Marco Rubio will be a great leader if he stops being a ‘yes' man
Rubio's many hats
Reading Mary Anna Mancuso's May 14 op-ed, 'Marco Rubio doesn't need to be the next Henry Kissinger,' one gets the feeling she is talking about a very important man. Mancuso mentioned Rubio has two jobs and that it is extraordinary. Actually, he holds three jobs plus a smaller one: as Secretary of State, as Acting National Security Advisor, as Acting Administrator of USAID and even as ✓Acting Archivist of the United States. Seems President Trump ran out of people who could or would do those jobs.
How is Rubio doing so far, especially with aid to those who need it most?
Mancuso then mentioned Rubio's strengths: being a son of immigrant parents and how he fights against authoritarianism. He calls out dictators and warns us against complacency. Yet, Rubio works for an authoritarian and is a great yes-man.
Trump said Rubio and Vice President JD Vance are possible presidential candidates. For what year I don't know, as Trump plans on a third term for himself. In any event, they are two great yes-men who stand for whatever.
What does Mancuso see that many of us are missing?
Whether one agrees with Kissinger or not, he represented our country with strength and didn't flutter about. If Rubio can be a man and lead us like a real leader, then he can be viewed as a man of his time.
Alvin Blake,
Miami
Careless
We have in this rich country of ours the elected, career politicians who make it their business to tax and spend wildly. Our political leaders attract votes for political power and promoting their agendas. The taxpayer is the loser and the lobbyist the winner.
Foreign aid is one for which all recent presidents and both sides of the Congressional aisle are accomplices of wasteful spending. It is an American phenomenon. And the taxpayer foots the bill.
The amount of concocted excuses to create programs to senselessly throw money at is huge. Our political guardians have no shame about squandering the people's hard-earned wealth on their selfish ideas.
Michael G. Merhige,
Kendall
Careless, part II
'The land of the free and the home of the brave.' These words from our national anthem, 'The Star Spangled Banner,' ring less true every day. We are witnessing a steady erosion of the freedoms we hold dear.
Americans are being told they must tighten their belts while a military parade is being planned to celebrate the president's birthday — a display of ego that we, as taxpayers, will be funding, reportedly for as much as ✓$45 million. No matter where one stands politically, this should raise serious concerns.
Those millions could provide school lunches for millions of kids, purchase thousands of computers or fund many after-school programs. Children and education are our future.
Shouldn't our investments reflect that? Who will step up and say 'enough?' Where are the brave men and women elected to represent us?
Florida deserves better and so does the rest of our nation. Our citizens must speak out and our leaders must remember who they serve.
Paula Ehrlich,
Miami Beach
Better healthcare
In her May 14 op-ed, 'Medicaid cuts would burden Miami,' Martha Baker gives a heartfelt testimony to the importance of the Jackson Health System, which provides 'one single high standard of care to all residents regardless of their ability to pay.' She also wrote that the United States stands out as 'the only industrialized nation that does not provide universal access to healthcare for all citizens.'
Her plea is clear: rather than cutting Medicaid, we should be looking for ways to improve access to health care.
Ken Clark,
Coral Gables
Cultural achievements
In May, we celebrate Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Heritage Month. During this time, we recognize the culture, achievements and impact of AAPI communities across Florida and the nation.
The 2025 theme, 'A Legacy of Leadership and Resilience,' is a powerful reminder of the hardships AANHPI individuals have faced, such as hate crimes, bias and xenophobia. Even under pressure, they stepped up with purpose and helped change the game for generations to come.
At the Florida Commission on Human Relations, we stand with AANHPI communities and remain committed to protecting the rights of all Floridians. We strongly encourage Floridians who experience discrimination in housing, employment, or public accommodations to reach out to our agency.
Let's take this month to learn from the past, celebrate the present and continue working together for a future built on respect, equity and understanding.
For more information about your rights or to file a complaint, please contact the Florida Commission on Human Relations at 850-488-7082 or visit FCHR.MyFlorida.com.
Cheyanne Costilla,
executive director,
Florida Commission on Human Relations,
Tallahassee
Been here before
In 1952, the United States was embroiled in the Korean War and the production of steel was in jeopardy as labor unions threatened to strike over a collective bargaining dispute with steel companies. President Truman, fearing that a strike would disrupt the production of military armaments, issued an executive order directing the seizure of steel mills and requiring them to remain open. Companies sued the president for usurping power that belonged to Congress. The president argued that he had 'inherent' power to protect national security.
When the U.S. Supreme Court held that the president lacked authority to seize the mills, no one was more surprised than Truman, who had appointed four of the nine Justices. The Court rejected the 'inherent' power argument.
Our government is comprised of three independent, co-equal branches, ensuring that no single branch exceeds the authority granted it by the Constitution. Except in times of war or national emergency, protecting the process of government is more important than the goals of one errant branch.
For our government to succeed, its three branches must be independent of each other, be co-equal in power and work together with mutual respect. Let's hope we remember that.
Harvey J. Sepler,
Hollywood
End of a war
As a librarian with the Miami-Dade Public Library System, I thank the Miami Herald for the May 11 special section, 'Remembering our Triumph,' about the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.
The library system this year presents 'World War II at 80,' a year-long series dedicated to honoring the end of the war through programs like film screenings, lectures and interviews with Holocaust survivors. The events are free for the public. More information can be found at mdpls.org/WWII.
Miriam Kashem,
Miami Beach
Banning Rose
I enjoy Miami Herald Sports columnist Greg Cote's articles. In his May 15 front page story, 'No credit for MLB. Lifting Hall of Fame ban on Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe, came too late,' he praised Major League Baseball (MLB) for reversing its ban. I respectfully disagree.
Should Rose be in the Hall of Fame?
Of course, but he knowingly violated a cardinal rule of baseball betting on games as a player and/or manager and might have affected outcomes. Even though Rose agreed to the 'lifetime' ban, he would often capitalize on MLB events and appear at nearby locations to sell autographed photos. That's the equivalent of sticking his thumb in MLB's eyes.
I watch baseball religiously on TV. Because every other commercial seems to tout online betting, I fear for baseball's integrity. We put up with endless politicians who lie, cheat and steal. Baseball is merely a game, so players or execs who gamble on baseball should take a hike.
Rose made his bed; he should be forced to lie in it, for eternity.
Richard Pober,
Palmetto Bay
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
17 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump's AI czar says UBI-style cash payments are 'not going to happen'
Americans probably won't be getting a universal basic income as long as President Donald Trump's AI czar has a say in the matter. David Sacks, the cofounder of Craft Ventures and a member of the so-called " PayPal Mafia," which includes Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, is now a top White House policy advisor for AI. It's an important role as rapid advances in AI bring about generational changes in how the world lives and works. The technology is already reshaping the job market, as chatbots like ChatGPT begin to do the work of entry-level employees. Those at the forefront of the AI revolution have long warned about the risk AI poses to jobs, and have called for a universal basic income to soften the blow. A UBI is a government program that distributes no-strings-attached checks to all residents to spend how they please. Numerous cities and states are already experimenting with its humble cousin, a guaranteed basic income, which distributes checks to specific populations in need. The idea has a long history, and support for these kinds of programs has skyrocketed at the local level in recent years. Any consideration of a basic income at the federal level, however, will likely have to wait. Sacks is not a fan. The AI czar said on X this week that such government "welfare" is a "fantasy." "The future of AI has become a Rorschach test where everyone sees what they want. The Left envisions a post-economic order in which people stop working and instead receive government benefits," Sacks wrote. "In other words, everyone on welfare. This is their fantasy; it's not going to happen." Although reports from recipients who participate in basic income programs are overwhelmingly positive, they have faced political pushback. Last year, Republicans in Arizona voted to ban basic income programs in the state, and similar opposition efforts have gained traction in Iowa, Texas, and South Dakota. Lawmakers in several states have argued that the checks increase reliance on the government and dissuade recipients from working. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman helped fund one of the largest basic income studies, which found, in part, that it encouraged recipients to work harder. Elon Musk, who until recently was the face of Trump's effort to reduce government spending, has said a basic income will likely play a role in future economies as AI continues to rapidly develop. Sacks' comments came as another prominent AI leader, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, called for not just a universal basic income, but a "universal high income" at SXSW in London this week. When asked about AI's impact on jobs, Hassabis said there would be a "huge amount of change," but that "new, even better" jobs could replace affected positions and boost productivity. "Beyond that, we may need things like universal high income or some way of distributing all the additional productivity that AI will produce in the economy," Hassabis said.
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Private Equity in 401(k)s Isn't as Smart as It Seems
Should regular Americans be allowed to put more of their retirement savings into private investments long reserved for the wealthy? The White House is seriously considering the proposal, at the behest of some of the country's largest financial firms. This has never been a good idea. The pitch sounds compelling. Accredited investors — professionals and relatively well-off individuals — have entrusted trillions of dollars to private capital funds, which purport to generate superior returns by locking up money for multiyear periods in assets ranging from infrastructure to business loans. American workers with more than $12 trillion in retirement accounts such as 401(k)s have long time horizons, too. Why not let them share in the riches instead of confining them to publicly traded securities?
Atlantic
26 minutes ago
- Atlantic
As America Steps Back, Others Step In
Recently, while in Geneva, I sat down with the ambassador of a closely allied country. In the shadow of the Palais des Nations—the European home of the United Nations—we discussed the state of multilateral diplomacy. At one point, he offered a blunt assessment of America's diminished presence on the world stage. 'It used to be,' he said, 'that before we committed to a position on any significant matter, we would wait to see where the United States stood. Now? We really don't care anymore.' The remark was particularly jarring because it was intended not as an insult, but as a sincere lament. It underscored that in capitals and conference rooms across the globe, decisions are now being made without American leadership. And while many Americans might think that shift doesn't matter, it does. In places like Geneva, decisions are made every week that affect our lives at home, relating to global aviation-safety protocols; pandemic-response standards; food and drug regulation; international trade and customs frameworks; cybersecurity norms; rules governing space, telecommunications standards, environmental safeguards. These aren't distant, abstract concerns. They influence the price of the goods on our shelves, the safety of our airways, the health of our communities, and the competitiveness of our businesses. When the United States pulls back or fails to engage, these decisions don't cease to be made. They're simply made by others—and, more and more, by those whose values don't align with ours. China, in particular, is adept at filling vacuums we leave behind, not just with economic leverage, but with bureaucratic muscle and long-term strategic intent. Where we disengage, the Chinese organize. Where we hesitate, they solidify influence. That same diplomat who noted America's increasing irrelevance pointed to China's stepped-up engagement in precisely these areas—and its eagerness to shape the rules that govern everything from trade to emerging technologies. David A Graham: The voluntary surrender of U.S. power The consequences are not temporary. International standards and agreements, once set, can take years—even decades—to be renegotiated. The absence of American leadership today could mean being bound tomorrow by rules we had no hand in setting. At its best, U.S. global leadership has been about more than projecting power. It has meant convening allies, reinforcing norms, and defending a rules-based international order that, while imperfect, has broadly served our interests and reflected our values. Walking away from that leadership not only imperils our credibility; it cedes ground to nations eager to reshape the system in ways that diminish liberty, transparency, and accountability. The good news is that this trajectory can be reversed. But it requires more than rhetoric. It requires showing up. That means filling diplomatic posts quickly and with professionals who are empowered to lead. It means prioritizing our institutions of statecraft, including the State Department, with the seriousness they deserve. And it means recommitting to the alliances and international bodies that magnify our influence rather than dilute it. I saw the value of diplomacy firsthand during my tenure as U.S. ambassador to Turkey, when Sweden sought NATO membership over Turkey's objections. At the time, the impulse of the U.S. and its NATO allies was to apply pressure or issue public rebukes. What was needed wasn't force, however, but diplomacy: persistent, behind-the-scenes engagement that respected Turkey's security concerns while reinforcing the cohesion of the alliance. Over 18 months, these negotiations facilitated constitutional changes in Sweden, addressed legitimate Turkish concerns, and helped unlock a long-stalled sale of F-16s to Turkey that enhanced NATO interoperability. In the end, Sweden joined the alliance, Turkey saw its security interests addressed, and the U.S. proved itself a trusted interlocutor. That kind of success—durable, strategic, and built on trust—doesn't happen without diplomats in the room. Today, Republicans in Congress need to step forward in defense of U.S. leadership. We can't expect the Trump administration to reverse course—global disengagement seems to be part of its design. But Congress has tools at its disposal to mitigate the long-term damage: through setting funding priorities, exercising oversight, and engaging in public advocacy for diplomacy and alliance building. With margins so close in both houses, legislators who value U.S. global leadership have significant leverage. Having run several congressional campaigns, I understand that valuing diplomacy and prioritizing international institutions don't make for popular political slogans. But with an administration unmoored in its approach to foreign policy, it's more important than ever for Congress to provide crucial ballast. The recent visit to Ukraine by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal is a perfect example of members of Congress providing that ballast—reassuring our allies that they are still our allies. American leadership isn't inevitable. It's a choice—one we must make again and again, not just for the sake of our standing in the world, but for the practical, everyday interests of American citizens.
