Sorry, Crime Is Not Declining, Fighting Anti-Semitism in the Private Sector, and Other Comments

Statistician: Unfortunately, crime is not decreasing

The left claims that crime is falling, but “the nation’s largest crime survey tells a different story,” corrects Jeffrey H. Anderson in The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the recently released National Crime Victimization Survey “finds no statistically significant evidence” that violent or property crime is falling. Instead, the “surge” in crime is “concentrated in urban areas” where “left-wing prosecutors have gained a foothold.” There,
violent crime is up 40% from 2019 to 2023; property crime is up 26%. And the study doesn’t even measure “rampant shoplifting.” For a variety of technical reasons, such “findings are far more reliable” than the FBI data cited by the left. And they make clear that the rise in urban disease is showing no signs of abating. “If we persist in repeating the failed social experiments of the 1960s and ’70s, we should expect similar results.”

Conservative: Fighting Anti-Semitism in the Private Sector

The Anti-Defamation League has joined a lawsuit against Intel, taking the war on anti-Semitism to the private sector, Commentary’s Seth Mandel rejoices. The complaint alleges that “two Intel executives began
public anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas social media posts” shortly after the Oct. 7 attacks. One of those executives later became the supervisor of an Israeli employee who complained, only to be fired. Intel says it has
long-standing culture of diversity and inclusion.” Mandel responds that “DEI and the culture it produces is exactly what we see” at “universities across the country where the civil rights of Jewish students are
openly violated.” I hope this lawsuit will prompt “large private sector companies and groups like the ADL” to “confront the harm built into every institution that embraces DEI.”

Libertarian: Blame the bureaucracy for the housing crisis

“Last week’s rate cut” by the Federal Reserve “has left many homeowners, renters, and those who would like to join their ranks hopeful that lower mortgage rates will ease the housing crisis,” argues Reason’s J.D. Tuccille. But “providing enough homes to meet that demand requires reducing the regulatory barriers that make building homes an unnecessarily expensive and lengthy process.” “Building codes reflect a broad range of government interventions,” which “often start with public health and then expand to include energy efficiency, property values, and even the aesthetic preferences of government officials.” “Sweeping regulations carry compliance costs, not just in money but in time.” Increasing the supply of housing “requires buy-in from current residents” and “legislators reluctant to acknowledge that the webs of bureaucracy they have created are problems, not solutions.”

From right: Trump, not Harris, is a proponent of growth

“President Trump has a 10-point lead over Vice President Kamala Harris” among voters on economic policy, Andy Pudzer reports for Fox News. Why? “Trump offers
“simple, pro-growth economic policies,” such as keeping “tax rates low” and “expanding America’s domestic energy production.” In his first term, he “reduced unemployment to historic lows for any race
and both sexes, increasing wages” and “reducing income inequality, all without inflation.” In contrast, the big Biden-Harris spending bills “have led to an economy plagued by rising inflation, which has raised the price
anything above 20%,” criticizing “the standard of living of millions of Americans.” Harris tries to “distance herself from this,” but “how could Americans find economic opportunity without economic growth,
something that her plans will only suppress?”

Pollsters: Kamala’s Popularity Surge Isn’t Real

“Almost immediately after Harris secured the nomination, polls began to reflect a ‘rise in Harris’ support,’” observe pollsters Douglas Schoen and Carly Cooperman of The Hill. But “that trend has plateaued over the past two years.”
months, with no real change in the race,” even though “virtually everything went well for Harris during the campaign.” Because “the election remains uncertain,” Democrats should “consider whether the momentum Harris has actually gained will hold” — and whether “she can achieve high turnout” to win. A Washington Post analysis suggests that “Harris is mostly riding on increased support among traditional Democratic voters, rather than attracting new undecided voters.” If so, “declarations that Harris is in a really strong position against Trump are premature.”

— Prepared by: The Post Editorial Board