California legislators propose national park honoring César Chávez and farm worker movement
Presented by U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Representative Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.-25), the bicameral legislation would establish the national park, incorporating the existing Cesar E. Chávez National Monument in Keene, Calif., as well as additional sites in California (Forty Acres in Delano and McDonnell Hall in San Jose) and Arizona (the Santa Rita Center in Phoenix). The announcement was made to coincide with the César Chávez Day national holiday. U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is the legislation's co-sponsor.
Chávez is an iconic Latino labor leader and community organizer with a legacy that is intertwined with modern California history and the history of the farm worker movement. Chávez led the fight for farm workers to demand fair wages, health care coverage, pension benefits, and housing improvements along with other rights and protections.
""Establishing the César E. Chávez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park would pay proper homage to César Chávez's tireless work for the dignity, respect, and equal treatment of workers — priorities facing immense threats under the Trump Administration," Padilla said
in the press release issued by his office
. "Our National Park system should memorialize the diverse legacy and culture of all Americans and give farm workers the recognition they deserve."
"It's vital that we amplify the voices of communities whose stories are too often left unheard," Rep. Ruiz added. "The César E. Chávez and the Farmworker Movement National Historical Park Act, aims to empower the National Park Service to honor and share these important stories, celebrating the diverse and vibrant history of our country."
In addition to establishing the national park sites at the locations outlined, the bill would also conduct a National Historic Trail Study for the "Farmworker Peregrinación National Historic Trail," the 300-mile march route taken by farm workers between Delano and Sacramento in 1966.
A map of the proposed park can be found
online
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
This Small Town Is Seeking a 225% Property Tax Increase
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Homeowners in the small town of Wellington, Utah, could soon be facing much larger property tax bills as city authorities are seeking a more than 225 percent increase after years of stalling rates. A looming decision on the property tax hike was postponed on Wednesday by the Wellington City Council after an hourslong public hearing on the same day revealed the depth of residents' concerns over the potential financial burden they could shoulder from a hike. It is a burden that has gotten heavier for millions of Americans across the country in recent years, as property tax bills have raised in step with home values following the pandemic homebuying frenzy. Nationwide, according to a report by Redfin, property taxes rose by nearly 30 percent between 2019 and 2024, reaching a monthly median of $250. 'A Pretty Harsh Thing To Swallow' Under the proposal made by Wellington authorities, the property tax on a $256,000 residence would increase from $216.41 to $704.00, which is $487.59 per year. The tax on a $256,000 business would increase from $393.47 to $1,280.00, which is $886.53 per year. During the public hearing on Wednesday, Wellington Mayor Jack Clark told a room packed with residents critical of introducing such a steep increase that the hike was necessary. "This is a pretty harsh thing to swallow," Clark said, as reported by Castle Country Radio. The revenues generated by higher property taxes, he said, will be used for public safety, road repairs, utilities, and other operations essential to keep the city running." Newsweek reached out to the mayor's office via email. A low-angle shot of house construction in Utah. A low-angle shot of house construction in Utah. Getty Images The tax hike, if implemented, would bring the city's revenues up to $1,646,775—which would still leave a gap of $26,550 when compared to Wellington's total expenses, which amount to $1,673,325 according to the city. Without the tax hike, the city would face a shortfall of $400,000. "This is about preserving the city we have and preserving the future," Clark said. The Highest Increase in the State—but Not the Only One The 225.3 percent property tax hike requested by Wellington authorities was the highest sought by in the entire state of Utah for 2026, according to data shared by the Utah Taxpayers Association, an advocacy group calling for lower taxes and sound tax policy in the state. "Wellington is a victim of its previous elected officials not being willing to make the hard decisions," a spokesperson for the Utah Taxpayers Association told Newsweek. "While the mayor explained in his comments [on Wednesday] that those before him could have done more to prevent such a dramatic increase, he's now left having to figure out how to get the city in a good spot, financially speaking." But Wellington was not the only small town in the state that pursued double-digit increases. Uintah City was seeking a property tax increase of 100 percent; Gunnison City of 78.89 percent; Eureka City of 72.21 percent; Howell City of 65.86 percent; and Willard City of 45.51 percent. Some of these cities still have to hold truth-in-taxation hearings during which residents have a chance to comment on the proposal's to hike their property taxes. During such a meeting on Wednesday, Wellington residents expressed their concerns over such a massive increase being suddenly implemented. "I'm heartbroken because I thought this would be a forever house," resident Erin Hansen said during the meeting, as reported by Castle Country Radio. "But the reality is these taxes are going to be more than my mortgage. I can't afford to live here." City authorities say the proposed hike is so high because Wellington has not increased property taxes since 2017. But residents think that officials should not try to make up for lost time in one large hike. "I'm imploring you guys to make some of those overdue needs overdue some more," resident Bill Barnes said. According to the Utah Taxpayers Association, the state system is setup up "such that elected officials cannot ignore property taxes. They need to make hard decisions and work hard with their constituents to educate and inform them as to why an increase is needed." The group applauds the current elected officials for "having the courage to get Wellington back in the black in its finances but caution them to not forget about property taxes in 5-7 years when it will likely be time to make another adjustment." What Happens Next While the decision to postpone a potential approval of the hike was something of a victory for local residents, city officials could still decide to green light the 225 percent increase later in the year. Wellington City Council has until October to make a decision over the hike.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Americans Fear End of Social Security as They Know It
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Seven in 10 Americans worry that Social Security won't be there for them when they retire, according to new survey from the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies (TCRS). TCRS is a division of Transamerica Institute (TI), a nonprofit, private operating foundation, and conducts one of the largest and longest-running annual retirement surveys of its kind. For generations, Social Security, which celebrated its 90th anniversary on August 14, has formed the bedrock of retirement income for tens of millions of Americans, and also pays out benefits to disabled people and survivors of deceased workers. However, despite its enduring popularity and importance, it faces a looming insolvency crisis that lawmakers have less than 10 years to solve. The survey from TCRS, which polled 10,009 adults above the age of 18 between September 11 and October 17, 2024, found that among non-retirees, 71 percent agreed with the statement: "I am concerned that when I am ready to retire, Social Security will not be there for me." Almost nine in 10 Americans (87 percent) have one or more greatest retirement fears, ranging from health to financial. The top two greatest fears are declining health that would require long-term care (39 percent) followed by Social Security being reduced or ceasing to exist in the future (37 percent). According to the latest report from the Social Security Trustees, the program's two trust funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds—are projected to reach insolvency by 2034. At that point, benefits would be funded solely through incoming payroll taxes, triggering an automatic cut of around 21 percent unless Congress takes action. While several options have been tabled by lawmakers to fix the issue, such as The Fair Share Act and raising the retirement age, no meaningful progress has been made. Doug Carey, founder of WealthTrace and a chartered financial planner, told Newsweek that the main driver of fears around Social Security's longevity is this political inaction. "I believe it's the political climate and the lack of action over many administrations," he said. "Most politicians do not want to touch benefits since they believe it will only hurt their reputation and reelection chances now. That is why this keeps getting pushed into the future until it simply has to be addressed." Stock image/file photo: An elderly woman holding an empty wallet. Stock image/file photo: An elderly woman holding an empty wallet. GETTY The study also revealed Americans are concerned about seeing their personal savings through their post-working years. Sixty-three percent of Americans said they either believe they won't save enough to meet their needs by the time they retire or, if already retired, they failed to save enough—28 percent "strongly agree" and 35 percent "somewhat agree" with that statement. And for nearly a third of Americans—32 percent—Social Security is expected to be their primary source of retirement income. That compares with 29 percent who expect to rely primarily on retirement accounts, 12 percent on other savings and investments, and 11 percent on continued work. Only 9 percent see a company-funded pension as their main income source. The survey also showed that reliance on Social Security is even greater among retired women with six in 10 women retirees (59 percent) indicating it is their primary source of income, compared with 47 percent of men retirees. For those not yet retired, 29 percent of women and 22 percent of men said Social Security was their expected primary source of retirement income. Carey added that many Americans are already adjusting their retirement plans based on the assumption of reduced benefits. "What many people are doing is simply assuming their benefits will be cut by anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent. They can then plan accordingly by retiring later, saving more, or changing their planned spending in retirement," he said. Some, Carey noted, choose to claim benefits early at age 62 to "lock in" payments, believing they are less likely to be reduced once started. Jackson Ruggiero, co-founder of told Newsweek that the poll's findings are unsurprising. "The program is facing real financial challenges, but just as importantly, people don't trust Congress to fix it in time," he said. "Because of this uncertainty, many people are changing how they plan for retirement. Younger workers especially are focusing more on personal savings through 401(k)s and IRAs, and some are assuming they'll get little or nothing from Social Security. That's understandable, but also a bit extreme." Looking forward, Ruggiero advised a balanced approach for those concerned about their retirement savings and the future of Social Security. "Plan like your benefits might be reduced, not gone. Save what you can now, take advantage of employer retirement plans, and if possible, delay taking Social Security to get a bigger monthly check," he said. Both experts agreed on one point—Congress is moving too slowly to fix the looming insolvency dilemma. "They are doing nothing, and I predict they won't do anything until the year where it's clear Social Security benefits will have to be cut. Currently that is 2033," Carey warned. This is not the first time Social Security has faced a funding cliff. In the early 1980s, the trust funds were similarly close to depletion. Lawmakers responded with reforms that included faster payroll tax increases, a gradual rise in the retirement age, and taxation of some Social Security benefits. "Social Security has served as the cornerstone of retirement income since its establishment nine decades ago. It provides millions of older Americans with guaranteed income, so that they can retire with greater financial security," Catherine Collinson, CEO and president of Transamerica Institute, said. "With the estimated depletion of the Social Security trust funds looming large, now is the time for policymakers to identify reforms that can help ensure the program's sustainability for the next 90 years."
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump moving closer to decision on making weed less criminal in eyes of federal government: sources
It isn't quite the ruckus involving the Jeffrey Epstein docs, but there is a quieter, more important conflict inside Trump world over weed — namely whether the president should legalize it and just how legal it should be, The Post has learned And according to my sources, Trump is in a compromising mood. He appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. Advertisement Trump is ready, several MAGA pro-pot sources tell me, to make a decision on at least reclassifying weed as a so-called Schedule III drug, putting it on par with semi-controlled substances like anabolic steroids. Not to get too far into the proverbial weeds, but Pot Inc. wants marijuana reclassified so it's not being lumped in with hard drugs like heroin — and it's a drama these pages first covered in late April. That way this booming business continues to grow with access to the banking system as cultural norms continue to shift and the majority of Americans see pot as no more dangerous than booze. Tax revenues would flow into federal coffers as the industry expands. Trump appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. AFP via Getty Images There are headwinds. Many MAGA types believe pot is leading to cultural rot. Breeding a population of stoners isn't good for the country since the pot today is far stronger than the joints Cheech & Chong rolled years ago. Advertisement Trump barely drinks and personally hates anything that dulls the senses. He's a law-and-order guy — witness his takeover of DC policing over quality-of-life issues, including the persistent smell of pot almost everywhere you walk. That said, the president seems to be leaning toward a compromise on federal legalization, including allowing for medical use based on evidence of its efficacy in severe pain relief. He's also said to be compelled by the business and the political argument of going soft on pot. He's done that before, doing his famous 180 on crypto for votes during the 2024 election and delivering with deregulation that is propelling the blockchain industry. Advertisement There are an estimated 17 million-plus Americans who use pot regularly, and Trump understands math. The pot lobby could help in key races as the midterms approach. MAGA loyalist Matt Gaetz, the former Florida congressman and Trump's initial pick for attorney general, is one who believes embracing pot would further expand Trump's base among working-class people of all races, where pot u sage is most prevalent. 'President Trump would cement [these voters] for Republicans for 25 years by 'rescheduling' marijuana,' Gaetz said. 'Obama always wanted to do it but didn't have the balls.' Gaetz added that Biden with his 'autopen presidency' was too busy destroying the country to care. 'This is yet another opportunity for Trump to notch a generational win where Ob- ama and Joe Biden failed.' Advertisement Longtime hedge fund trader Marc Cohodes is even more adamant about legalizing marijuana. He is both an investor in Pot Inc. and a medical user after shoulder surgery. 'If he totally legalizes, Trump will totally destroy the Democratic Party,' Cohodes tells me. 'Polls show that most Americans want this legalized. Trump will turn the GOP into the people's party.' Trump's options include totally 'declassifying' pot, making it 100% legal in the eyes of federal law. He could also 'reschedule' pot as a 'Schedule III' controlled substance, along the lines of anabolic steroids and other drugs that the feds have modestly blessed for specific medical-related uses. If he does nothing, pot would r emain a Schedule I drug, where the federal government views it as a highly controlled substance. Up to $60 billion annually The various distinctions matter for the pot industry, which is estimated to rake in between $40 billion and $60 billion a year. While marijuana is fully legal or decriminalized in most states, without the federal government taking it off the Schedule I list it can't be 'banked.' Wall Street shies away from underwriting the stock of any company that in Pot Inc. parlance 'touches the plant.' If Wall Street can begin underwriting pot stocks, financing US-based growers, for example, Pot Inc. could grow exponentially. Still, legalization skeptics on Trump's team will have a say. New Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terry Cole is a veteran at an agency with a long anti-pot bias. Advertisement Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of the Department of Health and H uman Services, has spoken about decriminalizing weed but also how there are negative health effects from consuming the 'high-potency' stuff. Many critics say today's bud has hallucinogenic effects, and could be a gateway to more dangerous stuff like opioids. That's why Gaetz thinks Trump won't go for full legalization and allow it only for medical use. Ditto for longtime Trump political guru Roger Stone. 'I don't think he ever completely de-schedules it, which is what I would do,' Stone tells me. Advertisement Cohodes says not going all the way would be a mistake. First, banking for Pot Inc. would remain difficult if it is only re- scheduled. Plus, making it totally legal could help decimate a major source of income for the various drug cartels. It would be age-restricted by the government. 'By eliminating prohibition, illegal cartels get removed because legal businesses not currently banked become bankable,' Cohodes said.
