Former US Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a champion of democracy in Cuba, dies at 70
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Cuban American who fought tirelessly for a free Cuba and who spent 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives as a member of a politically powerful South Florida family, has died after battling cancer, his family said on Monday. He was 70.
His brother, U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, said in a statement on the social platform X that his brother was 'a defender of the silenced and oppressed, author of the democracy requirement for the lifting of U.S. sanctions against the Cuban dictatorship.'
A public mass memorial will be celebrated at a later date, the family said.
'Lincoln's profound love for the United States and his relentless commitment to the cause of a free Cuba guided him throughout his life and his 24 years in elected public service, including 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives,' Mario Diaz-Balart said in the statement.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart served in the Florida state House from 1987 to 1989, the state Senate from 1989 to 1993 and represented South Florida in Congress from 1993 to 2011.
During his time in Congress, Diaz-Balart significantly affected U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, including codifying into law the Cuban embargo and enacting the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. The act provided deportation protections and immigration benefits to Cubans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorians and Guatemalans.
The Diaz-Balarts have deep roots in both Miami and Cuba. Their father, Rafael Diaz-Balart, was a prominent Cuban politician who opposed Fidel Castro and who founded the first anti-Castro organization La Rosa Blanca.
Rafael Diaz-Balart's sister was Castro's first wife, making the younger Diaz-Balarts the dictator's nephews.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
37 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump using L.A. unrest to push his big bill in D.C.
President Trump and his allies have a new message for wobbly Republicans in Congress: Either support his "Big Beautiful Bill" or get bashed for backing the Los Angeles protesters waving Mexican flags in front of burning cars. Why it matters: It's a sign of the political hardball Trump is playing within his own party. At the same time, he's squeezing California's Democratic leaders with what critics call an over-the-top response to protests fueled by his immigration crackdown. The drama in L.A. has helped the White House shift some of its focus from Trump's feud with Elon Musk and place it squarely on immigration — an issue on which Trump continues to poll relatively well despite growing discontent over his aggressive push for arrests and deportations. As California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass accuse Trump of escalating the tension there, the White House sees a chance to attack sanctuary city policies, embarrass Democrats and show the need for the immigration funding in the mammoth bill that most Republicans strongly support. Zoom in: Trump has long backed using force — even the military — to subdue destructive protests. But his advisers say there was no master plan for immigration raids to spark the type of protests and vandalism in L.A. that would lead Trump to call in the National Guard, over Newsom and Bass' objections. The big picture: To Trump's team, Newsom's opposition, the televised images of vandalized cars, and protesters throwing rocks and waving foreign flags to oppose U.S. immigration arrests did more to boost the White House's push to maintain GOP support for Trump's bill than any of its recent talking points. "We see the riots in L.A. laden with political opportunity, in that it's a fight between what Republicans say they want vs. the radical left and protesters waving the Mexican flag in front of burning cars — and the Democrats supporting them," said a senior White House adviser. "It's the best BBB marketing ever. It has brought the critical nature of increased border funding and immigration enforcement to the fore," said Andrew Kolvet, spokesman for Turning Point USA, a major voice in Republican advocacy. "Everyone we're talking to in the Senate says this put it over the top." To Kolvet's point, Tom Cotton, chair of the Senate's Republican conference, sent out three talking points Monday to his GOP colleagues emphasizing Newsom's role and violent protestors. Cotton also tussled with Newsom on X. In one reply, the senator posted a picture of a masked demonstrator waving a Mexican flag atop a vandalized car with flames in the background. Reality check: There is a constitutional question about whether Trump is empowered to call up the California National Guard when its governor is opposed. Newsom is suing. The context is dramatically different, but a president calling in the Guard over a governor's objection has happened before. In 1968, President Johnson did so to enforce civil rights laws amid opposition from Alabama Gov. George Wallace. Late Monday, Trump also moved to deploy Marines to Los Angeles, an unprecedented escalation in modern times, further angering California officials. What they're saying:"Republicans are trying to take away health care from millions of Americans in order to give tax breaks to billionaires — so Trump is manufacturing a crisis, demonizing immigrants with increasing extremism, cruelty and disregard for the law," California Sen. Alex Padilla said on X Monday. "It's the Trump playbook." But Padilla's post, which featured a TV news clip of him making the comments, showed the messaging problem Democrats face. It was displayed in a split screen of him talking juxtaposed with video of a burning car. It wasn't clear Monday whether Trump's California political play was changing any holdout Republicans' votes on his signature bill. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the few GOP no votes on the legislation last month, still opposes the bill because of its deficits and policies favoring state and local tax (SALT) deductions that particularly benefit blue states. "The 'Big Beautiful Bill' actually rewards Gov. Newsom's failed polices with a $100 billion gift to California in the form of increased SALT deductions," he told Axios in a written statement. The protests "are a bitter reminder that Trump let California and NY Republicans ransom his border security agenda," Massie added. Another congressional Republican who has serious problems with the bill told Axios on background that "this has always been the plan by BBB supporters — to use the border as pressure to not address the fiscal impact of some/many of the taxes." Trump's L.A. response is "just a circumstance of not letting a crisis go to waste."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Hoping for a bond market crash to take down MAGA? Please wish for something else
Americans unhappy with President Donald Trump's second term have taken to wishing for something they shouldn't. If only the U.S. Treasury bond market were to crash, the thinking goes, then Trump would be forced to change his policies. Bond traders could simply knock down the whole economic house of cards and then, presto! Goodbye to tariffs and hello to fiscal responsibility. Time for a reality check: First, a bond market crash would be a disaster that would cost Americans dearly for years to come. Second, the bond market sure doesn't look like it's going to crash. How do we know? No one can predict the future, but for decades Chicago has played a leading role in the Treasury markets via CME Group futures contracts. And one great thing about futures is that anyone can see what real traders putting real money on the line believe is going to happen in, yes, the future. The most active 30-year Treasury bond and 10-year Treasury note contracts show expected prices through the end of the year, and there's been volatility, for sure. They also reflect an unusual pattern of interest rates staying relatively high even as the dollar weakens, probably because Trump's trade wars do indeed stand to hurt the economy, as does the lamentable lack of fiscal discipline in Congress. So far, however, the markets are not pricing in anything like a crash. In fact, long-term interest rates are less than 5% and inching lower in recent days, which is hardly a sign of an imminent crisis. Of course, markets can turn on a dime, as the United Kingdom experienced three years ago. A newly elected prime minister, Liz Truss, pushed through an irresponsible budget that would have funded huge tax cuts with increased borrowing. Sound familiar? In that case, the reaction was swift: Traders dumped British bonds and sent the British pound plunging against the dollar. Truss wound up being forced out after just 50 days in office, and the British economy is just now starting to recover. The same could happen to the U.S., in theory. But in fact, the U.S. economy has a much greater capacity to absorb bad policy than did the U.K., because it has been doing quite well. At a speech earlier this month, Austan Goolsbee, who heads the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, likened the economy to a buff gym rat with a six-pack of abdominal muscles. Trouble is, this gym rat has a layer of fat over the muscles, so they're hard to see. In his analogy, the underlying economy is strong, but it's being obscured by the uncertainty of Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs, now popularized by the acronym TACO, among other destabilizing policies. But with unemployment at just 4.2% and inflation at 2.3% (and closing in on the Fed's 2% target) the 'hard data' are still amazingly healthy. Not only did the U.S. avoid an oft-predicted recession over the past several years, but growth picked up momentum throughout 2024. The U.S. remains the world's wealthiest country, and if it decided to curb its growing debt by raising more revenue, it could well afford it. But the political will is missing, and 'soft data' such as surveys of consumer sentiment and business investment plans are decidedly negative. At the same time, some notable experts are warning of trouble ahead if the U.S. maintains an unsustainable course. Hedge fund kingpin Ray Dalio recently told Bloomberg he gives the U.S. 'three years, give or take a year,' to avoid an economic 'heart attack.' Jamie Dimon, head of JPMorgan Chase, similarly predicted the U.S. is headed for 'a crack in the bond market,' adding, 'I just don't know if it's going to be a crisis in six months or six years.' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reacted to Dimon's prediction by noting that Dimon loves to make predictions and, according to Bessent, 'None of them have come true.' What is true is that given the strength of the economy, interest rates should be lower. In continuing to issue a massive amount of debt, America is beginning to pay what British pundits during the Truss fiasco took to calling the 'moron risk premium.' That's the extra cost a country pays in the form of higher interest rates on its debt when incompetent leadership raises the risk of financial instability or default. In his recent talk, Goolsbee acknowledged that U.S. interest rates are higher than they should be because of policy uncertainty. Getting that 'dust out of the air,' as he put it, would tee up lower rates. 'If you have stable, full employment and inflation going to target, rates can come down.' Lower rates make it cheaper to obtain loans and manage debt, which would encourage consumer spending and business investment. Washington needs to cut the chaotic policymaking and embrace responsible political solutions without bond vigilantes forcing the issue — as much as Trump's critics wish they would. _____
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bill to amend medically assisted suicide law draws emotional debate from Maine lawmakers
Jun. 9—AUGUSTA — A proposal to allow doctors to waive the waiting period for terminally ill patients who want to be given life-ending drugs drew an emotional debate from lawmakers in the Maine Senate Monday before it was rejected by one vote. The fate of the bill is unclear after the Senate voted the proposal down 18-17. It passed 74-64 in the House of Representatives last week and faces another round of votes in each chamber before it could be sent to Gov. Janet Mills for her signature. The bill would amend a 2019 law known as the Death with Dignity Act, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in Maine. It allows certain terminally ill patients to have the option to receive life-ending medication so they have control over their death. Maine's law currently requires a 17-day waiting period from when a person requests the medication to when they can receive the prescription. The change under consideration, LD 613, would allow a doctor to waive all or a portion of the waiting period if they determine it would be in the patient's best interest. Mills supported the original Death with Dignity Act, but it's unclear if she would support the change. Spokespeople for the governor did not respond Monday to questions about whether she has taken a position on the bill. The proposal allowing for the waiting period to be waived drew emotional debate from lawmakers who spoke about how they've personally been affected by illness and death. "This is not an abstract issue for me," said Rep. Kathy Javner, R-Chester, who has metastatic breast cancer, during last week's House debate. "I am living this reality and stand before you today, not in despair, but in hope that we can preserve the dignity and meaning of life, even in the shadow of death." Javner, who was against the change, said removing the waiting period would take away the time that families and physicians currently have to reflect and consider alternative options. "Let us not respond to suffering with surrender," Javner said. "Let us respond with compassion, with presence, with resources for pain management, with palliative care, with love." Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, talked about his mother, who died at age 50 from colorectal cancer, during Monday's Senate debate. Stewart said his mother "broke out" of hospice care in order to be at home with her family at the end of her life. "I will always be grateful for that extra month we got," Stewart said. "I worry about the scenarios about what if they don't get it right and what opportunities are we forestalling through this," he added. "This was the promise that was made originally with this policy, that there wouldn't be that knee-jerk opportunity because of this protection." Maine is among 10 states and Washington, D.C., where physician-assisted suicide is legal for people with terminal illnesses, according to Death With Dignity, an organization in Portland, Oregon, that advocates for the laws as a means of improving how people with such diagnoses die. Waiting periods for medication vary state to state and can range from one day to more than two weeks, according to Death With Dignity. Some states do allow waiting periods to be waived if the patient is unlikely to survive. Maine's Death with Dignity Act has been used by 218 people since it was enacted, according to Michele Meyer, D-Eliot, the sponsor of LD 613. But another nine people have died during the waiting period because their illnesses progressed too rapidly, Meyer said last week. She said the bill does not change the law's criteria that the patient be terminally ill with a six-month prognosis confirmed by two doctors and that they have the capacity to make informed decisions. "This is simple and straight forward," Meyer said. "It corrects a rare situation that never should have existed in the first place. Some of us will not know the gift of a long, healthy life. ... Medical aid in dying offers decisionally capable adults an option to avoid prolonged suffering." In the Senate Monday, Sen. Tim Nangle, D-Windham, talked about his father's lung cancer and the pain he suffered. Nangle said he didn't know if his father, who lived in another state, would have used the Death with Dignity Act, but he said the option for the time waiver should be there. "This is about their choice," Nangle said. "What do they want to do?" Copy the Story Link
