'Stop the clock': GOP, Dems come together to end Daylight Saving over health, economic risks
In 1957, rockabilly singer Bob Ehret repeated, "We've got to stop the clock, baby; to spend more time with you" — and in a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle strongly considered the benefits of doing so, in a way.
Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Daylight Saving was grounded in good-faith efforts to reduce energy consumption, but that instead it has led to increased auto accidents in the dark, workplace issues and objections from the agriculture sector that relies on early-morning sunlight.
"We find ourselves adjusting our clocks… springing forward and falling back in the fall. For many Americans, this biannual ritual is a minor inconvenience… But when we take a closer look at the implications of changing the clocks, its impact on our economy, our health and our everyday lives, we can see that this practice is more than an annoyance," Cruz said.
"The idea was simple. Fewer hours of darkness meant less electricity consumption for lighting and heating."
Trump's Daylight Savings Plan
However, unlike the early 1900s, when the U.S. economy was heavily reliant on energy consumption tied to daylight hours, today's effects from sunrise and sunset timings are "de minimis," he said.
Read On The Fox News App
Cruz, along with Massachusetts neurology physician Dr. Karin Johnson, spoke about the health concerns associated with changing the time twice a year and with the permanence of Daylight Saving Time (DST), versus Standard Time.
"Research has shown that the abrupt shift in time, especially the spring transition when we lose an hour of sleep," Cruz said, as Johnson spoke about the effects on people's circadian rhythm, vascular system and sleep deprivation.
The panel also hosted an official from the National Golf Course Owners Association, as he and other lawmakers spoke of the increased revenue from evening tee times and other tourist activities only possible during daylight hours.
On the Democratic side, Sen. Lisa Blunt-Rochester of Delaware agreed that it was time to consider a "permanent time for our country."
She noted a bill from then-Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., to abolish DST stalled in the House.
"This body [then] took a harder look at how time changes work state-by-state," she said.
"What works in my home state of Delaware may not work in Washington state, but I know I speak for many Americans when I say it's time. It's time to figure this out."
'I Can't Sleep Because Of Racing Thoughts At Night — How Can I Stop Them?': Ask A Doctor
Witnesses to the hearing noted that it is indeed southern states like Florida and Texas where the negative effects of a permanent Daylight Saving Time would be most felt.
Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., spoke about his work shifting Daylight Saving Time twice to help assuage some of the issues that were brought up each time, including better guaranteeing trick-or-treating happens at worst at dusk.
Markey quipped that his decades-long work on this issue earned him the nickname "the Sun King."
"We need to stop the clock," Blunt-Rochester said. "We know that changing the clock disrupts sleep, which can lead to negative health outcomes. Several studies have noted issues with mood disturbances increase hospital admissions, and even heart attacks and strokes."
Lock the Clock movement founder Scott Yates testified about the flawed history of DST, noting a time during the 1970s energy crisis that the Nixon administration briefly made DST permanent.
Nixon signed the law in December 1973 while embroiled in Watergate — but it took effect the first week the following year — Jan. 6, 1974.
"So you can imagine, the worst Monday of the year already is the one after the holiday break where you have to go back to school and everything — to have an extra hour of sleep robbed away right before that. You can understand why it was so unpopular and why it was repealed," Yates said, noting that months later, Nixon resigned.
The burglary by the "Plumbers" at the Watergate Hotel also notably occurred during nighttime hours.
"So maybe — if we had more daylight, the Watergate break-in doesn't happen," Cruz quipped in response.
"And history would be different."Original article source: 'Stop the clock': GOP, Dems come together to end Daylight Saving over health, economic risks
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
When is Trump's military parade? What to know ahead of June 14
The streets of central D.C. are soon to be filled with thousands of soldiers, massive tanks and artillery, and the cacophonic rumble of Vintage warplanes and sleek Blackhawks flying overhead. That's because the U.S. Army is marking its 250th anniversary with a pomp-filled procession through the streets of the nation's capital Saturday, June 14, showcasing military might in a display with few, if any, precedents. The date also coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. The parade, which will feature Army equipment, flyovers, musical performances and thousands of soldiers in uniforms from the past and the present, caps off a week of programming designed to celebrate the country's military might. Trump posted a short video address about the parade to Truth Social on Friday, June 6, inviting Americans to what he called an "unforgettable" celebration, "one like you've never seen before." "For two and a half centuries, the men and women of America's Army have dominated our enemies and protected our freedom at home," he said in the video. "This parade salutes our soldiers' remarkable strength and unbeatable spirit. You won't want to miss it. Just don't miss this one. It's going to be good." Here's what to know about the parade and day-long celebration in Washington, D.C. When and where is the June 14 DC military parade? The military parade is slated for Saturday, June 14, in the heart of Washington, D.C., spanning six blocks and bisecting the National Mall. Organizers say the procession begins at 6:30 p.m. ET. What are the events and performances at the June 14 celebration? Celebrations and associated events are set to take place throughout the day at the Army Birthday Festival starting at 11 a.m. ET. Members of the public can visit, where there will be military demonstrations, equipment displays and live music throughout the day, Army event organizers say Visitors can expect kid zones, more than 50 vendors and experience booths and meet-and-greets with "Army soldiers, NFL players, influencers and celebrities," according to the U.S. Army event page. Those feeling adventurous can show up early and take part in the Army's fitness competition, from 9:30 a.m. to noon. There will be several musical acts throughout the June 14 celebration, including country singer Scotty Hasting, a former Army infantryman who was wounded in Afghanistan, country singer Noah Hicks of Nashville and DJ Nyla Symone. The Army's birthday parade will cross in front of Trump's viewing stand on Constitution Avenue, just south of the White House, around sundown. The president is also expected to attend an enlistment and re-enlistment ceremony after the parade. A parachute demonstration by the Golden Knights and a fireworks display and evening concert will conclude the festivities. Where is the Army Birthday Festival? The festival is between 14th Street SW and the 12th Street Expressway on the lawn between Madison Drive NW and Jefferson Drive SW, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. It is next to the Smithsonian Metro Station NW entrance, which will be closed, organizers say, though the Smithsonian Metro Station SW entrance will be open. Information is also available on the Army's event website, What does the parade celebrate? Is it Trump's birthday parade? Though the parade is on the same day as the president's 79th birthday, event organizers and administration officials say it is solely to celebrate the U.S. Army. The administration has insisted that the Army's anniversary and Trump's birthday are a coincidence and that the parade is justified to honor soldiers' sacrifice. Plans for the June 14 parade began in earnest about a month ago. Yet as focus squares in on the U.S. Army's 250 years of existence, other branches are notably left out. The Navy, which also celebrates its 250th anniversary this year in October, has no plans for a similar parade, a spokesperson told USA TODAY. Neither does the Marine Corps, for its 250th in November. Inside the military parade: Tanks, cannons and soldiers sleeping in DC offices How to get tickets to attend in person Tickets for the parade are limited, but those interested in attending the parade on June 14 can RSVP here. Prospective attendees will be asked to provide their full name, phone number, email, state and zip code. Where does the 'Grand Military Parade' start and end? The parade will take place along Constitution Avenue NW, starting on Constitution Avenue NW and 23rd Street and ending on 15th Street alongside the National Mall, near the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Graphic of Parade Route: See where the procession will go through central DC How to watch the June 14 parade Events from the 250th birthday celebration, including the parade, will be livestreamed on all U.S. Army social media platforms. Contributing: Cybele Mayes-Osterman, Tom Vanden Brook Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her atkapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Atlantic
30 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Real Problem With the Democrats' Ground Game
They called it the 'Big Send.' Democrats gathered in living rooms, libraries, and coffee shops across the country to write letters to millions of potential voters in swing states and competitive congressional districts, urging them to vote in November. During the 2020 pandemic election, the novel but decidedly 20th-century tactic had cut through the glut of digital messages that inundated Americans' cellphones and inboxes, and organizers hoped it would similarly boost turnout for Democrats in 2024. It did not. In a study set to be released later today, the group behind the letter-writing effort, the nonpartisan Vote Forward, found that personal messages sent to more than 5 million occasional voters deemed at risk of staying home last fall had no effect on turnout. (The group's campaign produced a modest increase in turnout among a second, slightly smaller set of low-propensity voters, but it still fell short of previous Vote Forward programs.) What's unusual is not Vote Forward's lackluster findings, but that the group is ready to tell the world about them. Every election, a constellation of progressive organizations sells donors and volunteers on the promise that their data-driven turnout programs will deliver victory at the polls. These mobilization efforts have taken on ever-greater importance in an era of tight elections, where the presidency and majorities in Congress can hinge on just a few thousand votes. Progressive groups are only too happy to brag about their wins; they're much less likely to divulge details about their campaigns that flopped. Driving this reticence is a fear that donations will dry up—or go to other organizations in a highly competitive campaign industry—if funders find out their money made little difference on the ground. In several instances, researchers told me, Democratic firms have either pushed them to suppress the results of studies that didn't produce desired findings or cherry-picked data to make the numbers look better. 'We have a people-pleasing problem in our party,' Max Wood, a progressive data scientist, told me. Yasmin Radjy, the executive director of Vote Forward and its progressive campaign arm, Swing Left, is trying to change that culture. Just as Democrats are now debating, sometimes fiercely, why their party's message failed last year, Radjy believes that to emerge from 'the political wilderness,' they need to have candid conversations about their organizing and turnout efforts. Radjy has been frustrated by what she describes as Democrats' lack of introspection and transparency. For months, she's been asking party organizers and consultants what they learned in 2024, and what they're going to do differently going forward. 'We've got to actually be honest about both what works and what doesn't work,' she told me. In the next election, 'if we are serving volunteers, donors, and voters reheated leftovers from 2024, we are doing it wrong.' The risks of a bad field operation are greater than people might think. The goal of any persuasion or get-out-the-vote program is to boost support for your party's candidate. Many make only a small difference in turnout, or none at all—especially in presidential elections, for which most people already know plenty about the candidates. The worst of these efforts, however, can backfire entirely. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama built the largest field operation in history, relying on both data-driven targeting and community-organizing tactics in a way that revolutionized presidential campaigning. But a study involving more than 56,000 targeted voters in Wisconsin found that a visit from a volunteer supporting Obama appears to have turned some potential voters away from Obama's candidacy—in a state the Democrat won handily that year. The researchers suggested that people who rarely engaged in elections found the visits bothersome. During the Obama era, Democrats relied on support from infrequent voters to capture the presidency, although they struggled in low-turnout, off-year elections. They poured millions of dollars into research and organizing programs to identify and mobilize those voters. But since then, the parties' bases have shifted, and many of these hard-to-reach voters became Donald Trump supporters—especially working-class white voters and, in 2024, a large number of young and nonwhite people. Some Democrats worry that their party's vaunted turnout operation has, in recent years, produced a significant number of votes for Trump, reducing, if not negating, the benefits for their own candidates. Early last year, a top progressive data scientist warned donors in a memo that if Democratic mobilization groups 'were to blindly register nonvoters,' they could be 'distinctly aiding Trump's quest for a personal dictatorship,' The Washington Post reported. Radjy acknowledged that had been a concern, but she said Vote Forward's postelection study found no evidence that its letter-writing campaign helped Trump or Republicans. 'If we found that, it would hurt, but we would also share it transparently,' she told me. It's not clear that everyone else would. The biggest spenders in Democratic politics frequently test their turnout operations, in many cases through randomized controlled trials in which one group of people receives a particular form of engagement—a door knock, phone call, or text message, for example—while another gets nothing. (This is what Vote Forward did to test its letter-writing success.) After the election, organizers can check to see which group voted at a higher rate. These findings have shown that in presidential-election years, traditional canvassing methods have become less effective as voters get bombarded with campaign ads and reminders to vote. 'In a saturated environment, it's getting harder and harder for individual pieces of campaign communication to break through,' David Broockman, a political scientist at UC Berkeley who studies voting behavior, told me. 'I expect the effects of everything are just going to keep on going down.' Occasionally, the studies that groups conduct are widely shared, but some political organizations suffer from a phenomenon known as the 'file-drawer problem': 'A lot of bad results never see the light of day,' Joshua Kalla, a political scientist at Yale University who studies voter persuasion, told me. Wood, the data scientist, learned that firsthand. He told me he's worked with Democrats who have urged him not to publish studies with unfavorable findings: 'Basically the attitude is, There's a lot of hype and a lot of willingness to fund this work. And if you put this out, all the funders are going to clam up and point to this as a reason not to do it.' In other cases, he said, clients have misused data to make tactics seem more effective than they really are. Another researcher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating allies in the party, told me about working on a study that found a campaign tactic had produced no boost in turnout. When the researcher later saw a published version of the report with their name attached, however, the findings made it seem as if the experiment had been successful. 'The big problem,' the researcher told me, is that in addition to using research to improve campaigning, Democratic groups 'also use it as effective marketing or to try to get clients. People's incentives are misaligned.' Democrats have become much more sophisticated over the past decade in understanding how to assess the effectiveness of campaigns, said Yoni Landau, the CEO of Movement Labs, an anti-Trump operation that ran dozens of large-scale experiments last year. 'The challenge now is about political will,' he told me, 'whether the people making the decisions—the funders and the organization leaders—want to know whether it worked.' To incentivize rigorous studies, which can help address the file-drawer problem, Landau said Movement Labs is launching a program it's calling the Prove It Prize, which will encourage groups to test campaign tactics by offering money for experiments that produce positive results. For now, he said, many of the largest investments aren't tested, and the reluctance to share poor results remains 'very prevalent.' When I called around to some of the largest progressive campaign organizations, most of them told me they had done extensive studies on their field programs in 2024, or were in the process of conducting them. Hardly any would share details of what they learned. Jenny Lawson, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, told me the group would not risk sharing 'trade secrets with political entities that exist to end Planned Parenthood.' An official with another major group plainly acknowledged, on the condition of anonymity, that it feared a loss of donations and was unlikely to publish a study showing poor results. A spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee told me it is conducting its own extensive postelection audit, incorporating 'insights from inside the DNC and from external partners in the ecosystem' that the committee will make public in the coming months. Many progressive groups, including Planned Parenthood, do submit their findings to the Analyst Institute, an organization founded in 2007 that both runs and collects experiments on voter-contact programs. The institute serves as a database for Democratic-aligned groups to share research on campaign tactics—successes as well as failures. But some people told me the party's file-drawer problem extended there too. Christina Coloroso, the Analyst Institute's executive director, told me its officials coach Democratic organizations to not expect huge positive results in presidential-campaign years. She acknowledged that groups can be reluctant to share data even within the Democratic community 'when the results don't look great,' but she said the institute allows its members to submit research anonymously to allay fears. 'It's true that we may not see every single test that exists across the ecosystem, but all the work that we do is to try to get to a critical mass of studies,' Coloroso said. The search for the decisive edge in political campaigns has always been a hunt for novelty. Any new tactic that works doesn't work that well for long. Everybody starts doing it. Voters get tired of—and sometimes quite annoyed at—the calls, the texts, the emails. 'The first time that people got direct mail, it was like printing money,' recalled Michael Podhorzer, a former political director of the AFL-CIO who has been working on campaigns since the 1970s. 'Oh my God. I just got this letter from George McGovern or from Ronald Reagan. I'm going to read it, and I'm going to send a check here.' A generation ago, helped pioneer the use of email to raise money and drive engagement, Podhorzer said. 'Then it's quickly like, Who opens an email?' More recently, the new thing was text messages, which took off in 2020, when Democrats in particular relied more on digital communications—and old-fashioned letter writing. 'You just keep finding some way that people aren't expecting to hear about politics, and so they are actually open to it and listen to you. But then it gets completely swamped,' Podhorzer said. Conventional turnout methods—door knocking and phone calls, for example—can still have a big impact in low-turnout races, such as primaries, special elections, and campaigns for local office. But with the parties now spending more than $1 billion on the presidential campaign every four years, they've seen diminishing returns on each individual mobilization tactic. Vote Forward emerged out of a letter-writing experiment conducted during the 2017 special Senate election in Alabama, a deep-red state where the Democrat Doug Jones narrowly defeated Roy Moore, a former judge who had been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by several women. The turnout rate for people who received handwritten messages was three points higher than for those who did not. 'That was the holy cow,' Radjy said. 'This is a tactic that can really, really move the needle.' The impact of the group's letter-writing program has decreased over time, Radjy told me. Vote Forward found that its letters had no effect on the initial group of 'surge voters,' people who had participated in at least one major election since 2016. But the organization was able to expand its program to additional groups, mainly newly registered voters. Among these groups, the campaign boosted turnout by 0.16 percentage points, enough for Radjy to consider that part of the effort a success, because it was similar to the average effect for all previous measured presidential-election turnout programs. Vote Forward estimates that it drove an additional 9,000 voters to the polls nationwide. As paltry as that number might seem, it's larger than the total margin of victory in the battle for control of the House during each of the past two elections. The letter-writing program is also relatively inexpensive, costing about $175,000. The group has concluded that although it will still use the tactic in small campaigns, it likely will not do so in the same way in 2028. Democrats can take some solace in the fact that the nation's rightward shift last year was much smaller in the states where they campaigned most aggressively. That suggests that the hundreds of millions of dollars they poured into advertising and voter-turnout efforts did make a difference. And even the best ground game cannot overcome a flawed candidate or message. But the party's defeat is accelerating a broader questioning of its organizing and ability to connect with the millions of voters who are up for grabs in presidential-election years. 'Democrats have much bigger problems on their hands than what they're doing on the doors at the end of the election,' said Billy Wimsatt, the founder of the progressive Movement Voter Project, a clearinghouse for donors to Democratic groups. He said the party needs to learn from the success of the well-funded MAGA movement, which he calls a 'vertically integrated meta church' that, 'feels like one big purpose-driven team,' even with all its faults. 'Their billionaires are savvier than our billionaires,' Wimsatt told me, 'and they're more interested in winning.' Wimsatt is one of many Democrats who believe that the party needs to invest in much deeper engagement with voters—outreach that must start long before an election. So does Radjy: 'We need to be talking to people earlier,' she said. 'We need to be talking to people in a more curious and reciprocal way.' But first comes honesty about what went wrong in 2024. Democrats will appreciate it. They might even demand it. 'Even candor that is not rosy,' Radjy told me, 'is more appealing than rosy bullshit.'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Warren urges Department of Education IG to investigate DOGE access to student loan data
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is requesting the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General review the Department of Government Efficiency's alleged "infiltration" of the agency's internal federal student loan database. "The full extent of DOGE's role and influence at ED remains unknown," Warren wrote in a letter first obtained by ABC News. "This lack of clarity is not only frustrating for borrowers but also dangerous for the future of an agency that handles an extensive student loan portfolio and a range of federal aid programs for higher education," she added. The internal federal student aid (FSA) systems handle the $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio for more than 40 million borrowers. It's unclear whether DOGE has made any changes to student loan data. MORE: Elizabeth Warren launches campaign to investigate Department of Education closure: 'I will fight it with everything I've got' "The Department is refusing to tell Americans who's digging through their personal data and if their data is safe," Warren wrote in a statement to ABC News. "I'm pushing for an independent investigation into what the Department of Education is hiding from us." The OIG office is the statutory, independent entity within the department responsible for identifying fraud, waste, abuse, and criminal activity involving department funds, programs, and operations, according to its website. Warren and a group of Democratic senators, including Sens. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., Ed Markey, D-Mass., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Tina Smith, D-Minn., Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., accuse the Department of Education of refusing to comply with her monthslong congressional investigation into what, if any, records have been accessed by DOGE employees that could be sensitive. "[The Education Department] further refused to disclose any information about the scope of DOGE's access to sensitive student borrower data, including whether or not DOGE was granted access to the National Student Loan Data System or any other database that holds sensitive federal student loan borrower data," they wrote in the letter to Department of Education Acting Inspector General René L. Rocque. Billionaire Elon Musk and the DOGE team gained access to several federal agencies earlier this year. The team was tasked to slash federal spending and help dismantle the education department. At a House Appropriations Committee hearing on the department's fiscal year 2026 budget last month, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the DOGE employees working at the department had the same access any of the agency's employees would be granted. MORE: Secretary McMahon wants Harvard to 'come back to the table' to negotiate with Trump admin McMahon has also said that DOGE was conducting a 'solid audit' of the agency and she appreciates their work to help identify waste, fraud and abuse. The news comes ahead of Warren's first ever meeting with McMahon. Warren sent McMahon dozens of questions ahead of the meeting as she hopes to discuss student loan repayment and forbearances, access to student aid and debt relief, among other topics. However, in February, Warren opened an investigation into DOGE's influence at the agency. The department's responses to her investigation did not indicate how a DOGE employee who previously had "read-only access" to files had those privileges "revoked," whether this employee has 'retained access' to any other internal databases, and what actions the agency has done to ensure that sensitive information would not be 'released or misused," according to Warren's letter to the inspector general. In its responses, the department said it couldn't answer the senator's questions due to 'ongoing litigations,' the letter added. "These responses failed to diminish our concerns about borrowers' privacy and whether the Department may have violated the law or the federal government's procedures in handling this data," senators wrote in the letter. ABC News reached out to the Education Department and the White House about DOGE's access to borrower data but did not receive a reply before this story was published. In April, Warren launched her "Save Our Schools" campaign in opposition to President Donald Trump's and McMahon's efforts to dismantle the department. The senator has previously investigated the firing of FSA employees and how a reduction in staff at the agency could have "dire consequences" for borrowers. "ED should immediately restore all fired [Federal Student Aid] employees responsible for reviewing student aid complaints and refrain from taking any measures to deter the submission of complaints," Warren and a group of Democratic senators wrote in a letter to McMahon in March. Recently, congressional Democrats insisted McMahon cooperate with a separate inspector general review of the administration's plan to shutter the smallest Cabinet-level agency. A group of lawmakers on the Education and Workforce, Oversight, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Appropriations committees in the House and Senate sent the secretary a letter requesting she comply with the federal watchdog. "The OIG must be allowed to do its job," they wrote. "We urge the Department to immediately meet its obligation under the law to fully comply with the OIG's review. "Congress and the public need to understand the full extent and impact of the Administration's actions on the Department and the students, families, and educational communities it may no longer be able to serve," they added. McMahon's "final mission" as the 13th education secretary is to abolish the department, but the administration's first steps to diminish the agency was denied in a federal appeals court loss last week. The Department of Education has since filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Warren urges Department of Education IG to investigate DOGE access to student loan data originally appeared on
