Huron post office honors late veteran with new name
Family members, friends and residents gathered to honor fallen Army First Lt. Thomas Michael Martin by renaming the Huron post office in his memory, a news release from the United States Postal Office said.
Buffalo Chip announces rally lineup
According to the USPS, Martin was killed in action on October 14, 2007, in Iraq. Martin was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster and the Purple Heart Medal posthumously. He's buried in the West Point National Cemetery and his hometown post office will be known as the First Lieutenant Michael Martin Post Office Building.
Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds and Huron Mayor Mark Robish attended a ceremony at the post office in Huron along with family members.
'Tom began his life here, died in Iraq fighting for freedom that each of us enjoy every day. Our family is so proud that this beautiful historic facility in what Tom always felt was his hometown, will now be the First Lieutenant Michael Martin Post Office Building,' Martin's father Ed said in a news release.
Martin was born October 10, 1980, in Huron and in 1998, he enlisted in the United States Army as a Field Artilleryman. In 2001, he was accepted for admission to the United States Military Academy at West Point, and later graduated from Airborne School at Fort Benning, Georgia.
He majored in Military Science, commissioned as an Armor Officer and completed the course at Fort Knox, Kentucky. He reported to the 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment at Fort Richardson, Alaska where he assumed responsibility as the Sniper Platoon Leader and deployed with the unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in September 2006, a news release said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump promises clean water. His proposed budget guts needed protections.
President Donald Trump promises clean water for every American, but his latest budget eviscerates federal funding to replace toxic lead pipes, filter out forever chemicals and keep sewage out of lakes and streams. Clean water grants to states would be cut to $303.5 million, down from $2.76 billion set aside in President Joe Biden's last budget. Illinois' share would dip to $11 million, compared with $105.5 million this year. States loan the money to cities and towns at low interest rates, enabling communities to spread out the cost of critical government services people take for granted, such as replacing leaky street mains, maintaining treatment plants and rehabbing water towers. Principal payments often are waived for low-income municipalities. Under Biden the government expanded decades-old programs to speed up the removal of lead pipes in older cities like Chicago and begin to protect Americans from forever chemicals — cancer-causing compounds also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS. Trump and his far-right acolytes are pushing to shortchange those efforts in part to award tax breaks that largely would benefit the ultra-wealthy. The Republican-controlled Congress appears to be along for the ride. 'These programs are key reasons why we have cleaner water across the country,' said Mary Gade, who served as Midwest administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Republican President George W. Bush. 'What they are doing is creating a chaotic situation where we won't be able to provide basic protections.' Among other things, the loan programs this year will replace 16 miles of water mains in Chicago, build a station to receive Lake Michigan water in west suburban Yorkville and finance new pumps in northwest suburban Lake Zurich. Scores of other projects were delayed even before Trump moved to all but eliminate the grant programs. In 2023, the EPA estimated $650 billion is needed nationwide during the next 20 years to catch up. To put that into further perspective, as of June 24 the Chicago Department of Water Management had only replaced 8,915 of more than 400,000 lead service lines across the city. Asked how significantly pared-down grant programs square with Trump's promises of a clean, healthy environment, the EPA issued a statement: 'These resources reflect the administration's commitment to environmental stewardship, cooperative federalism, and delivering results that make a real difference in Americans' lives. EPA is focused on returning the agency to administering core statutory obligations as Congress intended.' Congress created what are known as state revolving funds to carry out the goals of the Clean Water Act, one of the bedrock environmental laws approved by bipartisan majorities during the early 1970s. Illinois received more than $72 million this year for wastewater projects and $33 million to protect drinking water. In May, the Illinois EPA approved $10 million in loans for Chicago to replace lead service lines next year as part of a $138 million outlay for similar projects statewide. Replacements worth another $239 million were delayed because funding wasn't available, according to state records. If Illinois only gets $11 million in revolving fund grants next year, as Trump is proposing, the waiting list will get longer. Other projects that could be on the chopping block include a new well and treatment plant in Cary and new filtration equipment in Fox Lake to remove PFAS from drinking water. Trump's proposed cuts follow the agenda of Project 2025, an anti-government blueprint written in part by Russell Vought, now chief of the White House budget office. The spending plan Vought's office drafted for Trump would further reduce federal support for clean water, air and energy programs gutted last week by congressional Republicans. 'We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so,' Vought told supporters of his pro-Trump think tank in 2023, according to a video first reported by ProPublica, a nonprofit journalism organization. 'We want to put them in trauma.' People outside Trump's MAGA orbit have sharply criticized the dramatic changes. 'If approved (by Congress), we believe these cuts … will have unintended yet foreseeable negative impacts for business, jobs growth and economic development,' a bipartisan group of former environmental officials from 31 states wrote in a June 23 statement. 'This is a reckless and short-sighted proposal that will lead to higher levels of toxic pollution in the air we breathe and water we drink across the nation,' said Michelle Roos, executive director of the nonprofit Environmental Protection Network, a group of former U.S. EPA officials. 'This is a wrecking ball approach that would gut America's frontline defense for protecting people's health and environment.' Nicole Cantello, president of the union for EPA employees based in Chicago, said morale at the agency is far worse than it was during Trump's first term. 'The Trump people talk out of both sides of their mouths,' Cantello said. 'They repeatedly attack people who believe in the agency's mission. It breaks your heart.' More than 270 EPA employees from across the country signed a letter last week condemning what they called the Trump administration's moves to benefit polluters, reverse progress to address pollution in low-income communities of color and dismantle the agency's science office. On Thursday, 144 of the agency officials who signed the letter received emails saying they had been placed on leave for two weeks 'pending an administrative investigation.'
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats might be ‘overthinking' strategy to recapture voters
Democrats are rethinking ways to recapture voters they've lost to President Trump in recent election cycles, and they may have been offered an important lesson in the New York mayoral primary. In various post-mortems and focus groups done on the heels of their devastating 2024 election loss, Democrats have thoroughly examined exit polls and voter demographics in search of the gaps in their party's appeal. But Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha, who served as a senior adviser on Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) presidential campaign in 2020, said Democrats are 'overthinking' the solution by analyzing the voters who flipped sides or skipped voting during the last election. 'It's more simple than that,' Rocha said. 'Just concentrate on people who are frustrated as hell and get both of them.' Rocha pointed to the New York mayoral race as proof. He says progressive upstart-turned-party nominee Zohran Mamdani (D) was able to capture voters — including those who did not vote a few months ago in the presidential election — by talking about affordability and other tangible economic issues that appealed to them. Rocha said voters 'want anything that's different' from the status quo when it comes to the cost of living. 'It shows how desperate people are,' he said. While many Democrats disagree with Mamdani's politics, they say the campaign he ran shows the unwavering preeminence of economic issues. And Trump taught the same lesson in 2024, political observers say, by telling voters what they wanted to hear on the economy and his message on 'draining the swamp.' 'Donald Trump and Zohran Mamdani just showed, in very different elections, that economic issues are still king — and that you can appeal to a wide, bipartisan swath of voters by saying you'll bring down the cost of living,' said Democratic strategist Christy Setzer. 'Working-class voters have been drifting away from the Democratic Party on so-called 'cultural' issues for a long time, but they're still very gettable through a clear message and from a compelling messenger.' According to exit polls, Democrats in 2024 lost significant ground with middle-class voters, a cornerstone of their traditional base, down 10 percentage points from 2020. At the same time, there is a decreasing sense of strong party leadership and little optimism about the party's future, respective CNN/SSRS and AP/NORC polling out in May revealed. But Mamdani, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, took aim at the Democratic establishment, calling for draining the swamp to make room for change. It was an echo of Trump's messaging in his 2024 campaign. 'Donald Trump was successful because … he wasn't afraid to be against and call out people in his own party and other parties,' said Susan Del Percio, a longtime New York-based Republican strategist who does not support Trump. 'Mamdani was the exact same. He was calling out everybody, and then that's when you get to act with no fear.' Mamandi strayed from the Democratic establishment with a clear message of affordability and came out on top in a crowded and competitive primary. Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani's only serious competition, ran on a message of protecting New York City from Trump. But the New York City electorate is drastically different from the rest of the country, political observers say, noting someone like Mamdani may not appeal to moderates and centrists. 'Being a self-proclaimed democratic socialist … doesn't play in swing districts. It plays in New York City primaries,' Del Percio said. 'The Democratic candidates have to look more like Elissa Slotkin talking about the cost of living than they do Mamdani talking about the cost of living.' Realizing they need to do more to appeal to the middle class, Democrats across the country have begun to put forward plans and back legislation to regain lost ground. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) recently came out with her 'Economic War Plan,' the goals of which, she has said, are to reconnect the Democratic Party with the middle class. At the same time, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) signed a bill this week overhauling California's environmental protection laws to accelerate much-needed housing construction in the state. In the name of bringing down the cost of living, Newsom's move goes against a history of California Democrats unconditionally defending the state's environmental protection laws. But the New York race gave some Democrats an injection of hope that their party was starting to turn things around after the crushing loss last year. 'We have proof now, and the proof is the NYC mayor's race,' Rocha said. Mamdani won 'the same precincts in New York City where Donald Trump overperformed in the general election,' he explained. Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons said while not every voter is gettable, 'a lot of them are,' and he said some of the people who supported Trump are Democrats who simply found Trump's message more compelling than the Democratic ticket in the 2024 race. 'Voters are not captive to any political party,' Simmons added. 'They have agency. They get to make their own choices, and if politicians aren't speaking to them, they'll look elsewhere.'
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: Old ‘welfare queen' legends haunt Donald Trump's budget plan
As the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives neared passage of President Donald Trump's beloved — and enormous — 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' my mind raced back as it often does in such debates to memories of the late Linda Taylor, a Chicago woman better known as 'the welfare queen.' That's not what she called herself. The nickname was coined either by the late George Bliss, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune, in 1974 or later by Jet magazine. Taylor ultimately was charged and convicted in 1977 of illegally obtaining 23 welfare checks, among other charges, and using two aliases. She died of a heart attack in 2002 in Ingalls Memorial Hospital, outside Chicago. Taylor the woman may be gone, but the 'welfare queen' lives on in American political legend. She was first made famous by Ronald Reagan in his 1976 presidential campaign. In speech after speech he recounted her exploits in the characteristic Gipper story-telling style. Crowds ate it up. 'She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veterans' benefits on four nonexisting deceased husbands,' said Reagan in a 1976 campaign speech in Asheville, North Carolina, quoted by the New York Times. Reagan didn't name her. He didn't say her race. But given the emergent dog-whistle rhetoric of the New Right, he didn't have to. 'There's a woman in Chicago,' he told a New Hampshire audience. Wink, wink. 'And she's collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare and Social Security cards under each of several names. Her tax-free cash income alone was estimated at more than $150,000.' Reagan's aim was to justify real-life changes to policies, including the shrinking of the social safety net, as recounted by Slate reporter Josh Levin in his award-winning biography 'The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth,' which won the 2019 National Book Critics Circle Award for biography. And he succeeded — the imperative to dismantle the social safety net became bipartisan Beltway orthodoxy for decades after Reagan took power in 1981. Today, amid the ferocious debate over Trump's 'Big Beautiful,' I can hear echoes of the old 'welfare queen' legend, particularly when lawmakers or other opportunists such as erstwhile DOGE operative Elon Musk cynically hack and slash away at programs and agencies Americans depend on. We depend on them to deal with our real problems, and the 'fixes' appear designed to create new problems. Rep. George Latimer, a New York Democrat, called Trump's spending bill 'Robin Hood in reverse' before voting against the House version. 'This House Republican budget takes away money from people who desperately need it,' he said, 'and gives it to people who already have plenty of it.' This was confirmed by experts at the Budget Lab at Yale, a research center, in its analysis of the Senate bill. 'Americans who comprise the bottom fifth of all earners would see their annual after-tax incomes fall on average by 2.3 percent within the next decade,' the Budget Lab concluded, while those at the top would see about a 2.3% boost, which factors in wages earned and government benefits received. 'On average,' as the New York Times summarized the findings, 'that translates to about $560 in losses for someone who reports little to no income by 2034, and more than $118,000 in gains for someone making over $3 million, the report found. Martha Gimbel, the co-founder of the Budget Lab, described the Senate measure as 'highly regressive.'' Yet, Republicans have continued to defend the package as a win for all Americans. In theory, maybe. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called it a 'deal for working people' and claimed it would protect Medicaid. Once the legislation passed, Stephen Miran, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, heralded it as a boon for economic growth. Yet the fact remains that Republicans are only slightly offsetting significant tax cuts for the rich by decimating programs that help the poor, including food stamps and Medicaid. The suffering and financial burdens on these Americans will take a large toll on their lives. And for what? To cover only a fraction of the enormous cost of the bill, which will add more than $3 trillion to the federal debt by 2034. The cuts have been described as one of the largest retrenchments in the federal safety net in a generation. That sounds about right to me. But it also sounds wrong, deeply wrong. In a time when the suffering and seemingly hopeless prospects of America's poor are known to all who have eyes to see, the only fig leaf available to hide the obscenity of this bill is the old partisan charge of waste, fraud and abuse. Even after DOGE — especially after DOGE — that trope lacks any credibility. For now, another old saying comes to mind: Elections have consequences. As the full impact of the bill that looks increasingly like a big, beautiful disaster hits home, it may be left up to the voters to have the final word. I don't expect them — or us — to be filled with glee.
