they possibly can. j i think they will. thanks so much. appreciate it. thank you. thanks for being with us see you tomorrow. and good night from new york. rip next. paul:. no one is above the l, including the president of the united states and we believe that the president of the united states is engaged in a coverup. >> i don't do coverups. you probably can't go down two tracks. you can go down the investigation track and you can go down the investment track or the track of let's get things done for the american people. paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. tensions between president trump and democrats in congress reaching a boiling point this week with nancy pelosi accusing the president of engaging in a coverup as some in her pa party push the speaker toward opening an impeachment inquiry.

the president responding by walking out of a meeting with democratic leaders wednesday, saying no deal can be made on infrastructure or anything else while democrats continue their investigation. let's bring in wall street journal columnist, dan henninger. jason riley and editorial page writer, kate o'dell. dan, was the president's frustration with the speaker justified? >> i think it was entirely justified. i mean, she pulled this coverup thing about an hour before she was going to walk into the infrastructure meeting. and trump was appropriate to say time out, you people have to make up your mind. you want to run for the next two years teeing me up as public enemy number one or do you want to get things done. the next day, speaker pelosi had a press conference. i watched the whole thing. it's clear the real tension, i think the press is overlooking

this, is internally inside her own party. she is clearly trying to appease the left which wants to proceed with impeachment against trump and it's obvious there are a lot of moderates in her caucus who are telling her this is going to hurt us in two years if we go down this road. so she's trying to play both ends against the middle but she can't make up her mind whether she's going to actually do business with president trump or not. paul: kate, is that the case, that she hasn't made up her mind or maybe she has made up her mind to just continue to do this straddle. what do you think her strategy is? >> i think she would like to sustain the two step strategy as long as she can. i think we're seeing one of these rare moments in nancy pelosi's career where her control over her caucus is somewhat fragile. so i do think sh she still has o sort some of this out. we've seen closed door meetings with democrats this week that have been lively. you have more than 30 democrats who are representing districting that donald trump carried in

2016. so they really do have a political risk. and nancy pelosi knows that. which is why i think she has committed to not opening an impeachment inquiry andic she will prevail in the end. paul: she's trying to protect those swing district democrats in 2020. but what about the pressure from the left? you have a lot of people who are more coming out for impeachment and saying look, it's our duty under the constitution to do this. how does she hold them off as they continue to build this case through hearings that somehow trump did impeachable offenses. >> one way she's been doing that is saying look at how much progress we're making in our investigations and we don't want our investigations to be sidetracked by an impeachment inquiry and also there is i think a new popular narrative among some democrats that we just need to open an inquiry and then see where the mood takes us. and i think that's a particularly risky strategy because all the momentum builds

toward actual impeachment. paul: my views is once you start an inchoirly and you have all these -- inquiry and you have all these hearings, it will be hard to stop short of a vote. >> impeachment is not popular in the country and it's not going anywhere. paul: what do you mean? it could pass the house. >> there's no republican support aside from congressman jus congn amash. it's not going anywhere. she knows that. i think she is in a bind here and why should the president continue to bargain with democrats if they're not bargaining in good faith and they're clearly not. this is not about a search for the truth. this is about keeping a campaign issue alive to satisfy her base. paul: let me say why he might want to -- he needs the house maybe to pass something to deal immediately with the border crisis. what about the u.s., mexico, canada trade agreement? he needs the house democrats,

pelosi to bring that up, for example. he needs them for a debt ceiling increase. he needs them for a budget deal. >> if there is no chance of them meeting him halfway, because they have this it tier i don't remember motive --a -- ulterior motive going on, i don't know why he should be expected to stick his neck out before the campaign season kicks into high gear. i see no reason for him to do that. paul: beyond the basics that he needs -- he they've got to raise the debt ceiling. he needs their votes for that. he would love to get them for the u.s., mexico, canada deal. >> sure. there are things he would like to get done. but i don't think, paul, that they're willing to work with his president. they don't want to give him any legislative victories. they want to keep the issue alive. if they had the courage of their convictions, if they thought there was a coverup -- we had a two year investigation that said there was nothing to cover up. but if they think there was a coverup, they would start the

formal impeachment proceedings. that's what they would do. paul: dan, you've talked in the past about chaos theory, that the democrats have an incentive to he create this image of turmoil in the beltway, everything is out-of-control, because then they'll make a case, biden comes in and he's the return to normalcy. >> i think that was kind of the center of the case for collusion with the russians, which they were driving for two years. the expectation was there would be the -- that mueller would find collusion. now that that's over, i think the left which is truly deranged about donal donald trump, cannoe up with an alternative strategy other than chaos theory. they're convinced if they do enough of it, centrists will vote against president trump. independents could be tired of gridlock and chaos. paul: when we come back, don mcgahn fails to show up at a house hearing as the white house claims executive privilege. we'll break down the constitutional fight taking

place between congress an the pr the ai i need? it's gotta scale across my business. starting here, in procurement, helping us find the right suppliers. then here in logistic, to avoid disruptions! here in sales. even here! i'm talking about ai we can build to work... here, predicting trends. and here, wherever our data lives! and here, working with all our other ai! i think we're done here. expect more from ai. ibm watson.

your daily dashboard from fidelity. a visual snapshot of your investments. key portfolio events. all in one place. because when it's decision time... you need decision tech.

only from fidelity. when this committee issues a subpoena, even to a senior presidential adviser, the witness must show up. our subpoenas are not optional. paul: that was house judiciary chairman, jerry nadler tuesday after former white house counsel don mcgahn failed to appear at a hearing before his committee. a day earlier, the white house directed mcgahn to defy a subpoena to testify, citing the justice department opinion of the president's senior advice is cannot be compelled to answer questions about their official duties. it's the latest p chapter in the ongoing legal battle between the president and house democrats who are seeking access to witnesses and documents related to the mueller probe. as well as president trump's financial dealings. david rivkin practices appellate and constitutional law in washington, d.c. he served in the white house

counsel's office and justice department under presidents reagan and george h.w. bush. welcome, david. great to see you. >> good to be with you. paul: let's start with don mcgahn, the white house's claim of a testimonial privilege that says he doesn't have to appear under the constitution because of the separation of powers, is that justified? >> justified, one sentence message to chairman nadler, congressional power to obtain evidence in the context of oversight or impeachment is not unlimited. the case is very compelling. first of all, paul, we're talking about discussions between the president and the white house counsel, they're in the sweet spot of all forms of testimony on executive privilege. that's the most straightforward argument. the argument that's interesting that's somewhat more complex but also very compelling, what are

we doing this for? they're not doing it for oversight purposes because oversight you poweoversight powy other powers. what they're trying to do is, what i call impeachment sub rosa, they're trying to get somebody like mueller to testify or mcgahn to testify or get documents that were generated in the course of the mueller investigation. for what reason? to try to find some way of according -- paul: that want to prove obstruction of justice. that's what they're trying to do or at least make a case for obstruction of justice. >> importantly, evading their own accountability. instead of making the case themselves based upon the evidence they develop, they want to say no, no, mueller attested to this or mcgahn attested to this. that is what i call outsourcing of impeachment power that is also uns conge unconstitutional. paul: what about the argument

that the president for fitted presidential privilege because he allowed mcgahn to testify for robert mueller in the special counsel probe. >> it's a silly argument. you don't for fit by communicating with other members of the executive branch. if mr. nadler was correct, if you go through an interagency process, one department talks to another, one official talks to another, it's a silly argument. paul: what if the house threatens contempt against mr. mcgahn, contempt of congress, can they enforce it? how would they enforce it? >> congress has a hearing enforcement authority that dates back to mid-19th century. they could try to send the sergeant of arms to try to seize mr. mcgahn. there were statements by junior house members that they might do

that. they're not going to do that. they would ask the doj to enforce it. the house could litigate civil contempt on its own in the district court. my prediction, they would lose. we're talking about, paul, it's very important for viewers to appreciate, about imperial congress. congress is pushing beyond the outer boundaries, its oversight powers and its impeachment powers, acknowledging they're doing. i think they would lose. paul: now, there were a couple other cases with subpoenas where the white house challenged them, donald trump challenged them, one about the trump organization's banker, deutsche bank, other about his accounting records and the lower courts this week sided with congress on those subpoenas. does the congress have a stronger case on those issues than it did with mcgahn? >> i don't think so. it's a somewhat different case because there we really are talking about exceeding their oversight powers.

paul: but david, the lower courts didn't buy that argument. they said there doesn't need to be a legislative purpose here. they have the run of this, these records. >> i've read the decision. he's just wrong. the supreme court teaching is very clear. both in the 19th century and the 20th century, a case called watkins that those do with american activities. you need a legislative purpose. the legislative purpose here in terms of getting the president's tax returns is nothing more than political harassment. it's a different case than the one involving mcgahn or mr. mueller. i think they're not going to do well. i'm optimistic they'll do well in the d.c. circuit. the worst case scenario, they'll lose in the supreme court. it's bad for congress as an institution to be doing it in the long run. paul: you see it continuing for

some time before it kicks to the supreme court. what if the d.c. circuit rules against the president and the supreme court doesn't take the case? that has happened. >> given what's at stake -- you're right, the supreme court doesn't have to take the case. i believe they will take the case. think for a second about the broader proposition. let's forget about donald trump and the political drama. does congress really have unlimited, uncabinned oversight power? is there no limitations? paul: maybe the pardon power, the president's pardon power, maybe. >> only the president can exercise it. it's a good point. look, the troubling thing here is, particularly in regard to tax records, if congress can do that, what prevents them from going after their political enemies, in fact, they're doing that here. what prevents them from doing it again and again? what prevents them from getting tax records of millions of americans. due process applies to all

branches of government. the executive branch cannot do this without some just at this . can congress do this? paul: this is fascinating. when come back, as the 2020 democratic primary race heats up, the trump campaign is turning an eye on pennsylvania. could joe biden threaten the president's grip on the states that were key to his 2016 victory. >> every democrat running for this is the couple who wanted to get away

who used expedia to book the vacation rental which led to the discovery that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. expedia. everything you need to go. run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835, because when others take rain checks... we take the wheel. run with us. search "john deere gator" for more.

don't forget, biden deserted you. i guess he was born here but he left you, folks. he left you for another state. this guy talks about i know

scranton, i know this. well, i know the places better. he left you for another state and he didn't take care of you because he didn't take care of your jobs. paul: that was president trump at a rally in pennsylvania this week, attacking 2020 democratic hopeful and scranton native, joe biden. the state was crucial to the president's 2016 victory. but a recent poll has biden leading by 11 points there in a general election matchup. internal trump campaign polls reportedly have the president trailing biden in michigan and wisconsin as well. we're back with dan henninger, jason riley and allysia finley. so i think one of the reasons democrats, a lot of them are supporting biden is because they think that he can beat trump in the northern states. how solid is that case? >> i think that's a strong hypothesis because he appeals to these kind of blue collar workers, the union members that trump did really well with but if you recall last year, the

special elections and midterms, he lost many or republicans lost many of these districts. so trump is struggling here, especially the jobs are coming back but the economic promise has not in some cases, in the rust belt, has not been as strong as he promised. paul: that 11 point difference, it's only one poll, okay, it's 17 months to go, but that 11 points is huge when you think about in the context of a strong economy. >> yes. there's another poll that showed in pennsylvania people are happier or feel higher sense of financial well-being than any time on record, that had ever been measured, places where natural gas drilling is going on. it will depend how biden campaigns. if he campaigns as a moderate, a blue colla scranton scrapper ors

the progressive route, the green new deal. paul: are democrats putting too much hope in this argument? >> i don't think so. wisconsin, pennsylvania, michigan, if the current polling is correct and trump is down, that is a very, very big deal. not only were those three states key to his victory, he won each of them by less than a percentage point. if the democratic nominee carries hillary's states, hillary clinton's states from 2016 and flips those three, trump is a one term president. i think they are right, they are focusing where they need to focus right now. >> the election is not in november 2019, believe it or not, it's in november 2020. it's a long ways -- we happen to run presidential politics all the time in this country. those races will tighten up as they always do. paul: the democrats are looking at this field and they're saying who can beat trump. they're all saying the same -- a huge chunk of voters, more than normal are saying, look, we're looking for somebody who can beat trump.

ideology, okay, fine, that's secondary. health care is secondary. can he beat trump. that's bouying biden. >> it's suggesting that democrat leaning independents are saying they think biden can beat trump. in the polls, 95% of democrats will vote for democrats. in a place pennsylvania, where are the moderate republicans going with donald trump as the candidate. but biden is the one, quote, unquote, moderate that are in the top tier. bernie sanders, camilla hair rigs, elizabeth warren, are all running clearly to the left. the question is, are democrats across the country going to sign up for bernie sanders. >> the other thing they're doing, the elizabeth warrens and the kamala harriss, you see them stressing issues. biden is trying to focus on the electability. get to the issues later. i can actually win. there's a difference in how the

various democrats are campaigning right now. paul: so let's talk about a couple other democrats who have gotten in. bill de blasio, mayor of new york city gets into the cat calls of many people in new york but does he think that he can actually win? >> i think he thinks he can win. i don't think anyone else in the country actually does. maybe his wife. maybe his kids or hi son. the field has 23 candidates. most of them beyond are polling at 1% or less. bill de blasio, he doesn't even have much name recognition. people in new york city know him and do not exactly support his decision to run, though they do want him out of the city. [ laughter ] >> but it's becoming a bit of a clown show here. paul: go ahead. >> one little detail. according to the democratic party rules, you have to get at

least 1% in the polls to get into the debate. paul: or have 65,000 donors. >> a lot of the candidates are falling short on the 1% number. a lot of them, eight or nine of them are below, including kirsten gillibrand is below 1%. >> i don't think everyone running thinks they can win. i think some are auditioning for jobs in the democratic administration. paul: or a talk show. >> some may highlight an issue they care about. it is a large field. i think that worries the democratic national committee right now. paul: the debates will be the first win knowing process. fears after a prolonged trade strandoff with china grow. is a deal off the table through 2020 and what would that mean for the economy? our economy is booming. our nation is prospering and now is the time to insist on fair and reciprocal trade for our workers and for our farmers.

i felt we were close to an agreement. we were beginning to set up a date for the two presidents to meet and a signing ceremony. would have been great for our farmers, companies, american workers and unfortunately china has taken a big step backwards. paul: that was treasury secretary steve mnuchin this

week, acknowledging that trade talks with china have taken a big step backwards. president trump announced thursday that the administration will give $16 billion to farmers to offset their lost income due to the brawl with beijing and the subsidies may buy some political time to resume negotiations. does a protracted trade standoff risk long-term economic and political farm. donald luskin is a chief financial. there will be a storm between the china and u.s. before the calm, before a deal, is that where we are now? >> yes. you have to remember one thing about this deal. this is not like a negotiation that most people have mostly in their life. this is not like negotiating with a dealer to buy a car. this is more like a shakedown or holdup where we're trying to get them to do lots of things they don't want to do. if they wanted to lower their tariffs and stop subsidies,

they're capable of doing that. they don't want to do any of this. the only way you can make someone do something he doesn't want to do is to threaten violence. and the only way that threat works is if you act crazy enough to pull the trigger. that's what we're seeing. paul: each side has to make the other side believe that they're willing to take more pain than the other guy. >> that's exactly right. and so we see the remarks earlier this week by xi-jinping, he visits the trailhead at long march and we've got to remember, this is not good salesmanship. the long march is in 1934, it was a retreat and like 90% of the people on the retreat either died or defected to the enemy. so he's telling the chinese people follow me on this, 10% of you will live, this will be great. so this -- we have this thing, paul, we do. paul: okay. i have to tell you, i think we've seen the rhetoric and the actions pick up on both sides, not just what xi did. you saw the president, the trump

administration cutting off u.s. sales from u.s. companies to huawei, which is their telecom giant and a national champion. it would really, really damage huawei. with that kind of escalation and action and rhetoric, are we in a position where this thing could spiral out of control and we get no deal? of course, of course. but on the other hand, any time a big negotiation is about to conclude, that's when smart, savvy, experienced negotiators all go drama queen on you. they walk away. they really -- you broke the deal, you reneged. you can't break a deal you didn't have. okay. this is a all just drama. and then they come back together, they assume their threat postures, they come back together. this is not even the first time there's been a walk-away. remember last september? the chinese were saying we will never negotiate with you because your tariffs are a knife to our throat. i saw that, i said how nice, they're admitting it's a knife to their throat.

of course they're going to negotiate. they wouldn't talk to us if we didn't threaten them. you have to remember, that's the paradigm. paul: you argue the chinese have more to lose than the united states, as least in the short term. explain that. donald trump has an election in 18 months and there are farm states that are suffering right now because of the tariffs. they lost sales. why is china more at risk? >> because this could throw china into a recession that it has not experienced in 40 years. china is like a 40-year-old adult who for some reason never encountered that virus that gives you a cold. if you get your first cold when you're 40, you're going to say oh, my god what happened to my head. the second thing that happens is you get pneumonia, the third thing that happens is you die. they know that. xi-jinping has two bad alternatives, one is to lose face to donald trump of all people and number two is to provide over his nation's first ever recession which could be

really disorderly because they've never learned how to deal with one. paul: even if they don't have elections, he needs o needs to l these -- needs to produce all these jobs. >> he is president for life but how long is his life going to be. paul: what about the president? the president has states to win and he needs i would argue a strong economy to maintain enough support to win the election and whatever you think about the tariff's damage, look, they're doing some harm to some people. there's no question about that. they're taxes, you know that. >> yes, they are. they're a special kind of tax. they're taxes designed so no one will ever pay them. if you want to pay zero tariffs, it's real easy. paul: if they're the only supplier, you're in trouble. prices go up. >> there will be a certain time lag before you can start building iphones in cincinnati and you're- paul: or bangalore.

>> that would be more likely. i'm first to admit that. any economic textbook will tell you when have you a bilateral tariff, country a and country b and country a is running a huge trade deficit, country b's currency will depreciate, it will pay for a lot of the tariff's effect. so far, it's paid for 98% of the tariffs. the treasury is collecting the tariff tax dollars. you have a war chest to do trump's farm subsidy. that is a real thing. mexico's not paying for the wall. china's totally is paying for the tariffs. paul: is the u.s. economy now strong enough in your view to essentially take in the tariffs and have enough resilience to plow through and continue to grow at 2, 3%? >> only one thing could really go wrong on that score. and that is if while this thing drags out, we hold a knife to china's throat, threatening them with their first ever recession

which could be a hard landing, if we don't get the negotiations done in time and that happens to them, that's a global recession that will engulf us and germany and japan and england and everybody else. there's a reason they call them supply chains. there's a chain involved. and when you push a guy off a cliff and you're chained to them, you go next. that's the risk. it's not the direct risk that the tax effect of tariffs will cause a recession. that's not going to happen. paul: so both sides have a big incentive to do a deal. thank you. >> thank you. paul: still ahead, bernie sanders rolls out his education plan and declares war on school choice. but will it help him win over the minority voters he

the naacp has been leading the efforts in the demand for a ban on for-profit charter schools and a moratorium on

federal funding of new charter schools until we can ensure that they are operating with transparency and accountability. as president, i will institute that ban and implement that moratorium. paul: that was 2020 democratic presidential hopeful, bernie sanders in south carolina last week and rolling out his plan to overhaul the u.s. education system. the vermont senator is getting behind the naacp's call for a moratorium on federal funding for public charter schools as well as an outright ban on for-profit charters, an effort backed of course by the teachers unions. we're back with dan henninger, jason riley and allysia finley. so charter schools, barack obama supported them, bill clinton supported them, hillary clinton supported them. what is bernie up to here? >> i think a couple things. one,s he's trying to shore up his support with labor unions, in this case the teachers unions, he thinks are important,

although i think that would be a miscalculation in the sense that he needs to do that. you mentioned obama and clinton prior to him supporting charter schools and still getting enough support from the teachers unions to do what they wanted to do politically. the second thing he's trying to do is shore up support among black voters who he struggled with in 2016. you might remember the black lives matter protesters interrupting his speeches and those southern primaries in particular, he did very poorly among black voters. he looks at the naacp's stance on charter schools and says i can shore up support from black civil rights organizations by going after charters. i also think might be a miscalculation. if you look at polling among black voters, even black democratic primary voters, you see a lot of support for charter schools which shows you that the naacp doesn't always speak for most black people. paul: the evidence on charter schools is pretty overwhelming that they improve performance. >> the stanford center compares

traditional school students with those in charters, apples to apples comparisons, they found in 2015 that charter school students learn an additional 28 days in reading and 40 days in math. paul: wow. >> some places like boston, it's over 200 days. basically every year that in some places where a student is in a charter school, that's an additional year of learning. they've also found that in 2017 that charter schools improve performance at a nearby public school because it forces them to compete and become -- and to improve. paul: so with that record, that would suggest that -- i mean, that would give an opening for donald trump if bernie sanders becomes the nomination. of course, he needs to get that nomination first. he's competing for the endorsement of the teachers unions, with kamala harris who promised a $10,000 raise to teachers around the country.

>> i think elizabeth warren is with them too. i think cory booker is on record as supporting charters. the party has moved to the left. the reason is pretty much charters are doing well, they're gaining on the established public schools and let's understand, these teachers unions, i really likeen them more -- they're as hard nosed as the miners union or steelworkers union. paul: in britain. >> in britain. in the last couple years, they've gone on offense, they've become aggressive, going on strike and part of the strikes have included moratoriums on charter schools, california's legislature is proposing to give locality a greater effort to stop charter schools and bernie sanders got in a battle over this in he in hav nevada. jason's right. there's a lot of turmoil inside the democratic party. paul: is this a challenge to joe biden who ran with obama who

supported charters in the past? is he saying look, joe, you're going to get a run for your money here if you stay with the charter school movement? >> i think it is that. and i think biden would be wise to do what obama did and what clinton did before him and say i'll take from the teachers union, i want to do right by these minority kids and these schools are closing the education gap. the opposition that teachers unions have to charters has nothing to do with the quality of charters and everything to do with them not controlling charter schools and they want to maintain their control over public education, charter schools are a threat to that. paul: when we come back, the u.s. birth rate drops to a 32-year low as americans have fewer children. what's behind that decline and what does it mean for economic run with us. in the unstoppable john deere gator™ xuv835. and be prepared to go the extra mile. because when others take rain checks... ...we take the wheel.

with 3-wide seating, heat & a/c. this is the coolest, most comfortable gator™ yet. nothing runs like a deere™. run with us. ♪ test drive a gator™ xuv835 at your john deere dealer today. the latest inisn't just a store.ty

it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

paul: americans are having fewer children according to the centers for disease control and prevention, with the u.s. birth rate falling for a fourth consecutive year in 2018, bringing the number of people born in this country to the lowest level in 32 years. the decline isn't all bad news, with the birth rate falling most sharply among teenagers. millennials are having fewer children as they delay starting families into their 30s. and that could spell trouble for entitlement programs like social security as well as the overall u.s. economy. so kate, let me go to you first. what's behind this declining birth rate and we're now below the replacement rate for the current population. >> we've been below the replacement rate for some time, we're 1.7 below a healthy 2.1 that would you like to have. you mentioned some of the factors that not all of this is bad news, meaning teen pregnancy is down, it's good for upward

mobility. but generally, we do see this trend where millennial women are having children later and are, thus, over time having fewer children as they get later into their 30s. i think there are a variety of things at play here including economic factors like the cost of housing, education, more millennials moving into cities where job markets tend to be more robust. there are a broad set of cultural norms that we should talk about a little bit that have changed over the past 50 years and are changing kind of the makeup of the u.s. population. paul: there is an argument about which is stronger, culture or the economic forces? if you look across the west, this is happening everywhere, so culture would suggest is a dominant factor. >> right. and societies do toned have fewer children as they get wealthier. it is something we would expect and also more education for women has delayed fertility in some sense. there are tradeoffs in some of

these, not necessarily adverse developments. paul: okay. so what can we do about it? can government do anything? some people suggest subsidies for families, subsidies for parents. would that work? >> well, that hasn't been shown to work anywhere. singapore, hungary, there are a lot of policies that row vied very abundant -- provide very abundant parental leave. sweden provides 180 days per year for even fathers who want to take off. what the country needs is more immigration and an increase in productivity to prepare for when the day comes when you want to keep a 3% economic growth, you can't do that if your labor force is shrinking. you need more productivity and maybe more immigrants. paul: the big factors in growth are labor and capital, capital investment. if labor is down, you need capital. what about the issue about

natalist subsidies, a lot of people talk about it, marco rubio wants to do that on the republican side. democrats are saying not just more parental leave but larger child tax credits a and so on. as i look around the world, i'm looking for evidence if that works. >> i don't know if we have evidence that it works. it's expensive, does nothing for economic gloat the country. i don't think that's the way the tax code should be used to socially engineer a society in that way. we do have a problem. we've got around 70 million baby boomers that will be retiring over the next 10 to 15 years. paul: thank you very much for your contributions to my retirement. >> those folks will need to be replaced in the workforce, and people having fewer children, there are fewer workers to replace them. you want to be in an attractive place for people to invest capital. you want a growing population. our growth hasn't slowed at the rate of europe and asia which have turned into giant retirement communities.

we're not there yet. we have a comparative advantage over them. but we're all moving in that direction and this is something we need think about going forward. >> it's the political and economic time bomb. the problem exists in taiwan, south korea, hong kong, he poland, austria, across the western europe and here. all of these people who have entitlements that they expect to get in their retirement years will have to be supported by fewer numbers of people and there's going to be a political crisis when that moment arrives. paul: if subsidies aren't the answer, what can government do to reduce the cost of child bearing and having families? i assume there are some things they can do. >> sure. i mean, one thing we see, student debt is a huge problem, government has encouraged young people to take on massive amounts of debt which makes starting a life and a family much harder. reforming how we pay for higher education would be huge. but also at a more local level, housing a and zoning regulations that drive up rents, there's any

number of low-hanging fruit that the government at every level could do to make family formation much easier. paul: do you think the subsidy -- do you like the subsidy idea in terms of child tax credits and that? do you think that would work? >> no, i don't think we have any evidence that it works. it's very expensive, paul, and what we do need is for people to feel more optimistic about the future for their children and we know the most reliable way to do that is growth. paul: yeah. you've got to keep the economy growing and immigration is one answer. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. this is the couple who wanted to get away

who used expedia to book the vacation rental that led to the ride ♪ which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. ♪ flights, hotels, cars, activities, vacation rentals. expedia. everything you need to go.

paul: time now for our hits and misses of the week. kate, start us off. >> my hit this week is for the senate republican conference, led by -- which this week banned earmarks, an idea led by ben sasse of nebraska. who can forget earmarks, when

chuck schumer was pushing for a woodstock museum. thisome republicans had really n thinking that they made it easier to pass legislation and there was talk of bringing them back. it's great news that the gop is swearing off earmarks. paul: jason. >> this is a hit for robert smith, a commencement speaker at morehouse college in atlanta. he announced he would pay off the student debt of the entire graduating class, paul. he's a tech billionaire many he can afford it. he could have spent it on a new sports complex or a fancy student lounge. there are 400 graduates that are very happy he didn't go that route. paul: allysia. >> this is the hit to the post office which over the next two weeks is piloting self-driving trucks on long haul routes between he phoenix and dallas. in order to increase efficiency, imagine that. this may be the triumph of hope

over experience, but this is definitely progress. paul: words i never expected to hear from allysia finley, a hit to the post office. dan -- >> this is memorial day weekend. i'm giving a hit to the old guard, the army servicemen who paid final tribute at arlington cemetery. if a slain serviceman is returned to dover air force base in delaware, they're the ones who are there to greet the body. the old guard are the guys who do the seven gun rifle salutes at arlington cemetery. paul: for everybody who is buried there. >> doesn't make a difference if you're a four star general or a private, the old guard will pay final tribute. so we salute them this memorial day weekend. paul: they're at the tomb of the unknown soldier at arlington. >> all the time, that's right. paul: it's very much worth visiting. if you have your own hit or miss, be sure to tweet it to us as jr@fnc.

that'sit for this week's show. i'm paul gigot, hope to see you all here next week. all of these members. ♪ ♪ >> good morning, everyone, i'm charles payne in for maria. joining us straight ahead on "sunday morning futures," this memorial day weekend, andy biggs on investigating the investigators, after president trump gave attorney general william barr a broad new power to work with the u.s. intelligence community to probe the origins of the russia investigation. also will the american people ever hear from special counsel robert mueller? and congressman biggs on the next steps for immigration reform. we'll also hear from democrat congressman ben mcadams who sits on the house financial services committee which just got access to some of the es