As Texas reels and mourns, questions raised over agency cuts
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Claire Clini
Advertisement
Wilbraham
Questions have been raised over evacuation procedures and public readiness in the deadly flooding in Texas, with some pointing to the erosion of experienced staffing at key agencies. The recent cuts remain part of a broader pattern. A clear danger lies in the mind-set I call 'Defunding Our Government Essentials' (DOGE), a political choice to hollow out public institutions in the name of austerity.
When expertise is devalued and vital roles go unfilled, the public pays the price. This is especially the case as climate-fueled disasters become more frequent and intense. The current administration's 'Dysfunction Over Governance and Expertise' approach threatens to weaken the capacity of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and leave local systems underprepared.
Advertisement
We are living through a, yes, perfect storm of rising temperatures, rising waters, and rising human suffering.
Norah Dooley
Royalston
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Florida Issues Update on Property Tax Cut Proposal
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. Florida's CFO Blaise Ingoglia is calling for drastic cuts to property taxes in the state, accusing local governments of keeping their budgets larger than necessary at the expense of homeowners. "The budget that is funded by your property taxes has gone up anywhere between 60 percent to 120 percent," Ingoglia said on Tuesday in West Palm Beach, during an update on the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) audits of the state's local governments. "Now, when you go back pre-COVID and you start factoring in inflation and population growth, those budgets should not have exploded anywhere near where they're exploding right now," he said. Ingoglia is by far not the only Florida official targeting high property taxes in the state, which have been rising in recent years as home values shot through the roof during the COVID-19 pandemic. Governor Ron DeSantis has even thrown his support behind the idea of abolishing property taxes in the state entirely. Newsweek reached out to Ingoglia's office via email for comment. Did The DOGE Audits Find Evidence of Wasteful Spending? The findings of the DOGE audits are yet to be released. But Ingoglia said on Tuesday that the department's auditors have uncovered "eye-popping" examples of excessive spending in Palm Beach County. When pressured by reporters to provide more details, however, Ingoglia declined to do so, saying that "it will all come out in our report in about 60 days." DOGE has audited Palm Beach County's budget from the years 2021 to 2025, reportedly using AI and line-by-line reviews to assess whether the local government is spending taxpayers' money efficiently. The auditors are looking at contracts, procurement, personnel management practices, and DEI initiatives, according to a report by Interim County Administrator Todd Bonlarron. An aerial view of a neighborhood in Miami taken on August 1, 2025. An aerial view of a neighborhood in Miami taken on August 1, 2025."These audits will shine the light on wasteful spending," Ingoglia said on Tuesday. "People are concerned with the level of property taxes they are paying. Local officials say their budgets are already cut to the bone but I can tell you that is not the case." Palm Beach County Mayor Maria G. Marino told news station WPTV that she is not concerned about the results of DOGE's audits. Almost 50 percent of the county's large budget, she said, goes to the county's law enforcement. Newsweek reached out to Marino's office and the Palm Beach County Clerk via email for comment. What Could Be the Outcome of the Audits' Results? Should the audits show frivolous and wasteful spending by Florida's local counties, as Ingoglia has suggested, the CFO would then support the idea of putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot, so that Floridians can vote for property tax relief. "The governor and I have been pushing very hard for the elimination of homestead property taxes," Ingoglia said on Tuesday. Can Florida Really Abolish Property Taxes? Florida is among several Republican-led states currently trying to drastically cut and even eliminate property taxes. A proposal to fully abolish property taxes in the Sunshine State does not exist, in detail, yet. But the process would be relatively complex. In order to eliminate property taxes, the state would require a constitutional amendment backed by 60 percent of voters. The move could be risky for local governments, stripping them of much of the funding they use to support essential public services such as law enforcement, firefighting, and schools. In a recent report, the Florida Policy Institute (FPI) warned state policymakers pursuing the elimination of property taxes that doing so without "a cohesive plan to raise taxes in a progressive manner" might cause households with low to moderate incomes to "end up paying more in taxes, as a percentage of their earnings, compared to wealthy residents if sales taxes increase to make up the lost revenue."
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is Gay Marriage Really Under Threat at the Supreme Court?
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered some stark words of warning this week about the prospects of same-sex marriage surviving over the long term as a constitutional right. "The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage," Clinton said. "My prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion." Is Clinton right to worry? A quick glance at some recent breaking news headlines might lead you to think that she is. "Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex ruling," reported ABC News. "SCOTUS has been asked to overturn same-sex marriage," observed USA Today. But the headlines only told part of the story. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court was recently asked to revisit its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that "the right of same-sex couples to marry…is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment." The person who did the asking is Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who earned national headlines when she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis has since been fighting an uphill legal battle to overturn Obergefell. Having recently lost before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, she is now trying to persuade the high court to take up her case on appeal. The odds are not exactly in Davis' favor. The Supreme Court is "formally asked" to hear thousands of new cases each term, yet the justices only agree to hear a small fraction of them. And most of the thousands of parties seeking such review are turned away by the Supreme Court without receiving so much as a single word of explanation. To request review by the Supreme Court, in other words, is definitely not the same thing as obtaining review by the Supreme Court. The chances are good that the petition for review in Davis v. Ermold will be denied, just like those thousands of other petitions are denied by the justices every term. However, it is also true that the Supreme Court does sometimes agree to hear a case for the express purpose of reconsidering one of its own precedents, such as when the Court took up Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) and used it as a vehicle for overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminating the constitutional right to obtain an abortion. That's the thing about precedent at the Supreme Court. It matters—until it doesn't. So, the real question to ponder is whether the requisite five votes exist on the Supreme Court right now to overturn Obergefell. Absent the magic number of five, Davis will never succeed in making Davis the next Dobbs. I don't think there are five such votes at the present. If I had to guess, I would say that only Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and perhaps also Neil Gorsuch, could be counted on to vote in favor of that hugely controversial result at this time. But we won't know for sure until the Supreme Court returns in a few weeks from its summer break. Until then, you too may guess away. The post Is Gay Marriage Really Under Threat at the Supreme Court? appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
9 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Everyone wins in Trump-Wu clash — except immigrants
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It was a perfect political performance — not just for Wu but also for the Trump administration. Advertisement Since President Trump took office, Boston and its mayor have become the perfect targets for a Trump administration looking to please a base that scorns liberal cities and their impractical policies. Likewise, when Trump attacks, Wu gets to position herself as the city's savior against a hostile regime. But this mutually beneficial feud does little to address legitimate immigration policy issues. The more Wu taunts Trump to build up her own political standing, the more she risks a harsher backlash against the city — and the state's vulnerable migrant population. Advertisement The federal government has the right to deport unauthorized immigrants. Cities and towns can choose not to help the government. In both cases, Massachusetts politicians are right to call out the Trump administration's overzealous targeting of peaceable and productive migrants. But they lose credibility by ignoring nonsensical policies that endanger public safety by preventing cooperation between immigration authorities and police on civil detainers for criminal migrants. A civil detainer is a request to local authorities that they hold an immigrant in detention until federal agents can pick them up. Boston ignores detainers, even which is a big part of why the city is in Bondi's crosshairs. The state has also released migrants That's because in 2017, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Lunn v. Commonwealth that the Legislature would have to specifically authorize court officers to honor civil detainers to hold deportable immigrants, a decision that has been interpreted to apply to local police too. The Democratic-led Legislature has failed to do so, not even for unauthorized immigrants who have committed heinous crimes. That means if for any reason Boston officers pick up a convicted criminal who is also in the county illegally, they can't hold them solely on a federal civil detainer — no matter how much safer the community would be without them. Ed Davis, the former Boston Police commissioner who was front and center at Tuesday's press conference, acknowledged in an interview that the lack of cooperation between police and immigration authorities can pose a public safety risk. 'I think that it's logical when there are criminal charges against people that the police use every tool at their disposal, including the immigration law, to try to stop that behavior and remove the individuals responsible from their victims,' Davis told me, clarifying that he prefers that detainers are honored by local law enforcement for individuals convicted of serious crimes. Advertisement He also noted that criminal migrants often victimize members of their own community. Before the current restrictions on cooperation, 'I used to go to neighborhoods like East Boston. … I would explain the policy that we had [then], which was to use the immigration laws to deport really dangerous criminals, people that were preying on their own communities,' he said. 'And the immigrant communities in the city were supportive of that.' The Trump administration has made it clear that its priority is to deport criminal migrants, but 'collateral arrests' of other migrants can occur in the process — and it has said that risk is greater in sanctuary cities. 'If more agencies had just turned people over in a confined setting [law enforcement custody], we wouldn't be out in the community,' acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons By allowing law enforcement to cooperate with immigration officials on cases that endanger public safety, Massachusetts leaders might just be able to decrease the number of federal agents out in the migrant communities they purport to protect. Advertisement Wu and her Democratic colleagues have ignored these gaps in the law. But it's far from a controversial take to support the deportation of migrants who have committed violent crimes. In fact, The Trump administration is choosing a maximalist approach both to send a message and to make a spectacle out of punishing liberal cities. But by ignoring impractical policies as she positions herself as a resistance figure, Wu plays into Trump's political hand — even while strengthening her own in the process. Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion columnist. She can be reached at
