Readers: DeSantis undermines efforts to combat climate change
Florida Today
Fine would be a detriment in US Senate
The recent ad, indicating that our new president won't be able to govern unless Florida sends Randy Fine to the U.S. Senate has to be the biggest prevarication of the new year.
Mr. Fine was in the Florida Legislature for a long time; he did nothing to curb the ridiculously high home insurance rates, reportedly the highest in the U.S. (probably not next year, we may have to give that dubious honor to California, after their bout of fires). He is notorious for sowing dissent in meetings, casting disparaging comments and innuendos about other members of various boards, committees and the state legislature, mostly with absolutely no justification.
As to helping to secure the border (from the ad touting his abilities) he is better at sowing distrust and chaos.
Obviously voting him into the U.S. Senate would be a detriment, not a positive addition.
Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.
Garey Hartman, Melbourne
Florida must address carbon issue
DeSantis' refusal to accept over $320 million in federal funding for the Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) is alarming, especially as it faces severe climate risks. Despite being one of the most impacted states, Florida failed to accept funding over federal control concerns and refused to submit a carbon reduction strategy.
The situation: Rising sea levels, extreme weather, and increasing temperatures disproportionately affect vulnerable Floridians. Since 1950, Florida's average temperature has risen by 3.5°F, surpassing global trends. This impacts millions of low-income residents, with Broward County particularly hard-hit by poverty and inadequate infrastructure to address climate challenges.
Solutions: Florida must take immediate action by implementing community-centered carbon reduction strategies tailored to its needs. Expanding electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure is a critical step. Broward County has only 320 public charging stations, meeting just 12% of demand. Addressing this shortfall with additional charging stations, particularly in low-income areas, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and improve public health. Furthermore, public education campaigns on the benefits of EVs and accessible incentives can promote widespread adoption.
DeSantis' rejection of federal funds undermines efforts to combat climate change and protect its citizens. Adopting these practical, inclusive measures would build resilience, support vulnerable communities, and secure a sustainable future for the state.
Sarah Martelly and Rosemary Oleh, Weston
Call Trump out on Jan. 6 pardons
Both presidents Trump and Biden have over-pardoned. But it is President Trump who has released hundreds of people who may be a danger to communities like ours.
For one thing, those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, did not do their own thinking. They went running in there solely on President Trump's say-so. Apparently, no fact-checking.
Second, many committed violent acts against persons and destroyed government property. They arrogantly assert they have done nothing wrong and are in fact patriots. Some are members of far-right groups who believe violence is acceptable.
President Trump deserves to be called out on this. We should not remain silent.
Eileen Pratt, Melbourne
Revolution, maybe; common sense? No
With all due respect to your guest columnist's opinion on Jan. 22 regarding Donald Trump's 'common sense' revolution, does it make sense to terrorize the immigrant communities with threats of deportation when the majority are productive, hardworking individuals who are contributing to our thriving economy?
Does it make sense to pardon or commute sentences of violent criminals who all now want to 'buy me a gun' to continue their criminal activities after they were released? Does it make sense to fire all the government workers who have devoted their lives (despite who may have been president) in service to this country and lose all those years of experience? Does it make sense to fire perceived DEI government employees who also have years of experience when all you will have left are white males with no experience?
Does it make sense to nominate an alcoholic (according to relatives and coworkers) for secretary of defense, when he must have all his wits about him in that position 24-7? Does it make sense to put our country at risk for that nomination and many others who are clearly not qualified?
Obviously, the writer likes the idea of oligarchs (the richest of the rich one percenters) running the government, getting richer from Trump's promised tax cuts. Does that make sense? I think not.
'Liberation day' a bold move? D-Day was a bold move, not the election of Donald J. Trump as president. A bold move would have been to elect a woman with more intellect and more devotion to the Constitution of the United States. Heaven help us.
Brenda Callahan, Palm Bay
RFK Jr.: woefully unfit for medical role
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a dreadful choice for secretary of health and human services. He is a longtime anti-vaccination activist.
His qualifications are described in "Is RFK, Jr A Doctor? Know HHS Secretary Nominee's Education Qualification And Background," available online at msn.com. He has a bachelor's degree in American history and literature from Harvard., followed by two law degrees. These do not provide the medical and science knowledge needed to lead the work of HHS and to understand the work product of the department.
He struggled with drug use for a number of years and "was known as a "drug dealer" during his Harvard days. This is similar to Hunter Biden, who is reviled by many Republicans.
Kennedy has expanded his anti-vax position by proposing to retest polio vaccine ("RFK Jr.'s views on vaccines dangerous" Today national news). They have been used successfully for over 50 years.
Kennedy has recently stated that President Trump will call for eliminating fluoride from public water supplies, which he apparently supports. The addition has been shown to promote healthy teeth, especially in children.
Kennedy has worked with attorneys suing drug makers ("Kennedy played key role in vaccine case against Merck," FLORIDA TODAY national news). In the HHS secretary position, he would have authority to limit the special vaccine court and otherwise influence the legal treatment of drugs.
Kennedy voted illegally in New York ("RFK Jr, voted in NY after residency claim denied," FLORIDA TODAY). Illegal voting has been a major Republican concern.
James Beasom, Melbourne Village
'Lawless' POTUS vs. rule of law
Trump's Inauguration speech laid out his plans for American regional imperialism, "taking back" the Panama Canal, annexing Greenland, and a tariff war with Canada. This is no different from Putin's plan to annex Ukraine, or Xi annexing Taiwan and other regional adversaries. Those dictators must be smiling today.
Then that evening Trump granted a blanket pardon to virtually all Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants – violent and nonviolent offenders. This included Enrico Tarrio, (ex-Proud Boys leader serving 22 years) and Daniel Rodriguez (12 years) who pleaded guilty to tasing Metropolitan Police. 'Omg I did so much (expletive) and got away,' he texted to his gang. 'Tazzed the s--- out of the blue."
These pardons show total disrespect for crimes against law enforcement on Jan. 6, and to the prosecutors, judges and jurors who examined evidence and moved to convict.
Trump is saying if you're my violent mob, I got your back, and there is no penalty for violence against my enemies. He now stands fully behind political violence.
I'm very concerned about having Trump loyalists like Kash Patel, who vowed to arrest Trump's enemies, as FBI director, and Pam Bondi, who would not admit under oath that Trump lost in 2020, as attorney general.
In Trump's first term, he was occasionally called "the lawless president." He has now proved how prophetic that was. Our enduring "rule of law" now sits in the crosshairs of a felon president with little, if any, respect for it, or the branches that enforce it.
Vicky Dorman, Satellite Beach
A message as we look to mid-terms
Surely, I am not the only person to recognize the irony of choosing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" as part of the inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20. This hymn was written by American abolitionist Julia Ward Howe during the American Civil War. It became the "battle cry" of the Union soldiers as they fought to save our republic. Lyrics from this heartfelt, soul-stirring hymn have been used in speeches given by Presidents Clinton and Obama and by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Further irony is Jan. 20 happened to be the day the nation celebrated MLK Day.
In my opinion this hymn is the battle cry to us as we face the situations of today. We have been thrust further into the war to save the soul of our nation. We must prepare now for what lies ahead. It is a call to plan strategically on being the victor not the victim. Begin by coming to grips with the fact that Trump is president. Second. we have to stop talking about everything he says and does, He told us what he was going to do and now he is doing it. He loves being the center of everyone's attention.
Our energy is best spent revisiting those coalitions we seem to have abandoned. We have to rewrite our message. Biblically we are admonished to write the plan; make it clear so that he who runs with it can read it. So, as we write our message for these next two years it must be one that tells our fellow citizens what we can do for them in this war to save the soul of our country; then tell them what we just told them and once again repeat the original message. We have to be the victors at mid-terms.
Cynthia K. Williams, Titusville
A dark, unsettling vision
Once again, we face the abyss.
In 1963, my American history class in Cocoa, Florida, read about the war of the world, twice, over there. We studied texts, and we looked at photographs taken by war correspondents. The book "Night" had not been written, and words that book contained were not used in my school.
The suffering began first to a few and then grew as mushrooms grow in Dark Souls of unsharpened citizens. The pictures that fascinated and repelled my young mind were the extended 'Heil' arms: so many, so synchronized, so starched ... I chilled myself tonight as a supporter of our new president threw his arm outward with fingers outstretched, palms down, skyward, in happy adulation once, twice, for all to see. To copy. Again.
Christopher Robin 'Kit' Adams, Melbourne
How will 'they' use 'your' information?
At Donald Trump's inauguration, the heads of Google, Apple, Instagram/Facebook, X, Amazon and TikTok were seated closer to Trump than his cabinet nominees were.
Their platforms collect mountains of data on you – name, age, birth, address, facial, photos, live feeds, commentary, interests, contacts, phone and location history. They own it. They share it with whoever they like – partners, customers, law enforcement. There is no law protecting you from them sharing it.
Why is this important? Your data, if shared with the government, is the foundation for a rapidly evolving surveillance state.
Add in millions of internet-connected cameras - street-level, business-based, home-based, traffic, drone, computer, phone, and satellite – all supplying live feeds.
The rapid advancement of specialized AI, integrating facial recognition, live video, and personal data is the secret sauce. AI will match your face with your behavioral profile, track your real-time movements, and report what you do and say. Our defense department is leading in its development.
A leader with impulses for retribution against perceived enemies and threats can speed development.
Trump, his new tech benefactors, a compliant Republican Congress and a sycophant cabinet that owes Trump their position and privilege are all it will take to bring this dystopian vision to life.
Surveillance technology is quite prevalent in China, identifying candidates for "re-education," while U.S. companies aggressively integrate AI into their platforms to expose you even more.
No one is a bigger fan of the techno-oligarchy now than Trump. No wonder why.
Jeff Dorman, Satellite Beach
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on
CNBC
22 minutes ago
- CNBC
What a ‘revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investors
As the Senate weighs President Donald Trump's multi-trillion-dollar spending package, a lesser-known provision tucked into the House-approved bill has pushback from Wall Street. The House measure, known as Section 899, would allow the U.S. to add a new tax of up to 20% on foreigners with U.S. investments, including multinational companies operating in the U.S. Some analysts call the provision a "revenge tax" due to its wording. It would apply to foreign entities if their home country imposes "unfair foreign taxes" against U.S. companies, according to the bill. "Wall Street investors are shocked by [Section] 899 and apparently did not see it coming," James Lucier, Capital Alpha Partners managing director, wrote in a June 5 analysis. More from Personal Finance:The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high. See if you're on trackOn-time debt payments aren't a magic fix for your credit score. Here's whyWith 'above normal' hurricane forecasts, check your home insurance policy If enacted as written, the provision could have "significant implications for the asset management industry," including cross-border income earned by hedge funds, private equity funds and other entities, Ernst & Young wrote on June 2. Passive investment income could be subject to a higher U.S. withholding tax, as high as 50% in some cases, the company noted. Some analysts worry that could impact future investment. The Investment Company Institute, which represents the asset management industry serving individual investors, warned in a May 30 statement that the provision is "written in a manner that could limit foreign investment to the U.S." But with details pending as the Senate assesses the bill, many experts are still weighing the potential impact — including who could be affected. Here's what investors need to know about Section 899. As drafted, Section 899 would allow the U.S. to hike existing levies for countries with "unfair foreign taxes" by 5% per year, capped at 20%. Several kinds of tax fall under "unfair foreign taxes," according to the provision. Those include the undertaxed profits rule, which is associated with part of the global minimum tax negotiated by the Biden administration. The term would also apply to digital services taxes and diverted profits taxes, along with new levies that could arise, according to the bill. The second part of the measure would expand the so-called base erosion and anti-abuse tax, or BEAT, which aims to prevent corporations from shifting profits abroad to avoid taxes. "Basically, all businesses that are operating in the U.S. from a foreign headquarters will face that," said Daniel Bunn, president and CEO of the Tax Foundation. "It's pretty expansive." The retaliatory measures would apply to most wealthy countries from which the U.S. receives direct foreign investment, which could threaten or harm the U.S. economy, according to Bunn's analysis. Notably, the proposed taxes don't apply to U.S. Treasuries or portfolio interest, according to the bill. Section 899 still needs Senate approval, and it's unclear how the provision could change amid alarm from Wall Street. But the measure has "strong support" from others in the business community, and it's a "strong priority" for Republican House Ways and Means Committee members, Capital Alpha Partners' Lucier wrote. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., first floated the idea in a May 2023 bill, and has been outspoken, along with other Republicans, against the global minimum tax. If enacted as drafted, Section 899 could raise an estimated $116 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That could help fund other priorities in Trump's mega-bill, and if removed, lawmakers may need to find the revenue elsewhere, Bunn said. However, House Ways and Means Republicans may ultimately want foreign countries to adjust their tax policies before the new tax is imposed. "If these countries withdraw these taxes and decide to behave, we will have achieved our goal," Smith said in a June 4 statement.
CNBC
26 minutes ago
- CNBC
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."
