The Wall Street Journal - 22.08.2019

A16| Thursday, August 22, 2019 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Making Partner Is More of a Business Today

“The Flip Side of Making Partner”

(Exchange, Aug. 10) describes the

loss of loyalty, the globalization of

many firms and the sales-oriented

nature of promotions and pay. What

it does not address is what enabled

this change to happen. Decades ago,

law firms were organized as true

partnerships, with the personal as-

sets of partners serving as collateral

for the obligations of the firm. If one

partner created a big liability, these

personal assets were at risk. Partners

valued prudence and loyalty in their

colleagues.

The creation of a new legal form

in the 1970s, the Legal Liability Com-

pany (LLC), enabled firms to be

owned and run like a partnership,

but without risk to the personal as-

sets of the partners. It proved irre-

sistible. Sales became more impor-

tant than prudence in determining

hiring, promotions and pay. As those

hired under the new ethos became

the majority in the partnership, the

old culture vanished. Large-scale law-

firm mergers became possible be-

cause there was a simple postmerger

metric of success: sales. The LLC en-

abled firms to become global and

compete for enticing global business

by adding partners from faraway

places one didn’t really know well

enough to trust with one’s personal

assets. Designing systems where

there is no personal downside and

lots of upside has predictable conse-

quences, many cultural, ones not just

restricted to LLCs and law firms.

LYNNFELDMAN

Chestnut Hill, Mass.

After making partner in a well-

known Washington, D.C., law firm, I

received a phone call from a head-

hunter seeking to recruit me to join

another law firm. I responded to the

solicitation by saying: “I guess you

didn’t know that I am a partner here

now and, of course, won’t be leav-

ing.” When he finished laughing, he

said he could “dine out” on that an-

swer for months. While I considered

a partnership agreement analogous

to a marriage contract, the world had

moved on, both for law firms and

marital relationships. I had wanted to

be a lawyer since I was 13 years old,

during the height of the civil-rights

movement. Law was a profession and

I was eager to earn my J.D.

Today, when asked, I discourage

young people from going to law

school unless they recognize and ac-

cept one painful (for me) truth: Law

is no longer a profession; it is first

and foremost a business.

LYNDAZENGERLE

Bethesda, Md.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letters intended for publication should

be addressed to: The Editor, 1211 Avenue

of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,

or emailed to [email protected]. Please

include your city and state. All letters

are subject to editing, and unpublished

letters can be neither acknowledged nor

returned.

“A favorite thing about being on

hold is being reminded that Chuck

Mangione plays a mean flugelhorn.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Uber Drivers Understand About Net Returns

Ken Wiles and Kep Sweeney make

rather bold claims about “How Uber

Makes Its Drivers Pay” (op-ed, Aug.

14), many of which are based on

equally bold (and incorrect) assump-

tions. Messrs. Wiles and Sweeney rely

on a American Automobile Associa-

tion depreciation figure of $0.29 per

mile which is calculated for the first

10,000 miles per year of vehicle use.

However, the AAA’s estimates of de-

preciation per mile fall steeply with

further use, with miles between

10,000 and 15,000 incurring a cost of

$0.07 for the average vehicle. A driver

who uses a vehicle at typical personal

levels would be well into single-digit

cents per mile territory for incremen-

tal miles driven with Uber. Further-

more, the Mercedes M Class cited is

“a few years old,” putting it well past

the point of steep, age-based depreci-

ation, which brings us to the second

point. The M Class in question is said

to have fallen in value “from $20,

to about $15,000” after “a couple of

months” of driving. According to Kel-

ley Blue Book, that amount of depre-

ciation requires that the driver drove

approximately 45,000 miles in two

months, which roughly translates to

5,250 miles a week and 750 miles a

day. Not impossible, but hard to imag-

ine. I would encourage Messrs. Wiles

and Sweeney, and other researchers

and drivers, to take advantage of the

wealth of publicly available data be-

fore any analysis of driving expenses

in the future.

ELIZABETHMISHKIN,PH.D.

Uber Technologies Inc.

San Francisco

How About RICO for Public School Officials?

Regarding Baker A. Miller’s “The

Smear Campaign Against Charters”

(op-ed, Aug. 14): Last week our state

test results were released here in Col-

orado: Only 45.8% of our students

read at grade level, and only 34.7%

can do math at grade level.

These results have changed little

over the last 20 years. This is note-

worthy because our current governor,

Jared Polis, worked to pass an

amendment to the state constitution

in 2000 that required education

spending to increase at the rate of in-

flation plus 1% every year. This

should put to rest the notion that

more money is the answer. No doubt

we will hear the usual calls for in-

creased funding of public education,

but even if we gave the system a bil-

lion dollars tomorrow, it wouldn’t

know what to do with the money.

I own a remedial-education busi-

ness and have lost count of the num-

ber of students I’ve taught who hold

high-school diplomas from the Den-

ver and Aurora Public Schools sys-

tems but are functionally illiterate

and innumerate. Many want to join

the military but can’t pass the en-

trance exam (the ASVAB). It’s offi-

cial—the academic standards re-

quired to join the Army are higher

than those needed to earn a Colorado

high-school diploma.

Isn’t it high time we moved this in-

competence from the realm of the

merely scandalous to the specifically

criminal? What’s to stop U.S. attor-

neys around the country from filing

RICO charges against school boards,

superintendents and union officials? If

there’s a bigger racket than public ed-

ucation in the U.S., I’m unaware of it.

NATEBRADEN

Denver

Pepper ...

And Salt

Tuition Forgiveness and the Medicare Model

Ethan Ames (“Bernie Sanders and

Elizabeth Warren Will Never Forgive

Me,” op-ed, Aug. 12) laments college

decisions he would have made differ-

ently if he thought his student debt

would be forgiven by a President

Sanders or Warren. Many parents

who paid cash for their kids’ college

educations are having similar re-

grets. There are an infinite number

of good uses we could have found for

that cash if we thought our fellow

taxpayers would be footing the bill

for any borrowed funds. I’ll vote for

a presidential candidate who prom-

ises to make colleges cover the un-

paid debts incurred by their stu-

dents. This would provide schools

with some incentive to get their

costs under control.

MIKEADKINS

Rochester, Minn.

The “free college tuition” propos-

als by some presidential candidates

may not be a bad idea if the program

were modeled after Medicare. The

government would set tuition prices

by course and would decide what fees

should be paid to the “doctors” em-

ployed by the universities.

TEDBONDSR.

Libertyville, Ill.

U.S. Payment Services Lag

The World, Private or Not

Regarding your editorial “Jay

Powell’s Public Option” (Aug. 3):

The large banks have themselves to

blame for allowing an opening for

the Federal Reserve. The U.S. is far

behind in payment processing rela-

tive to other countries, and not nec-

essarily developed countries. As an

example, in Nigeria everyone can

send money directly from his or her

bank account to any other bank ac-

count in real time (with no fee). In

Nigeria there isn’t a need for inter-

mediaries such as Venmo, PayPal or

the like. And, by the way, in the U.S.

it takes one business day or more to

get money from apps into consum-

ers’ bank accounts.

CHIKEELEAZU

New York

Cut the Trump Uncertainty Tax

P

resident Trump isn’t famous for consis-
tency, but his reversal on a new round
of tax cuts may be a record. On Tuesday
he said he was considering a
cut in the payroll tax and in-
dexing capital gains for infla-
tion, but on Wednesday he
took it all back.
“I’m not looking at a tax cut
now,” Mr. Trump told report-
ers. “We don’t need it. We have a strong econ-
omy.” He added that indexing capital gains might
be seen as “somewhat elitist” and would benefit
the wealthy, thus aligning himself ideologically
(and bizarrely) with his many media opponents
who still denounce his 2017 tax reform.
Mr. Trump is also confused about whether
the economy is strong or weak, whether more
economic stimulus is needed, and even whether
his trade brawls with the rest of the world are
weakening the economy. No wonder business in-
vestment is falling amid this climate of policy
uncertainty. Mr. Trump’s payroll-tax cut
wouldn’t pass Congress in any case, and index-
ing capital gains for inflation, while economi-
cally useful, would be challenged in court if he
implemented it by executive order.
But if Mr. Trump does want to give the econ-
omy a policy boost to prevent a recession, there
is something he can do without Congress or a le-
gal challenge: He can cut his trade-uncertainty
tax. This is the pall over business investment
that is a major result of his trade policies.
Mr. Trump and his trade Rasputin, Peter Na-
varro, claim there’s been no harm from his tar-
iffs. But his actions belie the claim. Last week he
delayed a new round of tariffs on some imports
from China lest they raise consumer prices be-
fore Christmas. He has ladled out $28 billion in
subsidies to farmers to offset markets lost to re-
taliation by China, and other nations, after his
various tariffs.
The evidence of harm is also clear from U.S.
economic data. Manufacturing has slumped as
global demand declines amid trade and currency
shifts. U.S. net exports have also declined, and
falling private investment shaved a percentage-
point from GDP in the second quarter.
Nearly every CEO with global customers or
suppliers mentions trade as a leading concern.

“Anytime there’s trade tensions of this kind, it

does put a certain amount of conservatism, I

think, into all of our plans for capital spending,”

said Caterpillar CEO James

Umpleby in April. “So I would

expect if, in fact, the trade

tensions get resolved, that

would be a positive for global

economic growth and a posi-

tive for us.”

As Mr. Umpleby suggests, Mr. Trump has the

power to assist the economy on his own by end-

ing this trade uncertainty. He can help Germany

avoid recession by publicly withdrawing his

threat to impose 25% tariffs on European autos.

He can help American manufacturers and farm-

ers by ending his steel and aluminum tariffs. U.S.

Steel this month said it will lay off up to 200

workers in Michigan amid falling demand due

to slower growth.

Then there’s the uncertainty hanging over his

trade deal with Mexico and Canada, which is

stalled in Congress. Mr. Trump can’t force

Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow a ratification vote,

but he can at least reassure business by publicly

declaring that he won’t withdraw unilaterally

from Nafta. Then make a political issue of her re-

fusal to allow a vote.

All of this would better set up Mr. Trump and

the U.S. for negotiating with China. Mr. Trump

previously claimed there is no harm from his

China brawl, but this week he has shifted to

claiming that any economic pain is worth the

price of finally taking on China.

He’s right to address bad Chinese practices,

but he underestimated the economic harm from

his multiple trade shocks. Supply chains built

over a generation can’t be rebuilt in a year, and

U.S. exporters can’t find new customers on short

notice. Above all they can’t make proper deci-

sions if they don’t know what trade policy will

be in a year. So they hunker down and reduce or

delay investment.

Mr. Trump doesn’t need to win his staredown

with Xi Jinping in a single negotiation. He can

make progress now, see if China honors its

promises, and respond accordingly if he wins a

second term. He’ll get no such chance if there’s

a trade-driven recession, and Elizabeth Warren

sits in the White House.

His best stimulus

policy would be to end

his tariff campaign.

A Wrench in Georgia’s Voting Machine

D

emocrats in Washington say that swift
intervention by Congress is imperative
to secure America’s elections. A coun-
terexample comes from Geor-
gia, where last week a federal
district court put an expiration
date on continued use of the
state’s 17-year-old electronic
voting machines.
Georgia’s touch-screen vot-
ing devices don’t keep an auditable paper re-
cord. Critics of the system filed a lawsuit in
2017, saying that the machines ought to be
junked, since they can’t be trusted and therefore
they burden the constitutional right to an accu-
rately counted ballot.
After a long march through the legal process,
the plaintiffs have prevailed on this point. “Geor-
gia’s current voting equipment, software, elec-
tion and voter databases,” Judge Amy Totenberg
ruled last week, “are antiquated, seriously
flawed, and vulnerable to failure, breach, con-
tamination, and attack.”
Georgia’s voting machines run an old version
of Windows, and their operating system hasn’t
been updated since 2005, according to an expert
cited by Judge Totenberg. State contractors who
create ballots for the devices apparently did this
work on their home computers. Dozens of voters
filed affidavits describing their frustration with
glitchy voting machines in 2018. Georgia coun-
ters that there’s no evidence its voting has actu-
ally been hacked. Still, yikes.
Judge Totenberg ruled that Georgia can use
its current system a final time this fall, because
trying to force a quick switch to paper ballots
“might be a recipe for disaster.” By next March,
however, when the state holds its 2020 presiden-

tial primary, election officials must either have

a replacement system running or else default to

paper ballots as a backup.

The transition started ear-

lier this year. In April the state

passed a law to switch to “bal-

lot-marking devices.” Voters

will make their choices on a

touch-screen, as they’re accus-

tomed to doing. Then a printer

will spit out a paper ballot for review and scan-

ning. This summer Georgia awarded a $107 mil-

lion contract for 30,000 machines. The state’s

goal is to do a six-county pilot during this No-

vember’s elections.

On Friday the plaintiffs asked Judge Toten-

berg to throw out this plan, too. Although the

new printed ballots will show a vote summary,

they’ll also feature a two-dimensional bar code

for the scanners to read. The worry is that voters

will have no way to “visually review and confirm

whether the bar code accurately conveys their

intended selections.”

No voting method is perfect. The point is that

Georgia is buying a system that will be more se-

cure than the one in place. Several other states

are moving in similar directions. Meanwhile,

Democrats in Congress insist that Washington

must ride to the rescue. They’ve offered a bill

that isn’t narrowly tailored, that would further

federalize election funding, and that sneaks in

liberal preferences for recycled paper and

ranked-choice voting.

Georgia shows the alternative: State Legisla-

tures can find the money to fix their own prob-

lems. Citizens can push them to do so, whether

through public pressure or litigation. This is fed-

eralism at work.

The state is moving to

secure its elections—if

Democrats allow it.

The Impeachment Charade

B

ig news on impeachment this week, or
not: On Monday Ben Ray Luján, the num-
ber four Democrat in House leadership,
endorsed “an impeachment in-
quiry, which will continue to
uncover the facts for the
American people and hold this
president accountable.” The
press played it as a big mo-
ment, the highest-ranking
Democrat to endorse the probe.
“President Trump’s lack of action is jeopar-
dizing our elections, national security, and De-
mocracy,” Mr. Luján said in explaining his deci-
sion. “Not only has he ignored the warnings
that our Democracy is being targeted, but he
has also actively encouraged Russian interfer-
ence.” But wait. Special counsel Robert Mueller
released his report in April. Why reach this con-
clusion four months later?
You have to read 15 paragraphs into the Po-
litico story on Mr. Luján’s conversion to dis-
cover the real reason. The New Mexico Con-
gressman is running for the Senate to replace
Democrat Tom Udall and he faces two liberal
primary challengers. One competitor, New Mex-
ico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver,
called on the House to start impeachment pro-
ceedings in May.
“First it was the Green New Deal, then it

was Medicare for All and not taking any more

corporate money,” Ms. Toulouse Oliver said.

“Today it’s impeachment. I’m glad to see the

Congressman adopting pro-

gressive values, but New Mex-

ico deserves a U.S. Senator

who will lead on the issues

that truly matter.”

Mr. Luján is merely pro-

tecting his left flank. And far

from challenging Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s oppo-

sition to impeachment, he no doubt had her

blessing.

The Luján pose shows how impeachment

continues to be a political charade. Democrats

want to appear to be moving to remove Donald

Trump as long as they don’t have to vote on it.

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Mr. Im-

peachment, claims he has started a formal in-

quiry, but there has been no committee vote to

proceed. Mr. Nadler won’t even say what his an-

nouncement means.

The entire exercise is political theater de-

signed to give progressive Democrats the ap-

pearance of moving to oust President Trump

without forcing Democrats in swing Congres-

sional districts to vote on the record. The media

are playing along as if it’s real. They and Mr. Lu-

ján want to hold Mr. Trump “accountable”—as

long as Democrats don’t have to be.

Democrats claim to

want Trump gone but

refuse to vote on it.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OPINION