Sorry, crime’s not falling, fighting private-sector antisemitism and other commentary

Statistician: Sorry, Crime’s Not Falling

The left claims crime’s denied, yet “the nation’s largest crime survey says otherwise,” corrects Jeffrey H. Anderson in The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the just-released National Crime Victimization Survey “finds no statistically significant evidence” that violent crime or property crime is dropping. Rather, a crime “spike” is “concentrated in urban areas,” where “leftist prosecutors have gained a foothold.” There,
violent crime rose 40% from 2019 to 2023; property crime, up 26%. And the survey doesn’t even measure “rampant shoplifting.” For numerous technical reasons, such “findings are far more reliable” than the FBI figures the left cites. And they make clear the urban spike isn’t abating. “If we insist on rerunning the failed social experiments of the 1960s and ’70s, we should expect similar results.”

Conservative: Fighting Private-Sector Anti-Semitism

The Anti-Defamation League has joined a suit against Intel, taking the war on antisemitism to the private sector, cheers Commentary’s Seth Mandel. The complaint states that “two Intel executives began making
public anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas social-media posts” soon after the Oct. 7 attacks. One of those execs then became the supervisor of an Israeli employee, who complained, only to be fired. Intel argues it has a
longstanding culture of diversity and inclusion.” Mandel retorts that “DEI and the culture it produces are precisely what we’re seeing” at “universities across the country, where Jewish students’ civil rights are
openly violated.” Hope this lawsuit prompts “major private sector companies and groups like the ADL” to “confront the harm baked into any institution that adopts DEI.”

Libertarian: Blame Red Tape for Housing Crunch

“Last week’s rate cut” by the Federal Reserve “has many homeowners, renters, and those who would join their ranks hoping that lower mortgage rates will result, easing the housing crunch,” argues Reason’s JD Tuccille. But “ensuring that enough homes exist to satisfy that demand requires reducing regulatory barriers that make home construction an unnecessarily expensive and drawn-out process.” “Building regulations reflect a wide range of government interventions” that “often started with public health, then expanded to encompass energy efficiency, home values, and even the aesthetic preferences of government officials.” “Extensive regulations entail compliance costs, not just in money, but in time.” Increasing housing supply “requires buy-in from existing residents” and “from lawmakers resistant to admitting that the webs of red tape they’ve created are problems, not solutions.”

From the right: Trump, Not Harris, Is Pro-Growth

“President Trump holds a 10 percentage point advantage over Vice President Kamala Harris” among voters on economic policy questions, reports Andy Pudzer for Fox News. Why? “Trump offers
straightforward 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 every race
and both sexes, increased wages” and “reduced income inequality, and all without inflation.” By contrast, the big Biden-Harris spending “bills led to an economy plagued by surging inflation that raised the price of
everything over 20%,” slamming “the standard of living for millions of Americans.” Harris seeks “to distance herself from it,” but “how would Americans find economic opportunity without economic growth,
something her plans would only stifle?”

Pollsters: Kamala’s Surge Isn’t Real

“Almost immediately after Harris secured the nomination, polls began reflecting a ‘Harris surge,’” note pollsters Douglas Schoen & Carly Cooperman at The Hill. Yet that “has plateaued over the last two
months, with no real shift in the race,” though “virtually everything has gone right for Harris on the campaign trail.” As “the election remains a toss-up,” Democrats should “question whether the momentum Harris has actually gained will last” — and if she “can drive high turnout” to win. A Washington Post analysis suggests “Harris is mainly benefiting from increased support among traditionally Democratic voters, not attracting new swing voters.” If so, “declarations that Harris has a truly strong position vis-à-vis Trump are premature.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board