The Wall Street Journal - 04.03.2020

A16| Wednesday, March 4, 2020 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Capitalism, Socialism and Haley’s Comment

While Nikki Haley effectively advo-

cates capitalism, she unfortunately

only very briefly touches on the

cause for our (or my generation’s, at

least) embrace of socialism—educa-

tion (“This Is No Time to Go Wobbly

on Capitalism,” op-ed, Feb. 27). I re-

ceived both public and private educa-

tions, and while they had their differ-

ences, they shared one major

similarity; never, in all my years in

the American education system, did I

ever have a history or social-studies

teacher who provided a conservative

context without derision, let alone

detached bias. Free markets were dis-

cussed, but only as tools preferred by

the most avaricious in our society.

In my formal learning, Ronald

Reagan was a president responsible

for inequality, not for providing the

strong, steady hand that reversed

the creep of communism. I was

never assigned a syllabus that con-

tained required reading from Milton

Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas

Sowell or any other conservative

thinker. Had my dad or grandfather

not introduced me to their ideas, I

would never have had the curiosity

to seek out heterodox views. But

that these views ever became hetero-

dox in the first place should cause us

great concern.

JOHNNYPARISEAU

Los Angeles

As U.S. ambassador to the U.N.,

Gov. Haley saw firsthand the destruc-

tive work of socialism in many coun-

tries around the world. Her piece re-

minds me of similar observations by

the great F.A. Hayek in his book,

“The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of So-

cialism.” Hayek wrote: “After seventy

years of experience with socialism”

in Eastern Europe and the Third

World, intellectuals in the West “re-

main content to brush aside what

lessons might lie in economics, un-

willing to wonder...whysocialism.

.. never seems to work out as its in-
tellectual leaders intended.” Hayek
contended that “socialism is based on
demonstrably false premises...de-
spite being inspired by good inten-
tions.” And, he concluded, “socialism
cannot possibly do what it promises.”
Whether one sees socialism
through the lens of economics and
philosophy (Hayek) or that of painful
observation of human suffering (Ha-
ley), it should be clear to all that it is
a failed model that has no place in
the U.S., or any other country, for
that matter.
DOUGWATERS
West Chester, Ohio

The greatest conundrum of the

Trump presidency is that our “Re-

publican” congressmen and sena-

tors—who ought to by common sense

alone be doing everything they can

to restrain and control the power of

the presidency, thereby preserving

the checks and balances of the repub-

lic—have instead engaged in every

kind of political sabotage they can

think up to empower the executive

branch to the maximum extent possi-

ble.

The unprecedented powers of im-

munity they have progressively

granted the presidency will without

any doubt eventually fall into the

hands of an emerging new left, and

the potential for abuse legislated into

being over the past few years is

frightening.

Once the left inherits these weap-

ons, Republicans may well find that,

in a supreme irony, the road they

paved leads straight into the self-

same socialist autocracy Ms. Haley

warns us about.

LEE VANLAER

Sparkill, N.Y.

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.

“Oh great! A superficial

media-driven culture.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Pepper ...

And Salt

More Coding Instruction Would Be Helpful

“Should All Children Learn to

Code by the End of High School?”

(Journal Report, Feb. 24) is a great

question, but wildly premature.

Right now, only 45% of high schools

across the country offer computer

science as an option, let alone a re-

quirement. We’re not even keeping

up with demand from students and

parents for these classes.

There’s a crucial reason to

broaden access to computer science:

It isn’t just a huge part of our econ-

omy, it’s an inescapable part of our

civic life. From campaigning to me-

dia coverage to voting, technology is

deeply intertwined with democracy.

If we’re going to keep a government

of the people and by the people, we

need a lot more tech savvy among

the people. Our students may be dig-

ital natives, but we have to educate

them to be digital citizens. We need

a generation ready to shape technol-

ogy—and reckon with all the ways

it’s shaping us.

STEFANIESANFORD

The College Board

Washington

As an enterprise tech CEO, I

agree with Larry Cuban of Stanford

that students shouldn’t be required

to learn coding. Tech CEOs are mak-

ing a mistake by pushing coding so

hard, as it suggests that only a cer-

tain kind of student has a future in

tech. Of course, we need great engi-

neers, and I would argue we must

all be tech aware—even strive for

fluency. But there are many ways to

be a productive member of the tech

community— as salespeople, de-

signers, marketers, trainers, consul-

tants and success managers—that

don’t require one to be a coder. The

tech community requires diverse

talent to serve an increasingly di-

verse customer base. A laser focus

on coders only makes that talent

harder to attract.

MARKMADER

President and CEO, Smartsheet Inc.

Bellevue, Wash.

I found Mr. Cuban’s piece at best

out of touch with what today’s stu-

dents need, and at worse the sort of

elitist thinking that’s resulted in

public schools prioritizing the “col-

lege bound” path.

I taught in the public-school sys-

tem for five years and have worked

in the world of education for 10. I

think you’d be hard pressed to find a

teacher working outside of the elite

prep-school system who didn’t view

his or her No. 1 job as trying to pre-

pare their students for employment.

Statements like this precisely illus-

trate the issue many teachers have

with career academics being the

ones attempting to shape our educa-

tion policies. Educational consul-

tants, often with doctorates and

shiny credentials, would come and

enlighten us during professional de-

velopment with a whole host of

ideas that were thought up in a li-

brary, boardroom or think tank.

None of them had any recent experi-

ence in the classroom. It’s easy to

talk about cultivated humanity when

you’re not dealing with the reality of

districts that can’t afford supplies or

students who regularly go to bed

hungry. You know what those stu-

dents need more than a cultivated

civic responsibility? “The knowledge

and skills necessary to gain success-

ful entry to the labor force.”

PATBROTHWELL

Asheville, N.C.

The Federal Reserve Should

Just Stick to Its Mandates

“A central bank’s primary job is

to offset major disturbances of the

economy,” says Kevin Warsh in “The

Fed Can’t Wait to Respond to the

Coronavirus” (op-ed, Feb. 27). In one

sentence Mr. Warsh illuminates how

far the Federal Reserve has wan-

dered away from its dual mandates

of price stability and full employ-

ment, greenlighting any policy ac-

tion it deems appropriate.

The Alan Greenspan era ushered

in a more expansive Fed that con-

tinues today. Based on outcomes of

its economic tinkering over the past

30 years, it has failed. The coronavi-

rus is a health issue, and while it

has a potentially broad economic

impact, it will not abate with inter-

est-rate cuts. Look at the European

central banks to see the failure of

low or negative rates to stimulate

economic activity or offset major

disturbances.

The markets will correct without

lower interest rates that do nothing

other than confirm the “Fed put,”

where the Fed rides to the rescue of

the market with lower interest rates

when things go bad, ingraining

moral hazards into the market

psyche. The Milton Friedman quote

cited on monetary policy uses the

word “can,” not “should.” The Fed-

eral Reserve’s primary job is to stick

to its mandates.

PETERLOFTUS

Madison, Conn.

The Coronavirus ‘Stimulus’

T

he Federal Reserve has become the de-
fault doctor for whatever ails the U.S.
economy, and on Tuesday the financial
physician applied what it
hopes will be monetary balm
for the economic damage from
the coronavirus. Financial
markets were underwhelmed
after the big rally on Monday,
which may speak to the limited
effect that lower interest rates can have on the
supply shock of a pandemic.
The unanimous decision by the Federal Open
Market Committee to cut the fed funds rate by
50 basis points to 1%-1.25% was at least bold.
Perhaps more significant, the Fed also cut the
rate it pays on excess reserves that banks park
at the central bank by 50 basis points to 1.1%.
This gives banks more of an incentive to put re-
serves to work in the real economy.
The theory behind the rate cut appears to be
that aggressive action is the best way to send a
strong message of economic insurance. Perhaps
this will help consumers—whose spending has
kept the economy growing despite weak busi-
ness investment—maintain confidence in the ex-
pansion. Other central banks are also likely to
follow the Fed’s lead.
Will this make much of an economic differ-
ence? Count us skeptical. Financial conditions
weren’t tight even with a flight to the safety of
U.S. Treasurys. The fall in the 10-year note to a
historic low of 1% and the recent correction in
stocks reflect the expectations of slower growth
and thus lower corporate earnings.
But this relates mainly to the damage to
global supply chains and expected limits on
travel and commerce as the world tries to miti-
gate the rates of infection. Nobody is going to
take that flight to Tokyo because the Fed is sud-
denly paying less on excess reserves.
The other concern is whether the Fed will
have the nerve to raise rates again if the pan-
demic damage turns out to be less than feared.
That won’t be easy in an election year, and No-

vember is still eight months away. President

Trump on Tuesday tweeted a demand that the

Fed do more even after its 50-point cut.

The Fed’s great mistake af-

ter 9/11 was that it kept rates

at or near 1% for far too long

even after the 2003 tax cut had

the economy humming. The

seeds of the housing boom and

bust were sown. The housing

market has begun to take off again in recent

months, and in the near term that will help cush-

ion the economy during the coronavirus panic.

The trick will be not letting it get carried away

into another national price spiral.

This being an election year, the political class

is also starting to demand more fiscal “stimu-

lus.” Mr. Trump tweeted approval for a payroll-

tax cut for workers, while Elizabeth Warren bid

higher, as she always does, for a $400 billion

spending bill. It’s only a matter of time before

Bernie Sanders raises her, and we start hearing

about the fabled “Keynesian multiplier” when

$1 in new spending yields $1.70 in economic ben-

efit. If Mr. Trump falls for that, he’d be embrac-

ing Joe Bidenomics.

We tried the temporary payroll-tax cut idea

in the slow growth Obama era, reducing the

worker portion of the levy to 4.2% from 6.2% of

salary. It took effect in January 2011, but the un-

employment rate stayed above 9% for most of

the rest of that year.

Temporary tax cuts put more money in peo-

ples’ pockets and can give a short-term lift to the

GDP statistics. But the growth effect quickly van-

ishes because it doesn’t permanently change the

incentive to save and invest. Workers under-

stand their financial circumstances haven’t fun-

damentally changed and act accordingly.

The main redeeming quality of a payroll-tax

cut is that it isn’t new spending and might offer

a refuge for politicians who feel they need to “do

something” in an election year. But unless it is

permanent, it won’t be a stimulus for the econ-

omy—and probably not for the election.

The markets aren’t

impressed by the Fed

or a payroll-tax cut.

Israel’s Conservative Consensus

A

nationalist leader runs against liberal
elites and a rigged system. He’s opposed
by most of the security establishment,
called a threat to democracy,
and bombarded with legal in-
vestigations and prosecutions.
Yet the efforts to use the legal
system to oust him fail and
even cause his support with
voters to tick upward.
That could apply to President Trump, but it
also reflects the political saga of Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who on Monday
outperformed expectations at the ballot box
even as his corruption trial looms. Sixty-one
seats in the Knesset are required for a majority
government, and Mr. Netanyahu’s center-right
coalition is expected to secure 58 to the opposi-
tion’s 55 in the latest Haaretz tally.
That’s a notable improvement on the 55 seats
Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition won last time, but it
may not be enough to break the political stale-
mate that has led to three Israeli elections in a
year. If the numbers hold, the Prime Minister
still must coax at least three parliamentarians
from opposing parties to his side.
Mr. Netanyahu’s comfortable majority fell
apart last May when a secular nationalist party
headed by Avigdor Lieberman broke with Mr.
Netanyahu over his accommodation of military
exemptions for Haredi Jews. The second election
in September saw Mr. Netanyahu’s bloc shrink,
but the opposing Blue and White coalition also
couldn’t form a government.
Mr. Netanyahu is in a stronger position after
his showing in the third election and few Israelis

have the appetite for a fourth. Yet Mr. Lieber-

man, who will likely control seven seats, has not

been hurt politically by holding out and may not

feel pressure to rejoin the cen-

ter-right bloc.

Meanwhile, Mr. Netan-

yahu’s trial is scheduled to be-

gin March 17 and his oppo-

nents may want to delay the

formation of a new govern-

ment in hopes the proceedings damage him. The

Prime Minister would only need to step down if

he is convicted, and even that would be compli-

cated by appeals.

One notable outcome is that the Arab Joint

List appears to have won 16 seats—its most ever.

This follows the increasing prominence of Arab

parties in coalition negotiations after the Sep-

tember election. Contrary to Israel’s antagonists

on the left, the country’s ethnic minority is help-

ing to shape political outcomes.

That brings us to Bernie Sanders and his re-

cent claim that Mr. Netanyahu is a “reactionary

racist.” Israelis follow American politics, and we

wouldn’t be surprised if the prospect of an anti-

Israel President made some voters less likely to

abandon the tried and tested Mr. Netanyahu.

The bottom line is that there is a consensus

in Israeli society around strong security policies.

Mr. Lieberman is if anything to Mr. Netanyahu’s

right, the Labor left has been reduced to a rump,

and even a centrist coalition backed by military

leaders can’t oust Mr. Netanyahu. Israelis aren’t

the bigots of Mr. Sanders’s smear, but they have

learned hard lessons from decades of terrorism

and an unstable Middle East.

Netanyahu beats

expectations in the

country’s third election.

Not AboutRoev.Wade

T

he Supreme Court on Wednesday will
hear its first abortion-related case dur-
ing the Trump Presidency. Cue the con-
sternation. No, the Court’s
conservatives aren’t about to
overturn Roe v. Wade. But
they do have an opportunity
to return to first judicial prin-
ciples and correct the Court’s
mistake of four years ago.
Abortion providers inJune Medical Ser-
vices v. Russoare challenging a 2014 Louisi-
ana law that requires them to obtain admit-
ting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.
The law was intended to root out fly-by-night
abortion shops and applies the same state li-
censing standards to abortion providers as to
surgical ambulatory centers.
After Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016, a 5-
majority of the four liberals and Justice Anthony
Kennedy struck down a similar Texas law inHel-
lerstedt.The majority said the safety benefits
didn’t justify the potential increased burden on
women seeking an abortion. Justice Samuel Al-
ito wrote a dissent joined by John Roberts and
Clarence Thomas, and now the Court has two
new Justices and a full bench.
The Justices agreed to hear the challenge to
Louisiana’s law and, importantly, they also
chose to consider whether abortion providers
have legal standing to sue on behalf of women
seeking abortions. Third-party standing is a ju-
dicial innovation advanced by a 1976 plurality
inSingletonin the Burger Court era. This has
let providers challenge sundry abortion regula-
tions without having to show injury to a spe-
cific woman. In an amicus brief, the state of

Texas notes that providers have challenged

laws requiring sterilized instruments, a work-

ing toilet and caps on ultrasound fees.

As the state of Louisiana ar-

gues, the law offers no impedi-

ments to women vindicating

their abortion rights in court

if they believe they have been

injured by the law. Many law

firms represent low-income

women pro bono. Yet women aren’t the plain-

tiffs in this case.

Abortion providers are suing instead to avoid

increased compliance burdens. Four of the six

doctors employed by clinics challenging the

Louisiana law had obtained hospital admitting

privileges in the past. Five did not have privi-

leges at the time the law was passed. Three later

didn’t make a good-faith effort to do so, another

retired, and one had no medical-school training

to perform abortions. After examining this fac-

tual record, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

upheld the Louisiana law.

Liberals are warning about aRoeslippery

slope if the Court overturnsSingletonorHeller-

stedt. But a six Justice majority inKowalski

(2004) rejected third-party standing for attor-

neys seeking to vindicate the legal rights of hy-

pothetical future clients. The same principle

should apply to abortion providers.

As Justice Thomas noted in hisHellerstedt

dissent, “When the wrong party litigates a case,

we end up resolving disputes that make for bad

law.” Dismissing the challenge to the Louisiana

law would send a clear message to lower courts

and liberals who are trying to extend third-

party standing to other controversies.

The big issue in a

Louisiana abortion

case is legal standing.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OPINION