tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News July 3, 2021 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
welcome to the journal editorial report, i am paul pacheco. supreme court ending its terms this week with finance. cases with conservative justice uniting in favor of free association and election integrity. we begin this hotly contested issue of voting rights to three truffles for publican backlogs in arizona that invalidate outcast in the wrong precinct and criminalize collection of mail-in ballots by third-party. ballot harvesting, rejecting
claims that these restrictions make it harder for minorities to vote. let's bring in our panel. deputy editorial page editor, dan henninger. bill mcgurn had editorial board number, kyle peterson. bill, i thought this was a big decision and it being maligned as a guiding of the voting rights act, is that how you read what they did? >> not at all. i think you put your finger on it, paul. all the reporting i further weakening voting rights act. if you read the opinion, it doesn't stand out. a better description would be it came out for its reasonable state laws designed to ensure the integrity of these elections this is part of scare tactics. i think it was a huge decision and also what i did was provide
a hedge against what i believe progressives want which is federal court to take over election. this is the judicial parallel to hr one, they want the federal court rather than state legislatures to set rules for elections so i think this was a big victory. one of many big victories but i think it was a big one and it's very telling reporters obviously we want talk about the practical impacts. the justice department sued georgia for recent voting changes. his opinion in which justice alito laid out five criteria by which courts should assess state laws, for this make it hard for the justice department to prevail i think it will. it's interesting for the arizona provisions were throwing out out of precinct ballots justice has this paragraph when he says the lower court says nonwhite voters
are twice as likely to vote out of precinct and affect ballots invalidated but he says if you zoom out and look at the totality of the circumstances, arizona has anybody who gets a male ballot, there's weeks voting is 99% of nonwhite voters go to the precinct comparing 299.5% of white voters so his conclusion is that this is not a big practical problem and the courts do not want to get involved just to compare it to the georgia situation, one of the provisions the justice department is doing the ballot deadline and mail ballot deadlines requesting mail ballots and he essentially says every election has to have a deadline it will affect nobody but you have to draw the line somewhere. paul: dan, let's talk about the other decided donor privacy for the court on a six -- three vote
basically saying california schools for disclosure by nonprofits of donors were way too broad to satisfy any necessary state purpose like siding thought. the first amendment victory for donors and right to association. >> it really was. chief justice roberts wrote the decision in california has been demanding nonprofit saying there's disclosures so as justice roberts pointed out, there's not a single instance anyone can find at the lower court levels having used this information to relief fraud. that kind of information is used normally in politics to intimidate donors trying to get them to suppress their giving to organizations that people don't like. the interesting thing about this is that the opposition of the california law was bipartisan
from aclu was against it, left-wing nonprofits were against it not wanting to disclose their donors so i think it is disappointing to find three justices voted to support the california law despite no other reason for it other than to harass and intimidate trying to get the nonprofit for their reasoning for. paul: bill, practical implications of this are also quite large because we have in congress a particular a lot of effort to pass disclosure laws to require much stricter disclosure regimes not just new campaigns. in this case it didn't affect campaign donations to specific candidates, this affected donations to nonprofit and things like that but they want much stricter rules on those disclosures, the laws are going to be substantially burdened in
the wake of this decision. do you agree? >> i hope so. that's my hope. in 1958, there's a case involving the naacp when the attorney general wanted a list of the donors they resisted because they thought were and physical health, i don't think have quite like that today? is afraid if they are listed, they will be quenched but there certainly a lot of people have to be afraid they're going to be canceled. remember when it turned out brandon ike, had to resign after he found out he gave money to those dedicated to traditional marriage starting it's vital, the court previously has said there is a vital relationship between the freedom to associate and privacy in those associations, i think amid what we have today is even more
hi, verizon launched the first 5g network, and now we want to be the first to give everyone the joy of 5g by giving every customer a new 5g phone, on us, aha! old customers. new customers. families. businesses. in-laws. law firms. every customer. new 5g phones when you trade in your old ones. and if you're not a customer, we'll help cover the cost to switch. just ask wanda. she's been with us since... (gasps)... now. upgrade your phone. upgrade your network. what's the #1 retinol brand used most by dermatologists? it's neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair® smooths the look of fine lines in 1-week, deep wrinkles in 4. so you can kiss wrinkles goodbye! neutrogena®
introducing aleve x. it's fast, powerful long-lasting relief with a revolutionary, rollerball design. because with the right pain reliever... life opens up. aleve it, and see what's possible. despite thursday's pair of six -- three physicians conservatives on the supreme court did not always vote this justice split in a number of closely watched cases including attached to obamacare so what does term amy cody bears first on the right tell us about the conservative majority text a vice president to the cato institute and director of the robert center for constitutional studies and author of the book, supreme disorder, judicial nominations politics of america's highest court. nice to see you again. let's step back across this
whole turn and look at the court, what you make of this new majority and how it voted? >> it's a little too early to tell because we didn't have quite the huge super blockbuster coming up next time with abortion and guns the first term for a new justice always a lot of precious, some product three/three/three court. liberals and conservative center-right and might be a little too early to tell that as well. certainly robert breyer who may retire, we don't know, probably not at this time forming a majority craft grand compromise, a lot of unanimous cases there were surprises that did not write down on ideological lines. paul: the incrementalism in the city, a lot of these cases seem to prevail and it's fascinating because you have unanimous decisions get liberals joined
the center of the court against while some justices on the right road printer occurrences, they were often disagreement with the opinion, what does that tell you about the split between roberts, kavanaugh and barrett on one hand and i understand the changes but thomas and course which on the other, they seem to be a little more inpatient. >> it means there's more work to be done for lawyers litigating these cases and a shot across the back with legislatures, city councils pushing the limits, maybe an indication the next case that comes up you will be able to craft back coalition and what this term is really showing despite the ideological part it ended with, as we've been saying, that to three split did not, on term as a whole.
the term we were talking about normal lineups of justices coming up, even in nonunanimous cases so highly unpredictable, i think justice breyer, even if he stays one more year, this is his valedictorian, the court is not a political institution, there's a difference between legal analysis and partisan politics we went before justice barrett joined the court, people were saying justices roberts court not just because he was chief but it was a swing vote in so many cases. is that no longer true a much more fluid set of justices? >> statistically it certainly no longer true. brett kavanaugh is the middleman, he was in the majority i think 97% of the time this term which is all but two cases, following imports barrett tied with robert so that is the middle. roberts was the man in the middle for only two years and
now he's trying to figure out, does he go with the liberals on certain divided cases? if he does, thomas then is the senior justice in the majority getting to assigned the opinion or does he stay with moderate and try to control things from there? definitely a different role for the chief justice in that two-year regiment. paul: talk about kavanaugh but roles are still pretty new. in some cases where they voted with the chief and not the other three conservatives, two or three conservatives on any given case, they did so sometimes saying well, we get their argument and we are open to that but we don't want to do that in this case because we didn't need to. it's very striking to suggest that there could be future cases that go in a much more energetic conservative direction, what you make of those two justices?
>> they are little more restraint, attuned, not overturning president unduly if it can be avoided, a little more patient. although public more originalist, more tied to the constitution than roberts is, little different for him as well and also differences between how they ultimately will on the merit versus what's known as a shadow dog, decisions to take up cases, a couple of denials of high-profile cases that the florist out of washington state not wanting to cater a gay wedding, a few others turned down with frustration expressed by the leader or such thomas not taking those cases an emergency appeals, covered related and otherwise. earlier in the week the cdc's eviction moratorium appeal kavanaugh said the cdc doesn't have us parapet i will let them
continue for a month so a little more passion that i think kavanaugh and barrett are both that way. paul: the fears expressed justice barrett was approved back somehow she would be a radical, those fears have been put to rest in your mind? >> particularly with respect to the obamacare case, the purpose of the demagogue at the hearing, that went 722, she joined throwing up the lawsuit so that was either disingenuous or not understanding terms, she has her own foreman, i think she's going to end up being very much like her mentor, justice scalia. paul: appreciate it. when we come back, a surgeon and private crime in cities across america democrats push a new narrative, republicans responsible for defunding police. ♪♪
a nationwide search violent crime, democrats have a new strategy for managing political fallout. blame the gop. senior advisor think last sunday republicans support defunding police because i didn't vote for president biden's 1.9 trillion dollars american rescue plan. jen psaki is doubling down about claims this week. >> the president ran one on a platform of boosting for law enforcement. republicans spent tickets tried to correct the problem, because record of back and stood in the way of crucial funding needed to prevent laying off of police officers and crimes increase, besa civil statement, a fact we want we are back with dan henninger. monai, start with the fact is psaki said, the actual crime
statistics, acute run-up in crime in 2020 in america, american cities. his continuing in 2021? >> the increase in crime has been continuing for 2021 to take new york city, the largest in the country, you've seen a 43% increase in shootings this year compared to last year, similar numbers chicago and los angeles where you respectively have a 4s basically have been put in the position of knowing the crime surge deserves their attention at a national level and being forced to address that in their rhetoric at least but they obviously want to deflect blame from the problem by coming up with any excuse to attribute the park problems to republicans and the bazaar talk of the stimulus bill republicans opposition to it being any way tied to the
crime surge. paul: when i hear if you think, democrats understand that they have a problem politically on crime and they are trying to neutralize it, you have the president with an event from the white house on crime a couple of weeks ago, what about his measures to address that, what is he suggesting needs to be done? >> the most potent element of the plant biden came out with last week was to allow more dollars from the stimulus bill to be used by municipalities to hire police officers that would potentially get money into the hands of these mayors around the country to increase staff and go after criminals. other than that, he saw a lot of provisions that might have impact on crime in the long run but probably won't have an impact on a surgeon in crime rates we are seeing this yourself you saw the president along with attorney general merrick garland singh who want
to stop the spread of illegal guns into these large cities and use more investment in things like community policing and resources for mental health. all of these things obviously can affect the fabric neighborhoods and dangerous cities in the long run but if you want to actually stop the crime epidemic as it's taking place this year, the only way is with more arrests and containing criminals longer after being arrested so they can't be back on the street to commit crimes against. paul: dan, you have been following this for a long time, you're probably arms last summer talking about the national convention which nominated joe biden, basically just ignore the problem of riots and rise in crime but it looks like they now think they have a problem at the democratic strategist wrote on our paper that democrats better get there arms around fist, is that what we are seeing here,
the recognition of that? what you make of their response? >> here not seen only the recognition but we are seeing results of a substitute ideological shift to the left by the democrats tipped by mayors in cities across the country, new york, portland, seattle, the american people are well aware of what's been going on and the problem has been in part defunding police but more substantively, crediting or delegitimizing the police. they think police function is oppressive and racially motivated so they have enacted policies that have pulled back the police function and that means police are not on the beach in the streets of these cities, the plane closed unit in new york disbanded by bill defazio and as a result, the gun, illegal crime problem which has been around for decades has been alive to go on policed in
the city, it's in the ideological commitment that has real consequences and until that changes as mene was just suggesting, the crime rate isn't going to go away blaming republicans for posing joe biden's stimulus package is week political strategy. paul: mene, am i wrong, is it most police funding local? >> basically the cities by themselves up and not at the national level. >> right, that is exactly the case. again, i think it's giving a little president biden's credit, make it more possible for some of the stimulus funding to bolster the budget and local police but ultimately responsibly lies in the mayors hand and we saw bill defazio announced the budget up new york city for the coming year, he said he wasn't going to be using any of the stimulus funds to
boost nypd project. he did boost by $200 million after slashing it by billing blaster but essentially what we are seeing for national democrats his unwillingness to actually hold the mayors in their party nationwide to say you need to take steps to fund police and make sure they are off the street and making arrests. paul: still ahead, joe biden pushing the biggest expansion of the entitlement state since the great society, a look at who'd be eligible for federal benefit this american families plan and long-term economic implications, next. ♪♪
to lower blood sugar in all 3 of these ways... increases insulin... decreases sugar... and slows food. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. people taking rybelsus® lost up to 8 pounds. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away
if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration which may worsen kidney problems. wake up to what's possible with rybelsus®. ♪ please don't take my sunshine away ♪ you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. major action clean energy housing, caregiving, child and paid leave, universal pre-k, free community college, the
human infrastructure is intertwined with physical infrastructure, it will help us create more good jobs, it will help our economy in the long run. paul: president biden in this cross wisconsin telling not only his bipartisan infrastructure deal but also what comes with it, multitrillion dollar package known as the america family spent including federal retirement, child care, paid family leave, free community college, universal pre-k and more. the past will be the largest expansion of the welfare state lyndon johnson's great society. with my next guest estimating 21 million americans, mostly in the middle class would be added to the entitlement role. john is a senior fellow at stanford university uber institution and author of the book, the high cost of good intentions on the history of entitlement programs. john, welcome from very nice to see you. for non- experts, for the viewers, define what you mean by
entitlement. >> good to see you. entitlement program basically gives individuals the legal right to a federal government grant under certain circumstances so social security might be a good example, turning 65, if you worked more than ten years, you are entitled to a benefit. food stamps, if your income is below a certain level, you are entitled to boot stop benefits, it's basically a government guarantee you will restart receive a service or check if you meet certain conditions. paul: the other characteristic, they are not subject to annual appropriations like defenses or a wrote bill or education, these are things, the public is automatic if people qualify, rights? >> very good, when it comes to budgeting, that's important. these programs are automatic,
they do not require annual congressional review or congressional appropriations so year after year after year the programs go on reviewed unless you have an emergency and it gets expanded. [laughter] paul: that's the history of these programs, isn't it? once they are in place, it's almost impossible to repeal them and even very hard, if not impossible to reform from. i read your book, i love your book, that is the burden of your book, am i right? >> you are absolutely right. these programs are as old as the republic. throughout all of u.s. history, the entitlement programs, once they are put in place, they tend to expand as congress finds new individuals were the other assistance and benefits tend to be raised. my favorite example how long please entitlement go and how far they divert from the original purposes, the civil war
hundred program, the program was enacted basically as a disability program for soldiers who had been injured during the war at wartime service and survivors of wartime soldiers killed in action. this program provided benefits to individuals up until last year, the last recipient of the civil war recipient passed away so these programs, once they are put in place, they tend to be permanent and invariably expand. the only significant change in a welfare program was the 1997 reform of welfare by bill clinton and republican congress. paul: so why are the expansions of president biden proposing so significant than in longview, risky whether future economy of the united states?
>> where the risk comes is the magnitude of these expansions just who's getting benefit. you mentioned this expansion is the largest since the great society. this expansion is different than the great society expansion. if you set medicare aside, great society expansions were primarily in programs for the poor. what we are seeing here in the biden family plan is expansion of programs designed primarily for the middle class. we estimate about 40% of all the entitlement benefits under the biden family plan will end up going to individuals in the upper half of the income distribution so it's basically middle-class entitlement program and would be especially hard to repeat later on.
when you start expanding entitlements to the middle class, the middle class as president biden knows, once the backbone of american society but the way to shore up the backbone is not with government grant that simply undermine incentives for self sufficiency, the way is to get the government out of the way in that the families provide for themselves. i'm also worried about the deficit consequence of the plan, the president claims that the plan is fully paid for by tax increases upper income individuals but when you strip away the gimmicks in the budget, you find that the plan is underfunded over the next ten years by about $1 trillion, that is the plan to add about $1 trillion to the national debt and we have been heading down this road toward significant economic problem with our debt and the biden plan will
accelerate that considerably. paul: the implication of that, i'm going to have to give you myself last work here but the implication is the middle class will end up over the long-term having to pay for higher taxes on that. thank you, appreciate it very much. still ahead, hiring picked up as employees scramble to fill job openings. a closer number at june numbers and what we learn from states that already ended the enhanced unemployment effects. ♪♪
expire september. we are back with dan henninger and "wall street journal" columnist anastasia o'grady. mary. job numbers, what do you make of it and as the economy moves into higher gear. >> any time estimate jobs is good news. i am a little more pessimistic because i think even the expectations for this year for growth could be a lot higher and constraints and jobs are being self-inflicted by the job biden administration. starting with unemployment insurance which is about half the states have been cutting back but it still exists in i think 24 state by end of july or muscle will still have those benefits. employers are saying it is hard
to find workers so that is a drag on job creation and growth. the other problem, i think a big problem is federal spending is out of control and federal reserves monetize the spending and that is causing inflation effects transitory, it won't last but i think any producers are worried about it pushing up the cost of raw materials and intermediate goods so it is a drag, it's damaging the supply network necessary for greater productivity. paul: there is still a big paradox for the jobs market, nine and a half million people who are unemployed and get the labor department service savers 9 million job openings across the economy and of course lawyers are saying they can't find workers and they have to raise pay to get them. how do you explain that
contradiction. >> i think you explain it in part with some of the things mary just described, economic policies we have through the pandemic shutting down the economy and unemployment bonuses the biden administration created as well federal reserve policy. i thought federal reserve chairman from philadelphia, patrick put his finger on it this week, he said he economy's problem right now not story demand but sorting out supply. the supply side for the past year has been severely distorted first by the shutdown of the economy which put a lot of people out of work and a lot of people tired from up there were layoffs so the labor supply was completely mixed up and visit came back online, the biden administration put in place on uninsurance, possibly one of the
worst economic policies of the generation which made it very difficult for businesses to find workers especially at the lower end, hospitality and leisure as wages are being put up and they can't compete with it so i think sorting out supply as mr. harper said is our guest problem going forward. paul: unemployment benefit bonuses only for state and by the time the june survey results were taken in mid june so maybe that will help in the coming months. mary, i were to talk about the wages, we had pretty good wage growth but when you look at it compared to the inflation for the last three months now, overall wage gains have been worse, lower than inflation rate. the actual things you can buy, purchasing power is down. that is dangerous for living standards and politically, potentially for the biden administration.
>> that is typical of what happens in an inflation environment. inflation always runs ahead and wages run behind and employers try to adjust to keep up with inflation but once the process begins, it is hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube and i go back to the concern the federal reserve continues to buy something like $80 billion in treasury and $40 billion in mortgage securities every month, it is adding quiddity to an economy that doesn't need it. this is going to be inflationary, they will have to withdraw that liquidity at some time that will be a problem especially for the federal government which is bothering at rock bottom rates. paul: briefly, it doesn't look like the fed will change here anytime soon, we've only got a few seconds. >> no, it doesn't as long as the price drops the stock market is
a defined speech by president xi jinping thursday working the 100th anniversary of the ruling communist party, irreversible rise, he got complete reunification of taiwan and want anyone who tries to bully beijing will face broken heads and bloodshed. we are back with dan henninger and bill mcgurn. dan, i think some of us thought with the soviet union in the 90s, that was the end of
communism as a serious threat around the world. the communist party of tyler has managed to to survive and even prosper, how has it managed to survive despite the fall of communism elsewhere? >> it managed to survive through total control and disturbing waivers to party numbers. i can remember about 20 years ago i went to a conference about the future of the chinese financial system and thinking at the time most of the officials that i dealt with or met with were in their 30s and 40s, some of them described as having their parents been victims of the cultural revolution and one came away thinking for younger generation would rise and find an alternative to the communist party. i was completely wrong about that. they rose in the communist party
and benefited from it and participated in the system of control that party has exerted on the chinese people for 100 years and that's what communist parties tend to do and this one has been extraordinarily successful at it but it leaves out nearly 1.4 million chinese who are not members of the communist party and the question is, will they tolerate this if any kind of opening from material offer allows them to resist? paul: bill, you spent many years in asia watching china, the party of course paled at economic success, fabulous economic success and reforms started, 1980 or so but increasingly when you look at what's happening in china, they are relying on a fervent nationalism, particularly when they try to develop among young
people. is this part of the secret how it maintains legitimacy despite lack of any voting? >> it is the only thing china has. amid all of this praise for china and the communist party is with them from the one great achievement it had stopped keeping its put on them next their people and let them use their talents and private economy so their big achievement was to get off their backs but the interesting thing, communism is international solidarity and so forth but china has been a crude nationalism and it allows them to get away with an awful lot but again, it's so inflated the achievements, look at the capitol gdp, taiwan is about three times what china and hong kong is four times.
in achievements editorial suggested, the legacy to the kmt which willingly gave up power to multiparty democracy is looking a lot better than ccp. paul: what about the weaknesses of the party ended control parks are not predicting it will fall anytime soon, i've heard those predictions now for decades but are there some challenges ahead for its total control particularly as it tries to insert itself more internationally? >> i think there is clearly resistance in the west, i was suggesting a lot of people thought china would integrate itself into the global system, i think there is consensus among chinese experts and national security specialist that is not really going to happen, the outward moving force so he has
to contend with that so he's trying to whip up this nationalism to do that but again, 1.4 million people, this is a big and complicated country the weakness is, what he is trying to do is extraordinarily difficult, bring under control a country of that geographic scope and that many people trying to do it long-term so contending with outward external forces and internal forces, it is a really big challenge. paul: thank you both. one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪♪
palate deadlines, thousands of absentee ballots uncounted events the city's new ranked choice system, the theory has been if you let voters top five candidates, it will produce a consensus winner. the problem is the latest eric adams is up by 2% and 14% of ballots active because they voted for somebody else is been eliminated. paul: bill. >> big hit to clarence thomas and descent from the supreme court decision not to hear a case involving the irs and medical marijuana dispensary. he called the federal law against marijuana contradictory and unstable. this astonished some liberals, he shouldn't have. in 2005, he issued another marijuana case in which he worried about the federal powers. the truth is, plant thomas is doing what he always does, applying clear constitutional principles letting the chips fall where they may.
paul: mene. >> a joint hit to arizona governor doug ducey into ohio governor for managing to return some money to taxpayers hands when every one is going the other direction so a lot of state unexpected budget windfall either extending spending this year giving one time in the form of stimulus checks, both ducey and him secured their legislatures in a way that's going to help grow their economies increase improvements in the coming weeks. paul: dan. >> my hit goes to the great american fourth of july impacting, going back to the founding fathers independence day july 4, 1776. because of the pandemic last year, there were no fourth of july parades for the first time in the country history but this year, they are being revived by cities and towns all across
america, fireworks, firetrucks and all. return of the fourth of july parade is a wonderfully reassuring thing to see. paul: that's it for this week's show, thanks to my panel and all of you watching. i am paul gigot, hope to see you here next week. ♪♪ >> update out of florida, approaching tropical storms, threatening the search for survivors asked two more bodies are found in the rubble of the conduct collapse bringing the total of confirmed dead 224. 124 are still missing new legal action, a judge ordering a condo association into receivership putting in financial matters beyond its control. hello, welcome to fox news live, i am anita. >> eric shawn and ourselves are