pay a price. thank you, katie for being with us. and mark, great tweets on this and always. thanks for being with us. >> i've been waiting for this for a long time. we are going to cut taxes for the middle class, make the tax code simpler and more fair for everyday americans and we are going to bring back the jobs and wealth that have left our country and most people thought left our country for good. paul: welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. that was president trump in indianapolis touting the republican's long awaited blueprint for overhauling the u.s. tax code. details of the plan released wednesday include reducing individual tax brackets from 7 to 3 doubling the standard

deduction for individuals and married couples and eliminating the so-called debt tax but reduction of corporate tax rate from 35 to 20%, a provision the president has called nonnegotiable. visiting scholar at the american enterprise institute. welcome, senator, great to have you here. >> thank you, paul. paul: so as you look at this plan, how good is it, do you think, in terms of helping the economy? >> i think it's very good in terms of helping the economy. i think with what we are doing legislatively through rule-making, through executive order and and and lessening regulatory burden, we would guaranty that we would return to 3% plus growth, more jobs, better jobs, higher-paying jobs and, of course, the government

would get $2.2 trillion in new revenue. economically i think the plan is right and i think politically it's very strong because it's exactly what republicans promised in the campaign they would do and voters don't like to be surprised, they don't like it when you say, i'm going to do something and then you turn around and do something else. i'm very pleased with the outline. paul: all right, from an economic growth point of view, the big changes seem to be cut in corporate tax rate from 35 to 20, they are cutting the business tax rate for pass-throughs, sub expecter s companies. are those the key provisions in your view? >> there are important and there could be others that can be more, territorial treatment,

american companies can be competitive abroad. paul: right. >> and it means that they are going to bring back vast amounts of money to the united states that can be invested here. i think repealing the debt tax is a big issue economically, you've got a lot of people that have small businesses, they -- they are tired of running the business but they are afraid to sell it because they'll have to pay a big capital tax and you will open those up if bill becomes law and the economic growth impact of that is grossly underestimated. paul: that's interesting because the rap on the tax, the only people who pay that 2% of estates pay that so it only goes to the wealthiest people. you're saying that, in fact, i guess this is true if you look at the evidence. the wealthy, warren buffet, they

will create own foundations and never pay the tax, it's the rancher, small business person, the person who builds up a more modest portfolio who ends up paying for it. >> yeah, people build up assets, they build up a successful farm, a successful business and then they get to the age where they don't want to run it, they are not doing a terribly good job at it but they can't afford to sell it and so you get assets that are misused, misused, it affects economic growth and if you let them sell it, they pay capital gain's tax on it. so you're going to gain revenues immediately but more importantly, you are going to get businesses in the hands of people who want to run them and, look, nobody except a very small group of redistributionists is in favor of the death tax. people work all their lives, build up assets and business and then you come and tax them again

when they die, i would say that 80% of the american people are not for that tax. paul: all right, let's talk about the individual tax rate particularly at the top because as you know, they say in the outline they are going to reduce it from 39.6 to 35 but behind the scenes they are really talking about no cut in the rate at all. is that a mistake and will that hurt? >> yeah, i think it's a mistake. yeah, i think it hurts growth. i have a hard time differentiating the rate people ought to pay based on how they earn their income myself and so did reagan. look, we are talking about trying to do this so that we don't change the distribution of the tax burden, but obama changed the distribution of the tax burden. he imposed income tax for only high-income individuals and he raised the capital gains tax and dividend tax 59%.

if we are going to be neutral effect on distribution of the tax burden, it ought to be preobama and not post obama or do we have to enshrine what obama did in the tax code, i don't think so. paul: i'm with you on that one, senator and just about everything else but i want to ask you about the deficit charge because a lot of people are saying, hey, this is going to increase the deficit, there's no plan right now in the details to pay for that, finance the rate cuts, you're a spending hawk, been a deficit hawk, what do you make of that charge? >> well, first of all, well in the hell were the people when obama doubled the debt of the country in eight years, where were they then? secondly the reagan tax cut actually raised revenue by 19% by the time reagan left office even though it broke the back of

inflation and index tax code inflation and i think that this can and i believe it will work and secondly we can never deal with the deficit with a weak economy. if we are going to have a european economy, we are going to have european debt and we are going to have european taxes and also, remember, obama raised taxes on high-income individuals, he was going to get 690 billion of taxes, well, what happened? what happened was we ended up with slow growth and so we lost $3.2 trillion in revenues. paul: and with faster grow to 2% to 3% we will get a lot more of that back. thank you, senator for being here. >> oh, thank you, paul. paul: still ahead as the gop gears up for coming tax fight on capitol hill, can the parties stick together and get a bill to the president's desk before the end of the year?

i no longer live with the uncertainties of hep c. wondering, what if? i let go of all those feelings. because i am cured with harvoni. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c. it's been prescribed to more than a quarter million people. and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni, your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b, which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment. tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness.

ready to let go of hep c? ask your hep c specialist about harvoni.

>> this is a know or never moment. we come to the talking heads on tv and special interest who want to maintain the status quo or we can work together to seize this moment and do what the american people sent us here to do. paul: calling gop push to overhaul the tax code and now or never moment but for vulnerable republicans facing reelection in 2018 it could be a do or die moment as well as they look for a legislative achievement to run on, can congress deliver a bill to president trump's desk by year's end. let's ask wall street journal dan henninger, editorial page, kate bachelder oh dell and mary

ogrady. do you share senator graham's enthusiasm? >> republicans have come up with consensus document but means they can't afford to give in to this or that interest group and already we are seeing pushback from realtors, redistribution of the right that wants bigger credits and they are going to have to hang tough and hang together. paul: the cuts and the rates where they are, it's a good plan, the danger is it will erode as the political process goes ahead? >> that's true. most of the element is on the business side. basically on personal side they want to give as progressive as it is.

that's disappointment. that's right, the tax code has gotten so much progressive since 1986 reform. even as rates have gone up at the top, bigger refundable tax credits tat bottom have made the code a lot more progressive. paul: when reagan in '86 got reform done, the top rate is 88, now 39.6. [laughter] >> don't tell democrats that. they are making it an issue of class warfare, that's a big talking point of chuck schumer. paul: even some right-wing intellectuals are doing that. >> on the republican side, what i fear is that you have a lot of republicans in high-taxed states that are also going to push back against people like peter king, dan donman in new york, you know n manhattan, on the island of manhattan alone something -- the

average of claims is like $25,000 and people won't give that up easily and ask state representatives to fight for it. paul: james that's 1.25 trillion or so over ten years, state and local tax deduction to finance lower rates, you take that out, you don't get lower rates? >> it's a good reform even though it's going to hurt people like us temporarily, what it does it creates a big incentive for the high-taxed poorly run states like we live in to reform. [laughter] >> you look at the big picture. this is about growing the economy, getting out of the sort of obama-era slump that we are still bumping along. second quarter was good but we have to sustain it. i think that is what they need to focus on, how do you grow jobs. paul: dan, where do you see the political vol washingtons

getting through congress? you have class-war issue, special interest, any others? >> yeah, the ego of senate. paul: who are you talking about when you're talking about egos or is it all 52 republicans? >> we will get to that in a second. with the health care bill, it began to get into trouble when the freedom caucus began to raise objections. i talked to the chairman of the haus freedom caucus mark meadows in washington this week and he said they thought they were going to be okay and get it done. i don't see the big problem coming out of the house this time. when you go over to the senate, what happened with the health care bill with senators mccain and rand paul, lisa murkowski and susan collins, there's something about the senators who just don't feel like they can -- they want to win, that they have to express themselves more for reasons of their own egos than actually getting a bill done.

now you've got senator marco rubio and mike lee already proposing to double the child tax credit which could really through a spanner in the bill, it completely disrupts the calculations they've made to make the bill work out all right. i would say that's just the beginning in the senate and it's going to be a real test for the republicans to see if they can get the senators to pass tax legislation. >> what's wrong with this child tax credit proposal? >> well, we don't know much about it yet, the current tax credit is a thousand dollars and it is refundable and -- paul: which means? >> basically if you have no tax liability you get a check. that's what it will be whenever we are done with this political commerce, more spending through the tax code. paul: also very expensive, as you're talking a trillion dollars again in payout to people who have children, a form of redistribution throw the tax

code. >> right, straight subsidy. prevents you from deeper rate cut that is produce the economic growth that parents and families want. >> and the problem as kate has layed out is that politically it will be the democrats will be spinning this as corporations are getting this big subsidy from the government and so therefore people with children should get it. that's how it's going to be told. paul: if you look at the economic evidence, mary, and you know this because you look at it a lot, the benefits of a rate cut flow to workers. shareholders get some but flow to workers in higher salaries. >> that's why it's important for the president to talk about this in terms of growth, in terms of more investment and more jobs for people, that's in fact, what the goal is, it has nothing to do with, you know, the redistribution. >> the president said that it's not going higher than 20. when you throw in state tax, we

are still going to be above the average in europe, we are still going to be above the average in asia. i think we will be competitive enough. this is good news. they let that corporate go higher than 20, you start wondering, is this going to be the -- paul: because the average corporate tax 4%, 24%. when we come back as hhs secretary tom price resigns a look at ouster means few future efforts to repeal and replace obamacare? >> long before the november election we are going to have a vote and we are going to be able to get that through. ♪ you know who likes to be in control? this guy. check it out! self-appendectomy!

oh, that's really attached. that's why i rent from national. where i get the control to choose any car in the aisle i want, not some car they choose for me. which makes me one smooth operator. ah! still a little tender. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

paul: health and human services tom price resigned friday amid

the media frenzy over use of private jets for government travel. this has the republican promise to repeal obamacare suffers another setback with republican leaders abandoning a plan by senators lindsey graham and bill cassidy that would have allowed them to pass legislation with just 51 votes. we are back with dan henninger and james freeman. first, tom price, dan, he's out, what's behind this? >> well, what's behind it nominally is he was using private jets for both official use and private use and it isn't just tom price who has done this, there's been members of the cabinets of both this administration perhaps and obama's administration who have done it as well. in 2013 charles grassley, senator grassley, released accountability that eric holder, attorney general and of all people robert mueller, former

fbi director, now special prosecutor himself engaged in this sort of practice reimbursing the government at some sort of set rate. so that is basically what tom price did. paul: but now it sounds like this is new standard. these other people weren't disqualified from doing that, why tom price? >> well, because tom price is donald trump's hhs secretary and trump promised to drain the swamp and in some sense this is part of the swamp. the question is whether trump threw him over the side too quickly because trump puts distance between any member of government and him that causes him any problem and do remember even the past week there's been story that trump is now trying to push attorney general jeff sessions out, he's still angry at him for not recusing over the russian probe, so there's a kind of tense relationship between donald trump and his own cabinet. paul: yeah, look, i don't think he should have made himself a target by taking these trips, on

the other hand, i'm told that he had council from inside hhs, people telling him, look, this is okay, you know, and what do you think? >> yeah, doing anything in government including dialing up a private jet, they are going to be a lot of people involved, probably ethics opinions, probably a lot of paperwork and this is -- this is a common practice. a lot of people might wish if they were going to make an example of someone, it would have been -- you mentioned eric holder after he took family in new york. lovely horse race, i'm sure. they end up reimbursing a fraction of what it actually costs to fly everyone up there. but as you say, i think if you're in the trump cabinet, you have to understand both that the media is at war with donald trump, so it's going to be a bigger deal than it is going to be than obama administration but also you have to understand that there is a tendency of people in these positions not to last very

long. he has trigger -- paul: you want to know something, i don't think this is the reason. the reason that he fired him, he didn't -- price and him never mashed. he blames him for the failure of obamacare. price came from the house. people said, mr. president, he can help you sell to the house and the senate and he didn't get it done and trump didn't say it's my fault, sorry, your fault, you're out. >> james made a good point, this story originated originated in , the press, the beltway press is at war with donald trump as are the democrats and this is going to be used, this argument, another wedge to drive between trump administration internally and between donald trump and the republican party and inside the republican party. may we go back to alabama election where you had the republican party divided and this is just not helping the trump presidency. paul: all right, what about reviving the repeal and replace,

james, you have the president this week saying we can get it done next week, we have the votes, i'm not -- he doesn't have the way the way i'm counting them. is there any chance of that? >> i think probably it is going to be a little tougher now. i guess if it's true that -- paul: tougher now? >> the president got rid of tom price because of this, i think it's a miscalculation. i think price has been a positive force both in this job and in his previous job in terms of health policy. in terms of looking at the votes, no, i don't think he's there yet but he is close and i think they knew that this week. i wouldn't rule it out that happens and i don't think while it's a setback not having price, i don't think we should assume now that it can't happen in the first few months of next year. paul: here is key for replacement. tom price knows the law, affordable care act. he know it is waiver authority that the executive has and it's extensive and trump has to have somebody in that job who understands that authority,

understands -- otherwise you're going to have exchange in the states deteriorate even more. so he has to have a replacement who knows the traps, work bureaucracy, otherwise he's going to be in big trouble. >> replacement that's willing to take on the job, at this point you're basically repairing obamacare, you're not repealing and replacing it. who is willing to come in and basically take over a fix-it job. >> senator from oklahoma, maybe fha director. those would be good names. we will see. still ahead, the fallout from the gop's failure to repeal and replace obamacare already taking its electoral toll. so is roy moore's victory alabama warning to so-called establishment republicans?

♪ stare with me into the abyss ( ♪ )

♪ stare with me into the abyss you each drive a ford (all) yes.ght? i'm going to show you a next generation pickup. awesome. let's do this. the bed is made of high-strength steel, which is less susceptible to punctures than aluminum. stronger the better. and best of all, this new truck is actually- (all laughing) oh my.... the current chevy silverado. current chevy owners and lessees get a total value of ten-thousand, six hundred dollars. or, 0% financing for 72 months on this silverado all star. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.

>> together we can make america great. we can support the president. don't let anybody in the press think because he supported my opponent that i do not support him and support his agenda. paul: former state supreme court justice roy moore following victory tuesday in the republican primary runoff to fill attorney general jeff sessions, alabama senate seat, mr. moore's 10-point is widely seen as warning to republicans in washington. senate majority mitch mock -- mcconnell spent heavily for strange and president trump and vice president pence both campaigned for him in the last week of the campaign. we are back with dan henninger, jason riley and james freeman. jason, is this the defeat for so-called establishment, washington republicans?

>> yes, i think that's clear, paul, and to some extent it's a defeat for donald trump. he picked the wrong horse here. you know, there's -- i think it's also evidence that trumpism might be bigger than trump in that sense. i think that the style of politician that roy moore is something that is in this country and that too scares the establishment republicans, sort of attitude that everyone is corrupted in washington. i mean, the idea that you could run against a luther strange, the way roy moore -- paul: conservative. >> the way he did, was quite amazing. i mean, that to me was one of the bigger take aways. paul: on policies, not much different between the two but attitude thing. he's the outsider, he's -- if you ask me, james, i wonder if you agree, i think the failure of obamacare repeal particularly the second round coming right ahead of the election basically

played right into moore's argument, they can't get anything done, you need somebody else, john mccain, susan collins, rand paul, they might as well have been campaign managers for roy moore. >> if voters we wanted to send a message that they are ticked off that republicans with control of congress have not been able to get anything done, anyone would say that they have a legitimate gripe here. i'm not sure i agree too much into this. i like big luther. i think he would -- continued to be a good senator, i'm not sure he really carved out, really had to time to carve out much of an -- paul: he was an appointed senator. >> yes. roy moore, obviously, a lot of questions about his message in terms of defying federal court orderers. i think he had built an identity in the state for years as a guy standing up for traditional values and for a lot of voters who feel like religion has been

pushed out of the public square, this is a guy who was kind of shoving it back in and i think that did cheer a lot of people. paul: dan, roy moore, alabama republicans sending, assuming he wins the general in december 12th, are they sending somebody who could be as difficult to coral for a vote as rand paul? >> absolutely. i think roy moore could be a very difficult vote and i think something significant happened down there, paul. i mean, president trump, donald trump went to alabama and campaigned hard for luther strange but steve bannon, who until recently was chief political adviser in the white house, steve bannon went to alabama and campaigned for judge moore, against donald trump. sarah palin went to alabama and campaigned for judge moore. and i think what you're beginning to see is the emergence of a populist party inside the republican party that's always been there but i

think the bannontivity makes it clear that this is being formalized inside the republican party and they intend to challenge what they call the establishment and if donald trump is standing in their way they will campaign against him as well. jason had a point. trump was being overtaken by trumpism. the question is what are the republicans in washington going to do if they have a group at their back constantly trying to call them into account. paul: here is what i would do, i would get things done. i would pass tax reform, fulfill promises on health care, i will confirm judges. >> having moore might make that more difficult, he's a wild card. you don't have wiggle room. you only have 52 votes. the other people paying attention is jeff flake, dean heller in nevada. i think you're going to see the -- more of the challengers come out of the bannon wing of the party against the establishment.

so, yes, mitch mcconnell's job might have gotten a lot harder. paul: what they are going to do with the challenges, james, they are going to force to republican incumbent senators to spend the money that they could -- party could be spend to go defeat democrats, you will have more vulnerable republicans and fewer democratic incumbents who will have challengers who can beat them. >> some of the challengers, i like jeff flake a lot but i think you have to ask why did he spend so much time writing a book attacking the president. you look at the record, so little achievement this year in the congress, maybe their time -- paul: in defense of flake he voted for obamacare. he's going to be great on taxes, he's good on spending, you know, the big difference he has is on immigration. >> that's right. paul: i mean, you know, that's going to be --

>> one more thing, if you want to look at alabama as healthy sign, this is not a culted personality for donald trump. obviously voters make up their own minds and his endorsement doesn't pull everyone in his coalition automatically behind him. paul: still ahead, amid criticism of response to hurricane maria, steps up recovery efforts on storm-ravaged puerto rico. we will look at the challenges that lie ahead next this is what it's all about, jamie -- helping small businesses. damage your vehicle? we got you covered. [ glass shatters ] property damage? that's what general liability's for. what?! -injured employee? -ow. workers' comp helps you pay for a replacement. what's happening? this is carla. how's it going? and if anything comes up, our experts are standing by. ♪

boo! ♪ you myour joints...thing for your heart... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.

sfx: loud poorly played electric guitar that sounds awful seriously, awful but a lot better than last week ♪rock guitar music ♪we weren't born to follow

so how old do you want uhh, i was thinking around 70. alright, and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire? oh yeah sure... ok, like what? but i thought we were supposed to be talking about investing for retirement? we're absolutely doing that. but there's no law you can't make the most of today. what do you want to do? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. yea. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change. investment management services from td ameritrade. paul: under fire for what critics say was a slow response to the crisis in puerto rico, the trump administration this week stepped up its efforts to bring aid to the island which was devastated by hurricane maria last week. the pentagon has appointed liewlt general jeffrey buchanan to oversee federal recovery efforts and on thursday the

government authorized 10-day waiver of jones act, puerto rico's governor requested the waiver arguing that it would expedite the shipment of much needed supplies to storm-ravaged areas. president trump is schedule today visit puerto rico next week. we are back with wall street journal mary anastasia ograd. how bad was it? >> 155-mile an hour winds hitting an electricity grid that was extremely vulnerable, old and fragile and as a result basically the island lost all electricity and it also had a lot of down trees, the roads were not passable and so forth. this was a humanitarian crisis for the first ten days because it meant that there was no electricity for the elderly and the sick, so hospitals and particular people who needed

dialiss treatment which needed to be refrigerated. paul: what about water shortages, are those being alleviated as we speak? >> again, this had to do with electricity, 45% of the water, the island that was without portable water in the first ten days, those people were dependent on electricity to pump the water. that was the problem. and fema had a plan in place in which they would use generators but they did not have a good plan in place for the getting the diesel to the trucks an getting trucks out to deliver diesel to the generators. paul: how do you explain other than down trees and roads and that sort of thing, how do you plan distribution issue? we have seen containers on the photos, containers in the ports and not being able to move products and relief?

>> this had to do with gasoline and diesel and truck drivers. one of the things that fema fouled on and i don't think that the president didn't pay attention to puerto rico, but i think fema he's plan whatever that was, failed. you know, the head of fema local on the island of puerto rican said in the middle of last week, we don't understand why the private contractors that we've hired to deliver the diesel are not delivering diesel. if you're emergency management agency, you should be on top of the diesel getting delivered because that was essential to maintaining some kind of energy on the island. paul: now, trump later this week has decided to essentially put general there and get the u.s. military involved. is this something that you think needs to be done? >> yeah, it's going to help. i mean, but i still say the execution of that -- of the delivery of the diesel, doesn't matter military or locals, they had a real problem in execution

and i think they are breaking the log jam, truck drivers are showing up. let's face it, the truck drivers couldn't communicate with the emergency centers because the cell towers were down. very little cell coverage on the island except for near san juan and the center of the island. paul: if you compare to texas, a lot is essential poverty of the island, the island is much more vulnerable, electrical grid is more vulnerable and cell towers weren't as reinforced as they were on the mainland. >> yeah, i think when you have a political class like you do in puerto rico that has not managed , has not done its job basically, provide basic services and to protect people against these kinds of vulnerabilities. when you have a cat 4 hurricane hit, all of that is going to be exposed and that's what we are seeing right now. paul: what can the united states to help puerto rico so in 15 years from now it won't be like this? >> well, i'm not so sure. it's going to have to -- it's

going to require the puerto ricans to really decide that they want to demand more of their politicians. i mean, you know, there's a big debt over hang, a lot of the debt, debtors will be haircutted and will lose money. there will have to be a social contract that says, look, we are going to get help but in return we are going to be more responsible in terms of our accountability. paul: make it enterprise zone. thanks, mary. when we come back our panel weighs in on who wins and who loses the president's brawl with the national football league. >> i think they are afraid of their players, if you want to know the truth and i think i count on my dell small business advisor for tech advice. with one phone call, i get products that suit my needs and i get back to business. ♪

♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ well i'm gone

>> the nfl cannot disrespect our country, they cannot disrespect our flag or our national anthem and they can't have people sitting down or kneeling down during our national anthem and guess what, most people agree with me and the nfl is in a box, they have to do something about it. paul: president trump this week on fox doubling down on his criticism of the nfl and players who sit or kneel during the national anthem. the president says nfl team owners are, quote, afraid of their players and require them to stand. we are back with dan henninger and jason riley. jason, who is winning the fight between trump and the nfl? >> i think, the nfl, paul, is winning, what started by protests by some players about how police are treating young black men in the country has sort of morphed into an

antitrump protest that you're seeing and i think more people are joining it and when you see the owners kneeling with their players as we have seen recently, i think that is evidence of who is winning this. paul: uniting the owners and the players which is some achievement. [laughter] paul: but don't most americans, would trump have a point that most americans agree with him about honoring a flag or has this become a much larger issue -- >> i think trump supporters agree with him. i think that different people view protests differently. trump has tried to frame this as a questioning patriotism of the players. i think many, many americans view this differently. paul: how do they view it? >> they feel that the players have legitimate grief is how they view it and -- i think we can get into this if you want, i question whether they do have a legitimate grief but i don't question their patriotism.

paul: dan, what do you think about this about who is winning? >> not really. i think the nfl shot itself in the foot with this protest. let's understand that donald trump didn't start it. it began with colin kaepernick last september who decided to choose the national anthem, kneel down in protest and i don't think many americans quite understand what exactly it is he's protesting but in the wake that, other players started taking a knee during national anthem. if there are legitimate issues about the relationships between the police and black people in the inner city, let colin kaepernick or the rest of them give speeches so people understand the protest. it's been centered at the national anthem at the beginning of these games and i think a lot of americans were confused and upset that a symbol of unity in the united states do being divided and trump just surfed in

on top of it. paul: maybe could both be losers here? you're right about the attacks that's become larger antitrump movement to some extent but also, as i talked to a lot of americans, whatever grief, grief answers -- grievances on criminal justice and so on, the flag represents as they say before the event to honor america. >> i think they could be both be losers in this sense of sports want to tune in and watch football and they're not looking to the president for guidance on their viewing habits. [laughter] >> in that sense both can be losing. i do want to make a point about the nature of the protests themselves. what we have is an increase in coverage, media coverage of police shoot negotiation this country. we should not confuse that with an increase in actual police shootings, that's not what the data shows. the data shows police shoot -- police using lethal force much,

much less than in the past, here in new york city back in 1971, 314 police shootings, 93 fatally, down to 23 shootings. eight of them fatally. paul: argument of kaepernick is not accurate? >> exactly. that's been a decline not only on police shootings here in new york but other large cities and nationwide since late 160's, blacks are shot by police are down 70%, paul, this is a false narrative and we can't confuse the fact that social media has -- has blown -- exaggerated this. paul: thanks, jason, one more break, when we come back, hits and misses of the week i'

paul: time now for hits and misses of the week. dan, start us off. >> i'm giving a miss to

georgetown university law school where jeff sessions arrived to give a speech on the subject of free speech on campus as he arrived, he was greeted by at least 30 georgetown law professors taking a knee in opposition and in solidarity with the nfl players who were in a battle with donald trump over speech and the national anthem. paul, we sometimes wonder where students get their ideas and these georgetown law professors made it pretty clear. paul: all right, dan. kate. >> this is a hit for target which announced they are going to $15 an hour in the next couple of years but also a miss -- paul: per wage. >> per wage, also union activist who fight for 15 which have been saying we need government mandates and target did it to compete with wal-mart and other retailers in a tough environment and tight labor market. just more evidence that what's good for workers is competition. paul: and economic growth. mary. >> paul a miss for twitter, as you know and our president

knows, only use 140 characters when you tweet but twitter says now they are going to double that, having a trial run anyway to 280. some of us believe -- explains why i didn't like fidel castro and we wish that we would stick with the 140. paul: jason. >> the federal prosecution of college basketball is not only a miss but air ball. [laughter] >> the schools are accused of basically trying to bribe kids to come. that may be a violation of ncaa rules but should not be treated as crime. i think the fbi and the u.s. attorney's office have better things to worry about. discretion is in order here. paul: thank you all. remember, if you have your own hit or miss, be sure to between it to us. thanks for watching, i'm paul

gigot, i hope to see you next week right here. ♪