A14| Saturday/Sunday, March 21 - 22, 2020 **** THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
Lighthizer Responds: Medical Trade Tariffs
In the past several weeks, we have
seen attempts to politicize the coro-
navirus, as well as hackneyed efforts
to revive long-discredited arguments
in favor of globalization. A good ex-
ample of both is “Trump’s Tariffs
Leave the U.S. Short on Vital Medical
Supplies” (op-ed, March 19), which
tries to pin some blame for the cur-
rent crisis on the administration’s
Section 301 tariffs on China. I’ll leave
the broader philosophical debate for
another day. But readers should not
be misled about the facts.
First, the administration imposed
no new tariffs on several key prod-
ucts needed to fight the virus like
breathing masks, oxygen masks, ven-
tilators and nebulizers. Second, while
imports of certain other medical
products from China have declined
since tariffs were imposed, that has
been offset by increased imports of
such products from other countries.
Thirdly, the U.S. Trade Representa-
tive granted immediate exclusions
from the Section 301 tariffs for all
critical medical products weeks ago.
And that was in addition to numer-ous other exclusions previously
granted whenever importers were
able to demonstrate that China was
their only viable source of supply.
In addition to a misleading pre-
sentation of the facts, the op-ed
contradicts the thrust of his pro-
globalization screed by lamenting
the fact that even U.S. allies like
Germany and South Korea recently
have imposed export restrictions on
products needed to combat the vi-
rus. At times like this, nations inevi-
tably will put the interests of their
own citizens first. Indeed, if there is
one lesson to be drawn from this
crisis, it is that dependence on
other countries as the source of key
medical products has created a stra-
tegic vulnerability for the U.S. By
encouraging diversification of sup-
ply chains and—better yet—more
manufacturing in the U.S., President
Trump’s economic and trade poli-
cies are helping to overcome that
vulnerability.
AMBASSADORROBERTE.LIGHTHIZER
U.S. Trade Representative
WashingtonLETTERS 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are subject to editing, and unpublished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.
“I was a big fan before you started
making all that money.”THE WALL STREET JOURNALMore to Distance Learning Than You Think
I take exception to Paul G. Vallas’s
assessment in “Hey, Teacher, Teach
Those Kids at Home” (Cross Country,
March 14) that interruptions to on-site
teaching “can have catastrophic conse-
quences on educational development.”
My own children’s experience says
the opposite. They grew up in the
mountains of North Carolina, where
frequent long interruptions in public
school because of snow and ice were a
given. One year the children missed
five weeks because of bad weather.
During those closures my elder son
read a lot and taught himself how to
do things like cat’s cradle string games
and playing jazz piano. Today he is a
prep-school math teacher and has
added cabinetmaking, winemaking and
precision marksmanship to his reper-
toire. My younger son was always out-
side experimenting in the snow—build-
ing forts, tunnels and iced-over luge
runs for oranges. Today he’s a hydrolo-
gist and an environmental manager for
pipeline projects. My daughter kept an
eye on the weather forecasts, and of-
ten managed to get “stranded” at
friends’ houses in the country, where
they had bigger TVs and way better
snack food. Today she is a corporate
lawyer and gets paid to stay one step
ahead of people older than she is.
In those last pre-internet days, their
periods of self-directed, hands-onstudy let my children nurture their
strengths any way they liked. Far from
interrupting student development, as
Mr. Vallas contends, school closures
can enhance it.
NANK.CHASE
Fries, Va.Mr. Vallas’s emphasis on the need
for schools to become more serious
about remote learning is laudable in
many respects. However, even if
schools used remote learning well,
those children who live in deep pov-
erty won’t have home internet access,
may lack parents who are computer-
literate and likely will have no quiet
place in which to work.
As the CEO of a nonprofit school for
children experiencing homelessness, I
have seen firsthand what happens to
our good students who transition to
public school and then begin to fail be-
cause they don’t have the ability to ac-
cess assignments and do research on-
line. One mother would pack up all five
children and take the bus to a
McDonald’s for one child to use the
free Wi-Fi there. Unless schools are
also able to provide computers and
free Wi-Fi to motels, homeless shelters,
cars and tents, remote learning will be
impossible for these students and then
they’ll fall even further behind.
And, even then, who will provide
lunch?
SUSANAGEL
President/CEO
Positive Tomorrows
Oklahoma CityPepper ...
And SaltCharlottesville’s Violence Is
A failure of Its Government
Former Charlottesville, Va., Mayor
Michael Signer’s essay “How Free
Speech Dogma Failed Us in Char-
lottesville” (Review, March 14) pins
the blame in the wrong place. The vio-
lence wasn’t a failure of the First
Amendment; it was a failure of gov-
ernment.
An independent report on the 2017
protests, which ended in tragedy, used
the word “failure” many times. Each
instance cited a way government bun-
gled how it handled its planning or re-
sponse. Some of the sharpest criti-
cisms in the report aimed at the city
council, which interfered in key opera-
tional decisions. It tried to move the
rally, despite correct warnings a move
“was likely to be struck down by
courts.” Planning by police “was inad-
equate and disconnected.” One thing
the report didn’t blame was the First
Amendment.
Most local governments prevent vi-
olence at protests and protect free
speech. As the report concluded, “in
addressing large political protests City
officials...must both protect public
safety and facilitate free expression.”
DAVIDKEATING
President
Institute for Free Speech
WashingtonThe Science-Denying Young
Party: Too Bad for Grandpa
Your editorial “The Economic Rout
Accelerates” (March 19) notes that
young folks think they’ll “live for-
ever,” which is why so many are ig-
noring our leaders’ requests—and or-
ders—to avoid congregating in groups
that could spread the virus. Appar-
ently, they are “science deniers.”
This natural experiment highlights
the fundamental flaw in ObamaCare’s
business model. It assumed that the
young and healthy would buy costly
health insurance to subsidize older
folks’ health needs. Heck, if they can’t
give up a few nights out with friends
to reduce the spread of a deadly virus
to their parents and grandparents,
why would we think they’d buy un-
necessary insurance?
FREDVANBENNEKOM
Bolton, Mass.Leaderless on the Economy
A
tumultuous week ended Friday with an-
other slide in financial markets, despite
multiple constructive actions by the
Federal Reserve and the prom-
ise of trillions in cash from
Congress. Perhaps investors
sense that their leaders in
Washington are throwing
money at the problem without
explaining why or how.
The Trump Administration does now seem to
have a good team tackling the health threat from
the coronavirus. Vice President Mike Pence is
leading a daily briefing that lays out the steps
the Administration is taking to slow the virus
spread and cope with its medical consequences.
The experts are offering a rationale for their pol-
icies and some guidance for how Americans
should behave. The current shutdown strategy
will need to shift to Phase Two soon to avoid
large-scale economic damage, but at least we
know the why and how.
iii
The same can’t be said for efforts to address
the economic fallout, which is growing by the
hour and may soon be unsustainable. The White
House message so far has been that the govern-
ment will spend huge sums and that will solve
everything. The markets clearly don’t believe it,
and why should they since nobody has explained
what the current problem is and what, specifi-
cally, they want to do about it.
The Fed has been energetic this week in roll-
ing out new authorities to grease the plumbing
of the financial system. A guarantee for commer-
cial paper and money-market funds reprises
tools from the 2008-2009 panic. Regulators had
told us money-funds would never again be a
problem, but apparently not.
The Fed is also back-stopping muni-bond
funds, which have also been showing signs of
stress. Investors had piled into munis to get tax-
free yield as the Fed kept interest rates so low
for so long. The Treasury has used its Exchange
Stabilization Fund to float these guarantees, and
that makes sense.
What’s been missing from all this is any ex-
planation for why this is all needed. Fed Chair-
man Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Ste-
ven Mnuchin have made token media
appearances to proclaim that we should all take
heart from everything they are doing. But they
offer no diagnosis for the economic problem and
their prescriptions aren’t clear.
Contrast this with the Fed and Treasury han-
dling of the financial panic in 2008. Whether or
not you liked TARP, Secretary Hank Paulson and
Chairman Ben Bernanke took ownership of the
proposal and explained it to the public and Con-
gress. The federal balance sheet needed to be ap-
plied to the banking system to prevent runs and
reduce the damage to the larger economy. With
some fits and starts, the policy restored confi-
dence in the banking system.
The economic problem this
time is very different. Federal
and state governments have
shut down most of the Ameri-
can economy in an attempt to
reduce the spread of the coro-
navirus. This is creating a li-
quidity crisis in the real economy as businesses
close and companies watch their revenues
shrink. Government needs to address the liquid-
ity crisis it has created for private business, or
this will soon become a solvency panic as com-
panies default on debt and fail, which will turn
into a banking crisis.
If anyone has bothered to explain this to the
American public, we haven’t heard it. Nor have
we heard how the Treasury’s proposals, slipped
out to the public in a sheet of paper, will address
it. The Senate GOP proposal, hashed out with the
Treasury, was released on Thursday night as a
rough outline with a goal of negotiating a deal
with Democratic leader Chuck Schumer by Fri-
day night. Who knows what will emerge from
that scrum?
The White House and Treasury should have
come up with a plan and then explained what
they want and why. Instead, Mr. Mnuchin has
turned into a backroom negotiator on Capitol
Hill. He looks from our vantage point to be set-
tling for what Congress will accept rather than
what needs to be done to rescue the economy
from what could become a deep recession.
At least Treasury has come around to realiz-
ing it needs a facility to provide liquidity for
companies. But as we write this, Mr. Mnuchin
was still insisting that Treasury have control of
most of the money to be able to ladle out directly
to companies it wants to help.
This is a recipe for picking winners and los-
ers, and thus for bitter political fights and
months of ugly headlines charging favoritism.
The far better answer is for Treasury to use
money from Congress to replenish the Exchange
Stabilization Fund to back the Fed in creating a
facility or special-purpose vehicles under Sec-
tion 13(3) to lend the money to all comers. The
Fed can charge a non-concessionary rate, but the
vehicles should be open to those who think they
need the money, not merely to those Treasury
decides are worthy. The looming liquidity crisis
is simply too great for that kind of bureaucratic,
politicized decision-making.
We’re hoping for the best to emerge from
Congress this weekend like white smoke from
the Vatican. But whatever they decide, someone
will have to do more to explain it to Americans
and the markets than wave from the balcony like
a new pope.Markets aren’t getting a
clear picture of what
Treasury wants and why.
Coronavirus and Public Order
P
ressure groups of all stripes see an op-
portunity in the coronavirus crisis, and
that includes criminal-justice activists.
Even as society locks down, localities across the
country are unlocking jail cells and softening
law enforcement to slow the spread of the dis-
ease. The risk is that public order starts to un-
ravel at a time it is most needed.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said
Wednesday the city would identify for release
“any inmates who need to be brought out be-
cause of either their own health conditions” or
“because the charges were minor.” Los Angeles
County jails have reduced their number of in-
mates by more than 1,000 since last month and
arrests are down sharply. In one county in the
San Francisco Bay area, 247 inmates were
granted early release this week.
A group of progressive local prosecutors put
out a letter calling for “steps to dramatically re-
duce detention and the incarcerated population.”
They also want police departments to adopt “cite
and release policies for offenses which pose no
immediate physical threat.” Philadelphia has al-
ready implemented a delayed-arrest policy for
non-violent offenses including theft and drug
crimes, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Local news outlets report that police depart-
ments from Denver to Southwest Florida are
aiming to cut down on arrests to minimize expo-
sure of officers and jail workers.
Some of these steps may be necessary.
Crowded jails could face ugly virus outbreaks
and they may need to create space to quaran-
tine inmates who get sick. Yet it’s important
that the virus doesn’t simply become a political
license for under-enforcement that progres-
sives couldn’t get into law in normal times. Cy-
ber-criminals are already exploiting the situa-
tion with phishing scams, and public disorder
could spread as lockdowns continue, unemploy-
ment surges and economic pressure builds.
Like the virus, crime can appear suddenly
and grow quickly. We know from the history
of broken-windows policing that proactive en-
forcement suppresses crime, and we know
from the crime spike that followed the Fergu-
son, Mo., controversy of 2014 that relaxed en-
forcement can embolden criminals. Even as law
enforcement takes reasonable steps against
the virus, we hope officials remember that the
nation’s response will suffer if private property
isn’t protected and public order isn’t main-
tained.REVIEW & OUTLOOK
OPINION
Nimby: Less Dense Housing
Preserves Social Distancing
Brandon Fuller’s glowing review of
Conor Dougherty’s “Golden Gates”
(Bookshelf, March 17) is ironic, coming
as it does during the coronavirus pan-
demic. The same people who demand
higher-density housing in San Fran-
cisco are now telling others to “shelter
in place” and to practice “social dis-
tancing.” They want to have it both
ways. As the former president of our
neighborhood association in western
San Francisco, and then as president of
a coalition of 20 neighborhood associa-
tions, I was called a “Nimby” for trying
to maintain single-family residential
neighborhoods, which even today com-
prise a large part of the western areas.
Lower-density neighborhoods, with
ample open spaces, are the best form
of “social distancing.” Jamming people
into overcrowded cities not only de-
stroys the quality of life, but can de-
stroy life itself. Turning every Ameri-
can city into a poor copy of Manhattan
Island isn’t the solution to our housing
problems, and in times like these may
prove to be deadly.
ROGERRITTER
Alexandria, Va.The Extreme State Lockdowns
C
alifornia Governor Gavin Newsom on
Thursday ordered the state’s some 40
million citizens to “shelter in place,”
meaning they shouldn’t leave
their homes except to perform
essential activities such as
picking up food or medicine.
Then on Friday Governor
Andrew Cuomo of New York
ordered all non-essential
businesses to keep their workers home, as did
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont. Governor
Philip Murphy of New Jersey said he would do
so on Saturday. These actions got a federal im-
primatur when Dr. Anthony Fauci of the White
House’s response task force endorsed the de-
gree of shutdown ordered by Governors
Newsom and Cuomo.
The speed at which the government-ordered
clampdown has escalated is remarkable. Last
week most businesses were still operating al-
beit at reduced capacity as people heeded pub-
lic health recommendations to social distance.
Restaurant reservation website OpenTable re-
ported that year-over-year reservations were
down 38% in California, 43% in Connecticut and
49% in New York as of March 12.
Then on Monday these Governors ordered
gyms, restaurants, casinos and bars to close
and banned social gatherings of more than 50
people. It makes sense to limit opportunities
in which people can transmit the coronavirus
to large groups of people. But we wonder if
such massive public lock-
downs as these Governors
have ordered are warranted
by the available data on the vi-
rus’s course.
Mr. Newsom warned that
more than half of California’s
population could be infected within eight weeks,
but that obviously frightening assertion assumes
no social distancing or other precautionary pub-
lic health measures.
We praised Mr. Cuomo in these pages for
pushing back this week against New York City
Mayor Bill de Blasio’s suggestion that New York
City residents would soon be told to “shelter
in place,” which caused panic across the city.
Now the Governor has ordered a statewide
shutdown that is just short of what Mr. de Bla-
sio suggested.
These shutdowns are extraordinary and have
costs, not least the harm to small business own-
ers. Americans may simply decide to ignore the
orders after a time. Absent a more thorough ex-
planation of costs and benefits, we doubt these
extreme measures will be sustainable for long
as the public begins to chafe at the limits and
sees the economic consequences.The California and New
Yorkorderstostayathome are unsustainable.