Nationalized health care snuck into stimulus

The Democrat-owned stimulus package is nothing more than a $900 billion bribe for votes. It's low on tax cuts where money is put into people's pockets and high on large government spending. Paul Krugman of the NYT cannot wait:

The bottom line, then, is that this is no time to let campaign promises of guaranteed health care be quietly forgotten. It is, instead, a time to put the push for universal care front and center. Health care now!

Kimberley Strassel points out in the WSJ:

It began one week after the swearing-in, when Nancy Pelosi whipped through a big expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Schip bill was Democrats' first stab at stealth expansion, unveiled in 2007, though vetoed by George W. Bush.
...
Under "stimulus," Medicaid is now on offer not to just poor Americans, but Americans who have lost their jobs. And not just Americans who have lost their jobs, but their spouses and their children. And not Americans who recently lost their jobs, but those who lost jobs, say, early last year. And not just Americans who already lost their jobs, but those who will lose their jobs up to 2011. The federal government is graciously footing the whole bill. The legislation also forbids states to apply income tests in most cases.
...
The "stimulus" also hijacks Cobra, a program that lets the unemployed retain access to their former company health benefits -- usually for about 18 months. The new stimulus permits any former employee over the age of 55 to keep using Cobra right up until they qualify for Medicare at age 65. And here's the kicker: Whereas employees were previously responsible for paying their health premiums while on Cobra, now the feds will pay 65%. CBO estimates? Seven million Americans will have the feds mostly pay their insurance bills in 2009.

Thanks to Strassel for shedding light on this. It further illustrates the Democrats' nationalization agenda disguised as a bill to stimulate the economy.

The bailout drama

Whoa! The supposedly bipartisan effort to reach a deal on the bailout bill is unraveling like a bad soap opera. Treasury Secretary down on one knee begging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? As many would say on the Internet: Pics or it didn't happen! McCain screwing up the negotiations? I don't think he's to blame -- many House Republicans aren't pleased with the bill because their constituents tell them so!

Then there's the tie to ACORN. The Democrats wants 20% of all profits from the bailout to stay in the Housing Trust Fund. They've used that fund to support ACORN and the National Council of La Raza. Being a hard-working, tax-paying, middle-income household, I think all the profits should be returned to the taxpayers. Isn't that only fair?

Of course, Paul Krugman of the NYT just had to bring up the fact that Henry Paulson belongs to the "administration that misled America to war." Get over it, already! Where are the grown-ups indeed, Mr. Krugman? I do agree that the bill should not make Paulson the Finance Czar and that there ought to be the usual checks and balances built into place.

There is no doubt that a rescue plan has to be executed. But the majority of Americans want fairness in the bailout. People nowadays are not walking around with a fat wallet in light of the high gas prices and inflation. We don't like to seeing our neighbors lose their homes or historic Wall Street firms collapse, but all we ask for is some fairness because we followed the financial rules and planned accordingly, yet we seem to be the ones paying for others' mistakes.

Who's angrier? The Right or the Left?

So here we go with the Left trying to make sense of McCain/Palin. Paul Krugman of the New York Times theorizes that the Republicans are under the spell of the "angry right." Obviously he didn't see the "passionate" protesters outside (and occasionally inside) the Xcel Energy Center. And who can forget what happened after Bush's re-election in 2004? Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) actually has an entry in Wikipedia and the term has been used many times in major print and online publications.

The Right is not angry. There were more warm smiles during the convention among the speakers and audience than unfriendly stares. What Mr. Krugman is trying to understand is, Why are you so happy with the old man and small-town mayor? Why can't you support the eloquent, well-spoken rock star who can summon tens of thousands just to hear him, here and abroad?

No, the Right is not angry. The Right is energized because now they realize that by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain is serious about fighting for the conservative ideology shared by millions of Americans.

And people like Mr. Krugman, who once thought Obama had a smooth sailing into the White House, are now afraid of a tough fight ahead.