Rick Scott has the right idea. It's time for permanent daylight saving time
This latest hearing signals renewed interest in ending the twice-yearly clock change.
I agree — it's time to lock the clock.
Every March and November, we find ourselves either springing ahead — and losing an hour of sleep — or falling back and enjoying that extra hour. If you have children or pets, you know the chaos that ensues with the time change. Bedtime schedules are upended, and pets demand meals at off-times.
In 2018, the Florida Legislature passed legislation to make daylight saving time permanent, and Scott, who was governor at the time, signed it into law. More sunshine in the Sunshine State — it was a win. But it didn't actually happen; the change needs federal approval.
When Secretary of State Marco Rubio was serving in the U.S. Senate, he introduced the Sunshine Preservation Act in 2018, and in 2019, and then reintroduced it with co-sponsors in 2021 and 2023. In a joint opinion piece published in 2021, on Foxnews.com, Rubio and Sen. James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, wrote that they had 'bispartisan solution' for the debate: 'Let's lock the clock and let our kids and families enjoy more sunshine year-round.'
Fast forward to January 2025, when Scott introduced the act again, saying it 'would end the twice-yearly time change and make daylight saving time the national year-round standard.' Seven Democrats joined him supporting the act, including Sen. Alex Padilla from California, where the state has already voted to the lock the clock.
During April 10 hearing by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation — titled 'If I Could Turn Back Time: Should We Lock the Clock?' — Scott continued to make his case, saying, 'the American people are sick and tired of changing their clocks twice a year — it's unnecessary, confusing and completely outdated.'
There are potential downsides to the idea. Critics argue that permanent daylight saving time would lead to darker mornings, disruption in our circadian rhythm and have negative effects on public health. And, as the Miami Herald noted in an editorial in December, when the U.S. made daylight saving time permanent in 1974, the outcry over the ensuing morning darkness led to a reversal after just 10 months.
These concerns have merit. The delay in winter sunrises, particularly in northern states, could impact schoolchildren, commuters and shift workers who start their day in the dark.
But the real problem is changing the clocks. The abrupt time shift causes a change in our sleep, increases risk of heart attacks and strokes, and a higher number of car accidents., according to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Most Americans support ending clock changes. In a recent study by the Center for Public Opinion Research at Stetson University 75% of Americans supported the idea to stop changing the clocks twice a year and 54% of Americans favored year-round daylight saving time.
Nearly 20 states have passed bills to keep daylight saving time permanent. They're just waiting for congressional approval. Last week's the Senate committee is a step in the right direction.
Here in Florida, the economic benefits can't be overlooked. By locking the clocks to daylight saving time, Floridians would enjoy more daylight hours, which could offer a boost to retail shopping and restaurants as people stay out later and spend more. Tourists would be able to spend more time enjoying outdoor activities rather than retreating to their hotel rooms when the sun sets early.
Longer days are also good for the environment. More natural light in the evening hours means less electricity consumption for lighting, potentially reducing our carbon footprint.
The 'lock the clock' effort has bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats may not be able to agree on much these days but they've found one issue: permanent daylight saving time.
Mary Anna Mancuso is a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. Her email: mmancuso@miamiherald.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
Engadget
18 minutes ago
- Engadget
Court blocks FTC investigation into Media Matters' alleged scheme against X
The court has blocked the Federal Trade Commission's investigation into Media Matters, the media nonprofit that previously published research showing that ads appeared on X alongside neo-Nazi and other antisemitic content. In 2023, Elon Musk's X filed a lawsuit against the media watchdog following an advertiser exodus. It accused Media Matters of "knowingly and maliciously manufactur[ing] side-by-side images depicting advertisers' posts on X Corp.'s social media platform beside Neo-Nazi and white national fringe content." Just this May, the FTC started looking into whether the nonprofit violated antitrust laws by allegedly colluding with advertising and advocacy groups to boycott X. In June, Media Matters sued the FTC, accusing it of unfairly targeting the group in retaliation for past criticisms of X. "The Federal Trade Commission seeks to punish Media Matters for its journalism and speech in exposing matters of substantial public concern — including how has enabled and profited from extremist content that proliferated after Elon Musk took over the platform formerly known as Twitter," the group said at the time. Now, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan has granted a preliminary injunction in the nonprofit's favor. Sooknanan has agreed with the group that the FTC's investigation is "a retaliatory act" and has noted that it is "likely to succeed on its First Amendment retaliation claim." She wrote in her decision that such probes would deter other reporters from speaking again. "Indeed, the FTC's [investigation] has had its intended effect." Apparently, because of the probe, Media Matters has "decided against pursuing certain stories about the FTC, Chairman Ferguson, and Mr. Musk." "The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration," Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, told The New York Times . "We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American." As the publication notes, courts had also blocked investigations into the group by the attorneys general in Texas and Missouri. Musk's lawsuits against the nonprofit, however, are still ongoing.
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Do Cuomo and Adams secretly want Mamdani to win?
I have worked with a number of very successful candidates and politicians. The one really invaluable skill they all had in common was that they understood basic math. They knew that two plus two often leads to victory, and that two minus one — or three — usually leads to defeat. Addition, subtraction, division. Simple. Unless, to paraphrase a line from 'Top Gun,' 'Your ego is writing checks your body can't cash.' There is no doubt that many New York City residents — as well as countless people around the country and world who now fear for that iconic city's future — have been shaken by a recent Siena College poll showing that far-left socialist Zohran Mamdani leads the race to become the next mayor by 19 points over his next-closest opponent, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Behind them are Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa with 12 percent and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams with 7 percent. Mamdani has the gift of basic math working massively in his favor. In this particular case, division. Without doing a thing, the cliché 'divide and conquer' has been the most important campaign strategy in his quiver. Other than offering the socialist panacea of 'a chicken in every pot' — free stuff to constituents who really know nothing about him — it is the one factor that may make him the next mayor of New York. Mamdani doesn't have to pay for it, focus-group it or expend any political capital. He simply has to sit back and prepare as the respective egos of Cuomo and Adams hand him the keys to Gracie Mansion — and the four years he will need to bring New York City to its knees. Why? Because Cuomo and Adams are now engaged in an ego-fueled blinking contest to see who might exit the race first. That, or they secretly want Mamdani to win. Either way, it's Mamdani with the Cheshire Cat-like smile. This is proving to be an interesting election in that the winning candidate will be the one least despised by the voters. Each of the four major candidates have high negatives and elicit harsh criticism from various blocks of voters. Sadly, forgotten in this high-profile contest between dueling egos are the millions of people in the city who are either barely getting by or suffering in the throes of dysfunction and despair — ironically enough, often caused by the failed policies of previous ego-driven mayors. Many of the residents of New York City who are struggling daily with poverty, crime and lack of education for their children are Black or minority. Ah, but we are seemingly not allowed to talk about that. Many on the left — with a huge assist from Democratic leadership, the media, academia and teachers unions — have gamed it so if you even try to point out the failings of a major American city such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington or Baltimore and who is running it, you risk being labeled a racist, bigot or a misogynist. I don't care what a mayor looks like or how they identify sexually. The only thing I care about is the suffering of millions of constituents. Life for those people is beyond brutal in many cases — an irrefutable fact you almost never hear about, because that would run counter to the various narratives of the left's noise machine. For example, let's look at another major American city that is a poster child for failure, massive dysfunction and turning its back on those most in need: Chicago. A city in which, as I have pointed out in the past, more than 40,000 men, women and children — almost all minority and from the inner city — have been murdered over the last six decades. Extrapolate that number across multiple American inner cities and you have our nation's greatest failing … ever. Except, 'shhhh,' once again, you are not supposed to talk about it. New York City is Chicago on steroids. It has multiple — fixable — problems and life-crushing emergencies across the five boroughs. Unfortunately for those most at-risk inhabitants, many of the people who can help them are entitled elites who exist in bubbles of luxury and safety floating far above the 'unwashed masses' of the city. Two of those elites are Cuomo and Adams. To them, it seems as if the title of 'mayor' is yet one more trophy they can amass, serving either as a potential stepping stone to higher office or to private sector appointments and riches once the last term is complete. In the meantime, those millions of desperately hurting New Yorkers ignored by the elites had better prepare themselves. If (when) Mamdani wins, things will get much worse. 'Free stuff' is the false promise to grab the vote of those New Yorkers. Once Mamdani secures that vote, it will only be about what is best for him and his socialist movement going forward. Those at-risk residents won't even be a fleeting memory.
