The Wall Street Journal - 24.02.2020

A16| Monday, February 24, 2020 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Steel Tariff Lobbying Often Hides Hard Facts

Your editorial “Political Lobbying

on Steel Tariffs” (Feb. 19) provides a

firm illustration of the madness asso-

ciated with using Section 232 of the

Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This

Kennedy-era law was intended to pro-

tect critical industries for specific na-

tional-security purposes. President

Trump’s application is far too broad

and has hurt more businesses than it

has helped.

Jobs in U.S. industries that use im-

ported steel or inputs made of steel

far outnumber those involved in the

production of steel. In my district, the

tariffs on steel and aluminum are

causing businesses hardship and re-

duced profits. Despite over two years

of effort, I’ve heard from my constitu-

ents that they aren’t able to get the

high-quality steel they need from U.S.

suppliers.

Many of us in Congress have urged

the president to abandon this across-

the-board use of Section 232 tariffs

and instead work with our allies to

target the leading countries that are

responsible for the gross overproduc-

tion and dumping on global markets.

The number one target for this focus

is China, which is where the adminis-

tration should be directing its efforts.

REP.FRENCHHILL (R.,ARK.)

Little Rock, Ark.

Your editorial misses the most

alarming news: that Allegheny Tech-

nologies Inc. (ATI), which requested

an exclusion from the Section 232 tar-

iffs, has a joint venture with Chinese-

backed Tsingshan Holdings (“I Sup-

port Trump’s Tariffs But Need an

Exemption,” by Robert S. Wetherbee,

op-ed, Jan. 8). Worse, as part of that

deal, ATI shut down its Pennsylvania

melt shop to rely exclusively on Tsing-

shan’s Indonesian-made, imported

product.

From the outside, that looks like

ATI essentially sent 500 Pennsylvania

steel jobs to Indonesia but now de-

mands special treatment for their re-

maining 100—notwithstanding that

their demand threatens roughly 1,

other Pennsylvania stainless-steel jobs.

President Trump’s tariffs are a direct

response to this Chinese perfidy, de-

signed to protect U.S. national security,

American jobs and the independence of

America’s stainless-steel industry.

ATI’s partner, Tsingshan, built its

Indonesian mill—part of China’s “Belt

and Road” program—to avoid duties

levied against Chinese steelmakers

who dumped product at unfair prices.

That mill, and Indonesia’s Chinese-

backed ban on nickel exports, repre-

sents an end-around President

Trump’s “America First” policies.

Further, the U.S. Department of

Commerce previously rejected ATI’s

exclusion request on the grounds that

sufficient domestic supply exists. The

facts haven’t changed. While ATI’s

CEO says that “buying American” isn’t

an option, he forgot to mention that

my plant in Kentucky is already sup-

plying slabs to his. It’s an option he’s

already using.

President Trump must consider

whether key national-security compo-

nents should use American steel or if

China should be allowed to steal

American jobs by cheating in the mar-

ketplace. Say no to the exclusion.

CRISFUENTES

CEO, North American Stainless

Ghent, Ky.

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.

“He was a great magician.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Pepper ...

And Salt

Children Need at Least One Loving Parent

Regarding Naomi Schaefer Riley’s

excellent review of Anne Kim’s “Aban-

doned” (Bookshelf, Feb. 11): The com-

mon denominator I found in the chil-

dren who didn’t succeed was that they

lacked a foundation of love and com-

mitment from a caregiver who gave

them a sense of value and self-worth.

Many youths today are discon-

nected not only because of basic life

necessities not being met but because

of the lack of parental connection and

care in the parenting of a child. This

begins at birth. Money isn’t always

the answer to the problems these chil-

dren face. I worked with many fami-

lies that had no financial stress and

found the same disconnection. Our so-

ciety today doesn’t see the value of

parenting and raising children to be-

come independent, morally and spiri-

tually developed human beings. Real

neglect such as food and shelter are

problems but so is benign neglect

wherein the child doesn’t feel impor-

tant to the parents. We are surprised

when these children fail. Government

alone can’t do it, schools and jobs

can’t do it, technology won’t do it.

Only a good relationship gives a child

the ability, the resiliency and the foun-

dation to grow into a healthy, produc-

tive adult ready to engage in life.

DENISEGOLDEN,LMFT

San Diego

Wyoming’s Bet on Coal Is a Poor Investment

Wyoming’s meddling in energy

markets to extend the “zombie” coal

industry is a waste of ratepayers’ and

taxpayers’ money (“Wyoming Tries to

Give Coal a Lift.” U.S. News, Feb. 18).

It makes no economic sense when coal

cannot compete with cheap natural

gas, wind and solar. Coal makes even

less sense when you factor in the eco-

nomic costs of how it is the worst of

all fuels in terms of climate damage.

Requiring “good-faith effort” to

thwart utilities from making the best

business decisions in jettisoning un-

profitable assets is bad governmental

policy and bad business practice. This

is the worst example of substituting

“good intentions” for good sense.

Sometimes, the government should

intervene in the public interest and to

correct market imbalances. The Cli-

mate Leadership Council is advocating

a program designed to minimize gov-

ernment interference while spurring

an orderly, fair transition from fossil

fuel. It reduces regulation, generates

funding for needed adjustments in the

workforce, answers the growing call

for action on climate change and

avoids growing the bureaucracy. This

makes a lot more sense than an ex-

pensive and futile attempt at pander-

ing to coal-mine owners and miners.

E.J.PARKER

Long Beach, Calif.

Ride Hailing Seems a Long

Way From Transport Utopia

“The Ride-Hail Utopia Got Stuck in

Traffic” (Exchange, Feb. 15) fails to take

into account a significant factor in the

congestion wars: the decline in avail-

able roadway. In the utopian vision of a

car-free world, transportation planners

are doing everything they can do to

discourage car use. Take Manhattan’s

First Avenue. The west side of the ave-

nue is now a bike lane, eliminating sig-

nificant amounts of parking and taking

away a lane of traffic. On the east side

there is a bus lane with bump-outs at

bus stops, eliminating a second lane.

Add to that double-parked delivery

trucks on each side and you have a ma-

jor artery reduced to one lane. Multiply

that avenue by avenue, and you have

the recipe for gridlock.

We should be skeptical of technol-

ogy solutions proclaiming their ability

to save the world. But when local gov-

ernment rigs the game against motor-

ized transportation, I’ll take an Uber

crawling to the airport any day.

ALEXANDERW.STEPHENS

New York

The best way to reduce the bad im-

pact of the ride-hailing business is for

people to go back to cabs and public

transit.

JIMROWBOTHAM

New York

GOP’s Future After Trump

Is Likely to Be Contentious

Kimberley Strassel’s assessment of

“The State of the Democrats” (Poto-

mac Watch, Feb. 7) is that it is in dis-

array. I wonder whither the GOP after

President Trump? As an outsider, he

has no heir in the GOP establishment,

and there is a schism within the party

as deep as that which afflicts the

other party.

Where will the Republicans turn?

That choice will revolve around some

consensus as to the size and proper

role of the federal government. Cer-

tainly the current Democratic field has

expanded the scope of possibilities for

what the federal government should

do and how large such efforts might

be. A Trump 2020 victory, which at

the moment at least seems likely, will

leave us with no clear trends to indi-

cate where either party may be

headed in 2024. It’s unlikely we will

see a new direction for the chaotic

Democrats, but the sight of a rudder-

less GOP sounds every bit as possible.

THOMASA.BEEBE

High Ridge, Mo.

The Sanders Democrats

D

emocrats now know how millions of
Republicans felt in 2016. A populist
with devoted plurality support charges
through the primary and cau-
cus states, racking up dele-
gates against multiple “estab-
lishment” candidates who all
want to be the last alternative
standing. Before the media
knew it, Donald Trump could
not be stopped.
With his overwhelming victory in Nevada’s
caucuses on Saturday, Bernie Sanders is on the
road to pulling off a similar coup against the
Democratic Party. The Vermont socialist per-
formed even better than his polling and was
leading with 46% of the vote with 60% of the
precincts reporting Sunday.
He did well with most voter groups, but es-
pecially the young and Latinos. Many of his sup-
porters may not know what socialism means in
practice, but they like his angry demands for so-
cial justice and for government to fix all of
America’s inequities.
As important, his competitors continued to
divide the vote with no single candidate break-
ing out as a dominant challenger. Joe Biden was
second with 19.6%, giving him a talking point
going into next Saturday’s make-or-break pri-
mary in South Carolina. Pete Buttigieg was third
with 15.3%—close to the 15% state-wide thresh-
old to gain delegates.
The result was especially painful for Amy
Klobuchar, who couldn’t build on her strong
showing in New Hampshire. She was in fifth
with 4.8%. Elizabeth Warren vows to fight on,
but she didn’t turn her savaging of Michael
Bloomberg in last week’s debate into enough
support and was fourth at 10.1%
Mr. Sanders will now go into the Palmetto
State against the same divided field. All of the
candidates except for Messrs. Sanders and
Bloomberg (and the fading billionaire Tom
Steyer) lack the money to compete with more
than token TV ads in the Super Tuesday states
that follow three days after South Carolina. Mr.
Bloomberg won’t be on the ballot until Super
Tuesday.
The Democratic Party has put itself in this po-
sition by front-loading so many primaries and
creating a proportional allocation system for
delegates. Anyone who gets 15% of the vote in
a state gets some delegates, which plays into the
hands of a candidate like Mr. Sanders who has
solid support on the left. No Democrat can now
do what Ronald Reagan did in 1976 by winning

a primary in late March in North Carolina and

surging to win all the delegates in many later

states and nearly take the nomination from Pres-

ident Gerald Ford.

All of which makes Mr.

Sanders the clear favorite for

the Democratic nomination

even after a mere three con-

tests. He might still be stoppa-

ble if someone can beat him in

South Carolina and reduce his margins in the

14 Super Tuesday states. There is much pundit

talk about a contested July convention in Mil-

waukee. But that is less likely than the chatter

says unless Mr. Sanders is held to a narrow plu-

rality of delegates. Even then Mr. Sanders will

claim he deserves the nomination and that in-

sider elites want to steal it.

The other candidates have contributed to

this predicament by failing to challenge Mr.

Sanders and his socialist agenda. They dispute

his Medicare for All math, and his electability

in November, but ever so gently. They all offer

some version of Bernie Lite, and none speak up

for the private economy.

Mr. Bloomberg made a halting stab at it in

last week’s debate but the other candidates de-

voted their time to bludgeoning the business-

man for his ancient sins against identity poli-

tics. Mr. Sanders got a pass, as he has the entire

primary season. Mr. Buttigieg finally put the

boot and some edge against Mr. Sanders into

his remarks on Saturday night in Nevada, but

the question is whether it’s too late.

Democrats are waking to the prospect of a

nominee who wants to eliminate private health

insurance, raise taxes on the middle class, ban

fracking and put government in charge of energy

production, make college a taxpayer entitlement,

offer free health care to illegal immigrants, raise

spending by $50 trillion, and tag every down-

ballot Democrat with the socialist label.

All of these are political vulnerabilities, but

Republicans shouldn’t be too sanguine that Mr.

Sanders would be an easy November mark. A

majority of Americans aren’t socialist, at least

not yet, but the country is closely divided polit-

ically. Democrats and the media will close

ranks behind Mr. Sanders as an alternative to

the incumbent.

Mr. Trump might also make the election a

referendum on himself—meaning his personal

behavior and character—rather than the social-

ist agenda. That’s an election Bernie Sanders

could win. Democrats have little time left if they

want to offer the country a better choice.

Bernie’s rout in Nevada

makes him the favorite

for the nomination.

The Lorax on the Appalachian Trail

T

o environmentalists, this must look like
the perfect legal loophole. Congress gave
federal agencies the power to authorize
pipelines under the lands they
control. But that law excludes
“lands in the National Park
System.” Who administers the
Appalachian Trail? Bingo: the
National Park Service.
Ergo, the greens assert, no
agency may permit a pipeline to cross the trail,
which runs 2,200 miles from Maine to Georgia.
That would turn the footpath into a wall to de-
velopment, since most of the route runs on fed-
eral property. A federal appeals court accepted
this theory two years ago. On Monday the Su-
preme Court will hear the arguments to over-
turn it, in a pair of cases consolidated under U.S.
Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation
Association.
In 2014 Atlantic Coast Pipeline proposed a
natural-gas pipeline from West Virginia to North
Carolina. The plan is to pass under the Appala-
chian Trail in the George Washington National
Forest, by drilling 700 feet beneath all those hik-
ers in biodegradable shoes. After three years the
U.S. Forest Service signed off. Green groups re-
acted per their nature: Fish gotta swim, birds
gotta fly, and the Sierra Club gotta sue.
In 2018 that approval was voided by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Here’s
how its ruling wrapped up: “We trust the United
States Forest Service to ‘speak for the trees, for
the trees have no tongues.’ Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
(1971).” In the absence of mustachioed orange
cartoon characters, a panel of three life-tenured
federal judges would do.
The ruling faulted the Forest Service’s envi-
ronmental review. But it also adopted the notion
that the Appalachian Trail runs on National Park
System lands, meaning no agency can OK the

pipeline. The Supreme Court should hit this ag-

gressive argument with a can of bear spray.

The “central flaw” in the lower court’s logic,

as the federal government ar-

gues in its brief, is that the Ap-

palachian Trail is a route

through the woods, but not the

land itself, which in this case

remains under the Forest Ser-

vice. For many miles, the trail

traverses state and private property. Do those

lands now count as “administered” by the Park

Service, too? “That conclusion is obviously in-

correct,” the brief says.

Atlantic Coast Pipeline adds that “more than

50 pipelines” already cross the trail. Look at the

language used by the National Trails System Act,

which speaks of “lands through which the trail

route passes.” The company says there’s no rea-

son to believe “that Congress intended to con-

vert the Appalachian Trail into a 2,200-mile bar-

rier separating critical natural resources from

the eastern seaboard.”

The environmentalists argue that the trail

“cannot be separated from the land that consti-

tutes it.” They quote Robert Frost. They say that

trying to distinguish between the route and the

land is “elusively metaphysical.”

Meanwhile, work has halted on the Mountain

Valley Pipeline, which is 90% finished. “More

than 264 miles of pipe are welded and in place,”

the developer says in an amicus brief. It was ap-

proved to cross the Appalachian Trail in the Jef-

ferson National Forest, but that was before the

Fourth Circuit intervened.

This is one more example of what ails Amer-

ica in the age of the runaway administrative

state. Forget the Lorax and that pretend pedia-

trician, Dr. Seuss. Old statutes don’t have

tongues either, but the Supreme Court speaks

for the rule of law.

The Supreme Court

sizes up a 2,200-mile

barrier to development.

Want Fewer Homes? Try This

G

overnor Gavin Newsom is pleading with
his Legislature to fix California’s govern-
ment-created housing shortage. As
usual, Democrats are respond-
ing with a jack-hammer
against business that will
cause more problems.
Berkeley state Senator
Nancy Skinner last week intro-
duced legislation that would let
local governments fine developers that leave
homes unoccupied for at least 90 days. Local gov-
ernments would also be allowed to use eminent
domain to acquire vacant properties and then rent
them or sell them to a nonprofit.
The bill targets so-called house flippers who
buy and fix up homes—usually in foreclosure—
and then resell them for a profit. But it would
also punish landlords who may now be more in-
clined to leave properties vacant because the
cost of upkeep and improvements exceed the

rent they can charge under the state’s new rent-

control law.

“My bill is designed to give local governments

more tools to incentivize those

corporations to actually put

people in these homes,” Ms.

Skinner says. Except that it

would do the opposite. It costs

$750,000 to build a new low-

income apartment in San Fran-

cisco, but investors can renovate and sell a fore-

closed home in Berkeley for less. There would

be less incentive to invest in or improve the

housing stock since the government could seize

properties for a pittance.

This may be the real goal. Liberals worry that

housing improvements could increase prices in

currently affordable neighborhoods. So they’d

rather have local governments or nonprofits

control the housing stock. Watch the affordable

housing shortage get worse.

Sacramento tries to fix

the housing shortage it

created. Please stop.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OPINION