tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News July 18, 2020 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
editorial, i am paul gigot. reopening american schools. over half a million students in the nation's second largest school system will not return to the classroom next month. in-person instruction delayed until it's safe and appropriate. the teachers union is laying down terms that may make that goal impossible. a document released, it not only spells out an extensive list of safety protocols but a host of
other measures the union says are needed to address inequality including medicare for all, wealth tax on billionaires and defunding the police. bring an hour panelist. dan henninger, kim strassel and holman jenkins. welcome to you all. kim, let's start with the threshold question, our schools safe for children to return to? >> all of the evidence you've been reading so far suggest that they are. we've had this experiment in european countries where kids have been back at school, we know kids tend to not contract the disease, they don't seem to be spreaders of the disease for the most part and obviously they manage the disease better if they do get it. that has to be measured against the real problem of not having in person learning. paul: what about teenagers?
with younger children, the evidence is pretty definitive but what about teenagers who seem to be more transmissible? >> yes, they are more transmissible and i think that's why you see the school districts that are planning to have in person learning and reopening are making distinctions between high schoolers, middle schoolers and grade schoolers in terms of safety protocols they implement. at least in theory, kids get older, they can be expected to follow rules a little better so they can do social distancing at higher levels. paul: what about the teachers? piercing we have to be safe, too. >> they can wear a mask, they can keep 6 feet away from the students. it's not really about a real threat to teachers going back to school, this is not a serious proposal, it's causing the
country for the kids to stay out of school. they are trying to establish government workers don't have to work to get paid. work is optional. i think this is part of the progressive drift towards a universal basic income. paul: what's the evidence about how well virtual instruction has done for children? the evidence i've seen is not very encouraging that kids actually learn much. >> have a friend who is a teacher in new york city, it's completely worthless. the kids don't show up, the teachers can't figure out who's there and who's not, they don't take attendance. it depends on the schools, too. people don't have an incentive to do well the students leave
them and go somewhere else. it's not a better solution than having kids in the classroom and probably never will be. paul: while the l.a. public schools are saying we're not going to open the catholic schools in los angeles are saying they will reopen. some of that may be because they are under a lot more competition from charters and so on, they don't have the luxury that state schools do but why can't public school with more resources? >> the catholic schools, are under tremendous financial pressure. seventeen archdiocese of new york recently announced 17 schools in the city would be closed for financial reasons and some of the private charters under financial pressure as well. one could argue the unions
militating against the reopening of schools to put the competition out of business, especially charter schools. they have targeted charter schools. schooling typically is a local issue and probably this needs to be handled on a state-by-state issue. tremendous surges going on in texas and florida. if i were a parent there with school-aged children, i'd be a little concerned. on the other hand, look at new york which went through a terrible experience, their positivity rate is now down near 1%. the caseload is absolutely flat in new york and new jersey and yet, they are not saying whether they will reopen the schools. how can they keep pushing this out into the future? yes, it's a dilemma but once you
get the virus under control, surely pressure should build to get the schools reopen. paul: holman mentioned the demands in los angeles are a political act to get more money. do you agree with that? >> it's that and even more. they're not just demanding more money and greater 50 protocols but social revolution, medicare for all to the end of charter schools to higher taxes on billionaires and millionaires. it has to do with economic demands, broader societal change, nothing to do with education. paul: a closer look at the economic and political fallout from the coronavirus spike when we come back. california shuts down for a second time. our other states coming up next? trump shakes up his reelection campaign.
economic and political fallout from the rise in coronavirus cases continues to mount this week. gavin newsom ordering indoor service bars, restaurants and movie theaters in the state to close again. president trump shaken up his reelection campaign as polls show voters are increasingly dissatisfied with his handling of the crisis. holman, let's start with the california case. is the shutdown justified in your view? >> if the governor feels he has to do something, i don't think the shutdown will fix the problem because i don't think the lockdown caused it. you get outbreaks when people are aggressively mingling. if you don't open the bars, people do it in their houses and church and that sort of thing, it's a learning curve.
people are beginning to realize it doesn't make sense to go into crowded situations. it's in the hands of the public now. it's taking a while for them to get the message but this might be a little bit of a blip as the country gets that perspective. paul: you don't buy the argument by the colleagues in the media that the state reopened too early? >> whenever you reopen, you're going to get a virus outbreak, people going back and socialize and doing the business they used to do if they don't wear a mask, you will get transmission of the virus. you can't keep it locked down forever and even in new york, there's a lot of activity in bars and parties. i think we will see a spike there in the coming weeks, too. people have to decide they're going to control it and most important, the people most at risk have to keep themselves out
of circulation. a mask doesn't do it. you shouldn't go to those situations in the first place if you're highly vulnerable. paul: let's talk about the political consequences. white house staffers taking shots at anthony fauci. is that smart politics for those kinds of shots? >> not at this time. i really don't think so. doctor fauci is worst case scenario guy. paul: that's his job. [laughter] >> you took the words out of my mouth. that's his job. it isn't that helpful. i have a degree of sympathy for
the white house and the president at this stage. to be sure, the president oversold the white house response. the initial briefings didn't go all that well. this was a new virus. we didn't know that much about it, we know more than we do now. the press kept pushing that they should have perfect knowledge in dealing with the virus, very little was known. their default was to close down the country which was never realistic. we've already seen damage it's done. we do have surges in some states but we know a lot more, we know much better how to treat people. remember the great ventilator panic early on? we know ventilators are not advisable now in many cases. i do have some sympathy for the how the white house had to go through that initially and i
think they'd be much better off if they addressed the coronavirus for what it is, a serious problem and level with the american people about it. paul: kim, if you believe it, public has soured, the president virus ratings down on the issue. why do you think that is? >> i think it's for the reasons dan is talking about, if you're out there and say we did a fantastic job and then you see cases spiking all over, there's an obvious disconnect. that's why dan's advice is right, but the president should be doing is saying yes, it's serious we are there backing of the governors. the governors need to make these decisions, we are standing by to help and we are also working on the things we can do which are
economic revival, trying to get people back to work and making sure congress doesn't make it worse with worse legislation. that's a better message but it's not one they have embraced. paul: you think the campaign shakeup is going to make a difference? >> i'd be surprised if it did. they need to fight for the future of the country against democratic left. i don't know if they can be consistent enough, trump never has to make that case against the headwinds because of the pandemic. paul: thanks. still ahead, another deadly week in american cities. a surge in gun violence continues. a closer look behind the rising crime rate when we come back. ♪
there is no acceptable violent protests. any violent protest will be stopped and there will be consequences involving anyone anywhere whether a protest or anything else assaulting a police officer, it is unacceptable and they will suffer consequences. paul: bill de blasio condemning violent attack on police officers protest on the brooklyn bridge this week. the assault comes in with a spike in violent crime in new york and other cities across the country. along the latest victims, a 1-year-old boy killed last week and went to gunman opened fire at a family cookout in brooklyn. director of legal policy at the manhattan institute. welcome. good to see you.
let's talk about this flareup in crime. how serious is it and how widespread? >> it is quite serious. it's incredibly widespread. cities new york to chicago, st. louis, philadelphia, baltimore are seeing these gems. some have had crime troubles for a good amount of time now but we are seeing now is concerning because it's the erosion of the progress we've put in over two decades and i think we are flirting with the prospect of how learning how quickly the progress can be included. paul: what role do you think anti- police protests in the wake of the george floyd killing
have played here? >> i think it's a big role when you consider the fact that it's an ingredient in a cocktail that's been brewing for some time here in new york. new york has taken a rapid approach to criminal justice reform. in the last few years, we seen progressive district attorneys elected in brooklyn and queens have undertaken both nonviolent and serious offenders including gun offenders. we seen new york city adopt a number of radical criminal justice reforms, having the capacity at 3500 inmates. it's a jail system with 17000 at one time. we seemed the right to know act which requires nypd to affirmatively apprise people of their right to refuse a search. we seen the ending of anti- crime units in more recent times. a number of reforms which, when
combined with the current moment, i think it's making for a lot of what we see in the street. paul: of course now the city council is going to cut the police budget by $1 billion out of five-point some billion dollar budget. you have reform passed at the state level so some of these offenders arrested for the assault police have already been released from jail. with the list you gave here is quite something when you think about it. are we going to see a big spike in crime that continues? you are young, i am not. i've been living in new york in the battle of days and i saw the progress made with rudy giuliani and other police chiefs and michael bloomberg, too.
are we going back to the battle days? >> we are certainly headed in that direction. look at the prime numbers now, through july 12, murders are 23%, shootings are up 61%. for people who would say it's just a blip, product of the moment we are in our past, consider the two-year trends. shootings are up 70% over the last two years in new york city. murders are up 22%, that's a sustained increase. we keep it up for two years, we will cut into a significant portion, the progress of the last decade. i am younger than you, i was living in new york in the 80s and 90s and remember what it was like growing up during that era. a police officer, i remember the worry i felt when my father left the house to go to work. i think we are flirting with the
line, if we cross it, a lot of the progress will erode quickly. especially if we continue to alienate police officers who have been on the front lines of pushing back against this trend and one of the other things city council recently did was make it a crime, even if the police officer accidentally applies pressure to the suspects chest or back or neck, even for a short period of time and even if there's no injuries sustained by the suspect, to the extent we continue to make policing more risky endeavor legally and physically, as we do this, it
will be distant in incentivizing people from taking the job. we seen an increase in retirement that's going to take the city in a much less safe direction. this is not a big crime increase, they will not see a big huge crime increase, it's going to be in brooklyn, where people already have enough to deal with and that's what i don't think people are in. paul: thanks for coming and. as democrats and republicans gear up for negotiations over another coronavirus spending package, our panel looks at what's likely to be in it and whether one is needed at all.
we urge the president and senate to get on it and help the american people. help state and local governments by honoring our heroes, opening up our economy in schools by having the equipment needed to do it in the fund to facilitate that. put money in the pockets of the american people, the time is running out on that. paul: nancy pelosi turning up the pressure on president trump
senate republicans to pass of phase four coronavirus relief bill. democrats pushing for 3 trillion in additional spending including section of the $600 in supplemental unemployment benefits which are set to expire at the end of july. majority mitch mcconnell sang new round of negotiations will kick off when lawmakers return to washington next week. back with dan henninger holman jenkins. dan, you agree phase four spending bill is warranted? >> i do not. speakers remarks make me think of the most famous saying of all time, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. nancy pelosi and democrats aren't wasting this practice. they may be wasting taxpayers money though. they're talking about appropriating another several $2
trillion on top of the several trillion that have already been legislated. as republicans have rightly asked, what has happened with the money we've already sent out the, ppp still has money not dispersed so it's a question of whether how much good the money has done but it's not going to stop nancy pelosi from flooding the economy with money and there's an economic proposition here, put money in people's pockets. the basic longtime democratic idea that if you're in a weak economy, you flood it with cash to create demand inside the economy? there's no evidence of demand other to use the money but what she does with the money is appropriated legislated to discrete groups, identifying groups like schools and infrastructure for which they will get political credit, even if the money is dispersed or spent well in the republican
challenge is to try to show what the democrats gain is, it's basically trying to take the country to become dependent on these high spending levels. paul: kim, i agree with all that dan said about the economic need but it looks like it's going to happen so, steve nugent, treasury secretary wants another cash payout of $1000 for each person, he's even said he would go with one 100% of wages with another federal unemployment insurance benefit, are going to get another $3 billion package?
>> i don't know if it's bacon but for those of us don't believe it's needed, it's simply damage control now. trying to make this so it's not as awful as it could be and to me, some republicans standing up absolutely opposed to the latest proposal. without a doubt, the worst thing congress did was give the enhanced unemployment and it's led to this bizarre anomaly where we have unemployment rate of 11% but employers who cannot find people to take jobs because people are getting paid more to sit home and we cannot continue this so some republicans are pushing back on that proposal, the notion of more dollars out that state and local bailout because of what that might go to to backup bad policies like pension so this will be the main game, there's going to be a bill, it's just how bad is it? paul: the democrats are saying if you don't have another bill in the economy will fall off a
cliff until july 31 when unemployment runs out and you will have them running the course so you will see people not being able to meet mortgages, a lot more default on loans. you buy that scenario at all? >> you will see people with a great deal more incentive to get back to work when the unemployment benefits are gone but there's going to be a washout, does a lot of business is not coming back that need. were seriously downsized and used federal aid to delay that reckoning. there's a big problem for the economy and for trump between now and election day but the most important stimulus to get is the stimulus that helps the economy to get moving again, people getting back to work, testing and mask, if you can show the airlines are safe, if they can get people traveling again, that would be a huge stimulus. the worst thing are the programs does incentivizing people to go to work. we have to stop that. paul: you would say the best
stimulus is making sure people feel safe to go back to work? >> i know it's a terrible idea but it's better than the programs that incentivize people to stay home. paul: thanks. joe biden rolls out is to trillion dollar to combat climate change, reshaping the economy and creating millions of new jobs in four years. do the numbers add up? ♪
donald trump thinks about climate change, the only word he can muster his hopes. when i think about climate change, the word i think of is jobs. good paying, union jobs. paul: was joe biden tuesday rolling out phase two of his economic plan focusing this week on his energy and climate agenda. democratic presidential nominee, vowing to spend $2 trillion over four years to invest in clean energy infrastructure pledged to eliminate carbon emissions from power plants by 2035. all this while creating millions of new jobs. we are back with dan henninger,
joe biden is likely to be the president and it striking how little people know what he's going to do. we'll show over the course of the next couple weeks, what he plans to do. start with the climate plan. it's a lot of money. what would he spend on? >> i think of climate change, i think of soaring unemployment that's what the plan actually is. we're going to spend this money on replacing basically, getting rid of fossil fuels and electricity production over the next 15 years so that's going to mean millions of solar panels, tens of thousands of wind turbines, we will put in 500,000 charging stations as part of joe biden's drive to get to zero
emissions cars, radical changes in our appliance standards to say goodbye to that dishwasher you actually like. radical changes in farming practices , there's a lot in this that would fundamentally transform the way america works and operates. paul: can you spend that much money in four years? is it physically possible to spend that in four years? on charging stations? >> that's the other thing, how will he get built? originally, joe biden was going to try to spend it over ten years but you're seeing the influence of bernie sanders and the progressive wing on joe biden's policies which is this is much closer to the green new deal than anything that was present in the obama biden presidency.
paul: if he could pull this off, what does it mean for fracking revolution? natural gas drilling, it's been so important in u.s. energy production and jobs? >> is not clear. he did not come out against fracking, he endorsed basically oil, gas and coal keep going. he even had nuclear in there. it's not a plan they would normally embrace but when you talk about spending $2 trillion in four years, they are happy to sign on just because it's a giant green, it's really what obama learned at the beginning of his term. you won't get anywhere with the american people if you threaten to raise energy prices but as long as you throw subsidies at people, people are going to buy into that or let it go. the thing he detailed at the greatest length, that is obama right up the l.a. there. suburban elites like that, they don't really think it bothers them, they get a cheap tesla, it
doesn't kill anybody's job as for as they are concerned. paul: the thing is, he promised a lengthy list of new regulations. he will put regulation on fracking, that has the effect of raising the cost of fossil fuel production and natural gas production so that the other way he hopes to help renewables. >> that's right. let's make no mistake, getting rid of fossil fuels in terms of climate, i think it's the central goal and agenda of the progressive democratic left. it's at the top of their list and it may be joe biden didn't mention fracking in his plan but in the chance they take control of the senate, there's going to be a conservative move against
fossil fuel. they've been explicit about it, they've been talking about it for years but the achilles' heel at the center of all this, is, he says he's going to create jobs but that suggest transition of millions of jobs out of the oil industry, the construction industry into wind turbines and solar panels. if i am a member of these existing unions, those are not stupid people. they're not delusional. you can convince surveillance of this but i think the unions are going to resist the idea we can make an easy transition to green jobs, it's just not going to happen in four years. paul: could it cost obama,
biden, pennsylvania? 's plan? >> yes, and other states. if the information gets out, i think it could be potentially shaking up the dynamics of the election. paul: when we come back, china files retaliation on sanctions. companies interfering on hong kong's economy. souring relationship between washington and beijing, next. ♪
confronted democracy protesters. paul: that was bill barr thursday delivering a speech on president trump's china policy at the library in michigan. the administration stepping up on beijing following the passage of a sweeping new national security law aimed at stripping hong kong of its economy. president trump tuesday signed into law a bipartisan bill imposing sanctions on chinese officials, banks and businesses as well as executive order ending the special trade status hong kong enjoyed for more than two decades. michael is director of the center on chinese strategy at the hudson institute and author of the 100 year marathon, china's secret strategy to replace america as a global super. right to have you back. so we've got every day, it seems we get another some kind of action or speech or something taking aim at beijing.
what's going on here? what's the big picture strategy they are attempting to play out? is it to decoupled the u.s. from china's economy? >> no, i don't think so. a lot of it is the campaign promises the government made and he himself, said the china "issue is" one of the reasons, maybe even the reason he got elected president so he needs deliverables, needs them to show results from his promises and the chinese are being tough customers, there's a big misperception china is about to collapse, they are very weak, have them surrender immediately, that has not been the case. we've not made the concessions the president wants, they did do the phase one trade deal which is significant but it's not the whole enchilada, as we used to say here in washington. paul: the trade deal is still
going ahead? you see it that way? >> yes, it is going ahead, the president has threatened to terminate it if china does not make the purchases on time that they said they would do. they've made, the president highlighted one of the largest purchases in history. every thursday, they are posted on the website, they also promised to buy energy under things, i think boeing airliners would be welcome. they are behind in the schedule they agreed to but the agreement is still working. phase two, the president said he's not interested anymore and he said he has no plans to call xi jinping. the relationship is deteriorating but is not end of the world. we still have the largest embassy in the world, beijing.
2300 officials with agencies continuing operation with china so i'm not in the group that says it's a cold war and we should be afraid of world war breaking out. paul: so you know china extremely well. one puzzle for me is, why china has been moving so aggressively on several fronts. we saw what they did in hong kong, they had recent skirmish of the indian border, they've been pushing more aggressively in the south china sea. they've been doing so on a number of other fronts, they really cracked down. why moving so fast and so many places? >> that's an important question, they have politics just like we do, they don't have senate and supreme court and active media leaks but they do have politics. xi jinping, to get elected, if you want to use that word, he
had to move toward hard leaders. they had their rhetoric, the china dream, china's time has come and china is the world leader if not now, then in a couple of years so the new aggressive move xi jinping has made has provoked criticism from the people we wish had more power. they criticize him from moving too soon and 100 year marathon, i argued they wouldn't do this aggressiveness for at least another five to ten years after the gdp has surpassed us so he's taking a risk that he's playing to the hard lighters and they love him. the media in china is praising xi jinping almost as a god. paul: you say in your book, you said basically they don't, the test strategy of rising power is to hide your true motives and
wait until you are as strong as the current. then you kind of unveil everything and it's too late for the united states, in this case, to do anything about it but have they moved to soon and provoked a backlash here in the u.s. that is maybe bipartisan pushing back against china? >> i'll tell you what the reformers say. they say yes, he's moved to soon and the debate is over metrics. they've got to send indicators which i describe in the book, all the major chinese power against american power and the metrics are complicated. as many as 25 indicators they look at so as they celebrate their successes, supercomputers, quantum artificial intelligence, american trade secrets, as they get full of themselves, they push aside the reformers, which is why the implementation of the
and nutrients to support immune health. paul: time now for our hits and misses of the week. kim, first to you. >> okay. paul, a miss to the washington redskins. which finally succumbed to the mobs of political correct notice and said it would change its name. if you have not read dan's column this week, i will pose this question, why stop there? let's get rid of the names that connote privilege or colors or fossil fuels, the oilers or the steelers. we can acknowledge that some name might be offensive to some
person somewhere or we can put aside the nonsense. >> the myth of the week has to go to twitter ceo, jack dorsey. criminals got ahold of some accounts, including barack obama, joe biden, and dozens of others. thank goodness they weren't trying to start a war or crash the market. they were trying to pitch a bitcoin scam. twitter has become too important to the world of governance and politics for this thing to happen. the secret seems to be an inside job. twitter worker managed to get these accounts and hand over to the controls to outsiders. this is a big problem. paul: yeah, sure. dan. >> a miss to new york city. the department of cultural affairs released a report suggesting that the city's nonprofit cultural institutions have lost a half a billion dollars since the beginning of the virus. and laid off about 15,000 people. these are the institutions that make the city great, yet mayor bill de blasio keeps putting
back the reopening. i'm afraid the famous big apple is turning into the crab apple. [ laughter ] paul: yes, that is the case. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and thanks to all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot. hope to see you right here. ♪ eric: tributes to continue to pour in this afternoon for civil rights icon and long-time georgia congressman, john lewis. the legendary lawmaker died yesterday. he was 80 years old of. he had a battle with pancreatic cancer. welcome to america's news ameris headquarters i'm eric shawn. arthel: i'm arthel neville. john lewis' life-long fight for racial equality spanned several decades. he took part of the civil rights march in selma. outrage at