The Wall Street Journal - 20.09.2019

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Friday, September 20, 2019 |A

T

he campaign against Amer-

ica’s opioid epidemic

earned a victory last month

when an Oklahoma judge

held Johnson & Johnson

responsible for its role in oversupply-

ing addictive drugs. Yet the opioid

problem is far larger than one drug

company, or even the entire industry.

Preventing abuse of addictive drugs

requires improvements in countless

nooks and crannies of public policy.

Chicago’s experience fighting opi-

oids offers a lesson in what munici-

palities can and can’t do to stem pub-

lic-health crises. While I was mayor,

the Windy City became one of the

first two cities in the country to sue

the pharmaceutical industry. After fil-

ing the lawsuit, we took additional

immediate steps to reduce the drug

supply. Last year we modified all mu-

nicipal labor contracts to specify that

no health plan could authorize more

than a seven-day supply of addictive

painkillers, except in extreme circum-

stances such as end-of-life care.

My administration also imposed a

$750 annual licensing fee on medical

sales representatives within the city

limits, and dedicated 100% of that

revenue to drug rehabilitation. Today

more than 4,000 drug-industry per-

sonnel in Chicago have registered and

paid the fee, creating a multimillion-

dollar fund that goes directly to clin-

ics and specialists helping victims

overcome their addictions. We also

coordinated responses with officials

from Cook and DuPage counties.

Without these changes, the epidemic

in the Chicago area would be much

worse—and it is still bad.

Why was Chicago forced to con-

front the opioid problem on its own?

Because those who should have

shouldered the burden refused to

lead. The federal government has the

resources, authority and mandate to

stem national public-health emergen-

Auto Workers Are Free From UAW

T

he size of the United Auto

Workers’ membership was for

decades tied to the economics

of the domestic auto industry. But a

corruption scandal involving UAW

leadership, the spread of right-to-

work laws across the Midwest, and

the pain of participating in this

week’s strike have some auto work-

ers wondering if union membership

still has its privileges.

The UAW represents more than

auto workers, but they’re still the

core of the union’s membership, with

the bulk residing in five Midwestern

states: Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan,

Ohio and Wisconsin. Since 2011, all

but Ohio have become right-to-work

states, meaning workers can no lon-

ger be forced to pay dues or fees to

the UAW.

At the turn of the century the to-

tal number of “transportation equip-

ment manufacturing” employees in

those five Midwestern states and to-

tal UAW members were roughly the

same—715,200 and 701,800, respec-

tively—according to the Bureau of

Labor Statistics and federal filings

by the union. That held true until

2009, when both numbers plum-

meted. During the worst of the Great

Recession in 2009, Chrysler and Gen-

eral Motors declared bankruptcy.

More than 100,000 jobs were lost at

GM alone.

Not long after, things began to

change. In 2012, Indiana became a

right-to-work state. Michigan fol-

lowed the same year, Wisconsin in

2015, and Kentucky in 2017. Since

2011, the number of auto workers in

those five states has grown by nearly

160,000, or 36.4%, according to the

BLS. Yet in 2018 the union saw its

first annual decline in membership

in a decade, losing 35,000 members,

or 8.1%. That reduced the net mem-

bership increase since 2011 to 15,000.

There are many reasons UAW

members choose to quit the union,

and despite the solidarity on display

in the current strike, the rank-and-

file have serious issues with the way

the union has been run. In pushing

for a strike at GM, UAW leadership

insisted that employees skip work

and forgo their full wages and bene-

fits to pressure management to

reach a deal. As the strike continues,

UAW members may wonder whether

their dues are worth paying when

union negotiation requires them to

sacrifice part of their livelihoods.

They also should wonder whether

union leaders are looking out for the

membership’s interests or their own.

Many high-ranking UAW officials are

embroiled in a corruption scandal.

The Justice Department has charged

10 defendants, including recently re-

tired UAW chief Dennis Williams,

with crimes ranging from embezzle-

ment and money laundering to mail

and wire fraud. UAW leaders alleg-

edly spent more than $1 million in

union money on fancy resorts,

rounds of golf, clothing, expensive

alcohol and cigars, and more. Per-

haps worse in the eyes of some

members, the UAW used nonunion

labor to build a retirement home for

its recent president.

The UAW also has a political

problem. Nearly 40% of all union

members voted for President Trump

in 2016, including an estimated 28%

of UAW members, according to the

union’s own survey. But the UAW

heavily supports the Democratic

Party, nearly unanimously endorsing

and supporting Democrats at the lo-

cal, state and national levels.

Politics could fray the relationship

with workers. Progressive elements

have pulled the Democratic Party left

on issues like fracking and pipelines,

which are important to the automo-

tive industry. Democrats are also in-

creasingly pushing for electric and

smaller vehicles—part of the party’s

larger shift toward weighing envi-

ronmental interests over traditional

blue-collar concerns.

Workers have options these days.

The UAW can no longer rely on their

compelled support, and it would do

well to listen more closely to the

concerns of its members and repre-

sent those interests above all else.

Mr. Skorup is director of market-

ing and communications at the

Mackinac Center for Public Policy,

based in Midland, Mich. Mr. Hohman

directs the center’s Morey Fiscal Pol-

icy Initiative.

By Jarrett Skorup

And James M. Hohman

OPINION

How Chicago Tackled the Opioid Crisis

cies. But its agencies were AWOL, in-

cluding the Food and Drug Adminis-

tration and the Centers for Medicare

and Medicaid Services. Meanwhile,

doctors and pharmacies spent their

time pointing fingers rather than po-

licing bad actors. That left local gov-

ernments, short-staffed and ill-

equipped, on their own. None of this

absolves the drug companies and dis-

tributors for their role in the tragedy.

But as someone who was screaming

for help from one of America’s city

halls, I can tell you it was maddening

and disheartening.

There’s no doubt what Washington

and its regulatory agencies could

have done if they wanted to address

the crisis. And these policy options

are still on the table.

To begin, they should require every

pharmacy regularly to provide a list

of the five doctors and dentists who

most frequently prescribe opiates, as

a way to encourage caution among

hospitals and doctors. Before anyone

shouts “Privacy!” note that I am rec-

ommending doctors’ names, not pa-

tients’. Current federal law bars cities

from mandating that sort of disclo-

sure, but it would be a vital deterrent.

Next, the federal judge presiding

over the larger opioid settlement un-

der negotiation in Cleveland should

ensure that a minimum of 50 cents of

every dollar awarded goes directly to

rehabilitation. A generation ago,

when the tobacco settlement money

rolled in, it was too frequently used

to fill ordinary gaps in state and local

budgets rather than to save another

generation from tobacco addiction.

Last, the FDA and other federal

agencies should create separate

guidelines for prescribing opioids to

children and teenagers, whose capac-

ity to handle these medications is dif-

ferent. Young people need more-

stringent protections.

More than any other factor, the

public origin of the opioid epidemic is

what makes it such a monumental dis-

grace—what my Yiddish-speaking

grandparents would’ve called a

shanda. Unlike with other addictive

substances like crack or heroin, the

opioid epidemic didn’t begin in dark

alleyways or on desolate street cor-

ners. Pharmaceutical companies

played down the risks and overstated

the efficacy of opioids—a shanda. Doc-

tors and dentists regularly overpre-

scribed opioids, many of which ended

up on the black market, sparking new

demand—a shanda. Pharmacists es-

tablished “pill mills,” looking away

when addicts lined up time and again

for refills—a shanda. And government

regulators looked the other way as

hundreds of thousands of Americans

became addicted—a shanda.

Opioids won’t be the last public-

health crisis. If policy makers fail to

learn the right lessons, cities and

states across the country may end up

filing similar suits in five or 10 years

against companies now selling e-ciga-

rettes and hash oil to Americans. The

question is whether leaders will find

a way to stem the next crisis before

it’s too late, with little to do other

than pursue lawsuits for restorative

damages.

The greatest lesson is that states

and cities shouldn’t have to face pub-

lic-health crises on their own. I made

Chicago the first city to tax, regulate

and sue those selling and manufactur-

ing vaping products, and I’m proud to

have been ahead of the curve. But the

best approach is collective responsi-

bility and accountability, in which

each level of government and corpo-

rate associations plays its role.

The opioid epidemic began at the

highest levels of corporate of Amer-

ica, was abetted by the most re-

spected professional associations,

and was ignored by the most trusted

government agencies. As we face the

vaping and hash-oil industries, the

question is whether we’ve learned

anything.

Mr. Emanuel was mayor of Chi-

cago, 2011-19.

By Rahm Emanuel

ERIK MCGREGOR/PACIFIC PRESS VIA ZUMA WIRE

Cities and states can

mitigate public-health

risks, but they need more

help from Washington.

Protesters outside Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s New York City office, Aug. 29.

2001 ‘Arabian

Nights’ May

Sink Trudeau

By Elliot Kaufman

PUBLISHED SINCE 1889 BY DOW JONES & COMPANY

Rupert Murdoch

Executive Chairman, News Corp

Matt Murray

Editor in Chief

Robert Thomson

Chief Executive Officer, News Corp

William Lewis

Chief Executive Officer and Publisher

EDITORIAL AND CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS:
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y., 10036
Telephone 1-800-DOWJONES

DOW JONES MANAGEMENT:

Ramin Beheshti, Chief Technology Officer;

Natalie Cerny, Chief Communications Officer;

Kamilah Mitchell-Thomas, Chief People Officer;

Edward Roussel, Chief Innovation Officer;

Christina Van Tassell, Chief Financial Officer

OPERATING EXECUTIVES:

Kenneth Breen, Commercial;

Jason P. Conti, General Counsel;

Tracy Corrigan, Chief Strategy Officer;

Frank Filippo, Print Products & Services;

Kristin Heitmann, Chief Commercial Officer;

Nancy McNeill, Corporate Sales;

Thomas San Filippo, Customer Service;

Josh Stinchcomb, Advertising Sales;

Suzi Watford, Chief Marketing Officer;

Jonathan Wright, International

Barron’s Group: Almar Latour, Publisher

Professional Information Business:

Christopher Lloyd, Head;

Ingrid Verschuren, Deputy Head

Neal Lipschutz Karen Miller Pensiero
Deputy Editor in Chief Managing Editor
Jason Anders, Chief News Editor;
Thorold Barker, Europe; Elena Cherney, Coverage
Planning; Andrew Dowell, Asia; Alex Martin, Print
& Writing; Michael W. Miller, Features & Weekend;
Emma Moody, Standards; Shazna Nessa, Visuals;
Matthew Rose, Enterprise; Michael Siconolfi,
Investigations; Louise Story, Strategy and Interim
Product & Technology; Nikki Waller, Live
Journalism; Stephen Wisnefski, Professional News

Gerard Baker, Editor at Large

Paul A. Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page;
Daniel Henninger, Deputy Editor, Editorial Page

WALL STREET JOURNAL MANAGEMENT:
Joseph B. Vincent, Operations;
Larry L. Hoffman, Production

Howdy Modi, and Goodbye Growth

If the hype turns out

to be true, on Sun-

day 50,000 Indian-

Americans will troop

into Houston’s NRG

Stadium to listen to

a speech by Naren-

dra Modi, India’s

prime minister.

That’s nearly three

times the size of the

crowd that turned

up for Mr. Modi at New York’s Madi-

son Square Garden five years ago.

Perhaps lured by the yugeness, Presi-

dent Trump plans to speak as well.

Since winning power in 2014, Mr.

Modi has honed the overseas rally as

an instrument to boost both Indian

diplomacy and the prime minister’s

political standing at home. He has ad-

dressed diaspora audiences in Sydney,

Toronto, London, Singapore, Johan-

nesburg and elsewhere. But America

stands out: It’s home to 4.4 million

people of Indian origin, the richest

and most influential Indian diaspora

in the world. Mr. Modi’s speech Sun-

day will be his fourth address to In-

dian-Americans in five years.

The prime minister wears his ad-

miration for Indian-Americans on his

sleeve. (In large part the affection is

mutual, though observers also expect

throngs of protesters in Houston.) In

New York, Mr. Modi praised the com-

munity for raising India’s standing in

the world. In San Jose, Calif., he

hailed it as a “brain deposit” rather

than a “brain drain” from India. In

Washington, he talked about Indian

immigrants having “helped the USA

to become more prosperous.”

But at the heart of these specta-

cles lies a paradox. If Mr. Modi’s do-

mestic policies are any indication, he

appears not truly to grasp the basis

of Indian-Americans’ success. They

have thrived because America is built

on principles that encourage it: a be-

lief in free enterprise, an embrace of

diversity and a meritocratic culture.

On Mr. Modi’s watch, India has re-

gressed on all three fronts.

Nevertheless, these jamborees en-

hance India’s diplomatic clout. Mr.

Trump’s presence signals Washing-

ton’s support for New Delhi, much

appreciated amid a spate of bad press

over last month’s heavy-handed abro-

gation of autonomy for Jammu and

Kashmir, the disputed Himalayan ter-

ritory claimed by both India and Pak-

istan. The likely presence of House

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, along

with both Republican and Democratic

members of Congress, gives that sup-

port bipartisan sheen.

Domestic politics may matter even

more. Indian TV news channels will

beam wall-to-wall coverage of the

Houston event—called “Howdy,

Modi!”—to millions of homes. The

sight of Mr. Modi rousing supporters

in the world’s most powerful country

cements his image as a conquering

hero astride the global stage and wid-

ens the gap in stature between the

prime minister and his rivals. These

rallies contribute to the belief, widely

held in India, that Mr. Modi has en-

hanced the country’s stature, too.

Reality is less rosy. After five years

in power, Mr. Modi’s reputation as an

economic administrator has taken a

beating. In the quarter ending June

30, the economy grew at only 5%, its

slowest in six years, after declining

for five consecutive quarters. If In-

dian statistics exaggerate GDP

growth, as Harvard’s Arvind Subra-

manian recently suggested in a

widely cited paper, the country starts

to look like a largely agrarian econ-

omy languishing at postindustrial

economic growth rates. International

money managers have sold $4.5 bil-

lion of Indian shares since June. Ac-

cording to Bloomberg, they’re on

course for the biggest quarterly exo-

dus in two decades.

Cyclical factors and a global slow-

down have no doubt contributed to

India’s sluggishness. But Mr. Modi’s

overreliance on bureaucrats, mistrust

of market forces, and occasional flir-

tation with crank economic theorists

from his Hindu nationalist movement

have exacerbated the problem.

Many economists tie the beginning

of India’s downturn to the prime min-

ister’s 2016 decision to nuke nearly

90% of India’s currency in a quixotic

attempt to destroy so-called black

money. In 2017 the government im-

plemented a shoddy nationwide

value-added tax despite pleas from

experts who pointed out that high

rates, a complex multislab structure,

and overly stringent reporting re-

quirements made it the opposite of

the “good and simple” tax that was

promised.

At the same time, rapacious tax in-

spectors, tasked with collecting the

vast amounts needed to fund Mr.

Modi’s ambitious welfare schemes,

have driven thousands of wealthy In-

dians abroad. Privatization has

stalled, in part because Mr. Modi ap-

pears to believe that hiring the right

managers—often retired bureau-

crats—can make state-owned compa-

nies profitable and allow him to avoid

selling them to private investors. On

trade, the Modi government has re-

versed a quarter-century of liberal-

ization by raising tariffs.

More fundamentally, Mr. Modi has

raised fears that his government will

undermine the bedrock of Indian sta-

bility: its management of religious and

linguistic diversity. The Silicon Valley

tech giants and Texas oil companies

that hire talented Indian engineers

don’t care how their employees pray

or what they keep in their freezers. In

India, the ruling Bharatiya Janata

Party’s agenda includes harsh punish-

ments for cow slaughter and discour-

aging interfaith marriages by raising

the phantasm of “love jihad” by Mus-

lim men in search of Hindu brides.

Mr. Modi deserves credit for

grasping the importance of Indian-

Americans as an example to emulate.

But unless he re-examines his poli-

cies, the applause at “Howdy, Modi!”

won’t change the reality that many

people are instead choosing to say,

“Goodbye, India.”

He’s held four U.S. rallies

in five years, but still

doesn’t seem to grasp how

freedom feeds prosperity.

EAST IS

EAST

By Sadanand

Dhume

C

anadians have seen the face of
social justice, and it’s rather
dark. On Wednesday Time mag-
azine published a yearbook photo of
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
dressed in a turban and white robes,
his face covered with brown makeup.
It was taken at an “Arabian Nights”-
themed gala in 2001 for the Vancou-
ver private day school where he was
teaching drama, French and math.
“It was a racist thing to do,” said
the Liberal leader. “I should have
known better then, but I didn’t and
I’m sorry.” Mr. Trudeau, who was 29
at the time, hopes self-laceration will
pre-empt a whipping from oppo-
nents. It won’t, especially with an
election Oct. 21. “Like all Canadians,
I was extremely shocked and disap-
pointed,” said Conservative chief An-
drew Scheer, adding that the Aladdin
costume betrayed “a complete lack of
judgment and integrity” and that Mr.
Trudeau is “not fit to govern.”

Mr. Scheer can be accused of op-
portunism. Not so Jagmeet Singh,
leader of the left-wing New Demo-
cratic Party. “Tonight is not about
the Prime Minister,” he tweeted. “It’s
about every young person mocked
for the colour of their skin. The child
who had their turban ripped off their
head. And those reliving intense feel-
ings of pain & hurt from past experi-
ences of racism. To you, I say you are
loved.”
Mr. Singh, a Sikh, wears a turban
himself. Good luck, Mr. Trudeau.
The prime minister only recently
emerged from the “Lavscam” affair,
in which he pressured Attorney Gen-
eral Judy Wilson-Raybould to stop
the corruption prosecution of a major
Liberal donor, fired her when she re-
fused, and spread lies about her. Mr.
Trudeau is fond of saying, “I’m proud
to be a feminist,” and, “When women
speak up, it is our duty to listen to
them and to believe them.” A lot of
good that did Ms. Wilson-Raybould.
Within 12 hours of the Aladdin
photo, two others surfaced of Mr.
Trudeau wearing blackface in the
1990s. His explanation: “I’ve always—
and you’ll know this—been more en-
thusiastic about costumes than is
sometimes appropriate.”
That’s the problem. As prime min-
ister, Mr. Trudeau is still playing
dress-up. He donned traditional garb
on an official visit to India in 2018
and looked ridiculous alongside be-
mused Indians in Western clothes.
Even his political correctness seems
put on, as when he interrupted and
scolded a woman for saying “man-
kind.” He told her “peoplekind” was
the “more inclusive” term.
The press, especially in America,
loved Mr. Trudeau’s theatrics: ap-
pointing a “gender balanced” cabinet
“because it’s 2015,” greeting Syrian
refugees at the airport, and claiming
“there is no core identity, no main-
stream in Canada,” only tolerant
multiculturalism. His government
even launched a “feminist foreign
policy.” It sounded good, earning him
praise in the New York Times, a
spread in Vogue and a fawning pro-
file in Rolling Stone.
Breezy, preening progressivism
masked what everybody knew: The
dilettante son of former Prime Minis-
ter Pierre Trudeau, Justin was ush-
ered into Liberal politics after an ex-
tended adolescence and abruptly
made party leader because of his sur-
name. This new scandal is damaging
mostly because it reminds Canadians
who leads them—not a racist but a
hectoring, hypocritical high-school
drama teacher who’s in over his
head, not an ideologue but an empty
turban.

Mr. Kaufman is an assistant edito-
rial features editor at the Journal.

A month from the election,

a ‘brownface’ controversy

erupts in Canada.