![\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File%3ADonald_Trump_(8567813820)_(2).jpg;](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2016\/05\/Donald_Trump_8567813820_2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
It did not take long for the AP to put out its fact-check of Trump\u2019s speech; here\u2019s a link to the version published by the Chicago Tribune<\/a>.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll be the first one to say that Trump\u2019s speech was, by and large, vapid, and full of platitudes. \u00a0Reason.com<\/a> put out an alternate \u201cfact-check\u201d identifying 12 whoppers, including the claim that \u201cEvery problem can be solved\u201d and \u201cEvery hurting family can find healing and hope.\u201d<\/p>\n But the AP \u201cfact-check\u201d was itself foolish, though, to its credit, it did not actually identify items as \u201ctrue\u201d or \u201cfalse\u201d but just marshalled \u201cthe facts\u201d in a way that suggested it was calling Trump\u2019s speech whopper-ridden.<\/p>\n The AP\u2019s fact check pulls up the executive summary from this report<\/a>, which it cites practically verbatim to say that<\/p>\n The report found that while first-generation immigrants are more expensive to governments than their native-born counterparts, primarily at the state and local level, immigrants\u2019 children \u201care among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the population.\u201d This second generation contributed more in taxes on a per capita basis, for example, than did non-immigrants in the period studied, 1994-2013.<\/p>\n The report found that the \u201clong-run fiscal impact\u201d of immigrants and their children would probably be seen as more positive \u201cif their role in sustaining labor force growth and contributing to innovation and entrepreneurial activity were taken into account.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The report itself seems not to be available online, and I\u2019m not going to pay the $95 to purchase it, but the Center for Immigration Studies<\/a> analyzed this in depth, and reported, among other things, that<\/p>\n Making reasonable assumptions, the NAS report estimates that the actual benefit to the native-born could be $54.2 billion a year. But relative to the income of natives the benefit is very small, representing a \u201c0.31 percent overall increase in income\u201d for native-born Americans (p. 128).<\/p>\n To generate that benefit, immigration has to reduce the wages of natives in competition with immigrant workers by $493.9 billion annually. But business gain $548.1 billion from these lost wages, for a net gain of $54.2 billion.1 Unfortunately, the NAS does not report this large income redistribution, though it provides all the information necessary to calculate it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, once again, there may be a benefit to the average American, but that masks real losses to lower-income, lower-skill workers.<\/p>\n I am also skeptical of the statement that the second generation does better economically than children of native-born Americans; everything I\u2019ve read suggests that, among children of unskilled immigrants, the reverse is true. \u00a0But, again, I can\u2019t see how the NAS report supports that claim without paying $95. \u00a0And the notion that the bodies they provide, in the long-run, are a plus for the economy, is based on notions that population growth is by definition a good thing \u2013 which I thought we\u2019d abandoned.<\/p>\n \u00a02. \u00a0\u201cWe\u2019ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price\u201d of the F-35 jet fighter.<\/p>\n The AP says, this happened before Trump took office; therefore, he can\u2019t take credit. \u00a0Of course, the sequence of events is \u201cTrump tweeted, Lockheed-Martin responded with a cost reduction announcement.\u201d \u00a0The AP suggests this was already in the works (\u201cPentagon managers took action even before the election to save money on the contract\u201d) but it is clear that Lockheed-Martin needed some positive PR. \u00a0Whether Trump, and the need to demonstrate cost-savings, prodded them to make more concessions than they otherwise would have is admittedly unknown.<\/p>\n 3. \u00a0\u201cWe will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.\u201d<\/p>\n True to its format of not providing a \u201ctrue\u201d or \u201cfalse,\u201d the AP just states that prior proposals provided the largest reductions for the wealthy, and $1000 in reduction for the middle quintile.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u201cNinety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.\u201d<\/p>\n AP reminds readers that this includes everyone ages 16 and up, including retirees. \u00a0This number has been increasing due to growing numbers of young people attending school for longer (though in many cases, this is an undesirable consequence of the difficult labor market, as they get advanced degrees that don\u2019t have any concrete benefit), and growing numbers of retirees. \u00a0But remind me to tell you about Nicholas Eberstadt\u2019s book Men Without Work<\/em> that I\u2019m reading now, which reports that, though the 94 million figure is not the right one to use, there is a serious problem with men leaving the workforce, even at prime working age.<\/p>\n The AP says, \u201cIt\u2019s true that some of those out of the workforce are of working age and have given up looking for work. But that number is probably a small fraction of the 94 million Trump cited.\u201d \u00a0But that number is real, and is available, and to shrug it off as unimportant is a disservice to readers. The AP claims,<\/p>\n Three times in recent years, Congress raised defense budgets by larger percentages than the $54 billion, or 10 percent, increase that Trump proposes. The base defense budget grew by $41 billion, or 14.3 percent, in 2002; by $37 billion, or 11.3 percent, in 2003, and by $47 billion, or 10.9 percent, in 2008, according to Defense Department figures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, you can debate whether it\u2019s fair to require Trump\u2019s claim to be accurate in percentage claims as well as total (unadjusted for inflation) dollars, but I\u2019ll just leave this here.<\/p>\n 6. \u00a0\u201cSince my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart and many others have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.\u201d<\/p>\n The AP retorts that in some cases, these projects were already underway and that, in any case, we don\u2019t have a full monthly jobs report for the period since Trump\u2019s inauguration yet. \u00a0But that doesn\u2019t get to the issue of whether there has been any shift in corporate decision-making in terms of on-shoring or off-shoring its jobs. \u00a0If I could remember where I\u2019d read it, I\u2019d share with you an article saying that there is a \u201cherd mentality\u201d to this sort of decision, and that it can make a meaningful difference for companies to perceive that employing American workers will be good for their corporate image (in the same way as Corporate Social Responsibility is such a buzzword).<\/p>\n 7. \u00a0\u201cWe will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth \u2014 and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.\u201d<\/p>\n We don\u2019t know how Trump intends to do this (new federal programs or existing programs?) but the AP speculatively says that Trump would cut treatment options if he kills Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion. \u00a0(Never mind that it was the open-ended Medicaid system that paid for all these opiods in the first place.) \u00a0Admittedly, Trump probably doesn\u2019t have any plan in mind here, either.<\/p>\n 8. \u00a0\u201cAccording to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since 9\/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home \u2014 from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon and yes, even the World Trade Center.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n5. \u00a0His budget plan will offer \u201cone of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.\u201d<\/p>\n