tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News February 23, 2013 11:00am-11:30am PST
president obama turns up the heat on the republicans. warning of dire consequences if the march 1st spending cuts kick in. john boehner says the sequester wasn't his idea, but should he try to stop it. murder rate hits a 50 year low, but the policy many credit for the achievement is once again underfire, could stop and frisk soon be a thing of the past. and just in time for the oscars it's the return of the hollywood black list. we'll take a closer look at the campaign against zero dark welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot, with days to go. president obama turned up heat on republicans this week saying they would be to blame if across the board spending cuts take effect on march 1st, appearing on tuesday with firefighters, police officers, and other first responders, the president claimed the consequences of such cuts
would be dire. >> people will lose their jobs. it will jeopardize our military readiness, eviscerate job creating investments, thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids. >> but in a wall street journal op-ed john boehner shot back saying the sequester was the white house's idea in the first place and a product of president obama's own failed leadership. joining the panel this week, wall street columnist and deputy editor dan henninger, jason, and kim strassel. kim, let's start with the merits first and the president's claims of catastrophe if those spending cuts kick in. is that correct? >> exactly, no. what we do know the president has every incentive here to make it sound as if it's going to be absolutely the most dreadful thing, but the reality is, paul, it's a 2.5% cut to the federal budget.
it's 85 billion dollars out of a 3.8 trillion budget. if you can't find that much to cut then there's a problem. is there enough flexibility in the sequester to make a difference, these agency heads will be able to maneuver and prevent things like jason, cuts to air traffic control, for example? >> that's what republicans would like to do, give the president some flexibility and the problem is, democrats who want the armageddon narrative are opposed, to-- >> why is that? >> well, they like the narrative. they want to pretend like. >> any cuts at all in government are catastrophic. >> they don't want to give the president flexibility, but the fact of the matter. we're talking about 5% of domestic spending, 7% in defense and these are doable and-- >> you're saying domestic spending, these are discretionary spending, this isn't a cut in social security. no cut in entitlements. >> but this is doable and the retorable that the president is going to present this as
the four horsemen of the apocalypse coming is liquidation. >> does your reporting suggest that harry reid has in fact explicitly rejected as a senate leader, a request by the republicans to add more flexibility to the cuts? >> well, we don't know that in particular, but what we do know is that the white house, they had an official down in front of the senate he recently and they were asked about giving this, being given this flexibility provision and they ultimately came back and said, we would reject any efforts to actually lessen the pain of this sequester. and so, the president here is getting himself into a situation where he's warning about all of these doom and gloom. the republicans are giving him a way out of this and they're increasingly looking to be rejecting that just so that they can continue to bring down the hammer. >> and the president, dan, is insisting not just on other spending cuts, alternatives, or even weakening the cuts, he's saying, look, i want a tax increase, too. >> what is that all about? i mean, we just had a huge tax
increase, that is already, according to the newspaper reports, hurting consumer spending. why do we-- why does he want another one? >> he wants that because it's part of the strategy that he has been running all along, which is to make it virtually impossible for the republicans to do business or sign up for it. he wants them to be in a rejectionist mode to blame them for pushing the government into sequester and add one more thing, palm. flexibility. there's another word for flexibility, it's responsibility and i do think that the republicans should push the continuing resolution that has the so-called flexibility. the president is in charge of the executive branch. let him take the responsibility for deciding how the cuts should be administered which he has been dodging for three years. >> i think, paul, the president is feeling confidence. his approval rating, 20 or so points higher of that of republicans. >> 20? >> and figured i beat them on the debt ceiling debate in 2011 and beat them on the fiscal cliff, i can do it
again. the polls show that the public will be with me. whether that's well-founded, we'll find out, but i think that's what's driving some of this. he feels as if he can win this. >> you think it may be overconfidence on the part of the president, and this is different than the other two fights that jason mentioned, how so? >> it absolutely is. republicans know that they got beat on the debt ceiling and the fact that they're embracing the strategy. it's a deliberate strategy. they're ready and willing to let this go into effect and think of it. step back and what are we talking about at the moment. what we're the not talking about is republicans lack of unity on taxes, we're talking about spending, we're talking about the size of government. we're talking about the president's addiction to spending, we're talking about priorities, this is exactly where the republicans want this to be. >> but could they split over defense spending, kim, where a lot of their members don't want the damage that this could do to the pentagon? >> well, and this is where the president is going to bring down the hammer the hardest and try the most.
but, what is notable here, paul, even the republicans who have some qualms about how this is going to a hit defense. even they, the vast majority of them understand the necessities, strategic, policy-wise politically of allowing the sequester to go into effect and given that the law is kicking in on march 1st, there isn't any real legislative options that's open to, that republicans would go for that would change this. >> if republicans give in on a tax increase again, they are toast in 2014. when we come back, new york city saw murders plummet in 2012 to their lowest rate in 50 years, but the policy many say is responsible for that historic success is coming under attack. should stop and frisk be a thing of the past? . my bad. tell me you have good insurance. yup, i've got... [ voice of dennis ] ...allstate. really? i was afraid you'd have some cut-rate policy. nope, i've got... [ voice of dennis ] the allstate value plan.
it's their most affordable car insurance -- and you still get an allstate agent. i too have... [ voice of dennis ] allstate. [ normal voice ] same agent and everything. it's like we're connected. no we're not. yeah, we are. no, we're not. ♪ ask an allstate agent about the value plan. are you in good hands? i'm here to pick up some cacti. it should be under stephens. the verizon share everything plan for small business. get a shareable pool of data... got enough joshua trees? ... on up to 25 devices. so you can spend less time... yea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we're going to need to order more agaves... ah! oh! ow! ... and more bandages. that's powerful. sharble data
>> i understand that people don't like to be shot innocent people don't like to be shot and killed either and hundreds of guns off the streets. >> paul: that's new york city mayor bloomberg, in his stop and frisk policy. although the homicide rate reached a record low in 2012, the controversial crime fighting tactic is once again underfire and last week, naacp, and ray kelly of fear mongering in the claim that stop and frisk made it safer. and a key part of the city's program is unconstitutional. we're back with dan henninger and jason riley and the editorial member dorothy
rabinowicz. have it reduced the crime. >> certainly, that's what the mayor believes, the police commissioner believes and what the statistics show, last year, record low number of homicide in the early '90s around 2000 and more importantly, paul, it's saving the lives of people in the most vulnerable communities. in other words, it's saving black and latino lives and heather mcdonald of the manhattan institutes if we had the same rates as the 80's and 90's, 10,000 more men dead. and look at the murder rates versus other cities. new york city per 100,000 citizens has had five murders where about four times less than philadelphia, for example, or chicago. dorothy, so, if jason is right, why any objections? >> well, there are no reasons, no factual reasons for objection.
this is sheer demagoguery, let's go to the old saying, the constitution is not a suicide pact, it's not a suicide pact for minority, either and the basis of all of this claims that minorities are hurt. it's bizarre, if i could just make a quick trip to the los angeles police officer who shot the people which brought a vocal group out, yeah, we don't want to-- the police are corrupt. it is a very good mirror image of the view. >> paul: let me introduce a couple of facts here, 84% of the stop and frisk people, who are stopped and frisked are minorities according to 2011 and 88% of those who are stopped, there was no summons, there was no arrest, so, the accusation, look, it's a kind of racial profiling number one, and number two, it's overdone. you don't need to do it because the people aren't threatening. >> and that doesn't take in effect the deterrent. >> people know that there's a police presence in these
communities, are people more like or less likely to be either engaged in behavior or carrying items that she shouldn't be carrying that are illegal. but this is all behavior, and that's what vangellist doesn't want to talk about. they're in the grievance industry and the fact of the matter is they want to ignore the black behavior that is driving the politics, and blacks are only 13% of the population, paul, but 50% of people committing homicides and 90% of their victims are black. >> paul: okay, but is it still overdone? >> i think the trade off in saved lives is worth it and talk to the people in these communities. mayor bloomberg said that innocent people don't like to get shot and most of the people in the ghettos are law abiding citizens. they don't want the knuckleheads on their blocks selling drugs and engaged in illegal behavior and they
appreciate this and know what's saving lives. >> dorothy, now a lot of cops and so do i, and we know that they're not all saints. could some of them be using this as an excuse to harass people? >> is there any logic even in that decision? look at this, if you have a minority neighborhood filled with minorities, you are going to have an overrepresentation of people if these-- there is no logic to any of this, you have to show a the pattern of choice of minority and you go into a 98% black or hispanic neighborhood and you stop and frisk people and then there are complaints that they're almost all black doesn't make sense. >> paul: and this gets to terry versus ohio 1968 a supreme court case said at that stop and frisk was legal and police could go outside and check people's clothing, but ne needed more than a hunch. they needed a specific set of facts to be able to justify it. >> they need a reasonable
suspicion to do that. and in these cases, reasonable suspicion does exist. can abuse happen or can people be harassed? >> yes. these are situations where some of the people they're frisking are carrying guns, cops working in violent situations and it's up to the people managing the police department to try to do the best they can to ensure that 95% of the cops are not behaving in an abusive way, it's inevitable in a situation like this that at the margin, things like this will happen, but as jason suggested, you ask the residents of these neighborhoods whether they want them to stop doing this, the answer is no, they are safer neighborhoods as a result. >> all right, thank you. still ahead on this oscar weekend, the return of the hollywood black list. we'll take a closer look at the campaign against "zero dark thirty." next. you must be garth's father? hello. mother. mother! traveling is easy with the venture card
>> well, just in time for this weekend's academy awards. are we seeing the return of the hollywood black list? "zero dark thirty" perhaps the best reviewed film of 2012 has become an oscar long shot thanks to the black lash over the depiction of rough interrogation in the hunt for usama bin laden. and ed asner, and naomi wolf, one compared it to nazi propaganda. and one announced quote, the film is grossly inaccurate and misleading in the suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of usama bin laden. wall street editorial board
member recently sat down with the screen writer and joins us now, is it going to hurt the oscar chances? >> it hurt it amid the award season. and dates back really to the christmas release and the letters from the senators, you know, it is one of the best review reviewed films and viewers are complained, but defined as the torture film and hijacked by the politics of torture, so much more so in washington than hollywood, than anywhere else. you met him for the paper and what's his argument. he thinks it's unfair, i assume. >> i think he's frustrated and impassioned and this is a film about an event that took place less than two years ago and can you think of a film that tried to to something similar. he set out and reported himself, a former journalist,
and the journalist reported this story out and broke news in the film. how the cia pieced it together, how frustrating it was, how hard it was and tried to present it in a very nonjudgeal way. the film does not say torture or enhanced interrogation, but it's part of the story. we didn't interrogate the high target value and these did provide information that led us to-- >> you're saying that it's actually realistic in its depiction, not as a moral celebration of it or somehow saying-- no, i mean, it really does spell it out the way it was and give a history in a great way. >> dorothy, i can't remember when politicians got into this, the politics of film making in such a way. what do you think of the senators intrusion? >> i think it's an outrage and a lot of people do remember such a time, the time of the hollywood black list. >> at the mccarthy era. >> and accusations.
>> they did exactly what senator mccain did, they summoned-- intention of the film makers, to change the film and wanted the right propaganda influence and they wanted the right view. there is no difference between this. hollywood has spent the last 60 years putting out films about the great film community. >> why would they be so craven now as to bend to this pressure and vote against it for the-- >> well, they have short memories and because in hollywood they have to stand where the wind goes. and this is a progressive view, we're not towards torture. and the hollywood community in the face of this is remarkable. >> and we should add that the senators aren't just sending letters to sony pictures, they've unleashed their staff for the senate intelligence community going to investigate the cia and the extent to which it cooperated with the film makers and mark bowles had to hire an attorney in anticipation of that
investigation. so, this is, again, an attempt to maybe go in and intimidate the cia. >> certainly, and talking about having kathryn bigelow and mark bowles testify before congress about what relationship they had with the cia. >> paul: just on that point. federal agencies cooperate with hollywood. >> all the time. >> since world war ii, since world war ii. john borge, won an academy award for making a documentary for the navy department during world war ii, what is now described as a propaganda film. so this relationship has gone on since the beginning of time. >> paul: so what's the motive for the senators? >> the motive for the senators, a really interesting question. this is a liberal mindset that focuses on nothing, but these enhanced interrogations which occurred in the context of 9/11, the london bombing, the madrid train station bombing and then of course, al-qaeda which was blowing up
civilians, the purpose of the interrogations was to prevent the events from happening which they failed at. >> why are the senators against that. >> they're intent on focusing on one thing, torture to the exclusion of these other issues, that's, to my opinion, why they're doing it, because senators are egotistical grandstanders. >> you're looking at the very definition of ideology and if it's not senator feinstein's mom that this is about the bombing and the terror, but, we want to change your view. this is an outrage and when she said dark times, the dark times are taking us back to. >> briefly, matt, is it going to win? >> i doubt it. >> paul: all right, we have to take one more break. when he we come back, our hits and misses of the week. [ male announcer ] research suggests cell health
plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day men's 50+ is a complete multivitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. it has 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day men's 50+. who emailed it to emily, who sent it to cindy, who wondered why her soup wasn't quite the same. the recipe's not the recipe... ohhh. [ female announcer ] ...without swanson. the broth cooks trust most when making soup. mmmm! [ female announcer ] the secret is swanson.