Newspaper Page Text
4A
OPINION
Sttnes
gainesvilletimes.com
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Shannon Casas Editor in Chief | 770-718-3417 | scasas@gainesvilletimes.com
Submit a letter: letters@gainesvilletimes.com
The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
LETTERS
Vote early next
time to ensure
Voters show up strong to midterms;
quality of candidates still lacking
equal opportunity
I read with disbelief the “Black Georgia voters
hear echoes of voter suppression” article from the
Associated Press in Monday’s paper.
I firmly believe everyone has the right to cast
their ballots in an election. But I can’t see where
the objections and accusations in this article are
true.
Many people stood in long lines to vote and in the
rain. Some, perhaps many, were handicapped in
some way but they waited their turns.
Many others of us voted early to avoid some of
these lines or voted absentee ballots. The people
in Pittman Park could have and should have done
the same.
The voting hours were extended, more
machines were brought in to accommodate them,
a famous activist was allowed to meander through
the crowd, food was prepared, a band played, etc.
And they still complain!
I wonder what the reaction would have been if
similar antics had taken place in predominantly
white districts. There would have been an uproar.
If you want more people to vote, do it fairly. Get
them to the polls early. The polls were open for two
weeks, and the lines were not excessively long.
Educate them so they know how they want to
vote and lines move as quickly as possible. But it is
not fair to wait until the last minute, let everyone
line up, demand special treatment and then accuse
the system of deliberately working against you.
Lynn Miles
Cleveland
Forget party lines to cooperate
and find solutions together
Our nation has spoken. We now have a Dem-
ocratic-controlled House and a Republican-con-
trolled Senate.
Our government also now has a choice. It can
continue with gridlock, partisan divide, and anger
and accusations, or it can decide it is time to put par
tisan politics aside and work together for the com
mon good.
This will require people actually talking to each
other, and, more importantly, listening to each
other. I am old enough to remember when this was
actually done in Washington!
We are not red America or blue America. We are
the United States of America. We all share many
values. Most of us care about honesty, the value of
hard work, caring for the vulnerable, loyalty, fair
ness, family, faith, freedom, integrity and leaving
a healthier, more prosperous America to future
generations.
Using those shared values, surely we can come
together to act for the common good of our beloved
country.
We have many very important issues that need to
be dealt with, and I hope and pray that bipartisan
ship will pave the way for real solutions.
One very important problem that already has
some bipartisan support is climate change. A solu
tion that finds support across the political spectrum
is Carbon Fee and Dividend, whereby a steadily
rising fee is placed on the heat-trapping emissions
released by the burning of fossil fuels to account for
their external damage.
All revenue is returned to American households
in a monthly dividend check. Economic studies
show that about % of Americans come out ahead
economically; it would add 2.8 million new Ameri
can jobs and add $1,375 trillion to the economy over
20 years, and it would decrease greenhouse gases
by 52 percent over that 20 year period. There is
no other single plan that is that effective, and most
economists agree that it is the best way to combat
climate change.
This plan has much that can appeal to both Dem
ocrats and Republicans. Democrats can certainly
support it as the most effective plan to combat
climate change. From a conservative standpoint,
there is much to like about this policy also, since it is
a free market plan and actually grows the economy.
The imperative to act now couldn’t be clearer.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
recently warned that we have little more than a
decade to take the “unprecedented” actions needed
to avoid the worst outcomes of climate change.
This is a problem that can be solved, if our Con
gress decides to put aside partisan politics and to
work together to seek a solution for the common
good.
This is just one proposed solution, but, if both par
ties work together and compromise, surely they
can find a solution that all can live with and that will
make America more prosperous.
Perhaps this could then be a model for solving
many of America’s other pressing problems. It is
time for a new beginning of working together for
the common good.
Vernon Dixon
Hiawassee
To submit letters: Send by email to letters@
gainesvilletimes.com (no attached files) or
use the contact form at gainesvilletimes.
com. Include name, hometown and phone
number; letters never appear anonymously.
Letters are limited to one per writer in a
month’s time on topics of public interest and
may be edited for content and length (limit
of 500 words). Letters may be rejected from
readers with no ties to Northeast Georgia
or that address personal, business or legal
disputes. Letters not the work of the author
listed or with material not properly attributed
will be rejected. Submitted items may be
published in print, electronic or other forms.
Letters and other commentary express the
opinions of the authors and not of The Times.
Whatever other problems
we may have faced with the
2018 midterm elections, voter
apathy was not one of them.
The electorate was on fire.
Americans are painfully
divided, and they often seem
to live on different planets.
But the good news is that
nearly the whole solar system
turned out to vote.
More than 38 million
Americans cast their ballots
early or absentee, a huge
jump from the more than 21
million who voted early or absentee in
the 2014 midterm elections.
You can credit President Trump — or
blame him — depending on your politics.
A poll taken before the election showed
that Trump was on the minds of around
70 percent of those who planned to vote.
Still, while voter participation was
higher than normal, you did hear — in
the days and weeks leading up to the vote
— many of the usual jabs at non-voters.
Even Oprah Winfrey piled on. While
campaigning in Georgia for Democratic
gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams,
Winfrey told an audience: “For anybody
here who has an ancestor who didn’t
have the right to vote and you are choos
ing not to vote wherever you are in this
state, in this country, you are dishonor
ing your family.”
Ouch. That’s a heavy load to dump
on someone. But I’ll allow it. Winfrey is
absolutely right.
All Americans should make an effort
to vote. Our self-preservation depends
on it. I’m a disciple of Alan Simpson,
my friend and graduate school profes
sor. The former Wyoming senator likes
to say: “Politics is a contact
sport. Take part, or get taken
apart.”
But while we’re on the sub
ject of dishonor, let’s save a
little indignation for the folks
who’ve created a system that
is dishonest, corrupt and self-
serving. In this election cycle,
I was especially attuned
to efforts by candidates to
deceive their own voters on
hot-button issues like immi
gration and health care.
What upsets me in every
election is that those who, for whatever
reason, choose not to participate are
held in such disdain by political junkies,
journalists and every other elitist with an
opinion.
The non-participants are no small
tribe. Many analysts agreed that turnout
in this week’s elections could approach
50 percent. That would be the best show
ing in midterms since the 1960s.
But our expectations are so low that
we applaud when only half of registered
voters turn out to vote.
And besides the no-shows, there are
also the non-registered. Generally, only
about half of eligible voters even bother
to register.
I follow Simpson’s law. I take part. As
a journalist, my Election Day is busy.
So, I make sure to vote in the morning.
And yet, as a journalist, I also make it
my business to understand the disgust of
non-voters.
In fact, in recent presidential elec
tions, I have been so disappointed in
the choices that I opted for “none of the
above.”
In 2012, with Barack Obama and Mitt
Romney each pretending to be some
thing they weren’t, I urged readers to
“skip the (top) line” — i.e., vote for every
office and initiative on the ballot, but not
for president. That’s what I did.
In 2016,1 resolved not to be bullied
into choosing between arsenic and
cyanide. On Election Day, I entered the
booth and wrote in a name. It’s liberating
to not to have to defend your vote for the
lesser evil — which, by definition, is still
evil.
This year, evil was back on the bal
lot — along with incompetence. In
recent months, both of the major par
ties showed, at times, that they are not
mature enough to handle unbridled
power.
Democrats hurt themselves with the
disrespectful way they treated Brett
Kavanaugh. And for what? A report
released this past weekend from the Sen
ate Judiciary Committee concluded that
there was “no evidence to substantiate
any of the claims” of sexual miscon
duct leveled against the Supreme Court
nominee.
On immigration, Republicans like
wise behaved atrociously. They went
from misleading voters about whether
there are “sanctuary cities” where ille
gal immigrants live happily ever after
to stoking fear over an “invasion” of
migrants and refugees armed only with
despair and desperation.
Things are bad out there, folks. So,
going forward, let’s cut the non-voters a
break — and worry more about electing
the kind of people who are worth voting
for.
Ruben Navarrette writes for The
Washington Post Writers Group.
RUBEN
NAVARRETTE
ruben@
rubennavarrette.com
Trump loses — again — on DACA
BY SCOn MARTELLE
Los Angeles Times
President Donald Trump just lost
another one in the courts, with a
three-member panel of the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals rejecting the admin
istration’s request to lift a nationwide
injunction against his rescinding the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
program.
Get ready for a tweetstorm.
The decision was essentially an
incremental step in the legal fight over
the Obama-era DACA program, which
grants protections and work permits
to some 700,000 people living here
illegally after having arrived as chil
dren. Obama crafted the policy after
Congress failed to pass the Dream Act,
which would have offered a reprieve
from deportation and a path to citizen
ship for people who have been raised
and educated as Americans, and whose
arrival here was no fault of their own.
Granting relief to the so-called
Dreamers (after the failed Dream
Act, which passed the House in 2010
but received only 55 of the 60 Senate
votes necessary to bring it to the floor)
is widely popular with voters. But the
congressional conservatives — includ
ing some Democrats — have been able
to bottle it up. DACA status does not
grant a path to citizenship, but it grants
a renewable two-year deferral from
deportation and a work permit.
Of course, such a good idea can’t
last under Trump, who in September
2017 ordered the program rescinded,
arguing a president does not have the
authority under immigration laws to
do what Obama had done. It’s an odd
argument, a sitting president asking
the courts to rule that he has less power
than his predecessor had exercised, but
that’s how Trump framed it.
I suspect his decision had more to do
with unrolling an Obama program than
with any thought-out analysis of the lim
its of executive power.
But Trump also said he felt for the
Dreamers’ predicament and wanted to
do something good for them, and told
Congress to fix the problem he created
by ending the deferrals. Congress, of
course, did not rise to the challenge,
though in truth Trump sabotaged
chances of advancing a bill by linking it
to funding for his silly wall.
DACA recipients and others affected
by the rescission sued and won a nation
wide injunction after lower courts ruled
that they were likely to succeed in their
challenge that rescinding DACA was
an arbitrary and capricious act by the
administration.
So here we are, the injunction still in
place, the legal challenge proceeding,
and the DACA recipients still in limbo.
Which brings up an idea for the
incoming Democratic majority in the
House.
Call the president’s bluff and as soon
as you convene, pass a humane and
pragmatic bill granting legal status and
a path to citizenship for Dreamers who
meet the general requirements, includ
ing a record clean of serious crimes.
And then work with Trump to get it
through the Senate.
It may not fly, but starting off the
session by passing a popular measure
might signal that the political class can
actually get something done that is in
the nation’s interest, rather than sitting
around grinding axes.
She fumes
EDITORIAL BOARD
Founded Jan. 26,1947
345 Green St., Gainesville, GA 30501
gainesvilletimes.com
General Manager
Norman Baggs
Editor in Chief
Shannon Casas
Community member
Brent Hoffman