tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News April 2, 2022 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
anything. it was owned by the government. so if you're going to bury somebody bury them the governments property. >> there it is, the search for james r hoffa streaming on fox nation right now. arthel: nice work mr. schommer back at 4:00 p.m. eastern the journal editorial report is up next. ♪ ♪ ♪ spieth i welcome to the journal editorial report i am paul gigot. as vladimir putin's invasion of ukraine enters its six-week president bites of the russian leader seems to be self i study with u.s. officials claiming he was being misled by top advisers about the wars going in the true toll sanctions is taking on the russian economy ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy claiming the invasion has a turning point calling what heavy weapons including tanks, aircraft and artillery systems" freedom should be armed no worse
than tierney. let's bring out republican congressman mike gallagher of wisconsin. he is on the house armed services committee, congressman great to see you. so, let's start with ukraine. based on everything you are hearing from the administration and others, are we giving the ukrainians unknot off to prevail in the conflict? >> no we are not. we had a hearing with the european commander this week. it was unsatisfying for the administration could not provide coherent answers on why we have yet to figure out how to take the slow walk ins up on their answer to provide the s300 air defense system. this is sort of a similar story we saw with the mig 29 fiasco. the pentagon got caught flat-footed and cannot figure out with urgency how to make this work. so, is much as there is bipartisan support for arming ukrainians, i still think the administration is not moving quickly enough. i still thing there is we can do to help zelenskyy and put him in
the strongest possible position going forward. and the administration just continues to be guided by a fear of provoking poo timber that's really what guided their efforts from the starboard i think that is why were somewhat behind the curve. paul: you are think in this just is not a matter of incompetence or inertia for this is a question of strategy? the administration is afraid that if the ukrainians go on the offensive and start to dislodge the russians, push them back, reclaim territory than that could lead to a more extensive conflict that could bring nato in common is that what you're saying? >> that is my assessment having watches pretty closely. more to the point, paul, what we have seen from the administration at the same time they are reticent to move more quickly. at the same time the wars very much under way and it could escalate in ways we do not foresee. they are bragging about the success of their approach. there are anonymous pentagon officials that are bragging about the extent of injury or
deterrence, integrated deterrence is the intellectual foundation of the forthcoming national defense strategy. it is basically a jargon buzzword, academic slang intent to cover for what they're actually trying to do. which is to cut conventional power. the recent deterrence failed in ukraine despite the fact they are defeated is because we really selling on specifically the threat of sanctions we signal every step we were unwilling read the recipe for failure going forward. an event endgame is a lot of people saying maybe russia would settle for a cease-fire now and try to get a settlement or they could continue to occupy the parts of ukraine that it has. now obviously zelenskyy is going to the driver seat here priest going to have to determine -- ukrainian people have to determine what they can accept. give the impression the united states to be okay with that kind
of divided ukraine scenario? >> we have to first put zelenskyy in an even better position if indeed he wants to pursue on behalf of the ukrainian people and negotiated settlements. we should not be fooled by any of putin's rhetoric that he might use for temporary regional operational policies and intensify operations for here's the problem, paul, here's the recent deterrence are so costly. putin is able to settle for something like solidifying his claims over crimea, establishing a land bridge between crimea and the don basinger russia, that is still a profoundly destabilizing outcome. in a far worse position than it was prior to the war. my hope is we continue to go on offense against the russians. at a minimum we need to do everything possible to fortify nato's eastern front. i don't think even though putin has experienced friction he's clearly miscalculated. don't think his ambitions will end with a smaller negotiation and settlement in eastern
ukraine. >> let's turn to the defense budget you follow that close of the president increasing the budget in dollars nominal but also real this year is it an adequate increase in your view? >> it does not keep pace with inflation. obvious their dramatic different estimates of inflation. earlier this week saying if inflation continues at the high-level 780 billion-dollar number actually looks more like $600 billion in terms of what the pentagon can actually purchase. i think this is insufficient for think it's further evidence of what i said before that if you really interrogate with the by demonstration wants to do it is to cut conventional hard power what they called to vest to invest. the best legacy platforms to invest in technology that is not proven that may not be fielding to the 23rd is the reason the problems were not only do it with a crisis in ukraine or we still need more we still need more air defense systems we are going to have a crisis on our hands with respect to taiwan. the lesson of ukraine is you cannot wait until after the
invasion it arm your partners and allies. there is no urgency in this budget when it comes to arming taiwan and learned the lesson from ukraine. i'm all for research and development. i'm all for new technology. but we need to put hard power in the path of our enemies in order to deny them their objective. that is how deterrence by denial works. not this magical fantasy of integrated deterrence which again is substituting soft power for hard power that does not work. paul: more shifts, more missiles, more planes right now to discriminate power. thank you congressman gallagher we appreciate coming in. >> thank you. still ahead is the word ukraine grinds on that majority of americans a president brightness not being tough enough on russia. our panel weighs in on the administration response so far and what comes next.
the support we have provided we have been very clear that we are doing everything we can to stand with ukraine and ensure they are able to push back against russian aggression. paul: white house communication director kate bedingfield saying the bite administration is doing everything it can to help ukraine push back on vladimir putin's aggression and win the war against russia. recent poll suggests majority of americans think the president could be doing more with 56% thing they don't think the administration has been tough enough and response to the invasion but let's bring in our panel was original columnist dan henninger and kim strassel an editorial board member kyle peterson. so it day and this is a week the white house spent a good portion of its time trying to clean up the confusion left by the president on his trip to europe where of course he suggested that u.s. a policy may have changed your support regime change against vladimir putin but then the white house staff quickly taking that back.
the president later when he got back single well, i don't regret a thing or apologize for anything. how do you make sense of all this? how is the world making sense of all of this? >> the world is having a very difficult time making sense of it, paul. i'm going to try to give it a try. we have reached a strange point in this war. the question was put to kate is whether or not the u.s. is willing to seat ukraine win this war. the argument against that is we do what we need to do provoke putin. i have a couple of thoughts on that. one is just as congressman gallagher was explaining so articulately, this administration does not want to have to increased defense spending now on hard power. the president has just submitted a defense budget which has a nominal increase in defense spending. i think they are afraid that if
they do what ukraine needs to do, commit militarily more significant military arms to ukraine it will clearly say the united states has to be engaged right now, not ten years from now, and rebuilding its military forces. and secondly doesn't rate the question as well is how they expect to get a negotiated settlement with the vladimir putin in ukraine that does not leave the current problems in place. dividing ukraine into eastern and western ukraine as they did with north and south korea. you know, paul, that effect to make eastern ukraine a nuclear power, right customer with new year guarantees by russia. that just does not sign the sort of situation that europeans want to get into or we should want to get into. so the mystery around the bite in a policy is real and i think people are recognizing it. paul: kim on that point, my
reporting confirms what congressman gallagher said about the s3 hundreds. they are still not in ukraine. the bags are still opposing that they oppose delivering those again this week on capitol hill. they are not delivering tanks even though you probably need heavy weapons to be able to dislodge the russians from their positions they are fixed. how do you explain their reluctance to do this? >> might reporting to, also shows that paul. and many other things as well to there is a lot of frustration in washington the administration won't move faster and harder for instance on energy sanctions or for instance secondary sanctions that would be imposed on banks. and again i think the congressman is correct. this is not a reflection of a bureaucratic snafu it's not a question of lack of will by our allies. these apparently are standing
ready to help with this including the slovakian's. this is a question of the white house is simply not to do anything they think would provoke putin. and you know, we are now three weeks on, three weeks from when this really became a big debate in washington and they started to lean congress on the white house. and yet still no action for you have to ask how many people have died? and what better situation might ukraine be in if we had got that equipment to them long ago. paul: kyle, there is a question about the president's credibility here. you know, the polls are showing he is down in the polls. despite the fact probably need a supreme court justice confirmed. the jobs report is pretty strong. is the gaffe after gaffe undermining his standing with the american public? and hurting him to the extent
that maybe he needs to think about getting a new advisor who can help him out more? >> yes i think it is. if you look at the polling, the real downturn in biden's polling started with a withdrawal from afghanistan. the whole situation with ukraine is certainly playing into the same sort of dynamic. with regard to the comment that he made about regime change, the problem there is that is not just a gaffe. that is a bomb thrown into a very intensive geopolitical situation. there is time for strong rhetoric reagan going to saint mr. burbage off tear down this wall but that was not something reagan blurted out because he felt it in his gut. i think that is a huge part showing americans are skeptical of the ways handled the situation. paul: dan, this question of new advisors. i think that would be a smart move particular at the white house level precut susan rice,
jake sullivan, they are all staffers by trade, nothing wrong with that but they are not principles. someone who can stand up and give the president may be advice he does not want to hear. >> i think if he brought in some centrist democrats or even republicans to advise them on national security it would be a big plus in a big confidence booster for the american people, europeans and ukrainians he really should do that. paul: thanks for much really come back present biden's new budget being touted by some as a move to the middle but is it? a closer look at what's in his spending what it tells us about the president's priorities, next. it's clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels and contains high quality protein to help manage hunger and support muscle health. try boost® today. shopping on public wifi is sketchy. but with aura digital security, my devices are protected in like 3 minutes. protect your wifi, credit, passwords and more.
when it comes to cybersecurity, the biggest threats i s don't alwayss... strike the biggest targets. so help safeguard your small business with comcast business securityedge™. it's advanced security that continuously scans for threats and helps protect every connected device. on the largest, fastest, reliable network with speeds up to 10 gigs to the most small businesses. so you can be ready for what's next. get started with internet and voice for $64.99 a month. and ask how to add securityedge™. or, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card.
white house proposing $2.5 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years paid the president as usual saying this just a matter of the rich paying their fair share. >> just pay your fair share paid pay a little bit. a fire fighter a teacher pay more than double, double the tax rate that a billionaire pays. that's not right. that is not fair. all right, kim and i know you are a consummate believer in fairness. what i want to know is this question of whether this budget actually is a pivot to the middle that some people in the press court certainly the white house what is to believe, is it? >> know. only if the middle has been moved to the 50-yard lines up and move the other guys end zone. this is nuts, paul it's not math. if you look at fiscal 2019 the federal government had at least
a 4.4 trillion. this is a $5.8 trillion budget. it is more than 30% increase over what we have prior to the covid spending. this is a democratic party that wants to lock in the dramatic huge outlays that happen supposedly on an emergency basis during that crisis. and then build from there. much everything the administration was proposing from bill >> better agenda makes an appearance in this. this is a massive new government, much bigger new government reaching into every aspect of your life. >> clout what is really striking to me in the cell but budget is includes all of the tax increases that it has got the tax increase on capitol income. got the tax increase on personal and comforting at the tax increase on corporate income he got the tax increase on fossil fuels part you name it, if it
moves they tax it. but they added a whole new tax a wealth tax on unrealized capitol gains which is again not moving to the middle. >> are right. the clip of biden saying evans to pay their fair share. those billionaires only pay about 8% of the what's interesting about that figures it relies on white house studies that include unrealized capitol gains. mark zuckerberg has a whole lot of facebook stock that he has not stalled that is not income. the whole bunch of problems with this one is is probably unconstitutional under the income tax rules income tax amendment. to as if the stock was up it goes down so mark zuckerberg or facebook stock goes down there's a lot to think tesla is overvalued if that goes down are they going to get a refund on all that money they paid in? those questions like that are the reason joe manchin within 24 hours of this proposal big release said no he's not going
to go there. and that is to meet one of the oddest things about this. your roll out this tax proposal with much fanfare in the budget. and then 24 hours later, the key vote in the senate the senate vote you have got to have comes out and says i am not for that. it suggest it was not vetted with him. it was suggested nobody talk about it. why in the world would you roll this out? is there some voting block some of that's going to be mobilized this and thrilled by the fact they propose something that got killed within 24 hours? >> not particularly. a lot of the build back a better plan the entitlements are not really in this piece of legislation. it raises your question about whether he needs better advisors or whether the whole thing is kind of a broad really they simply rolled the stuff out, the president goes out there whispers again into the microphone for i think every time he does at his approval
rating probably drops about one point it drives crazy when he starts whispering pay your fair share like that. the fact of the matter is, over time they're going to raise federal spending the share of gdp up to nearly 24% over ten years. the only thing holding it down are the theoretical tax increases for the corporate tax rate that the 20 -- 29% but this back up above the oecd average of 23%. with a lot of people talk about the possibility of a recession coming up, it is very difficult to find any justification for the budget that joe biden has proposed. you do not see a lot of economics in it at all. paul: kim, what about the presidents energy proposal this week? he is announcing a million barrels a day of oil released from the petroleum reserve is not going to make any difference
to oil prices? >> no. it is a dodge ruby saw this that market barely reacted to that because it is a drop in the bucket so to say. but this is a way again of dodging, having to do we really need to donate long-term what obviously a lot of republicans are calling for in which the polls show americans are all in favor of which is drilling for more traditional fossil fuel in particular natural gas. this administration it has completely shut down almost all of that new exploration. they don't want to go there because of the climate agenda the new gop realities this is what we need for several energy security. and to deal longer-term with prices the strategic petroleum reserve is not the answer. >> okay thanks camper it still had present biden announces the biggest ever release from the strategic petroleum reserve. weighs in on how russia's war in ukraine has exploded the myth of renewable energy and energy
independence. for some, this is where their keytruda story begins. keytruda - a breakthrough immunotherapy that may treat certain cancers. one of those cancers is advanced nonsquamous, non-small cell lung cancer where keytruda is approved to be used with certain chemotherapies as your first treatment if you do not have an abnormal “egfr” or “alk” gene. keytruda helps your immune system fight cancer but can also cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body. this can happen during or after treatment and may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain or tenderness, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion or memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. these are not all the possible side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, or if you've had an organ transplant,
had or plan to have a stem cell transplant, or have had radiation to your chest area or a nervous system condition. today, keytruda is fda-approved to treat 16 types of advanced cancer. and is being studied in hundreds of clinical trials exploring ways to treat even more types of cancer. it's tru. keytruda from merck. see the different types of cancer keytruda is approved to treat at keytruda.com, and ask your doctor if keytruda can be part of your story.
paul: present biden thursday announcing the u.s. will release 1 million barrels a day from the strategic petroleum reserve for the next six months. calling the move a wartime bridge until domestic oil production ramps up. the president though say the ultimate goal for the u.s. and our allies should be reducing dependence on fossil fuels. claiming renewables are the key long-term energy security. >> week, and the whole world need to reduce our dependence on
fossil fuels altogether. we need long-term security over energy and climate vulnerability. we need to double down on our commitment to clean energy and tackling the climate crisis with our partisan allies around the world. paul: president of the copenhagen consensus. visiting fellow at the hoover institution but his latest book is a false alarm, how climate change panic cost us trillions, hurts the poor in fails to fix the planet. welcome and good to see you again. you have got the russian invasion of ukraine. what is the lesson here for europe and the u.s. on energy security and energy policy? >> i think it has woken up europe to the fact that we import for half a billion dollars of oil and gas. why do we need to do especially the gas? a lot of it is to fill the gaps when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing.
remember, people tied the story of a just heard biden say that as well. all renewables can power the world. first of all, they can't. are they going to do at night when the sun is not shining and more importantly what are you going to do now along bridget with virtually no wind. at least five days. remember they say batteries, batteries in europe can cover one minute and 21 seconds of our average electricity consumption. that is one part of it. the other part is to remember 80% of the world's energy consumption there trying about fancy unicoi territory thinking. sure it is a good idea to go towards more renewables if they are cost-effective. but it is not going to get you out of actually needing a lot of fossil fuels as backup. >> i want everything i have read
the germans in particular have spent like 1 trillion year old on renewables over the last few years. particularly wind power. and yet they still do not have enough energy. and now because they want to wean themselves from russian oil and gas which is to their credit, they are going to be using more coal which is of course not clean when it comes to carbon emissions as oil and gas for the contradictions here arcs are extraordinary. >> they are. you need some way of having 24/7 or backup power. you can't rely on solar and wind. we are incredibly green in our pr we only get a little more than 3% of our imaging freight not just electricity but art total energy consumption from solar and wind. the vast majority was about 70% from fossil fuels the vast amount of renewables actually
comes from goods and for the is you can burn when you need it. but most of the wood u.s. force transport over the u.s. port and diesel ships. they emit more co2 than : they get burnt. we've classified them as neutral. with technology which obviously are not expendable to the whole world. it works when the u.s. has lots of small to send it. it's not going to work for the whole world. paul: said the united states has benefited from the fracking revolution in shale formations as you know. and as belts increase the oil and natural gas production. now, europe has a lot of shale on the continent spread lot in poland, other places. that has not been exploited, why not? >> the fundamental problem is
partly you have a better set up for it because the people who own the ground also own the underground values. basically people who own the land get the benefit from fracking. you have lots of trucks moving in, you might have pollution and certainly smell problem, that kind of thing perjure willing to do that because you're getting a good chunk of money. in europe typically the state owns it until people get all of the trouble but none of the benefits. it's also been a lot of russian propaganda. we have this confirmed seat russia's push very hard but we know putin has been very worried about the impact of fracking. not surprisingly because if europe actually got fracking via russian gap. >> barring some technology breakthroughs which are always possible, they do tend to happen but fracking and horizontal drilling was a technology break
there. how long is it going to take? who really have renewables be the dominant delivery source for energy and electricity in particular. >> people talk, that is basically wishful thinking. if you look at what that will cost, mckenzie is talking all cost bank of america, the owner of $5 trillion a year for the whole world. this to be tens of thousands of dollars per family the reality is you need these technological breakthroughs. remember, fracking actually means you reduce your emissions you switch from coal to gas. so we need to eventually get to
zero emissions go to because global warming is a real problem. were only going to do that through innovation for a think in some sense saying if there's no innovation were just not going to make it. we need innovation that makes it cheap everyone will want too. remember not just rich well-meaning americans and europeans and africans, the of southeast asia. the latin americas. all for it much more about lifting their populations out of popularity. for instance fourth-generation nuclear, bill gates and many others are investing in it. they are promising this will be incredibly safe, modular, industrial production. but mostly terribly cheap. again let's wait and see. we shall look at all of the above and look at all of the things that could generate but cheap and one was also backup power. paul: thank you very much appreciated. still ahead democrats step up
their attacks on supreme court justice clarence thomas is called to grow for supreme court justice to recuse himself orl, resign. tires squeal, crash ] when owning a small business gets real, progressive gets you right back to living the dream. now, where were we? [ cheering ] okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete balanced nutrition for strength and energy. woo hoo! ensure, complete balanced nutrition with 27 vitamins and minerals. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. ♪ ♪ - [female narrator] five billion people with 30 grams of protein. lack access to safe surgery. thousands of children are suffering and dying from treatable causes. for 40 years, mercy ships has deployed floating hospitals to provide the free surgeries these children need. join us. together, we can give children the hope and healing they never thought possible. it's a mission powered by love, made possible by you.
five democrats stepping up their attacks on supreme court justice clarence thomas after it was revealed last week that his wife sent text messages to then white house chief of staff mark meadows encouraging to challenge donald trump's 2020 election law sprayed the growing course on the left calling on justice thomas to resign or be impeached or at least recuse himself from any cases related to january 6. here's minnesota senator amy klobuchar. >> you have the wife of a sitting supreme court justice advocating for an insurrection. advocating for overturning a legal election. this is a textbook case for removing him, recusing him from these decisions. the entire integrity of the court is on the line here.
they were back with her panel. kyle, tell us what these text messages actually said. don't think she was calling for as a center claimed. she did want to fight very hard to overturn the election for a. >> she seems to have bought into some of the wilder conspiracy theories about what happened in 2020. about voting machines, there is no evidence those fears are true. even at the time i personally found them hard to believe. but i disagree this is a textbook case of recusal. the thing to understand is the united states are specific disputes. one example is judge jackson has been nominated to the supreme court and she also sits on the harvard board of overseers. there's currently a case pending before the supreme court about policies so she told the senate recently that she planned to recuse from that. that's perfectly appropriate.
she directly involved with one of the litigants. but as far as january 6 goes if jenny thomas were going to sue the committee to prevent the release of more messages from her, that would be one thing. but they generally six committees and some other litigation for some other completely different reason, that has no bearing on justice clarence thomas and certainly he would not issue a blanket statement in advance to recuse. he would wait to see what the case with the specific controversy is and make a decision. paul: sedan, on that point we do not know justice thanks about all this but he has -- the question becomes do the political views of his wife, whatever they are, reflect or influence impartiality of the justice white clarence thomas when he is ruling on a case. do we have reason to believe that as the senators suggest that somehow there is an
automatic problem that reflects on that impartiality? >> not at all. this is an utterly false argument. especially in our day and age. our colleague, jason riley wrote in his column this week about several other federal judges who have had spouses who work for instance for the aclu. and no one ever suggested the fact their spouse work for the aclu would affect their decision about the conduct thoughts and ideas they bring before the court. this is in effect to basically delegitimize justice at thomas and indeed the conservative side of the courts. this is the way the democrats play supreme court politics. they know they've got some big cases come in for the court on abortion, gun rights, the administrative state and they are trying to intimidate clarence thomas. and as we know this is the last
person let alone supreme court justice who is ever going to be intimidated by these kinds of tactics. especially those who would just saw from senator klobuchar. he represents herself as a moderate democrat but boy she looks closer to me too aoc than she does secure since sinema. >> there is also a special status your own recusal for the supreme court. unlike lower court judges the substitute one for another, there plenty of them around the appellate court has to get off a panel for recusal. you put another appellate court judge on there's only nine supreme court justices. if one recuse of the possibility exists of a four/four ruling which of course is not fair to the litigants because they want some kind of resolution to the case. so supreme court justices have to be careful when they decide to recuse. they're related to a direct
participant in the litigation. but in other matters they got to be careful. >> is not just unfair to the litigants, paul, it's unfair to the country. supreme court takes very few cases and those are precisely because there usually settling very notable reflection for the country where there is a standard out there you have a significant or financial or personal interest in a case whether or not there someone in your family for instance his party to a case. but the impetus or the real wait here as a judges like ruth bader ginsburg pointed out should be not to recuse unless it's an overwhelming conflict for the reasons you point out. this is the important parts. there is no reason to believe jenny thomas a private citizen is ever going to be a litigant are part of any electoral case brought in front of the court.
this is really about delegitimizing the court and attacking justice thomas is not anything about the substance for recusal questions. >> when we come back democrats midterm hopes hanging in the balance. how progressives are calling on present buying two pipe asked congress enact their congress priority or risk losing their support. five stocks in the s&p 500®. you can also unlock short videos, step-by-step guides, and other easy-to-use tools designed for people just getting started. plus, investment professionals are on standby 24/7 if you ever have a question. it's investing 101, reimagined.
migraine attacks? you can't always avoid triggers like stress. qulipta™ can help prevent migraine attacks. you can't prevent what's going on outside that's why qulipta™ helps what's going on inside. qulipta™ is a pill. gets right to work to prevent migraine attacks and keeps them away over time. qulipta™ blocks cgrp, a protein believed to be a cause of migraine attacks. qulipta™ is a preventive treatment for episodic migraine. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and tiredness. learn how abbvie can help you save on qulipta™.
paul: with midterms approaching much of his agenda stalled in the senate some on the left : president biden sidestepped congress. members of the house progressive caucus hedge of the white house this week to urge the president to take executive action on a host of their policy priorities. in declaring a national climate emergency. the meeting comes as progressives want a president
losing support of some of his core democratic voters. here's near congresswoman aoc. >> we need to acknowledge this is not just about middle of the road and increasingly narrow band of independent voters. the collapse and report among young people they work overtime to the president elected they are not a soul being seen. >> kim, that is one way of interpreting the predicament there is a another when the president is hearing this quite different for that is from democrats and those swing districts. wait a minutes precisely because you pursued aoc's agenda that i might lose my seat. she got how's it supposed to navigate the difference in the
party? >> it has been growing. went to occur to someone in the white house may be the prime the president have but the horrible whole numbers is remarkably he has been taking orders from progressives, pretty much from the moment he got into office. it's those policies that are not sitting well including a lot of independence in those states that you mentioned were democrats desperately need to hold those seats if they want a hope of a majority in the house. she's going to get reelected what no matter what happens is not reflective of the mood of most americans. paul: dance is a puzzle for me that better it failed you don't have the wrote votes. you have a crisis in emerging on
want to move to the middle to something with the mansions may be on immigration the president just is not going there. he's trying to basically on a bipartisan basis but explain this to me, dan, i don't get it. >> we will do our best, paul. democratic politics has indeed become a function of the split in the democratic party. progressives the bernie sanders, elizabeth warren they took over the party for sure. joe biden got elected progressives have a real clout inside the party. the question is always how do you accommodate both ends of the democratic party. it is impossible but you really cannot do it.
in terms of elections in this country. i think is aoc's right about one thing, they run the risk in the midterm elections that younger voters say college age voters who often don't turn out to midterms anyway are going to stay home out of disappointment. and so the democrats could really get hit hard and some of those swing districts. in the other hand this is driven by belief or they want the president to issue executive orders on things such as climate change they know they can be reversed by future president they want those policies put in the hands of bureaucracy to push them as far as they can before they voted out of office but that's the way they do their politics. it's very short minded. >> there sort of a notable event this week in the senate were the nominee of the president to run the wage and hour division was
defeated. now he had the same job in the obama administration's record there had alienated the business community and so on. three democrats kyrsten sinema, mark kelly of arizona joe manchin voted against while on the floor. david was must be why the people that was going to do what dan said in post policy by regulation. what does this tell you about the mood shift on capitol hill? >> it tells you they are still a few democrats who are responsive to business concerns. some the things mr. weil had done his previous term in office includes expanding the joint employer rule so that if you are a worker at a franchisee of a mcdonald's you might be an employee of corporate. next mcdonald corporate easier to sue, easier to organize i find that were moment remarkable the point you made earlier about why doesn't biden moved to the center but once again we have
congress faking the executive to take action. they thought congress to be jealous of the powers and here we see they are not. >> all right we come back hits and misses of the week. med him. so we turned bath time into a business. ♪ and building it with my son has been my dream job. ♪ at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm.com helen knew exercise could help her diabetes. but she didn't know what was right for her. no. nope. no way. but then helen went from no to know. with freestyle libre 2,
paul: time now for hits and misses of the week. kim first do you. >> i hit to the state of forefront and acting new parental authority and education bill. the media are trying mightily to paint this as a don't say gay bill. i think what most americans understand his commonsense legislation pretty gives parents more access to their kids records. it also bars the formal classroom instruction of gender identity and sexual orientation from kindergarten to third grade but which is not happening anywhere. this is in response the school systems and crucially dictated
things to parents i think we'll see more of these across the country. but it all right kyle because he got a hit to the massachusetts institute of technology that said this week will bring back the required applicants to have it act or sat test corporate some schools have moved away of testing because of equity. mit say they predict performance can also help the school disadvantaged schools are prepared to excel college admissions and the bit of an arms race for the thing about a great test score does need polishing. >> they on it. >> and given a miss to the biden white house and its proposal to create for young people would spread out the country pushing proposals to save the planet. but, if i may quote mr. biden, here is the thing. that civilian climate would have about 300,000. guess how many men and women are in the active marine corps right now? about 200,000. this tells you about all you
need to know about the bite administration. an army of people banning pipeline while the marine corps shrinks. paul: alright dan, that's for it for this week show. thanks to our panel and all of you for watching. i am paul gigot. we hope to see all of you here next week. ♪. arthel: ukrainian president zelenskyy told foxnews the only outcome his country will accept in its war with russia is victory. this as ukraine denies moscow's claim that ukraine attacked an oil storage depot on russian soil yesterday. hello everyone welcome to fox news life i am arthel neville, hi eric. eric: hi arthel hello everyone i'm eric sean thank you for joining us. appeared helicopter strike on fuel facility inside russia marks the very first time the kremlin has accused ukraine and go