The Wall Street Journal - 06.03.2020

A14| Friday, March 6, 2020 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Independent Private Medicine Is a Vital Plus

Your editorial “Private Medicine to

the Rescue” (March 2) is a reminder

that Americans turn to government

when their health or physical security

is at risk, but government generally

turns to private actors to buttress its

response to a crisis. A core U.S.

strength is the breadth of its private

medical resources. The Food and Drug

Administration as well as the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention

are tapping into America’s core

strength to help test for the coronavi-

rus and to develop a vaccine and ther-

apeutics. The rest of the world piggy-

backs on medical developments in the

U.S., typically at bargain prices.

The desire to put all of America’s

health-system eggs in one Medicare-

for-All basket is hard to fathom. Is

there evidence in favor of a govern-

ment-run monopoly that delivers bet-

ter, more innovative and more cost-ef-

fective solutions in medical treatment

or care or anything else? The eco-

nomic rationale for Medicare for All is

to eliminate profit leakage in the pri-

vate sector that makes medical care

and insurance expensive.

The U.S. military won World War II,

but it was the engine of U.S. industrial

production that made the successful

government response possible. The

left’s current shove for state expan-

sion and private-sector shrinkage or

elimination in the health sector and

other sectors will dampen incentives

for individual initiative, creativity,

risk-taking and investment. Think of it

as a sort of a zombie apocalypse in

which complacent state actors face no

competitive pressure and live by suck-

ing blood out of a dwindling number

of private actors. The coronavirus is

likely to be less of a threat to our

long-term health.

BENPOWELL

Chesapeake, Va.

I disagree with your editorial state-

ment that “the Bernie Sanders cam-

paign is saying the virus shows how

Medicare for All would better serve

the country. The opposite is true.”

The truth is that with universal

health care, there is no financial bar-

rier to seeking care, thus helping to

stop a pandemic sooner.

You then say: “By putting govern-

ment in charge of every health care

decision, Medicare for All would

eliminate the adaptability of private

innovation.” But Medicare for All is

simply a single-payer system. There

is no change at the provider end of

the system. Government will still

fund much medical research. Private

providers will bill a single payer, not

myriad for-profit insurance compa-

nies. Of course, the final model of a

new system will be the result of

much discussion and negotiation, but

the result must ensure high-quality

care for everyone, not only those

who can afford it.

DONALDWOLOCHOW,M.D.

San Diego

The scope and depth of academic

and private medical resources in the

U.S. is indeed a great advantage in

responding to unanticipated public-

health developments. In the toxic po-

litical environment in the U.S. every

coronavirus diagnosis is seized for

political advantage and partisan jour-

nalistic exploitation. One new case in

the U.S. is taken as proof that Ameri-

can medicine or the current adminis-

tration is guilty of incompetence or

worse. But no one suggests that the

vast growth in cases around the

world is evidence of any gaps in

other medical systems. We should

praise, protect and preserve the pri-

vate health care that can still come to

the rescue.

RICHARDE.RALSTON

Executive Director

Americans for Free Choice

in Medicine

Newport Beach, Calif.

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.

“I’m having second thoughts

about home schooling.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Mexico Isn’t Heading Toward One-Man Rule

As recently as 2018, some pun-

dits in the international media said

that if President Andrés Manuel

López Obrador (AMLO) were

elected, Mexico would descend into

chaos. However, 15 months into

AMLO’s presidency, foreign direct

investment has increased by 4.2%

and the country reported a pri-

mary budget surplus of 1.1%. Fur-

ther, the minimum wage was dou-

bled on the northern border and

increased by 36% everywhere else,

with an annual inflation rate under

3%. The tale of the irresponsible

populist was proved wrong. Now,

some international commentators

are questioning AMLO’s democratic

credentials.

Take “Mexico Slides Toward One-

Man Rule” (Americas, Feb. 24) by

Mary Anastasia O’Grady, in which

she claims that Mexico is sliding to-

ward one-man rule. Why? Not be-

cause Mexico’s free and fair elec-

tions are threatened nor because its

citizens are being disenfranchised.

No: Mexico is “sliding toward one-

man rule” because it organized a

government lottery, with the pro-

ceeds to go to the nation’s hospi-

tals, and invited the private sector

to participate.

The author then claims “misuse”

of our Financial Intelligence Unit

(FIU). The evidence does not bear

her out: After analyzing five cases,

the Supreme Court ruled that freez-

ing assets is indeed constitutional.

As the chief of the unit, Santiago

Nieto, told Ms. O’Grady, he is not

prohibited from speaking about in-

vestigations.

President López Obrador won a

landslide victory in Mexico’s last

presidential election, a free and fair

exercise that was itself a victory for

democracy. He promised to deal a

major blow to the established politi-

cal system and he has kept his

promise. Mexico is not “sliding to-

ward one-man rule.” On the con-

trary, for the first time in modern

history, AMLO is heading a govern-

ment of the people, by the people

and for the people. The transforma-

tion mandated by Mexico’s citizens

will go on.

ROBERTOVELASCOÁLVAREZ

Director-General of Public Affairs

Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mexico City

Pepper ...

And Salt

Democrats Apply a Double

Standard to Gag Employers

Concerning your editorial “Cali-

fornia’s Janus Jiu Jitsu” (Feb. 25):

Apparently the same Democratic

politicians who decry the Trump ad-

ministration’s family planning “gag

rule” on medical providers, prohib-

iting abortion support as a birth-

control method, were perfectly con-

tent to legally gag a public

employer who might discourage an

employee from union membership

or from paying union dues as the

law allows.

Coercion is coercion no matter

how you slice it, and respecting the

First Amendment benefits everyone.

DAVIDNEWFIELD

Studio City, Calif.

GDP Growth, Per Capita

Growth and Immigration

Regarding James K. Glassman’s

“Where’s That 3% Growth?” (op-ed,

Feb. 27): The usual plutocratic focus

on total GDP ignores the fact that per

capita GDP is a better, though hardly

perfect, measure of the economic

quality of life for most citizens.

Where does this myth that Presi-

dent Trump’s immigration policies

have been “restrictive” come from?

The Trump administration is still ad-

mitting about one million persons a

year. That is greatly in conflict with

what has been recommended for de-

cades. In 1972 the Rockefeller Com-

mission recommended immigration

not exceed 400,00 a year. In 1994

Sen. Harry Reid drafted unsuccessful

legislation to get it cut to 325,000.

In 1995 Rep. Barbara Jordan’s U.S.

Commission on Immigration Reform

recommended not more than

550,000 a year. In 1996 President Bill

Clinton’s Council on Sustainable De-

velopment recommended we move

toward U.S. population stabiliza-

tion—that would require immigra-

tion levels of less than 300,000 a

year. Many environment-focused

NGOs have long supported the same.

The reputable Harvard-Harris polling

organization found in 2018 that 72%

of voters wanted less than one mil-

lion a year, and 54% less than

500,000 a year.

A continuously growing human

population is tremendously environ-

mentally destructive.

EM.PROF.STUARTH.HURLBERT

San Diego State University

Del Mar, Calif.

Big Labor’s Big Crooks

A

nother day, another United Auto Work-
ers official charged with stealing from
his union. On Thursday federal prosecu-
tors accused former UAW pres-
ident Gary Jones of participat-
ing in a conspiracy to embezzle
more than $1 million in dues
money, among other alleged
crimes. The details would
make Jimmy Hoffa blush.
The feds say that for years Mr. Jones and
“other senior UAW officials” filed fraudulent ex-
pense reports seeking union reimbursement for
“leadership and training conferences.” But in-
stead of legitimate union purposes, hundreds
of thousands of dollars went to “lavish enter-
tainment and personal spending for the con-
spirators,” prosecutors claim. Mr. Jones alleg-
edly spent $13,000 on cigars, and the feds say
union money also paid for golf outings, high-
end booze, spaservices, amusement-park tick-
ets, luxury condominiums and villas, and meals
at pricey restaurants. Mr. Jones declined to
comment through his lawyer.
The feds have spent years investigating cor-
ruption at the UAW, which represents some
400,000 active members from more than 600
locals nationwide. Mr. Jones is the highest-
ranking former official charged to date, but 13
others have pleaded guilty in connection with
the probe, including two former UAW vice pres-
idents and other senior officials.
The UAW scandal is the latest, but such cor-
rupt labor practices are widespread. The Labor
Department audits unions, and in 2016 nearly
one in five such inspections led to a criminal
case. Imagine if 20% of all investigations of
business ended up with a criminal charge. Dem-
ocrats would be going wild with hearings about
the moral crisis of capitalism.

Since Jan. 1, 2019, at least 60 labor officials

and staffers have been convicted or pleaded

guilty for union-related crimes, according to

Department of Labor data.

With few exceptions, their vic-

tims were hard-working, dues-

paying union members.

Last month a jury found

John Romero guilty of stealing

nearly $800,000 from the

health plan fund of the United Industrial Ser-

vices Workers of America, where he was presi-

dent. Union money helped pay off the loan on

a Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 for Mr. Romero’s

son, among other items.

Audonus Duplessis, the former president of

the union representing employees of the Smith-

sonian Institution and the Kennedy Center,

pleaded guilty last fall to using union cash to

pay for an online dating service, a Smith & Wes-

son handgun, and Armani clothes.

Keith Ludlum, also a former union president,

pleaded guilty in January to embezzling more

than $200,000 from United Food and Commer-

cial Workers International Union Local 1208.

Prosecutors said some of the money went to-

ward trips to SeaWorld, a resort in the Domini-

can Republic and a shopping spree at Michael

Kors. The list goes on.

Keep this shameful record in mind when

Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden say they want

Congress to repeal right-to-work laws in 27

states. They claim they want to protect work-

ers. But both candidates would lock workers

into union membership, and coerced dues pay-

ments, even when their labor bosses are crooks

and thieves. Workers should have the ability

to look after their own interests and opt out of

paying dues, since union leaders are too often

in it for themselves.

A former UAW boss is

charged with stealing $

million in worker dues.

Free Speech for Lawyers

T

he Supreme Court on Friday will enter-
tain a petition to extend the logic of its
2018 Janusdecision that struck down
compulsory public union fees
to state bar associations. This
subject is ripe for High Court
review, but Justices should
wait for a stronger case that is
coming soon.
Attorney Arnold Fleck is
challenging North Dakota’s mandate that lawyers
join and pay dues to the state bar association.
Thirty-two or so states have similar laws, and sev-
eral are now being litigated. Some conservatives
are urging the Court to hear theFleckcase, but it
is not an ideal vehicle for extendingJanus.
Mr. Fleck filed his lawsuit in 2015, so his argu-
ments draw more on the Court’s pre-Janusdeci-
sions that didn’t directly address whether states
could compel non-union workers to subsidize
union advocacy. Importantly,Janusheld that
government union positions in collective bar-
gaining are inherently political because they im-
plicate matters of public interest.
The same logic applies to bar association
dues that support regulation of the legal profes-
sion. States can mandate bar-association mem-
bership because the Court inLathrop(1961) mis-
takenly reasoned that First Amendment
association rights were not at stake because at-
torneys do not have to attend meetings or vote
in elections.
InKeller(1990), the Court applied the Court’s
faultyAboodreasoning—whichJanusover-
turned—by declaring that attorneys may not be
compelled to subsidize a bar association’s politi-
cal lobbying but can still be forced to support its
legal activities. Bar associations commonly use
attorney dues to take positions on issues such
as tort and judicial campaign reform.
Mr. Fleck quibbles that North Dakota’s bar
does not “affirmatively” require attorney con-
sent to subsidize its political lobbying. According
to his petition for the Court to hear the case, the

bar association directs attorneys to pay $380 and

“in small print” at the bottom of a form says they

“may deduct $1.45” if they don’t wish to support

its political advocacy.

Attorneys, he says, should

instead be charged $378.

and have to add the $1.45 if

they wish to support the bar’s

politics. But he’s missing

Janus’s fundamental point.

Even bar legal advocacy implicates matters of

public concern and therefore impinges on attor-

ney speech rights. Mr. Fleck shouldn’t be com-

pelled to join the bar or pay it a penny.

A more straightforward challenge to manda-

tory bar fees is percolating in the Seventh Circuit

Court of Appeals, where Wisconsin attorneys

Adam Jarchow and Michael Dean are seeking to

overturn the Court’sKellerandLathropprece-

dents inJarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin.

The two have compiled a long list of political

expenses that have been funded by attorney bar

dues including advocacy for juvenile justice re-

form, abortion coverage for exchange health

plans, restoring felon voting rights and public

financing of state Supreme Court campaigns.

The Wisconsin bar has also opposed unemploy-

ment insurance fraud reforms, the death penalty

and some state immigration laws.

States can regulate the legal profession with-

out infringing on attorney First Amendment

rights, they argue, and 18 states have done so.

The Wisconsin case would provide a clean vehi-

cle for the Supreme Court to address the consti-

tutionality of bar-association dues without get-

ting tripped up byFleck’s arcane argument over

dues waivers.

It’s important that the Court applies its con-

stitutional reasoning inJanusto all circum-

stances in which governments compel individu-

als to join organizations and support political

speech. The Court would do better to hold off on

Fleckfor now and wait for the stronger factual

and legal evidence from Wisconsin.

The Supreme Court may

soon hear challenges to

bar-association dues.

Bloomberg’s Contribution

M

ichael Bloomberg is being widely
mocked for spending more than $
million to run for President and win-
ning...American Samoa. We
think he deserves credit for
trying when he could have sat
on the sidelines and carped
about how the Democrats
were blowing their opportu-
nity to defeat Donald Trump
with a socialist nominee.
The former New York mayor’s chances were
always low given the leftward march of the
Democratic Party, as Mr. Bloomberg himself of-
ten noted before he chose to run. He’s a billion-
aire capitalist in a party that is increasingly de-
tached from the private economy. He was a
crime-fighting mayor in a party that thinks fo-
cusing police resources on high-crime neigh-
borhoods is racist. He admitted he had made
sexist remarks in the past, and Elizabeth War-
ren used them to declare him politically unac-
ceptable by today’s standards.
In the end his past sins against identity poli-
tics were too much to overcome no matter how
much he apologized. Joe Biden could survive a
similar onslaught because he was better known
and had been Barack Obama’s Vice President.
Mr. Bloomberg had no such political insulation
beyond his ad spending, and that couldn’t pro-
tect him in debates.
Mr. Bloomberg nonetheless chose to enter the
fray, and his strategy might have worked if Mr.
Biden hadn’t staged a miraculous recovery.

Someone had to take on Bernie Sanders when the

others would not. Mr. Bloomberg showed it was

possible to do it, and though the former mayor

didn’t succeed, Mr. Biden has

picked up some of Mr.

Bloomberg’s theme of practical

progressivism and getting

things done as opposed to pro-

moting a revolution.

The billionaire’s biggest

contribution may be in exposing in spectacular

fashion the myth that money can buy the Presi-

dency. No candidate ever spent more money

more quickly, and he was able to make himself

a contender. But the money and ads were no

substitute for a message that better motivated

followers and resonated with voters.

He and Tom Steyer, the other billionaire can-

didate, have done more to show the folly and

hypocrisy of campaign-finance regulation than

anything we could ever write. They are walking

refutations of entire journalistic careers de-

voted to the Koch brothers. The lesson may con-

tinue if Mr. Bloomberg now deploys his billions

toward an independent expenditure campaign

to support Mr. Biden and defeat Mr. Trump. His

Bloomberg News operation is already some-

thing of a de facto campaign contribution for

Democrats.

All of which is fine with us. That’s democ-

racy. You pays your money and you takes your

chances, as they say. And as Donald Trump likes

to tweet about his failed competitors, running

for President is harder than it looks.

His candidacy offers

some valuable lessons

in presidential politics.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OPINION