Public debt 98% of GDP in 2020; Tim Tebow glad he wasn't aborted, NOW not so glad; Dems reject reconciliation

1) Morning Bell: President Obama Is Right, We Have A Spending Problem Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama is expected to propose a “freeze” on government spending. Obama’s spending “freeze” will only last three years, will not start until 2011, will only apply to a $447 billion slice of the federal government’s $3.5 trillion budget, and will not apply to any of the unspent $862 billion stimulus plan, his health care plan or the House of Representatives’ additional $156 billion stimulus plan. …The CBO’s summary of the report is bad enough: “Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting … accumulating deficits will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. At the end of 2009, debt held by the public was $7.5 trillion, or 54% of GDP; by the end of 2020, debt is projected to climb to $15 trillion, or 67% of GDP.” But as bad as those numbers are, our fiscal health is actually worse. The CBO is forced by Congress to make a number of unrealistic assumptions about future revenue and spending changes. But their report makes up for this by including alternative projections that make more realistic assumptions. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl crunched those numbers and found: -The public debt — $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 — is projected to triple to $22.1 trillion by 2020. -Over what would be President Obama’s eight years in office if re-elected, baseline budget deficits are projected to total $9.7 trillion — nearly triple the $3.3 trillion in deficits accumulated by President George W. Bush. -By 2020, the budget forecasts a $1.9 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of 98 percent of GDP and annual net interest spending surpassing $1 trillion. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/27/morning-bell-president-obama-is-right-we-have-a-spending-problem/ 2) Democrats are waking up #1: Lincoln, Bayh Won't Support Passing Health Care Fixes Via Reconciliation Two Democratic senators, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, have declared that they won't support a plan to have the House pass the Senate health care bill whole, then pass fixes to the bill through the reconciliation process. A third, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, suggested lawmakers give up on the comprehensive health care bill entirely and pass reforms one by one. "We need to focus on things where we have a consensus," Bayh said."Just ramming through a bill on a purely party-line vote on a strictly partisan basis will not do much to generate the kind of progress around here on other issues that we need." See: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/lincoln-bayh-nelson-wont-support-passing-health-care-fixes-via-reconciliation.php 3) Democrats are waking up #2: Two Senate Democrats want KSM trial out of NYC Two Senate Democrats are pressuring the Obama administration to move Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial out of New York City and into a military commission. Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jim Webb of Virginia signed on to a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder condemning the administration’s November announcement of a criminal trial in Manhattan. “Your decision to prosecute enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is without precedent in our nation’s history,” the senators wrote. “Given the risks and costs, it is far more logical, cost-effective, and strategically wise to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the military commissions.” See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32021.html 4) And Republicans agree! Chairman and Ranking Republican of Senate Homeland Security Committee: Does Everyone In Obama Administration Know We’re At War? The chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee today urged the Obama administration to transfer the Christmas Day bomber into military custody, and harged that though President Obama “has said repeatedly that we are at war, it does not appear to us that the President's words are reflected in the actions of some in the Executive branch, including some at the Department of Justice, responsible for fighting that war.” See: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/chairman-and-ranking-republican-of-senate-homeland-security-committee-does-everyone-in-obama-adminis.html 5) How the court's campaign finance ruling hurts Wall Street favorite Chuck Schumer Politico provided my favorite reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling today that Congress shall, in fact, make no law abridging the freedom of speech, even when it's called "reform": Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) "This activist and far reaching decision is even worse than we had feared. This opens the floodgates and allows special interest money to overflow our elections and undermine our democracy. The bottom line is, the Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November’s election. It won’t be the Republican or the Democrats and it won't be the American people; it will be Corporate America." This is entertaining -- and enlightening -- in the context of some numbers from OpenSecrets.org… …So, of the five most politically active industries (not counting "retired"), Schumer is the top recipient of campaign cash from three of those. You might say he's awash in "special interest money," and sniff some hypocrisy or political posturing here. But Schumer does have a legitimate gripe. Until now, if corporations wanted to influence politics and policy, their ability to speak directly to politicians was limited by law. That meant they needed to make their case through indirect means, such as contributing to politicians -- mostly to Schumer, it seems. Or it meant paying big bucks to hire lobbyists from among the staffs of powerful lawmakers, such as…Or any of the other 9 former Schumer staffers now serving as registered lobbyists. Now, set free of from Congress's speech regulations, non-profits and corporations might not rely so much on these indirect means of political influence. That means less campaign cash coming into Schumer, fewer corporations courting Schumer's staff, and less sucking up to Schumer by lobbyists. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/How-the-courts-campaign-finance-ruling-hurts-Wall-Street-favorite-Chuck-Schumer-82288732.html 6) Welfare rolls up in '09; more enroll in assistance programs WASHINGTON — Welfare rolls rose in 2009 for the first time in 15 years, but the 5% increase was dwarfed by spikes in the number of people receiving food stamps and unemployment insurance. The cash-assistance program that once helped more than 14 million people served an average of 4 million in the 2009 fiscal year, up from 3.8 million in fiscal 2008. By comparison, there were more than 37 million people receiving food stamps in September, an increase of 18% from the year before. The number receiving unemployment benefits more than doubled, to about 9.1 million. See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-25-welfare-rolls_N.htm 7) Union Membership Drops 10% Organized labor lost 10% of its members in the private sector last year, the largest decline in more than 25 years. The drop is on par with the fall in total employment but threatens to significantly limit labor's ability to influence elections and legislation. Oh, darn! See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019350727544666.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines 8) SEIU's Stern: Dems may not get labor's full support in fall midterms A highly influential labor leader Friday suggested congressional Democrats might not the full support of unions in the upcoming midterm elections should they not pass a full healthcare reform package. Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern chided House Democrats for contemplating scaled-back healthcare reform in favor of passing the Senate bill through the House. “It’s gonna be incredibly difficult to stay focused on national politics if by the end of 2010 we have minimal health care and minimal changes on what’s important to our members,” he said in an interview with liberal blogger Greg Sargent. Oh, darn again! See: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77607-seius-stern-dems-may-not-get-labors-full-support-in-fall-midterms 9) Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey. The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency. …Carlos Vadillo, a fixed-income analyst at Wells Fargo Securities LLC in San Francisco, said Obama has been in a “constant war” with the banking system, using “fat-cat bankers and other misnomers to describe a business model which supports a large portion of America.” See: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8UiI1bCRdmY&pos=5 10) Specter Tells Bachmann To Act Like A "Lady": Bachmann stunned by Specter’s arrogance See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/specter_tells_bachmann_to_act_like_a_lady.html 11) Help wanted: $24,000 to stop Glenn Beck, 'tea-baggers' 'Grass-roots' organizers sought to 'counter hysteria and lies' Help-wanted ads are appearing on Craigslist that offer to pay citizens $24,000 a year, plus health insurance, to "counter the hysteria and lies of Glenn Beck and other talking heads" and "stop the tea-baggers!" The ads are being posted by Grassroots Campaigns, a canvassing group that has performed services for the Democratic National Committee and MoveOn.org. Its postings can be found among Craiglist listings in Chicago, Ill.; San Francisco, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; Philadelphia, Penn. and Austin, Texas. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123267 12) States' rights rebellion over National Guard Lawmakers fight to keep governors, not president, in control of troops Responding to an executive order by President Obama, a new push is under way for states to adopt laws limiting the use of their National Guard units unless there is an invasion, insurrection or other limited circumstance. As WND reported, Obama's order establishes a new "Council of Governors" designated to advise on the "synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States." The recent order, posted on the White House website, was accompanied by the explanation that the group is to work "to protect our nation against all types of hazards." It comes just weeks after the president issued a similarly obscure order vastly expanding INTERPOL's privileges in the U.S. The White House said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review "such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities." However, there was no definition of the group's authority. Can the council recommend "military activities" and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? Now the Tenth Amendment Center is recommending a model legislation that states can use to limit the activities of their own National Guard members. The model legislation states: "The governor shall withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of the National Guard to federal control in the absence of: a) A military invasion of the United States, or b) An insurrection, or c) A calling forth of the guard by the federal government in a manner provided for by Congress to execute the laws of the union, provided that said laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States, or d) A formal declaration of war from Congress." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122689 13) Busted! Obama praise planted in U.S. newspapers Bogus messages from 'president's supporters' infest American print Obama supporters are flooding newspapers with pro-Obama letters purportedly from average citizens – with duplicate messages appearing in more than 70 publications across the nation. One writer identified as "Ellie Light" has published identical form letters in newspapers around the country. Sabrina Eaton of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported Light claims to have different hometowns within the respective newspaper readership areas. Each letter is nearly identical in grammar, style and subject. Light's letters have appeared in many mainstream publications, including Politico.com, the Washington Times, USA Today and even Thailand's Bangkok Post. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123085 14) Pro-Life, Pro-Abortion Groups Clash on Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad, Lobby CBS Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The controversy over the coming Super Bowl ad from Focus on the Family about pro-life University of Florida football star Tim Tebow is generating as much, if not more, attention than it will when it runs before and during the championship game. …The New York-based Women's Media Center has coordinated an attack on the ad -- launching a campaign with the pro-abortion National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups to persuade CBS not to run it. Today, in an email to its supporters that LifeNews.com obtained, NARAL is also urging its members to lobby CBS and, surprisingly, used the term "pro-life" to refer to it. "CBS has cleared the way to subject nearly 100 million people to Focus on the Family's extreme agenda by agreeing to air its new pro-life ad during the Super Bowl," the group's president Nancy Kenen said. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of the Susan B. Anthony List, another pro-life women's group, also weighed in on the debate. "NOW and company are losing their grip as their pro- abortion position sinks in public opinion," she said. "What is real here is their desperation to keep full information from women," Dannenfelser continued. "Shouldn't the 'pro-choice' position respect Pam Tebow's decision to choose Life (emphasis mine)?"

See: http://www.lifenews.com/nat5932.html

15) Calgary Church Loses Charity Status: Opposition to Abortion, Homosexuality Cited as Reasons CALGARY, Alberta, January 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has revoked the charitable status of Kings Glory Fellowship (KGF), a Christian church in Calgary. CRA cites a number of issues with KGF's application, but the decision is based, in part, on the ground that certain KGF Board members have spoken out strongly against abortion, and other moral issues. "The members of the Board of Directors espouse strong negative views about sensitive and controversial issues, which may also be viewed as political, such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc.,” wrote CRA agent Dian Prodanov in an October 29th letter. These “political” views make the church ineligible because, according to the agent, a registered charity “may only engage in non-partisan political activities as long as it devotes substantially all (usually 90% or more) of its resources to charitable activities." Time TO be willing to LOSE YOUR TAX EXEMPT STATUS, CHURCH! See: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012102.html