The Morning Meeting with Al Tompkins is a daily Poynter briefing of story ideas worth considering and more timely context for journalists, written by senior faculty Al Tompkins. Sign up here to have it delivered to your inbox every weekday morning.
The temporary boost to food stamp benefits put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic ends today in 32 states, Washington, D.C., Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In March, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits will return to pre-pandemic levels.
Some states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming — ended the benefits earlier.
The Urban Institute says the emergency benefits kept more than 4 million Americans out of poverty during the pandemic.
The emergency allotments allowed SNAP households to receive an additional $95 in benefits or an additional benefit “valued up to the maximum benefit for their household size, whichever value is greater.” Congress passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act in 2020 to temporarily boost SNAP benefits, which were to end when the national COVID-19 emergency ended.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the food stamp program, said there are some exemptions that will provide the extra benefits through the end of the public health emergency, which expires May 11. “The SNAP temporary student exemptions that allowed certain students pursuing higher education at least half-time to be eligible to receive SNAP benefits, will be phased out starting 30 days after the federal (emergency) ends,” a USDA Q&A reads. “Students enrolled at least half time in institutes of higher education may still be eligible for SNAP benefits if they meet a regular student exemption.”
Telling details from justices about how they might vote on student loan relief
Student debt relief advocates gather outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023, as the court hears arguments over President Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
CNN, MSNBC and Fox all decided not to air the live Supreme Court hearings that will determine whether 40 million Americans will see a half trillion dollars worth of student debt forgiveness. They streamed it, but it was apparently not cable-worthy.
Two cases before the court raise questions about the separation of the powers of government and the role of government in an emergency, and why should some people get debt forgiveness when others, who owe no debt, will have to pay for those forgiven debts. Here are some key quotes from the hearings that give some insight into what the justices may be thinking:
Chief Justice John Roberts: “I just wonder, given the posture of the case and given our historic concern about the separation of powers, you would recognize at least that this is a case that presents extraordinarily serious important issues about the role of Congress and about the role that we should exercise in scrutinizing that, significant enough that the Major Questions Doctrine ought to be considered implicated?”
Chief Justice Roberts: “Didn’t half the borrowers say they would not have any trouble paying their loans without regard to the forgiveness program?” (Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar said it only applies to borrowers in certain income brackets.)
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “There’s 50 million students who are, will benefit from this, who today will struggle. Many of them don’t have assets sufficient to bail them out after the pandemic. They don’t have friends or families or others who can help them make these payments. And what you’re saying is, now we’re going to give judges the right to decide how much aid to give them, instead of the person with the expertise and the experience, the secretary of education, who’s been dealing with educational issues and the problems surrounding student loans.”
Justice Samuel Alito: “Why was it fair to the people who didn’t get arguably comparable relief, not maybe that their interests were outweighed by the interests of those who were benefited, or they were somehow less deserving of solicitude.” (See video from The Washington Post)
Justice Sotomayor, responding: There is an “inherent unfairness in society because we’re not a society of unlimited resources.”
Justice Elena Kagan (on whether the Heroes Act gives the Education Secretary the power to cancel student debt): “Congress used its voice. All this business about executive power, I mean, we worry about executive power when Congress hasn’t authorized the use of executive power. Here, Congress has authorized the use of executive power in an emergency situation.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: “I guess I’m concerned that we’re going to have a problem in terms of the federal government’s ability to operate. So, my question is, is this a legitimate concern and should we be thinking in cases like this, about that type of concern as we ponder whether to expand our standing doctrines?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh: “Some of the finest moments in the court’s history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power, and that’s continued not just in the Korean War, but post-9/11, in some of the cases there.”
Justice Clarence Thomas (commenting that forgiveness of debt should be an act of Congress): “There’s some discussion in the briefs … that this is in effect a cancellation of a debt, that’s really what we’re talking about, and that as a cancellation of $400 billion in debt, in effect, this is a grant of $400 billion and it runs headlong into Congress’ appropriations authority.”
Whatever the decision, the chief justice sent signals that it will consider the “major questions” doctrine, which is the foundational requirement that Congress, above all others, must authorize an agency (the Department of Education in this case) to act in matters of significant issues that involve lots of money and political weight. The difference in opinion could not have been clearer than the positions laid out by Justices Thomas and Kagan.
The first question the justices will decide is whether the six Republican-led states have “standing” to bring the lawsuit that would block the debt forgiveness program. The court’s four (usually) liberal-leaning justices sounded skeptical about whether the states could prove they would be harmed by debt forgiveness. But the justice to watch in this case may be Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who also expressed doubts about the states’ standing.
There is no hard rule about when the justices will rule but, generally, you can expect a decision sometime in June. Until then, the government will do nothing with the loans it has approved for forgiveness.
Drag shows are the 2023 target
Republican lawmakers in 14 states are working on legislation to restrict or outright ban public drag shows. Legislation and state bans are pending in Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, West Virginia and Nebraska. Florida’s legislature, never wanting to miss out on a hot conservative trend, will assuredly jump on this bandwagon. (Right after they vote to allow unpermitted concealed weapons.)
The Washington Post is tracking the legislation that poured in quickly when legislatures convened:
There’s no recent precedent for thebills, which seek toban children from drag performances, block the shows from public venues, or force locales that host drag events to register as “adult-oriented businesses,” according to LGBTQ advocacy groups. A Washington Post analysis of state legislation dating to 2015 shows the first bill in that period seeking broadrestrictions on drag shows was pre-filed in November for this year’s legislative session.
“These bills have not only been numerous, they’re also coming very early in the legislative session,” said Emerson J. Sykes, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is tracking the efforts and considering legal challenges. “They seem to be a top priority this year for the GOP lawmakers.”
Many Republican lawmakers pushing the bans say their efforts are aimed at limiting the exposure of children to drag shows — not at the events themselves.
This introduction of anti-drag legislation dovetails with a rise in political rhetoric about drag performances and drag queen story hours in public libraries innumerousstates, and a growing number of recent protests at drag events, some of which have turned violent.
- Most define a drag performer as someone performing while using dress, makeup, and mannerisms associated with a gender other than the one assigned to them at birth. Nine include lip-synching within their definitions, and most specify that the person must be performing for an audience.
- Ten of these bills seek to expand the definition of adult or sexually oriented businesses to include any establishment that hosts drag performances, which would make it illegal for such business to be located within a certain distance of public schools or residential areas. In Texas, at least four different bills would put venues that host drag performances in the same category as adult movie theaters and strip clubs.
- Six of these bills also explicitly ban minors from viewing or participating in drag performances: A South Carolina bill would make it a felony to allow a minor to view a drag performance, and a Nebraska bill would make it illegal to attend a performance until the age of 19. Other bills would implicitly ban minors by reclassifying drag shows as adult or sexually oriented.
- Four bills explicitly ban drag performances at schools or public libraries. A drafted Montana bill would introduce a $5,000 fine to any school, library, or employee of a school or library who is found to be in violation of the law, and in Arizona, it would be illegal to hold a drag performance within a quarter mile of a school or public playground.
“The tactics and the angle that these bills are taking are very different,” (Sarah) Warbelow, of the Human Rights Campaign, said. “But the goal really feels the same, which is to ensure that young people have no exposure to the LGBTQ community.”
“I don’t know when drag shows became the devil,” said Sherry East, president of the South Carolina Education Association, in an interview. “To my knowledge, I don’t know that schools are doing this. I’ve never known of a school to do this. The homophobic attitude from some of our elected officials is quite concerning and disappointing.”
300 news words on Dictionary.com
One of the updates to the dictionary this year removes a hyphen and capital letter. Dictionary.com said “anti-Semitism” should now be spelled “antisemitism.” The editors said the style is a “widely preferred single word form that Jewish groups, and many style guides, including those of major publications, have also adopted.”
Among the words added to the dictionary:
- Antifragile: becoming more robust when exposed to stressors, uncertainty, or risk.
- Anti-fat: opposed, hostile, or averse to fatness and fat people.
- Digital nomad: a person who works remotely while traveling for leisure, especially when having no fixed, permanent address.
- Multisexual: noting or relating to a person who is sexually or romantically attracted to people of more than one gender, used especially as an inclusive term to describe similar, related sexual orientations such as bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, etc.
- Petfluencer: a person who gains a large following on social media by posting entertaining images or videos of their cat, dog, or other pet.
- Pinkwashing: an instance or practice of acknowledging and promoting the civil liberties of the LGBTQ+ community, but superficially, as a ploy to divert attention from allegiances and activities that are in fact hostile to such liberties.
- Rage farming: the tactic of intentionally provoking political opponents, typically by posting inflammatory content on social media, in order to elicit angry responses and thus high engagement or widespread exposure for the original poster.
- Self-coup: a coup d’état performed by the current, legitimate government or a duly elected head of state to retain or extend control over government, through an additional term, an extension of term, an expansion of executive power, the dismantling of other government branches, or the declaration that an election won by an opponent is illegitimate.
- Southern Ocean: the waters surrounding Antarctica, comprising the southernmost waters of the World Ocean.
- Superdodger: anyone who, for unverified reasons, remains uninfected or asymptomatic even after repeated exposure to a contagious virus.
- Trauma dumping: unsolicited, one-sided sharing of traumatic or intensely negative experiences or emotions in an inappropriate setting or with people who are unprepared for the interaction.
And there are lots of additions in two categories: gaming and bread. New gaming and game development words:
And the many new words that have to do with bread:
Here’s my absolute favorite addition this year:
Nearlywed: a person who lives with another in a life partnership, sometimes engaged with no planned wedding date, sometimes with no intention of ever marrying.
I suspect that those of you who have been connected to such a person have a few other names for it that are not appropriate for polite company.
