Latest news with #JustFacts
Fox News
5 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
5 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
‘This is a problem': Expert debunks Democrat Washington, DC crime narrative
Fox News Digital spoke to Just Facts President James Agresti about misleading narratives surrounding crime in the nation's capital
Yahoo
23-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Expert turns tables on Dem critics after Musk accuses Social Security of being 'Ponzi scheme'
Democrats have pushed back after Elon Musk claimed that social security operates like a "Ponzi scheme" as he continues to argue for cuts to the federal bureaucracy, but one expert tells Fox News Digital that Musk is on track with his criticism of the agency. "Musk's statement about Social Security being the world's biggest Ponzi scheme does have validity," James Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, told Fox News Digital in response to pushback from Elon Musk's claim, which included a "false" rating from Politifact. "A Ponzi scheme operates by taking money from new investors to pay current investors. That's the definition given by the SEC, and contrary to popular belief, that's exactly how Social Security operates." Agresti explained to Fox News Digital that Social Security, believed to be a target of Musk's efforts at DOGE, "doesn't take our money and save it for us, as many people believe, and then give it to us when we're older" like many Americans might believe. Expert Reveals Massive Levels Of Waste Doge Can Slash From Entitlements, Pet Projects: 'A Lot Of Fat' "What it does is, it transfers money when we are young and working and paying into Social Security taxes," Agresti said. "That money, the vast bulk of it, goes immediately out the door to people who are currently receiving benefits. Now there is a trust fund, but in 90 years of operation, that trust fund currently has enough money to fund two years of program operations." Read On The Fox News App The trust fund only being able to last for two years is not a result of the fund being "looted," Agresti explained, but rather it was put in place to "put surpluses in it" from money that Social Security collects in taxes that it doesn't pay out immediately and pays interest on. "The interest that's been paid on that has been higher than the rate of inflation," Agresti said. "So, the problem isn't that the trust fund has been looted. The problem is that Social Security operates like a Ponzi scheme." Doge's Plans To Offload Government Buildings Supported By Former Gsa Official One of the top Social Security criticisms from Republicans, including President Trump, has been a concern that individuals who are dead or listed with an age well over 100 years old are on the rolls and receiving benefits. Agresti told Fox News Digital that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about that issue. "What's unclear to me at this moment is whether or not the people who are on the books are actually receiving checks," Agresti said. "Back during the Obama administration, there was a stimulus, and the Obama administration sent out stimulus checks via Social Security numbers to 80,000 people who were dead, and about 70,000 of them, the Social Security Administration knew they were dead. So I don't know if they've remedied that situation since then, but clearly the system is not keeping up with the pace of current data, and that provides an opportunity for fraud." Democrats have also made the case that Musk is attempting to strip away benefits that senior citizens have rightfully earned. Agresti told Fox News Digital that is not what is happening. "There's been a lot of misinformation about that as of late," Agresti said. "You know, when DOGE came in and suggested that the Social Security Administration cut, I think it was about 10,000 workers, Democrats erupted that this is going to weaken Social Security. But the fact of the matter is that Social Security pays those workers who are for administrative overhead from the Social Security trust fund. So, by cutting out the money that they're paying them, you actually strengthen the program financially." Agresti told Fox News Digital that the current administrative overhead for Social Security is $6.7 billion per year, which is enough to pay more than 300,000 retirees the average old age benefit. Questions have emerged from critics in recent years as to whether Social Security, in its current form, is even capable of remaining solvent to pay benefits to Americans who have paid in over the past few decades. Agresti told Fox News Digital that the program will "become insolvent" as soon as 2035 if changes are not made. "To give you a feel of how disconnected Social Security is from a fully funded pension plan, if to keep the program solvent and put it on the same firm financial footing as a real pension plan, it would require an extra $272,000 in additional payroll taxes from every person paying payroll taxes right now," Agresti told Fox News Digital. "I'll give you another way in which more numbers prove this point. If you retired in 1980, it took about three years of receiving Social Security benefits to get back the value of your payroll taxes plus interest. If you retired in 2000, it took 17 years. If you retired in 2020. it will take 22 years, assuming the program has enough money to pay those benefits, which it won't without another increase in taxes on another generation of Americans."Original article source: Expert turns tables on Dem critics after Musk accuses Social Security of being 'Ponzi scheme'
Fox News
23-03-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Expert turns tables on Dem critics after Musk accuses Social Security of being 'Ponzi scheme'
Democrats have pushed back after Elon Musk claimed that social security operates like a "Ponzi scheme" as he continues to argue for cuts to the federal bureaucracy, but one expert tells Fox News Digital that Musk is on track with his criticism of the agency. "Musk's statement about Social Security being the world's biggest Ponzi scheme does have validity," James Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, told Fox News Digital in response to pushback from Elon Musk's claim, which included a "false" rating from Politifact. "A Ponzi scheme operates by taking money from new investors to pay current investors. That's the definition given by the SEC, and contrary to popular belief, that's exactly how Social Security operates." Agresti explained to Fox News Digital that Social Security, believed to be a target of Musk's efforts at DOGE, "doesn't take our money and save it for us, as many people believe, and then give it to us when we're older" like many Americans might believe. "What it does is, it transfers money when we are young and working and paying into Social Security taxes," Agresti said. "That money, the vast bulk of it, goes immediately out the door to people who are currently receiving benefits. Now there is a trust fund, but in 90 years of operation, that trust fund currently has enough money to fund two years of program operations." The trust fund only being able to last for two years is not a result of the fund being "looted," Agresti explained, but rather it was put in place to "put surpluses in it" from money that Social Security collects in taxes that it doesn't pay out immediately and pays interest on. "The interest that's been paid on that has been higher than the rate of inflation," Agresti said. "So, the problem isn't that the trust fund has been looted. The problem is that Social Security operates like a Ponzi scheme." One of the top Social Security criticisms from Republicans, including President Trump, has been a concern that individuals who are dead or listed with an age well over 100 years old are on the rolls and receiving benefits. Agresti told Fox News Digital that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about that issue. "What's unclear to me at this moment is whether or not the people who are on the books are actually receiving checks," Agresti said. "Back during the Obama administration, there was a stimulus, and the Obama administration sent out stimulus checks via Social Security numbers to 80,000 people who were dead, and about 70,000 of them, the Social Security Administration knew they were dead. So I don't know if they've remedied that situation since then, but clearly the system is not keeping up with the pace of current data, and that provides an opportunity for fraud." Democrats have also made the case that Musk is attempting to strip away benefits that senior citizens have rightfully earned. Agresti told Fox News Digital that is not what is happening. "There's been a lot of misinformation about that as of late," Agresti said. "You know, when DOGE came in and suggested that the Social Security Administration cut, I think it was about 10,000 workers, Democrats erupted that this is going to weaken Social Security. But the fact of the matter is that Social Security pays those workers who are for administrative overhead from the Social Security trust fund. So, by cutting out the money that they're paying them, you actually strengthen the program financially." Agresti told Fox News Digital that the current administrative overhead for Social Security is $6.7 billion per year, which is enough to pay more than 300,000 retirees the average old age benefit. Questions have emerged from critics in recent years as to whether Social Security, in its current form, is even capable of remaining solvent to pay benefits to Americans who have paid in over the past few decades. Agresti told Fox News Digital that the program will "become insolvent" as soon as 2035 if changes are not made. "To give you a feel of how disconnected Social Security is from a fully funded pension plan, if to keep the program solvent and put it on the same firm financial footing as a real pension plan, it would require an extra $272,000 in additional payroll taxes from every person paying payroll taxes right now," Agresti told Fox News Digital. "I'll give you another way in which more numbers prove this point. If you retired in 1980, it took about three years of receiving Social Security benefits to get back the value of your payroll taxes plus interest. If you retired in 2000, it took 17 years. If you retired in 2020. it will take 22 years, assuming the program has enough money to pay those benefits, which it won't without another increase in taxes on another generation of Americans."
