Latest news with #JimAgresti
Fox News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Expert flips script on Dems pushing 'cherry-picked' crime stats to resist Trump's DC crackdown
Democrats across the country have been pushing back on President Trump's D.C. crime crackdown, citing statistics purportedly showing that crime in the nation's capital is down or even at historic lows, but an expert who spoke to Fox News Digital is pushing back on that narrative. "These Democrats are citing statistics from the FBI, from its uniform crime report. And the problem with that is that they're portraying it as if it's a record of violent crime," Jim Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, told Fox News Digital shortly after Trump announced he was sending federal resources to the nation's capital to confront crime in the city. "But really what it is is a record of crimes that are reported to the police and then those of those crimes that get reported to the FBI. It's not a full record of all violent crimes, and this is a problem. And the FBI is very explicit about this when they present the data in their formal report every year, where they say, 'Do not directly compare the data from year to year because there are differences in how frequently people report crimes and how frequently the FBI gets that data from the local police agencies.'" While many prominent Democrats, including Mayor Muriel Bowser, have insisted violent crime is at a 30-year low in the city, Agresti told Fox News Digital the "best way to understand the state of violent crime" in any jurisdiction is to look at the number of murders because it is a violent crime that is difficult to "sweep under the rug" because it "produces a dead body." "When we look at the murder data for DC, we see that it is not a situation that is lower now than it's been in the last 30 years. Quite the opposite," Agresti explained. "It is currently 83% higher than it was at its low point a dozen years ago. So, there is a serious problem with serious crime, violent crime in D.C., and the city now, the nation's capital, has a murder rate that is five times the U.S. average." The chances of a person facing a violent crime in Washington, D.C., have dropped in recent years, but the possibility of dying during such a crime has skyrocketed, data shows, Fox News Digital reported on Wednesday. Lethality in D.C. jumped by a whopping 341% when compared to 2012 data, the study found, reporting that there were 13 homicides per 1,000 serious violent crimes in 2012 and 57 homicides per 1,000 serious violent crimes in 2024. Agresti explained that while many people operate with the belief that crime spiked across the country during and because of COVID, the issue actually began getting worse specifically when the Black Lives Matter rioting erupted. "That makes a lot of sense," Agresti said. "Police were vilified. They pulled back out of fear of being hurt. People were talking about defunding the police, and there was overall mayhem in this country. So, that rise, by the way, that people blame on COVID actually didn't start with COVID, and it didn't appear in other countries. It happened here where we had these BLM riots." Agresti told Fox News Digital there is a "clear connection" between crime in the United States and the "Defund the Police" movement and that most people don't grasp the "full extent" of the crime problem in this country. "We had roughly 17,000 murders last year," Agresti explained. "Imagine if all of them made national news. At the current rate of murders in this county, roughly one in every 230 people in the United States will have their lives cut short by being murdered. That statistic is so unbelievable." In addition to the "staggering" facts about murder, Agresti said data compiled by Just Facts shows one in 10 women in the United States are raped in the course of their lives. "Think about the horror of that, and beyond all this pain, suffering, death, there's also a financial cost to crime," Agresti said. "It's been quantified in a 2021 academic paper, and, bottom line, crime in all of its forms, pain, death, suffering, financial loss, activities we take to prevent crime, they amount to a cost on our US economy of roughly $40,000 per U.S. household." Questions have also been raised about local crime stats from D.C. showing crime is down so far this year, with many pointing to news reports that a D.C. police commander was recently suspended for allegedly altering crime data. Agresti said anyone can "cherry-pick" crime statistics to promote a specific agenda but that it is important to also realize that many crimes also go unreported due to various factors, including animosity toward police or the belief that calling the police won't yield results. "The vast majority of crime goes unreported, and another phenomenon that's really, really disturbing is the amount of crimes that are solved," Agresti said. "It used to be in this country, in 1960, that 92% of all murders are solved. In 2023, that figure was down to 58%, meaning that 40-plus percent of people who committed murders got away with it, and they're out there to commit them again." As of Thursday, 800 Trump-authorized National Guard troops were in Washington, D.C., supporting other federal law enforcement agencies with "monument security, community safety patrols, protecting federal facilities and officers, traffic control posts and area beautification," according to the State Department. Trump's move to crack down on crime in the capital, which the White House says is happening at levels that dwarf capitals in other far more impoverished countries across the world, has sparked protests led by liberal activists and outrage from some elected Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. "When politicians are saying, 'We don't have to worry about this, it's the lowest crime rate in 30 years,' they are abdicating their responsibility," Agresti told Fox News Digital. "The Declaration of Independence said that governments are instituted to protect the rights of people, including their life, their liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What we have right now is many politicians and governments who are doing an extremely poor job of that, and the pain and suffering is unbelievable. It's just so broad and so horrible."
Fox News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
'No basis in reality': Expert turns tables on key Democrat claim against Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
Democrats in Washington, D.C., are misrepresenting major criticisms of President Trump's "big beautiful bill" with incorrect facts, according to an expert who spoke to Fox News Digital this week as Trump's budget reconciliation package is debated in Congress. "The bill doesn't cut benefits for anyone who has income below the poverty line, anyone who is working at least 20 hours a week and not caring for a child, and people who are Americans," Jim Agresti, president and cofounder of Just Facts, told Fox News Digital in response to criticisms from Democrats and a handful of Republicans, including Sen. Josh Hawley, that Trump's bill will cut Medicaid and disproportionately hurt the poor. "In other words, it cuts out illegal immigrants who are not Americans and fraudsters. So that narrative has no basis in reality. See, what's been going on since the Medicaid program was started? Is that it's been expanded and expanded and extended. You know, it got its start in 1966. And since that time, the poverty rate has stayed roughly level around 11% to 15%. While the portion of people in the United States on Medicaid has skyrocketed from 3% to 29%. Right now, 2.5 times more people are on Medicaid than are in poverty." Medicaid cuts and reform have been a major sticking point with Democrats, who have merged data from two new reports from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to back up claims that nearly 14 million would lose coverage. The White House and Republicans have objected, as not all the policy proposals evaluated were actually included in Republicans' legislation, and far fewer people would actually face insurance loss. Instead, Republicans argue that their proposed reforms to implement work requirements, strengthen eligibility checks and crack down on Medicaid for illegal immigrants preserve the program for those who really need it. "I agree," Dem. Rep. Jasmine Crockett said in response to a claim on CNN that Republicans "want poor people to die" with Medicaid cuts. Agresti told Fox News Digital that the Medicaid cuts are aimed at bringing people out of poverty and waste. "It's putting some criteria down to say, 'Hey, if you want this, and you're not in poverty, you need to work,'" Agresti said. "You need to do something to better your situation, which is what these programs are supposed to be, lifting people out of poverty, not sticking them there for eternity. So the whole idea is to get people working, give them an incentive. Hey, if you want to do better in life, and you want this Medicaid coverage, then you have to earn it." Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has claimed the bill is a "death sentence for the working class," because it raises health insurance "copayments for poor people." Agresti called that claim "outlandish." "First of all, the Big Beautiful Bill does not raise copayments on anyone who's below the poverty line," he explained. "Now, for people who are above the poverty line, it requires states to at least charge some sort of copayment, and it also reduces, actually, the max copayment from $100 per visit to $35 per visit." Agresti went on to explain that under the current system, "people have basically free rein to just go to a doctor or an emergency room or any other place without any co-payment, and they're not in poverty." "What ends up happening is they waste a ton of money," Agresti said. "This has been proven through randomized control trials, which are the gold standard for social science analysis, where you have people in a lottery system, some people get the benefit, and some people don't, and what you end up seeing is that people who don't have to have skin in the game, abuse emergency rooms, they go there for a stuffy nose, rack up all this money, and it does nothing to improve their health. It's just wasteful." In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sanders Communications Director Anna Bahr said, "Mr. Agresti's facts here are simply incorrect." Sanders' office added that "nearly half of all enrollees on the ACA exchanges are Republicans" and pointed to the House-passed reconciliation bill that Sanders' office argues "says that if a worker can't navigate the maze of paperwork that the bill creates for Medicaid enrollees, they are barred from receiving ACA tax credits as well." "But workers must earn at least $15,650 per year to qualify for tax credits on the ACA marketplaces – approximately equal to the annual income for a full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage." Sanders' office also pointed to "CBO estimates that 16 million people will lose insurance as a result of the House-passed bill and the Republicans ending the ACA's enhanced premium tax credits." Sanders' office also reiterated that the House-passed bill makes a "fundamental change" to copay for Medicaid beneficiaries, shifting from optional to mandatory. "While claiming that I'm 'incorrect,' Sanders' staff fails to provide a single fact that shows the BBB cuts health care for poor working Americans," Agresti responded. "It's especially laughable that they cite expanded Obamacare subsidies in this context, because people in poverty aren't even eligible for them," Agresti continued. "After this 'temporary' Covid-era handout expires, people with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level — or $150,600 for a family of five — will still be eligible for this welfare program, although they will receive less." Agresti argued that the claim a "max $35 copay (for people who are not poor) 'hurts working families'" is not supported by research "which makes generalizations and merely cites 'associations.'" "As commonly taught in high school math, association doesn't prove causation," Agresti said. Sanders' office told Fox News Digital, "Mr. Agresti seems to believe that a working family of four earning only $32,150 per year doesn't deserve help affording their health care. Health care in the United States is more expensive than anywhere in the world. Terminating health care coverage for 16 million Americans and increasing health care costs for millions will make it harder for working people to afford the health care they need, even if Mr. Agresti doesn't agree." Agresti also took issue with the narrative that cuts cannot be made to Medicaid without cutting benefits to people who are entitled to them. "The Government Accountability Office has put out figures that are astonishing, hundreds of billions of dollars a year are going to waste," Agresti said. "So, yeah, some criteria to make sure that doesn't happen is a wise idea. Unfortunately, there is a ton of white-collar crime in this country, and this kind of crime is a white-collar crime. It's not committed with a gun, or by robbing or punching someone, it's committed by fraud, and there's an enormous amount of it. "And the big, beautiful bill, again, seeks to rein that in by putting a criteria to make sure we're checking people's income, we're checking their assets. A lot of these federal programs, government health care programs, they've stopped checking assets. So you could be a lottery winner sitting on $3 million in cash and have very little income. And still get children's health insurance program benefits for your kids." Hawley said on Monday that he did not have a problem with some of the marquee changes to Medicaid that his House Republican counterparts wanted, including stricter work requirements, booting illegal immigrants from benefit rolls and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the program that serves tens of millions of Americans. However, he noted that about 1.3 million Missourians rely on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and contended that most were working. "These are not people who are sitting around, these are people who are working," he said. "They're on Medicaid because they cannot afford private health insurance, and they don't get it on the job." "And I just think it's wrong to go to those people and say, 'Well, you know, we know you're doing the best, we know that you're working hard, but we're going to take away your health care access,'" he continued.
