategic reserves. About 20 million is consumed every day in the U.S. Which means that the strategic reserves can cover 18 days of U.S consumption, as of January 2024. 

As you can see below, the U.S is a net Energy exporter, as of 2019.


Source



Claim: Biden/Harris' policies caused the high inflation inflation of 2021-2023 (FALSE)

At face value, it is highly unlikely as post Covid inflation impacted pretty much all countries, for the same reasons. And now, inflation is essentially back to what it was pre-covid.
As such, it is unlikely that Trump could do anything to bring the price of food down that has not already been done.

Here's what ChatGPT has to say about this topic:

Economists and policymakers have estimated the impact of some of the major factors contributing to inflation in the U.S during the post-COVID period:

1. Supply Chain Disruptions (25-30%):

  • The breakdown in global supply chains had a significant impact on prices, particularly in sectors like automobiles, electronics, and home goods. The shortage of semiconductors and key materials played a crucial role in driving up costs.

2. Energy Price Surge (20-25%):

  • Rising oil and gas prices contributed significantly to inflation, both directly through higher fuel prices and indirectly through increased transportation and production costs. Energy prices had a notable effect on the CPI and were highly volatile during the period.

3. Pent-Up Demand and Shifts in Consumer Spending (15-20%):

  • The rapid increase in demand for goods and services as the economy reopened put upward pressure on prices, particularly for durable goods and services such as travel, dining, and entertainment.

4. Labor Shortages and Wage Increases (10-15%):

  • Labor shortages, particularly in low-wage sectors like hospitality and logistics, led to wage increases that were passed on to consumers. This effect was somewhat localized to certain industries but contributed to service sector inflation.

5. Government Stimulus Programs (10-15%):

  • The fiscal and monetary response to the pandemic, including direct payments, expanded unemployment benefits, and low interest rates, increased disposable income and liquidity in the economy, fueling demand. Some estimates suggest that stimulus programs contributed to about 10-12% of the inflationary pressures.

6. Housing Market Pressures (5-10%):

  • Rising home prices and rents had a significant effect on inflation, especially in the latter part of 2021 and 2022, but housing costs are just one component of broader inflation metrics like the CPI.

7. Commodity Price Increases (Food and Raw Materials) (5-10%):

  • Prices of food and raw materials rose due to global supply issues, labor shortages, and input cost increases. Food price inflation, in particular, was substantial but not as dominant as supply chain or energy factors.

8. Base Effect (5%):

  • The base effect played a role in inflation appearing higher than it might otherwise have been, but this factor had a short-term impact. It accounted for some inflation in early 2021 but diminished over time as price levels normalized.

These percentages are approximate and represent an aggregate view of different sectors’ contributions to inflation. The Federal Reserve and other financial institutions closely monitor these drivers, but the exact weight of each factor can fluctuate based on evolving economic conditions and data.


Claim: Biden made the gas price so high! Trump will bring it back down to 2020 levels (FALSE)

People making this statement mix correlation and causation; the price of gas was high during Biden's administration, not because of his policies. Let us have a look.

Sources: here, here, here

As can be seen from the chart above, until Covid-19 hit, the price of gas at the pump during the Trump presidency were relatively stable and mostly higher than they had been during the last year of Obama's presidency.

Then, Covid-19 hit the world and completely shut demand for oil. Oil production collapsed. Russia and Saudi Arabia entered into a price war which resulted in negative crude oil price futures contracts in March of 2020. 

Price of gas at the pump collapsed.




In fact, the best evidence that Trump did not have much to do with the price of gas at the pump when it reached its lowest between March and May of 2020 is that he actually considered the oil price too low and took action to stabilize it (a.k.a increase). The dramatic effect on production can be seen on the first chart.

Trump asked for OPEC to cut production. Not a bad thing in itself since the industry was suffering, but then, the economy picked up post covid and oil was pricey then... so gas at the pump would increase too. 

"Trump reiterated on Saturday that Saudi Arabia had told him it had agreed with Russia to jointly reduce output by an unprecedented 10 million barrels per day or more. The countries have not confirmed the plan, other than saying they would discuss ways to stabilize global oil markets."

In April 2020 - "As the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies came to an agreement on a record cut in oil production, U.S. President Donald Trump may have struck his “biggest and most complex deal,” according to oil expert Dan Yergin.

“What was so interesting — among many, very interesting things in this unprecedented event — was the turnaround, the pivot by Donald Trump,” Yergin, who is vice chairman at IHS Markit, told CNBC’s “Street Signs” on Monday.

Just a few weeks ago, Trump had said the early-March plunge in oil prices were “good for the consumer” as it meant lower gasoline prices. That drop in crude prices had been triggered by an oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia after Moscow rejected a proposal by OPEC to cut 1.5 million barrels of production per day.

The sharp decline in oil prices spurred giant capex and job cuts across the U.S. shale industry, which has some of the highest production costs in the world.

But Yergin said: ”(Trump) came to see this as a national security issue, also an employment issue, and a very important factor in the U.S. economy … and he just jumped in.”

Other sources: here, here. 

Environmental policies and other oil development restrictive policies that Biden might have implemented contributed little in impacting the 'at the pump' gas price increase. 

As can be seen on the first chart, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 (and associated Russian crude oil import ban) is the root cause of the gas price spike. 
And a variety of factors caused this spike and matching fall:






A popular argument of Trump in Q1-2024 is to ask whether Americans were better off 4 years ago. When comparing inflation-adjusted average retail gas prices of Q1-2024 ($3.23) to Q1-2020 ($2.89), and Q1-2016 ($2.47) for good measure, we find that real price of retail gas increased 12% (34 cents) between Q1-2020 (Trump) and Q1-2024 (Biden), less than the 20% increase (42 cents) between Q1-2016 (Obama) and Q1-2020 (Trump). 

There are 2 factors explaining why people get fooled  by such statements: firstly, people will remember exceptional events more than trends and averages, especially if the events are rehashed again and again ad infinitum (Trump's speciality). In our case, the price of gasoline reaching a nominal all-time-high of over $5 is something that is going to be remembered, even though is lasted for a very short amount of time. 

Real gas prices (Inflation Adjusted)


Secondly, people often underestimate the impact of inflation of their perception of prices in the past; for example, in the beginning of the 1980s, the price of gas was very high, for a very long period of time but nominally, these prices were 2-4 times lower than today. When comparing prices in different time periods, real prices (inflation-adjusted) should always be used.

The bottom line is that the very low retail gas prices during Trump's administration were during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, when people did not use their cars all that much, which crashed demand. As expected, the demand returned to pre-covid levels and beyond, as soon as the lockdowns where relaxed. And the super price of gas at the pump correlated to the super low price of crude oil, something that was not a good thing for the U.S. oil industry. But you can't have your cake and eat it too! If you have historically low crude oil price, it might feel good when you fuel up, but the industry behind it becomes unsustainable.

Trump only policy to further bring down price of retail gas has been to call for more drilling. But, as we have seen before, the U.S is already producing more oil than ever in its history. There is also no correlation between U.S oil production and prices at the pump:

"Because prices are so dependent on the international market, more domestic production doesn’t correlate to lower prices at the pump. If it did, the graph below (which dates back to last summer) would show prices moving down as production went up and vice versa. Instead, it shows prices moving all over the place."

In summary, Trump had little to do with the cheap gas prices at the pump that were seen in Q1-2020; they were a result of Covid-19. It is unlikely that anyone is missing these pandemics days! 

Biden had little to do with the gas price increase which was due to post-pandemic demand coming back worldwide. The spike in 2022 was due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Under Biden's presidency, the U.S., already the world's second largest energy producer, has increased total energy production while undoing Trump's massive plan to destroy national parks.

Claim: Trump brought back manufacturing to the U.S (FALSE)

Trump's claim is not supported by facts. As per the chart below, manufacturing in the U.S has crashed in early 2000, all the way to 2010. It then started to recover progressively over the next 10 years. Trump presidency saw no changes to that trend. It is hard to say if Biden's initiatives can be credited for the recovery, as Covid greatly impacted the U.S. manufacturing base in 2020.

Source


Claim: The U.S.A is more corrupt under Biden (FALSE)

According to Transparency International's Corruptions Perception Index, the U.S slid -11% on the index during Trump's presidency, from 75 to 67 (a lower score highlights more perceived corruption). 
It has improved under Biden, but only marginally (+3%).

It is to be assumed that Trump sees corruption as a bad thing as he makes a point of saying that Biden is corrupt. Yet, Trump has only but praises for authoritarian leaders of countries with corruption scores that are not only much worse, but also worsening, such as Orban's Hungary (42), Xi's China (42), Putin's Russia (26, whereas Ukraine is at 36), and Kim Jong Un's North Korea (17, whereas South Korea is at 63).

Claim: Crime rates are much worse under Biden (FALSE)

I only put the comparison here because it is a talking point of MAGA and the GOP.
It is completely false as the figures show significant decrease of violent crimes AND overall crime during the Biden presidency.

There was actually a very big jump in homicides during the last year of Trump's presidency (Covid-related).

However, in both cases, the higher crime rates just seem to be correlated with Covid-19 (2020 and 2021) rather than any other significant factors. I do not think Trump nor Biden can nor should use the data for political purposes.

Source: Axios.com

In 2024, the U.S is basically back to 100 years historical low homicide rate...

Source: Wikipedia


And property crimes are still on overall down trend...

Source: FBI



Claim: Biden is a big spender (NO MORE THAN TRUMP)

That's an easy one: under the 4 years of the Trump administration, a lot more money was added to the national debt than under Biden's.

Src: Washington Post

Sure, there was Covid-19, but even before, Trump was not especially thrifty.


Claim: "NATO was busted until I (Trump) came along" and he single-handedly forced NATO members to "pay their dues" (FALSE)

On Feb 10th, 2024, Trump made these statements:
<< I did the same thing with NATO. I got them to pay up. NATO was busted until I came along. I said, “Everybody’s going to pay.” They said, “Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?” I said, “Absolutely not.” They couldn’t believe the answer. And you never saw more money pour in to Secretary General Stoltenberg. I don’t know if he is anymore, but he was my biggest fan. He said, “All these presidents came in, they’d make a speech, they’d leave. And that was it.”
And they all owed money, and they wouldn’t pay it. I came in, I made a speech, and I said, “You got to pay out.” They asked me that question. One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay. You’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.”
“No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.” And the money came flowing in. And Henry would know this. If I said, “Yes, I will. You don’t have to pay. Yes, I will.” Most politicians have said to that, “Yes, we will protect you under any circumstances.” Well, then they’re never paying up. I said, “No, no. You have to understand you don’t pay your bills, you get no protection.” It’s very simple. Hundreds of billions of dollars came into NATO, and that’s why they have money today because of what I did. >>

NATO was never "busted"; it is not a company that offers protection for a few and therefore can go belly-up if it has no clients. NATO is an alliance where members share responsibility of protection of one-another. Each member need to contribute 2% of their GDP to their individual defense budget. If one of the member countries is attacked, all will intervene to defend. At the worst, what can happen is for the alliance to cease to exist for lack of members and that was not a concern.

Based on Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton's recollection as stated in the latter's memoirs, Trump planned to threaten to withdraw from NATO at the July 2018 summit. As such, any influence Trump might have had on defense spending of the member countries would surely not be reflected until the year after, in 2019 and beyond.

If we take a look at the data in the two 'Graph 1' charts below, there has not been a sudden pouring of defense spending after Trump's speech. On the face of it, Trump is just taking credit for a higher defense spending trend he did not initiate. 

Source

Source (Historical notes are mine)

Unsurprisingly, this sustained defense spending increase started in 2014, after Russia's annexation of Crimea.

"NATO allies agreed in 2014, after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, to halt the spending cuts they had made after the Cold War and move toward spending 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2024." 
Source
"After Russia invaded Crimea, Obama gave several speeches urging NATO countries to increase their defense spending, leading up to a September 2014 agreement in which each country agreed to increase their military spending over the next decade toward a 2% goal."
Countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romina even passed laws enshrining these commitments.


Source (highlights and percentages calculations are mine)

However, I would still be willing to give his administration some credit for reminding Trump to push the case for quicker commitments to the 2% spend, probably more consistently and insistently than prior administrations. This seems to be reflected in the increase in per country % of GDP defense spending data over the Trump presidency as per the chart above.

To be noted that forecasted NATO countries defense spending increase of 8.3% for 2023, a result of the 2022 Russia invasion of Ukraine, will dwarf any single year increase since the end of the cold war. We are not seeing Biden taking the credit...


Claim:"He’s (Trump) the first president in the United States history that didn’t start a war" (FALSE) "Trump is anti-war" (FALSE)

"He’s the first president in the United States history that didn’t start a war.” - Eric Trump

This has been debunked numerous times. It is false at face value as per Reuters' analysis:
And you could add Joe Biden to the list as the U.S. is not at war with Russia. Including Trump, that's 10 out of 14 presidents, 71%... the vast majority of presidents since 1945 have not officially brought the U.S into a new war!

Even with a less conservative definition of war approved by congress, Trump is still not fitting the statement about being unique in U.S. history nor since the end of the 2nd World-War:
And, as for being anti-war, another statement that was made about Trump, let us look at the facts:
The point is not that Trump was so much worse than other presidents or to judge the morality of what he did, but rather, that any perception that he could be considered anti-war or unique in his stance towards new war, is false and complete delusion.

Claim: "Biden used the justice system to go after his political enemies while Trump did not" (FALSE)

This is one of the most egregiously false statement. The reality is quite the opposite.

There is zero evidence that Joe Biden or Kamala Harris were involved in any of the various legal troubles Trump got himself into. Quite the contrary; Trump has used his position as president or ex-president to try to shield himself from his own criminal conduct.

And here's a non-exhaustive list from the Washington Post of Trump directed attempts to prosecute his political opponents:

  • Sought investigation of Hillary Clinton. The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III documented that Trump in 2017 pressed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “un-recuse” himself from overseeing the election campaign investigation so he could order an investigation of Clinton.
  • Scolded Justice Department for failing to investigate Clinton. In both a radio interview and on Twitter in 2017, Trump urged an investigation. “People are angry,” he tweeted. “At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!”
  • Called for investigations of Clinton and the debunked Uranium One conspiracy theory. A U.S. attorney was tapped to start the probe in late 2017, but it ended in 2020 with no action.
  • Demanded an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Little Rock prosecutors in 2018 issued a grand-jury subpoena for foundation records. The case was closed without charges just days before Trump left office.
  • Trumpeted the firing and then near-prosecution of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. “Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard-working men and women of the FBI — A great day for Democracy,” Trump tweeted after McCabe was fired 26 hours before he was due to retire, depriving him of his pension. (He won it back after a lawsuit.) A criminal probe was launched into whether McCabe lied to FBI agents. No charges were brought, and there is evidence a grand jury declined to issue an indictment.
  • Demanded an investigation of former president Barack Obama over debunked “Spygate” claims. “I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes — and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Trump wrote on Twitter in 2018. Various probes found no evidence.
  • Told the White House counsel in 2018 that he wanted to order the Justice Department to investigate Clinton and former FBI director James B. Comey. The counsel refused, saying Trump had no authority to do so. The Justice Department under Trump conducted two investigations of Comey related to leaking, but no charges were brought.
  • Sought Internal Revenue Service investigations of Comey and McCabe. John F. Kelly, Trump’s second White House chief of staff, told the New York Times that Trump repeatedly sought IRS probes of the two former FBI officials. Both men were selected for a rare and highly intrusive audit by the tax agency, at a time the agency was headed by a Trump appointee, but the agency insisted they were randomly selected.
  • Attacked former secretary of state John F. Kerry on Twitter in 2018 for having contacts with Iranian diplomats, suggesting he had violated the Logan Act, which prohibits negotiations with a foreign government by unauthorized citizens. Almost immediately, the Justice Department ordered prosecutors in Manhattan to investigate Kerry. Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan at the time, wrote in a memoir that a year later, when Trump again tweeted that Kerry had broken a law, the Justice Department followed up to find out why certain investigative steps had not been taken. When Berman’s office decided there was no case, the Kerry probe was assigned to another U.S. attorney — who came to the same conclusion.
  • In 2018 on Twitter, demanded that the attorney general investigate a long list of subjects (such as the Clinton Foundation) and several people, including Clinton, Comey and McCabe. After the release of Mueller’s report in 2019, then-Attorney General William P. Barr appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of the FBI probe into Trump’s alleged Russia connections. The probe eventually included examination of Clinton and her inner circle, and how law enforcement agencies handled allegations of corruption at the Clinton Foundation. The Durham probe was a bust, with every case going to trial ending in acquittal.
  • Pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation of Biden, who was planning to run for president. A rough transcript of a July 2019 phone call showed that Trump made eight distinct requests for assistance in a Biden investigation. By early September, Zelensky was so desperate for the aid that Trump had frozen to be released, he agreed to an interview with CNN in which he would announce a probe of Biden. But he canceled the interview after a whistleblower report on the Trump call became public — which led to Trump’s first impeachment.
  • Threatened to prosecute Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger if he refused to help Trump “find” the necessary votes to overturn his loss of the state to Biden. “It is more illegal for you than it is for them because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it,” Trump told Raffensperger in a 2021 phone call. “That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/16/vance-falsely-claims-trump-didnt-go-after-his-enemies

Biden signed the largest bi-partisan infrastructure bill in a generation; Trump had tried during his term, and failed. The bill is a resounding success

It was no secret that under-investment in infrastructure in the U.S. had been a major problem for years. Donald Trump acknowledged the fact in his usual superlatives, and made it an important part of its policies promise during the 2016 election cycle, running on a $1 trillion infrastructure plan: “We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals...”.


But beyond Trump's boasting about huge investments that had not materialized and declaring "infrastructure weeks", not meaningful plan came to fore. To the point that it became a running joke (here, here). It became a $2 trillion "plan" in 2019 (Trump loves hyperbole) with no thinking being spent on how it would be paid for. 

To a large extent, it seems that Trump was more interested in settling political scores on a variety of often unrelated issues, than showing leadership to secure bipartisan support to deliver on these much-needed infrastructure policies:

Other instances here, here, here, here, and here.
 
The bottom line is that there never was a  significant Trump infrastructure bill signed into law. And this is despite the fact that Republicans had both Senate and House majority during the first 2 years of Trump's mandate.

Yet, on November 15, 2021, only nine months into his presidency, with a minority in the Senate, Joe Biden would sign a $1 trillion infrastructure bill. Almost half of this was new money.


And the investments have had meaningful impacts to the U.S infrastructures:

"Charleston Congresswoman Nancy Mace called the nearly $26 million federal grant for the Shipwatch Square Transit and Workforce Center project with CARTA a win for the Lowcountry, touting it as 'one of the largest grants for this kind of facility.'"
- Republican Charleston Congresswoman Nancy Mace (despite voting against the bill)
The bill was designed to fund shovel-ready projects and has done so since its inception (a few examples here, here, here, and here).

The white house has a map with the list of all the current initiatives part of Biden's economic initiatives, including the infrastructure bill. There is also a fact-sheet specific to the investments related to the infra bill.

Biden Passed the CHIPs & Science Act

 What is the CHIPs & Science Act?

"The Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science Act of 2022 (the “CHIPS and Science Act” or the “Act”) was signed into law by President Biden on August 9, 2022. The Act aims to revitalize the U.S. semiconductor industry, including increasing semiconductor manufacturing and development in the U.S. and advancing the U.S.’ competitiveness in developing semiconductor technologies. The Act is also aimed at helping the U.S. respond to the economic and national security issues resulting from the demise of the U.S. semiconductor industry, which has substantially moved to other countries over the past few decades, compounded by the pandemic and global chip shortages."
"While the U.S. previously led the world in semiconductor production, our share of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity dropped from 37 percent in 1990, to just 12 percent today, stemming in part from significant cost differences between the U.S. and other countries."

While it is generally better to have production of any good globalized, the past few years have revealed that there are some items that must be developed locally as part of the U.S' core IP and secure production capacity. Semiconductors are such goods.

Two years after the bill passed, what has been the progress towards its goals?


The very fact that Trump never refers to the CHIPs & Science act is evidence that the policy is one that he would have rather his administration come up with.

Trump wanted to kill Obamacare, Biden enhanced it, Americans love it

In the runup to the 2016 presidential election, Trump promised to 'repeal and replace' the ACA (aka. "Obamacare") with something "much better and cheaper". This never materialized. In large part because Americans (and Republicans) did not support Trump's initiative.

Yet, during the Trump presidency years, enrollment to the program stagnated as a result of Trump's efforts to discredit it (here, here). Massive enrollment resumed under Biden's presidency, further evidence of the program's popularity and desirability.


Then, Biden expanded ACA, Medicaid, and Medicare to make it more affordable and reaching more individuals. Here, here.

That is another policy which Trump does not talk too much about as he knows he failed miserably. 

... and as years go by, more and more Americans affirm that they like ACA.

Source

 

Trump mishandling of Covid-19 erased decades of U.S life-expectancy improvements

Life expectancy at birth is probably the single most relevant indicator of the performance of various level of governments in implementing policies protecting their citizen.

While the blame cannot be fully attributed to Trump, it is clear that his lack of leadership and nonchalant and non-scientific approaches to handle Covid-19 (Here, here, here) impacted policies at all government levels, and the public's opinion towards Covid-19 mitigation measures. 




Claim: Trump has a marvelous economic record while Biden's weak (FALSE)

Labor force participation had been on the down trend since the 2008 crash, until Jan 2014 when it mostly stabilized (-0.1% between Jan 2014 and Jan 2017, when Trump's presidency started). For his first 3 years, Trump's labor force participation has unremarkably improved by historical comparison (+0.8%), and certainly not as good as Biden's +1.8%. 
Source

Employment rate below is even more telling; there is zero indication that any of Trump's policies had any effect but to continue the growing employment trend started in 2011. Trump left Biden with a severely damaged employment situation which Biden brought back to pre-Covid levels.

Source

What seems to be happening is that Biden was left with an economy in tatters and is being compared to Trump's best years which he did little other than coasting...

Employers added 528,000 jobs on a seasonally adjusted basis, the Labor Department said on Friday, more than doubling what forecasters had projected. The unemployment rate ticked down to 3.5 percent, equaling the figure in February 2020, which was a 50-year low."

If we remove the Covid-19 blip, both Trump's and Biden's
unemployment figures are a continuation of a linear downward trend
which started under the Obama administration, after the 2008 recession


In April 2023, unemployed fell to 3.4%, the lowest in over 50 years. But that is just one month. 

Source


"A better way to examine differences is to look at the median month for job creation in each presidency, thereby eliminating any unusually weak or strong periods. Analysed this way, Reagan and Mr Trump narrowly beat Barack Obama, though both trail far behind Joe Biden’s record to date (see chart 4). On the whole Democratic presidents still do better than Republicans do, but the margin is greatly reduced (to about two to one).

Another sensible adjustment to evaluating the job performance under each president is to apply a one-year lag. The logic here is that it takes a while for presidents to get their feet under the Resolute desk and to get to work on the policies—from executive orders to legislation—that define their legacies. Mr Trump signed his sweeping tax cuts into law near the end of his first year in office. Mr Biden got off to a quicker start with a covid-recovery stimulus. But his other big acts, including an infrastructure-investment package, took longer to pass. And companies, individuals and investors need even more time to digest policy shifts.

Looking at median monthly job creation in each presidency, lagged by one year, Mr Biden holds on to the top spot. But Mr Trump is nipping at his heels in second place and Reagan comes in third. In aggregate Democrats still outperform Republicans, but once again the margin is much smaller than before: 205,000 median monthly jobs for Democrats versus 150,000 for Republicans (see chart 5). That is still around 40% more for Democrats—an appreciable gap. But in an economy as big and diverse as America’s, with so many exogenous variables at play, it would be a stretch to ascribe that difference to the occupant of the White House. Still, one thing is clear: Republicans are far off base when they brand their opponents as job killers.". Source: The Economist


And Trump likes to take credit for the stock market performance and tie it to his economic policies.

So, let's see what just happened between Aug 2017 (Trump's text) and April 2024 (Biden):

Dow Jones Industrial Average +83%

S&P 500 +103%

NASDAQ +161%

Comparing the 2 presidencies:

S&P 500 highest value under Trump: 3,700

S&P 500 highest value under Biden: 5,537 (+50%)
(As of July 4th, it keeps climbing)


Biden took all remaining U.S troops out of Afghanistan

While Biden's pullout of the remaining troops from Afghanistan was messy and resulted in the loss of 13 American servicemen, it was completed; something that Trump failed to do during his mandate, even though it was a 2015 campaign pledge. The pullout was committed to the Taliban by Trump at the end of his term, leaving the trouble and political quagmire to his successor. Biden delivered.


Biden passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

Details can be found here, and here. 




"The sweeping bill -- named the Inflation Reduction Act -- would represent the largest climate investment in US history and make major changes to health policy by giving Medicare the power for the first time to negotiate the prices of certain prescription drugs and extending expiring health care subsidies for three years. The legislation would reduce the deficit, be paid for through new taxes -- including a 15% minimum tax on large corporations and a 1% tax on stock buybacks -- and boost the Internal Revenue Service's ability to collect.
It would raise over $700 billion in government revenue over 10 years and spend over $430 billion to reduce carbon emissions and extend subsidies for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act and use the rest of the new revenue to reduce the deficit." - CNN
Whether the bill did what its title claim it would do is highly debated. It certainly delivered meaningful changes such as caping insulin prices to $35 (something that Trump also tried and failed to do).
But an important point is that it shows how Biden could deliver on significant part of legislation which he promised while not having a majority in the Senate. This evidence the ability of the Democrats to be a party resourceful at building bipartisanship to govern effectively, while the past 18 months of a MAGA controlled house has seen an absolute to move any policy ahead, including much desired border control ones.

Overall economy, and fiscal 

The Washington Post has reviewed 17 economic indicators and Biden has done better than Trump on 11 of the 17. Read the article here.

























Trump pulled out of the Trans-Pacific-Partnership

As a part of Trump's isolationist policies, Trump pulled America out of the TPP in January 2017.
This has widely been reported as a mistake by analyst from all sides of the political spectrum:




"Removing the United States from the Asia-Pacific trade pact designed to promote U.S. economic and strategic interests over China’s will go down as one of the worst decisions by an American president in the past 50 years, according to trade and foreign policy analysts. Now that China has applied to join the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, Donald Trump’s decision looks even worse than it did in 2017." - Forbes

"The TPP is the 12-nation trade deal that included the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Peru, Chile, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei.

The TPP was negotiated under former President Barack Obama, but never ratified by Congress.

Economic analysis of the effects of the TPP show it would have contributed positively to U.S. economic growth, and it could have also enhanced American influence in Asia and in the world by reassuring allies and rivals that the United States is a multi-dimensional resident power.

Removing the U.S. from the TPP increases uncertainty among U.S. allies about the reliability of the U.S. across a range of foreign and economic matters, and marks the first time the U.S. has withdrawn from an agreement it championed." - Brookings

It can be argued that if Trump had not pulled out of TTP, the currently extremely tense situation with China in the South China Sea could today be much different as the Asian countries of the TTP would not feel so isolated. Trump's isolationist policies is making the world more prone to conflicts and Asian countries less likely to align with the free world.

Biden delivered stronger legislation towards fighting gun violence than Trump

President Joe Biden has implemented stronger gun violence legislation compared to former President Donald Trump. Here are key actions taken by each administration:

Biden:

  1. Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022): This is the most significant federal gun legislation passed in nearly 30 years. Key provisions include:

    • Enhanced background checks for gun buyers under 21.
    • Funding for mental health services and school safety programs.
    • Incentives for states to implement red flag laws.
    • Closing the "boyfriend loophole" to prevent domestic abusers from owning firearms.
    • New penalties for gun trafficking and straw purchases.

  2. Executive Actions:

    • Regulation of "ghost guns" (homemade firearms that lack serial numbers).
    • Tightening regulations on stabilizing braces that can turn pistols into more lethal weapons.
    • Initiating efforts to create community violence intervention programs.

Trump:

  1. Fix NICS Act (2018): This law aimed to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by incentivizing better reporting of criminal records by federal agencies and states.

  2. Bump Stock Ban (2018): The Trump administration banned bump stocks through regulatory action, classifying them as machine guns.

  3. School Safety and Mental Health Initiatives: Trump signed the STOP School Violence Act, which provided grants for school safety measures and violence prevention programs.

While both presidents took steps to address gun violence, Biden's administration has enacted more comprehensive legislation with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which includes a broader range of measures aimed at reducing gun violence. Trump's actions were more limited in scope and primarily focused on specific issues like background checks and bump stocks.

Trump’s administration reduced development restrictions on public lands

When comparing land protection efforts between Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump, Joe Biden has protected more land in the U.S. Here are the key actions taken by each administration:

Biden:

  1. Restoration of National Monuments: Biden restored protections to three national monuments that had been significantly reduced in size by the Trump administration:

    • Bears Ears National Monument in Utah: Restored to its original size of 1.35 million acres.
    • Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah: Restored to its original size of approximately 1.87 million acres.
    • Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the coast of New England: Restored protections that had been rolled back by Trump.

  2. Creation of New National Monuments:

    • Avi Kwa Ame National Monument in Nevada: Designated approximately 506,814 acres to protect sacred lands of Indigenous tribes.
    • Castner Range National Monument in Texas: Designated approximately 6,672 acres to preserve natural and cultural resources.

  3. 30x30 Initiative: Biden signed an executive order aiming to conserve 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030 as part of his broader climate and conservation agenda.

Trump:

  1. Reduction of National Monuments: Trump significantly reduced the size of two national monuments in Utah:

    • Bears Ears National Monument: Reduced by about 85%, cutting it down to 201,876 acres.
    • Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: Reduced by nearly half, leaving it at about 1 million acres.

  2. Energy Development: Trump's administration focused on opening up public lands for energy development, including oil, gas, and coal. This included efforts to expand drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.

  3. National Park and Public Lands Funding: Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act in 2020, which provided permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and addressed the maintenance backlog in national parks. While this act provided significant funding for conservation, it did not involve the direct designation or protection of new lands.

While Joe Biden has protected more land in terms of direct actions taken during his administration, this has not led to a reduction in oil production which is higher now than it ever was during Trump's mandate. This evidence Biden's more sensible, yet effective policy-making in regards to development and environmental protection.

Trump’s claiming credit for low African-American unemployment

While both Trump and Biden administrations did implement policies aimed to improve the condition of the African-American population, the low-unemployment trend started during the Obama administration and continued pretty much linearly during the Trump mandate, until Covide-19 hit and the rate shot back up to the worst levels in 20 years.

The Biden presidency actually saw the lowest level of African-American unemployment in 50 years in April 2023.


Trump’s management and claims of illegal border crossings

Trump made a fuss about it because that's what his base reacts to and it seems that independent voters also consider this a major issue.

Trump implemented Title 42 to control immigration during the pandemic, using Covid as an excuse to implement drastic measures. Biden lifted the measures once Covid-19 was no longer an issue. 
Trump falsely attributed increasing in illegal border crossings to the lifting of Title 42.

David J. Bier of the Cato institute makes the point that since ending Title 42, "gotaways" have actually fallen significantly (down by 70%)


"Interestingly, the decline in gotaways has persisted even when the number of arrests has increased. Getting rid of Title 42 without letting people come legally was never going to change every aspect of the situation, but it has not made the situation worse. From the standpoint of border security, the situation has improved dramatically because fewer people are escaping screening by the Border Patrol. This means Border Patrol can more effectively screen out criminals. Moreover, contrary to the apocalyptic claims about ending Title 42, the average number of Border Patrol arrests has not increased."
"Gotaway data have become more reliable over the past decade because border surveillance has increased dramatically from 2005 to 2023. Now, nearly the entire border has some form of electronic surveillance at all times. Moreover, the Obama administration made efforts to systematize the criteria for recording a gotaway to make the measure more consistent and reliable in 2014. Additionally, communication between stations was improved to remove double counting."
and M. Bier ends with the following:
Re-introducing Title 42 provisions is specifically what Trump wants to do in his second mandate.

Justin Fox from Bloomberg makes the point that it seems likely that what is different is that more of the illegal border crossers are being caught now than before and that inflates the perception that there is record number of illegal border crossings.








If you intend to vote for Trump because you are missing the years just before Covid-19 hit, you are not looking for more Trump policies; what you are longing for is the period that started 20 years ago and ended with Covid. Trump had little to do with it, and there are no indications that he can do anything or know how to return you there.

A vote for Trump is not going to "Make America Great Again", as Trump did not do such thing during his mandate, and he has not articulated any policies that would do so in a new mandate. 

However, what we do know for sure is that he is the only American President ever to refuse a peaceful transition of power and to be indicted for criminal activities. He has admitted to scheming plans meant to dismantle the very foundation of free societies (separation-of-powers, freedom-of-the-press, rule-of-law), effectively making the American Republic into an autocracy. 

Many Americans are fearful of 4 years of "bad" Biden policies; policies can quickly be reversed. But damages to the foundations of the American Republic that a 2nd Trump administration would bring would take much longer to repair, if at all...

Posted by at