4D Sunday, December 16, 2018
The Times, Gainesville, Georgia | gainesvilletimes.com
VIEWPOINT
White House brawl is theater of the absurd
The media is still buzzing
about this week’s televised
17-minute confrontation
between President Trump
and Democratic leaders
over a possible shutdown if
Congress doesn’t approve
additional funding for a
wall on the U.S.-Mexico
border.
Yet, people are talking
about the wrong thing.
The narrative is that
soon-to-be House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and Senate
Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer stood up to Presi
dent Trump.
But, as absurd as it is, the
real story is how the stand
off was over something that
usually unites the parties:
border security.
After leaving the White
House, Pelosi was asked
by reporters why she kept
insisting that the discussion
be held behind closed doors
and not “in the public view.”
She claimed that it was to
protect Trump from further
embarrassment because
he didn’t know what he was
talking about. The reporters
seemed to buy it.
But the actual reason that
Pelosi didn’t want to have
that discussion out in the
open was probably because
she didn’t want to publicly
oppose the border wall
RUBEN NAVARRETTE
ruben@rubennavarrette.com
and set up Democrats for
accusations of being soft on
illegal immigration. She also
didn’t want to expose the
fissure between Democrats
who oppose the wall and
those who would go along
with it because they fear a
backlash from voters.
Meanwhile, Schumer
seemed pleased that
he goaded Trump into
claiming the mantle of
border-protector-in-chief.
To political observers, it
looked like Schumer scored
a tactical win by getting
Trump on tape threatening
a shutdown.
But, in truth, Schumer’s
stunt was a hollow vic
tory. The refugee caravan
changed the equation, turn
ing many Americans against
a more lenient approach to
border enforcement.
Last month, with the cara
van story front and center,
a Gallup poll found that the
number of Americans who
think immigration is the top
problem facing the United
States jumped to 21 percent
from 13 percent the previ
ous month.
Schumer told Trump that
“experts say you can do
border security without a
wall.” But, of course, these
are the same experts who
got us to this point by toler
ating illegal immigration.
Besides, Pelosi and
Schumer could afford to
be smug as they exited the
White House. Pelosi is from
California, Schumer from
New York. Those are blue
states. They could vote “no”
on a border wall, and not
pay a price. That’s not the
case with centrist Blue Dog
Democrats, who might con
clude the safer course of
action is to simply vote for
Trump’s wall.
Welcome to the politics
of immigration, where
Democrats are just as likely
as Republicans to take a
hardline on the border.
The debate is a headache
for both parties. Republi
cans have to make peace
between nativists who want
fewer immigrants and busi
ness, which wants more;
Democrats have to referee
a tug-of-war between Lati
nos who are fine with more
MIKE STEWART I Associated Press
A McDonald’s Quarter Pounder, left, and Double Quarter Pound burger is shown with fresh
beef.
BEEF
■ Continued from 1D
To protect against disease, McDonald’s
encourages “progressive farming practices,”
including farm hygiene and animal hus
bandry and vaccination programs.
The policy will apply to beef producers in
the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, France, Ger
many, Ireland, Poland, Brazil, Canada and the
U.K.
Increased sanitation, giving animals more
space and giving them more time on pasture
are ways to cut the risk of disease without
involving antibiotics, Wellington said.
McDonald’s, which has 37,000 restaurants
worldwide and 14,000 in the U.S., said it has
been developing its policy over the past year
and a half in consultation with public health
leaders, veterinarians and beef producers.
The effort came after McDonald’s in 2016
reached its goal to serve U.S. customers only
chicken not treated with antibiotics important
to human medicine, which prompted both
the poultry industry and other restaurants to
make changes as well.
The new policy comes as Illinois legislators
consider a bill, sponsored by outgoing Sen.
Daniel Biss, D-Evanston, that would ban all
Increased sanitation,
giving animals more space
and giving them more time
on pasture are ways to cut
the risk of disease without
involving antibiotics,
Matthew Wellington said.
routine use of medically important antibiotics
in food production. Similar laws have passed
in California and Maryland.
“I applaud McDonald’s commitment to
protect public health by reducing the misuse
of antibiotics in its beef supply” Biss said in a
statement provided by Illinois PIRG, which is
pushing for the law. “Now its time for Illinois
to show leadership by passing legislation to
stop the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture.”
Groups representing beef producers have
called the Illinois bill redundant with federal
guidelines and burdensome to farmers.
A hearing was held on the bill in late
November and advocates plan to reintro
duce it in the next legislative session with a
new sponsor.
KRAFT
■ Continued from 3D
The French experience
nonetheless can help to
inform what other nations,
and states, choose to do to
combat climate change, and
especially for how best to
design carbon taxes to make
them more attractive.
For example, one of the
most widely discussed pro
posals in the U.S. is a carbon
fee and dividend system
proposed by the Citizens Cli
mate Lobby, and embraced
by policy makers from both
political parties. The fee
imposed on carbon sources
such as gasoline would be
fully and directly rebated to
citizens on a regular basis.
Alternatively, other taxes
could be reduced proportion
ately so that there is no net
increase in taxes.
Or, as California chose
to do with it new 12-cent
gas tax, the revenue could
be dedicated to popular
projects such as repairing
highways, bridges and other
infrastructure.
Polls show that most
Americans favor action to
mitigate climate change,
which they see increasingly
as a real threat to their well
being, the economy and the
environment.
A carbon tax is an impor
tant tool to that end, but to
be broadly acceptable it
must visibly and genuinely
address the needs and con
cerns of ordinary people.
Michael E. Kraft is professor
emeritus of political science
and environmental affairs at
the University of Wisconsin.
Readers may write him at
2551 Oakwood, Ave., Green
Bay, Wl 54301.
MATTHEWS
■ Continued from 3D
But the federal gasoline tax hasn’t been
raised in 25 years and has lost 64 percent of
its purchasing power. Look for progressives
to seek a significant increase in the near
future.
In addition, members of Congress recently
introduced a bipartisan tax on carbon emis
sions, like Australia’s, that would force fossil
fuel-producing companies to pay $15 for each
ton of carbon their products emit. The tax
would rise by $10 per ton every subsequent
year.
Those two proposals would make driving a
car or turning on the lights a lot more expen
sive, especially for lower- and fixed-income
families.
Ironically, gasoline and carbon taxes are
very regressive because everyone, regard
less of income, pays the same price. Yet pro
gressives support them anyway.
Imposing carbon and gasoline taxes is not
about ways to pay for needed government
services. It’s about progressives, like Macron,
trying to fund their climate change agenda.
The lesson from France is that working-
class voters have a limit. Push people too far
and we may see Paris-like riots in our own
backyards.
Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with
the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas.
He holds a PhD in the Humanities from the
University of Texas. Readers may write him
at IPI, 1320 Greenway Drive, Suite 82, Irving,
TX 75038.
immigration, and organized
labor, which wants less.
No wonder so many
politicians avoid tackling
immigration for decades at
a time.
And no wonder the
media clings to familiar
narratives. Why not report
that, when it comes to erect
ing barriers on the border,
Democrats and Republi
cans are more aligned than
either side wants to admit?
Democrats love imposing
structures, and drones in
the sky, and extra border
patrol agents, and National
Guard troops on the border,
and what some call “virtual
walls” of electronic sensors.
The Democrats’ love
affair with border security
started in 1994 when Presi
dent Bill Clinton militarized
the U.S.-Mexico border
through Operation Gate
keeper. It continued to 1996
when Clinton signed the
Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibil
ity Act, which empowered
the U.S. attorney general
to order barrier construc
tion on the U.S.-Mexico
border and authorized the
construction of yet another
layer of border fencing.
The infatuation con
tinued to 2006 when 26
Democratic senators voted
to support the Secure Fence
Act, which authorized con
struction of about 700 miles
of double-layered fencing
on the U.S.-Mexico border
and the use of satellites,
drones and checkpoints.
Democrats who voted “yes”
included Schumer, Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton and
Joe Biden.
The left says that there
is a difference between a
fence and a wall. But, actu
ally, when the fence has
multiple layers, the differ
ence is negligible.
The Democrats’ fascina
tion for border security
continued to 2010 when, as
a president, Obama signed
the Southwest Border
Security Bill, which spent
$600 million to secure the
U.S.-Mexico border. Among
the bill’s loudest proponents
were Pelosi and Schumer.
Now liberals are making
a big spectacle of oppos
ing Trump’s border wall.
They say it won’t work. But
maybe they’re afraid it
would.
Besides, who are
Democrats kidding? They
appreciate a good border
barricade as much as the
next party.
Ruben Navarrette writes for
the Washington Post Writers
Group.
SUNDAY CARTOON GALLERY
13 tMkrVfctiftsrtWereGiw
LISA BENSON I Washington Post Writers Group
BILL BRAMHALL I Tribune News Service
5F&K;me
Ftesip&Nr,
AMP
scwtt&zME
l\A££TfWG IN
iubcval cffice.
DANA SUMMERS I Tribune News Service
WALT HANDELSMAN I Tribune Media
Today’s TV news shows
■ ABC’s “This Week” — Rudy Giuliani, a
lawyer for President Donald Trump; Sens.
Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Dick Durbin,
D-lll.
■ NBC’s “Meet the Press” — Former
Housing Secretary Julian Castro, a
possible 2020 Democratic presidential
candidate; Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.;
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
■ CBS’ “Face the Nation” — Stephen
Miller, senior adviser to Trump; Lanny
Davis, adviser to former Trump lawyer
Michael Cohen; Sen. Amy Klobuchar,
D-Minn.; Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas.
■ CNN’s “State of the Union” — Collins;
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
■ “Fox News Sunday” — Giuliani;
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.
Associated Press
