Letters to the Editor: Republicans seem intent on hurting the most vulnerable
Members of Congress take the Pledge of Allegiance hundreds of times during their terms in office. It says that liberty and justice are for all. But Republican lawmakers in Washington don't believe the Pledge. Instead, they only want liberty and justice for some.
Despite strong opposition, the threats to Medicaid have gotten worse. The budget bill passed by the House in May includes $800 billion in cuts over 10 years. The Senate's version released last week increases those cuts to $1 trillion. The results will be catastrophic. More than 10.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries will lose coverage. More than 4.5 million people with complex needs who live at home may be forced into costlier and lower-quality institutions. More than 4 million family caregivers may lose supports. More than 13,000 people in nursing homes will die. More than 338 rural hospitals will close.
Republicans are determined to hurt people who don't deserve it. People like my disabled adult son David, who needs 24/7 support. He lives in a Medicaid-funded group home and attends a Medicaid-funded day activity center, both in Elgin. He's not a statistic. He's one human face of Medicaid.
Why is the Republican Congress intent on dismantling safety net programs that David relies on? To give massive tax cuts to wealthy individuals and profitable corporations. So the richest people on the planet can own even more. But taking from David to give to Elon Musk isn't justice for all. In fact, it's not justice at all.
Our Illinois senators reject this budget. But if it passes, Illinois will lose money and be forced to cut services. So, please call Republican senators from other states and protest. Their votes affect everyone in the U.S., not just their own constituents. Ask them to live up their Pledge of liberty and justice for all.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Brazil's outspoken first lady is coming under fire, but she refuses to stop speaking out
SAO PAULO — In early May, an air of triumph filled a dinner in Beijing, where Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva celebrated a diplomatic victory: businessmen travelling with him said they had secured billions of dollars in investments as the veteran leader renewed his international prestige standing alongside his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping . But then Brazilian first lady Rosângela da Silva, better known as Janja, raised her hand. Although no one was expected to speak, da Silva addressed Xi, saying that Chinese social media company TikTok posed a challenge for leftists, claiming its algorithm favors right-wingers. China's president reportedly answered. The exchange was leaked to Brazilian media by the time dessert was served. Lula's government is grappling with unpopularity that has dented his credentials as the frontrunner for reelection next year. Some analysts, including members of his government, attribute this partly to his wife's perceived overstepping in what was once a ceremonial role. Janja, a 58-year-old sociologist, has drawn criticism for insulting tech billionaire Elon Musk , mocking the suicide of a pro-Jair Bolsonaro supporter and advising the president on how to use the military during the Jan. 8, 2023 riots in the capital, Brasilia. Still, she insists she will speak out whenever it serves the public interest. A Datafolha poll released June 12 found that 36% of Brazilians think the first lady's actions hurt the government, while 14% say they are helpful. It was the pollster's first measure of the first lady's approval. The same poll showed Lula with a 40% job disapproval rating, an 8 percentage point increase from October 2024. Brazil's presidency said in a statement to The Associated Press on June 20 that da Silva adheres to the solicitor-general's office guidelines, adding that she 'acts as a citizen, combining her public visibility with the experience she has built throughout her professional career in support of relevant social issues and matters of public interest.' Under guidelines published by the solicitor-general's office, the president's spouse primarily fulfills 'a symbolically representative role on behalf of the president in a social, cultural, ceremonial, political or diplomatic nature.' For many of her critics, this does not grant her the authority to speak as a government representative. Brazilian media have reported that government ministers, lawmakers and staunch leftist campaigners are privately raising concerns about the first lady being a hindrance more than an asset. These worries have skyrocketed since the incident in China — even as Lula himself has praised his wife for speaking out. 'It looks like Brazil is governed by a couple,' said Beatriz Rey, a political science postdoctoral and research fellow at the University of Lisbon. 'When (the first lady) says there won't be any protocols to silence her, she disrespects our democratic institutions for she has no elected office, no government position. It is not about being a woman or a feminist. It is undue interference.' Lula's first wife, Maria de Lourdes, died in 1971. His second, Marisa Letícia, died in 2017. Lula, 79, and Janja said they met in 2017 and started seeing each other frequently during the leftist leader's 580 days in jail in the city of Curitiba between 2018 and 2019. They married in 2022. Many supporters of Lula's Workers' Party partly attribute the criticism against the first lady to misinformation and disinformation. In May, the party launched the 'I am with Janja' social media campaign in her defense. But the week-long effort garnered less than 100,000 views and only a few hundred comments. 'Janja is an asset because she rejuvenates Lula, everyone in the government understands that, even her critics,' a Brazilian government source told the AP. 'No one wants to alienate her. But many important people in Brasilia, friends and allies of Lula, do understand that by overstepping she brings some of her rejection to the president.' The source, who spoke under condition of anonymity for lack of authorization to speak about the matter publicly, often travels with the president and the first lady. Adriana Negreiros, a journalist who profiled the first lady for a 2024 podcast titled 'Janja,' said that allies of the president who criticize her do it with extreme caution. '(Janja) dances, sings, speaks out, appears at official events and meetings with heads of state. She insists on being present and vocal,' Negreiros said. 'There's a lot of sexism and misogyny directed at her, no doubt. But not all criticism is sexist.' Da Silva said she doesn't go to dinners 'just to accompany' her husband. 'I have common sense. I consider myself an intelligent person. So I know very well what my limits are. I'm fully aware of that,' she told a podcast of daily Folha de S. Paulo. Da Silva did, however, express remorse during the same podcast for the expletive she used against Musk in 2024, once a close ally of U.S. President Donald Trump . Many of Lula's adversaries say they want the first lady to remain in the spotlight. 'The more she speaks, the more she holds a microphone, the more she helps the right wing,' said Nikolas Ferreira, one of Brazil's most popular right-wing lawmakers. Ferreira, a prominent social media figure, claims the role of regulating social media is a matter for Brazil's Congress, not for the first lady to debate with foreign leaders like Xi. Da Silva is also expected to play as a keen hostess at the BRICS summit in Rio on July 6-7, a role her husband is almost certain not to oppose. 'She will be wherever she wants,' Lula told journalists in March following criticism for sending the first lady as his representative to a nutrition summit in Paris that month. 'She will say what she wants and go wherever she wants.' ____ Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
'A graveyard of companies': Climate tech startups are feeling the heat from Trump 2.0
Trump's new bill affects tax credits that benefited the clean energy sector and climate startups. It's spooked some climate founders who worked in industries relying on government subsidies. Many are now pivoting to new brands and geographies, and investors expect a reset. The Trump administration's proposed overhaul of green energy tax credits has jolted the climate tech sector — and investors and founders in the ecosystem are scrambling to make fallback plans. Cleantech stocks tumbled in May after a bill cutting tax credits for clean energy incentives passed through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Now, founders and investors are concerned about the knock-on impact this could have on the country's climate tech ecosystem, which was burgeoning under the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA. They told Business Insider that Trump's bill has stifled startup growth ambitions, pushing them to scale back, pivot to new geographies, or shut down entirely. "There will be a graveyard of companies," Matthew Nordan, managing partner at clean tech fund Azolla Ventures, told BI. "And a lot of startups will hibernate to try to weather the storm." Early-stage startups are already beginning to feel the heat. In April, Spencer Gore, founder and CEO of Bedrock Materials, a sodium-ion battery startup, made an unusual announcement on LinkedIn: the startup would be returning most of its $9 million raised to investors and ceasing operations. The company had plenty of operational cash, but "it was the techno-economics that led us to pull the plug," Gore told BI, adding that the market conditions for climate tech startups in the US were hampered by waning industrial policy. Startups are pivoting and eyeing new geographies A byproduct of the new tax bill — and growing political backlash against ESG incentives — is that Europe is becoming more attractive for climate techs to set up shop. "There's a dramatic retrenchment to Europe occurring within climate tech startups now. It's broad-based, and the EU is doing the opposite of what the US is doing right now," Nordan told BI. Sam Kanner, the CEO of floating wind turbine startup Aikido, an Azolla portfolio company, told BI he's considering moving his company to Europe. Trump's executive orders have "put a chill on investor sentiment and project development in the US," he said. There are "no longer any grant opportunities" through the Department of Energy or other agencies, he added, which means its "go-to-market strategy is now completely focused on Europe." Blain said that startups in the EU could turn to government funding from bodies such as the European Investment Fund, adding that "energy prices make the Nordics very attractive" as a hub. Europe, in particular, has made significant headway in aligning regulatory frameworks with climate targets, which de-risks early-stage tech, said Todd Khozein, CEO of SecondMuse. Kanner said that the UK, France, and Norway had "enacted supportive policies which have had the opposite effect on investors in those ecosystems", encouraging private equity, infrastructure, and venture investors to back wind projects. Startups are also eager to look beyond Europe for expansion. "Generally speaking, the EU has made itself unattractive from a manufacturing standpoint, by over-relying on Russia. We'd look to Brazil, India, and the Middle East," Max Kufner, cofounder of carbon capture and utilization startup Again, told BI. "The Middle East is proving to be a viable partner in decarbonization." Right now, "a lot of climate tech entrepreneurs are asking themselves what it means to be an entrepreneur in the United States, and whether this is really the best place to attract and retain talent," Gore said. "What we're seeing right now with startups is similar to the playbook we saw with Trump 1.0. A lot of companies will make a push to rebrand themselves as energy security and resilience funds," Nordan said. Climate tech startups have had a rocky year The aftermath of a global tech downturn, rising interest rates, and mounting backlash against ESG incentives has made it increasingly difficult for climate tech startups to fundraise. In the first quarter of 2025, climate startups secured $10 billion, down 50% from the $20 billion raised in Q1 of 2024, per PitchBook data. Biden's IRA offered climate companies billions of dollars worth of subsidies, tax credits, and rebates. The Trump administration is now attempting to roll back parts of the $369 billion initiative. "Anything that relied on grants, that came out of the IRA, for first-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects, will be hit the hardest," Nordan said. For example, direct air capture startup Climeworks — which received a $50 million US government grant in 2024 — laid off over 100 employees in May. Its CEO told Bloomberg that the startup's upcoming Louisiana plant would be delayed in light of the Trump administration's green policy decisions. Nordan anticipates more layoffs and shutdowns of companies that were dependent on government grants. Offshore wind and solar projects have also been in Trump's crosshairs. While these aren't usually venture-backed categories, the steep reduction in staff at the Department of Energy's loan program office, which provided debt funding to clean energy startups, will have a more debilitating impact on companies in these sectors, Matthew Blain, an investor at Voyager Ventures, told BI. Still, investor appetite for nuclear fusion, long-duration energy storage, and startups making data centers more efficient has accelerated, partly due to the AI boom, which requires immense energy.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump was wrong to bomb Iran. Democrats must be the antiwar party.
At a moment when our country is looking for strong antiwar leadership, Democrats must be the party of peace — peace abroad and good-paying jobs at home. Being the party of peace does not mean that we are the party of pacifism or a party of isolationism. It means that we oppose wars of choice. It means that we reject the Beltway establishment that is pushing for war. War is a terrible thing: It is economically costly, it tears apart families, and innocent people die. Wars should only be fought in the face of an actual attack or imminent threat of attack, and then only when diplomacy has been exhausted and there is no way to repel the attack except through force. They should not be fought for territorial expansion, glory, or regime change. Advertisement Vietnam was a war of choice, which the United States should not have fought. The Iraq War was a war of choice that Advertisement How do Democrats become the antiwar party? We can start by standing firmly for diplomacy, the Constitution, and for our priorities at home — good-paying jobs, affordable health care, education — instead of endless conflict. Trump should not have ordered strikes on Iran. It is in America's national security interest to stop Iran from having a bomb, but the US attack reportedly only What comes next is most important. We need to ensure that the cease-fire holds and that we have diplomacy that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We know that diplomacy works. Former president Barack Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action limited enrichment to Advertisement We also need to prevent any further escalation with Iran without the authorization of Congress. That is why Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and I introduced a bipartisan It is easier to start a war than to end one. Democrats have to be the voice of restraint and principled diplomacy. As the party of peace, we can offer a vision — one where we invest in improving the lives of working-class people. That is how we build a stronger democracy where everyone can thrive.
