Arkansas legislature ‘Gulf of America' resolution dies in House committee
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A move to have Arkansas recognize the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America has died in committee Wednesday morning.
House Resolution 1010 proposed mandating that all Arkansas state entities refer to body of water as the Gulf of America going forward. The resolution aligned with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump renaming the body to the Gulf of America shortly after he took office.
Resolution filed in Arkansas aims to direct state agencies to use 'Gulf of America' instead of Gulf of Mexico
The resolution was the first item of business before the House Management Committee on Wednesday. Records show the resolution received a 'do not pass' by the committee within an hour of it coming to order.
The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Aaron Pilkington (R-Knoxville).
Google Maps to rename 'Gulf of Mexico' to 'Gulf of America'
The committee's decision came one day after search engine giant Google agreed to begin using 'Gulf of America' in its mapping for North American users and five days after the U.S. Coast Guard agreed to refer to the body of water as the Gulf of America.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - No amount of marijuana is safe for teens
'Since the failed war on drugs began more than 50 years ago, the prohibition of marijuana has ruined lives, families and communities, particularly communities of color,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently said while announcing a bipartisan bill to legalize cannabis that the federal level. Jeffries added that the bill 'will lay the groundwork to finally right these wrongs in a way that advances public safety.' But the growing body of evidence on cannabis's effects on kids suggests this is not true at all. Cannabis legalization efforts across the U.S. have greatly accelerated over the last 15 years. Despite some recent success at anti-legalization efforts (e.g., Florida and North Dakota voters rejected in 2024 an adult use bill), the widespread public support for cannabis reform has translated to nearly half of U.S. states permitting adult use of cannabis, and 46 states with some form of a medical cannabis program. Though all legal-marijuana states have set the minimum age at 21, underage use has become a significant health concern. National data indicate that in 2024, 16.2 percent of 12th graders reported cannabis use in the past 30 days, and about 5.1 percent indicated daily use. To compound matters, product potency levels of the main intoxicant in the cannabis plant, THC (or Delta-9), have skyrocketed, from approximately 5 percent in the 1970s to upwards of 95 percent in THC concentrate products today. Even street-weed is routinely five to six times more potent than it was back in the day. The pro-cannabis landscape has likely moved teen perceptions of cannabis use. A prior encouraging trend of the 1970s and 1980s, when more and more teens each year perceived use of cannabis to be harmful, is now in reverse. Only 35.9 percent of 12th graders view regular cannabis use as harmful, compared to 50.4 percent in 1980. This is happening even as research is showing that cannabis is more deleterious to young people than we previously believed. The negative effects of cannabis use on a teenager can be seen across a range of behaviors. Changes may be subtle at first and masked as typical teenage turmoil. But ominous signs can soon emerge, including changes in friends, loss of interest in school and hobbies, and use on a daily basis. The usual pushback against parental rules and expectations becomes anger and defiance. For many, underlying issues of depression and anxiety get worse. And there is a vast body of scientific research indicating that teen-onset use of THC use significantly increases the risk of addiction and can be a trigger for developing psychosis, including schizophrenia. The pro-cannabis trend is not occurring in a vacuum. Those entrusted with protecting the health and well-being of youth — parents, community leaders, policy makers — have dropped the ball on the issue. Policymakers tout exaggerated claims that THC is a source of wellness and safer than alcohol or nicotine. In some states, cannabis-based edibles are sold in convenience stores. Many parents have a rearview-mirror perception of cannabis, as they assume the products these days are the water-downed versions from the 1960's and '70s. Aggravating matters are the influences of some business interests. The playbook from Big Tobacco is now being used by Big Cannabis: political donations, legislative lobbying, media support, and claims that solutions to social problems will follow legalization. The debate on the public health impact of legalizing cannabis will continue. We hope the discourse and policies will follow the science and give priority to the health and well-being of youth. An international panel of elite researchers on cannabis recently concluded that there is no level of cannabis use that is safe, and if use occurs, it's vital to refrain until after puberty. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute on Drug Abuse also agree with these guidelines. One state — Minnesota — is requiring school-based drug prevention programs to include specific information on cannabis harms, a hopeful trend for other states to follow. When recreational cannabis is made available to adults, perhaps we assume that legal restrictions to those age 21 and older is a sufficient guardrail. But history tells us that youth will indulge in adult-only activities. The pro-cannabis environment in the U.S. poses a public health challenge to young people. There isn't a single challenge of being a teenager that cannabis will help solve. Sadly, this is a message that is not getting enough attention. Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where she focuses on child welfare and foster care issues. Ken Winters is a senior scientist at the Minnesota branch of the Oregon Research Institute and is the co-founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana Minnesota. This essay is adapted from a chapter in the forthcoming edited volume, 'Mind the Children: How to Think About the Youth Mental Health Collapse.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
As President Donald Trump hosts events on Saturday to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, a new national poll indicates more Americans are likely to approve than disapprove of the president's decision to hold a military parade. But six in 10 Americans are concerned about the cost of the parade, saying it's "not a good use" of government money, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey. Trump, who is marking his 79th birthday on Saturday, is scheduled to give a speech during the parade, which will take place Saturday evening along the National Mall in Washington D.C. Defense officials say roughly 6,600 soldiers will march in the parade, with some 50 military aircraft and 150 vehicles, including tanks, rocket launchers, and missiles. The Army says it's spending $25-$45 million to pay for the parade, which includes fixing D.C. streets damaged by the tanks. Trump Warns Any Protesters At His Military Parade Will Be 'Met With Very Big Force' Trump has defended the cost of the parade, saying last month in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" that it would be "peanuts compared to the value of doing it." Read On The Fox News App "We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it," the president said. Trump To Host Military Parade To Celebrate Army's 250Th Birthday But some in Congress are criticizing the parade, saying the money could be better spent. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran who lost both of her legs in combat while piloting an Army Black Hawk helicopter during the Iraq War, said in a social media post. "But it isn't. Trump is throwing himself a $30 million birthday parade just to stroke his own ego," Duckworth argued. According to the poll, 40% of adults nationwide approved of the military parade, with 29% disapproving, and three in 10 neither approving nor disapproving. There was an expected partisan divide, with two-thirds of Republicans approving of the president's move to hold the parade, and half of Democrats disapproving. But in a separate question, 60% of those surveyed said holding the parade was not a good use of government funds, with 38% disagreeing. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans said holding the parade was a good use of government funds, while eight in 10 Democrats disagreed. The White House, in a statement, said that the parade "will be a unifying celebration for not only the thousands in attendance, but Americans across the country who can participate in honoring our active-duty servicemembers, Veterans, and fallen heroes." Pro-democracy, progressive, and labor activists are planning protests in all 50 states on Saturday that will coincide with Trump's military parade. Many are part of a series of "No Kings" protests across the country, with more than 1,500 rallies scheduled for this weekend. But organizers decided against holding a major protest in the nation's capital and instead will hold their main event in Philadelphia. The poll, which was conducted June 5-9, also indicates that 39% of those questioned approve of the job Trump's doing in the White House, with six in ten giving the president a thumbs down. The survey had an overall margin of error of plus or minus four percentage article source: More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
