Ragbag Headliners

84 Percent Of Americans Disapprove Of The Job Congress Is Doing, Poll Finds

Lawmakers will return to Washington on Tuesday to begin an election-year work session with low expectations for any significant legislative action, while also receiving low approval ratings for themselves.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows a new high — 84 percent of Americans — disapproving of the job Congress is doing, with almost two-thirds saying they “disapprove strongly.” Just 13 percent of Americans approve of how things are going after the 112th Congress’s first year of action, solidifying an unprecedented level of public disgust that has both sides worried about their positions less than 10 months before voters decide their fates.

It has been nearly four years since even 30 percent expressed approval of Congress, according to the Post-ABC survey, and support hasn’t recovered from the historic low it reached last fall.

In the face of the public dismay, House Republicans and Senate Democrats are fashioning less far-reaching agendas for the year ahead, in part to avoid the bitter political showdowns of 2011 and also to best position themselves for the fall elections.

Because of reelection politics, the second session for any Congress is traditionally less ambitious than the first because lawmakers are campaigning and therefore generally spend less time in Washington. This year’s legislative business, however, will take place in the shadow of $5 trillion in deficit reduction achieved through tax increases and spending cuts that are scheduled to take effect next Jan. 1 . The move was triggered by an unsuccessful effort by a congressional “super committee” last fall to reach a compromise on the federal deficit and expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts.

The expectation is that fiscal issues will again be the central battleground in the presidential and congressional elections. If voters clearly embrace one party’s position over the other’s, it could tilt negotiations on a broader tax-and-spending deal in a lame-duck session after the elections or in early 2013.

In the meantime, with the House reconvening on Tuesday and the Senate returning next week, Congress is poised to resume a series of smaller skirmishes on provisions that were temporarily extended into the new year.

Most prominent among them is President Obama’s proposal to extend a payroll tax holiday for workers through this year, an issue that hamstrung House Republicans before the holidays.

Rather than agreeing on a full-year extension, Congress reached accord only on enough offsetting spending cuts to extend the tax holiday until Feb. 29. Democrats say that puts them in the driver’s seat at the start of the new session by allowing them to resume a debate that divided Republicans, many of whom opposed the provision. Senate Democrats also hope to repeatedly push smaller-bore items focusing narrowly on particular sectors, such as highway and school construction, that would either lead to bipartisan deals or demonstrate Republican obstruction to their agenda.

“The issues that are most salient in 2012 — jobs, helping the middle class, income inequality — are much better for Democrats than last year. Overall, this is going to be a much better year for us,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the No. 3 Democratic leader. –The Washington Post

<><><>*<><><>

Most Americans Now Think Social Conflict Is Coming. Do You?

There are move have-nots than haves in every society. In the past, America has not had a lot of conflict between haves and have-nots. But more Americans than ever think this truce will not last much longer. The Pew Research Center reports on this change.

“The Occupy Wall Street movement no longer occupies Wall Street, but the issue of class conflict has captured a growing share of the national consciousness. A new Pew Research Center survey of 2,048 adults finds that about two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor—an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.

Not only have perceptions of class conflict grown more prevalent; so, too, has the belief that these disputes are intense. According to the new survey, three-in-ten Americans (30%) say there are “very strong conflicts” between poor people and rich people. That is double the proportion that offered a similar view in July 2009 and the largest share expressing this opinion since the question was first asked in 1987.

As a result, in the public’s evaluations of divisions within American society, conflicts between rich and poor now rank ahead of three other potential sources of group tension—between immigrants and the native born; between blacks and whites; and between young and old. Back in 2009, more survey respondents said there were strong conflicts between immigrants and the native born than said the same about the rich and the poor.”

This is a major shift. I do not recall anything like this over the last 45 years. It has happened in the last two years. –Vision To America

<><><>*<><><>

Government Could Strip Citizenship From Americans Under Enemy Expatriation Act

When Barack Obama inked the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, the president insisted that he wouldn’t use the terrifying legislation against American citizens. Another new law, however, could easily change all of that.

If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation will let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States. The law itself is rather brief, but in just a few words it warrants the US government to strip nationality status from anyone they identify as a threat.

What’s more, the government can decide to do so without bringing the suspected troublemaker before a court of law.

Under the legislation, “hostilities” are defined as “any conflict subject to the laws of war” and does not explicitly state that charges against suspects go to court.

When Obama signed NDAA on December 31, the president said that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Added the president, “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.” But by breaking off ties between citizens — American-born or otherwise — the harsh realities of NDAA can be forced on anyone in the US if Washington decides that it is in the country’s best interest.

The National Defense Authorization Act drew widespread opposition despite a lack of media cover due to the capabilities in bestows in the administration. Under NDAA, the government can indefinitely imprison anyone deemed dangerous by Washington and hold them without trial. After criticism led to massive online campaigns and protests, President Obama addressed the issue and said specifically that his administration would not understand the law as such. Instead, said Obama, “My administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

Some are now saying that Obama’s attempt at discrediting the NDAA by insisting that he would not use it against American citizens came only as a precursor to the latest Act. By adding his signing statement to the NDAA, the president insured that legislation such as the Enemy Expatriation Act would surface to strike any limitations that would have kept Americans free from military detainment. “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans,” Stephen . Foster, Jr. writes on the AddictionInfo.org website. “Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

The bill, currently being passed through Congress, is sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). –RT

<><><>*<><><>

Study: No Alcohol Intake Safe During Pregnancy

It’s known that drinking during pregnancy leaves babies vulnerable to a spectrum of abnormalities called fetal alcohol syndrome. Now, a new study pinpoints the latter half of the first trimester as a critical time in the development of some of the syndrome’s most telling physical characteristics.

Study authors also stressed that their research illustrates there is no safe amount of drinking during pregnancy, since the amount of drinking that produced these features in infants varied from woman to woman.

“The fact that we didn’t find a safe threshold is important,” said study author Christina Chambers, an associate professor of pediatrics and family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “Not every child of women who drink even very heavily has all the features, so there are certain susceptibility factors that we don’t know.”

The study appears online Jan. 16 ahead of print publication in the April issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. The authors say it is one of the first to examine the impact of quantity, frequency and timing of alcohol exposure on the condition. –Big Health Report