In recent stories I have highlighted several health care stocks that I think would be strong candidates for small portfolios (Part 1 and Part 2) that would be safe and pay high yields. These include: Johnson and Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), Abott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) and Novartis AG ADS (NYSE: NVS). I have been thinking about these companies and how others will fare in the health care debate.

While Washington debates the merits of various health care bills, the health care companies lobby to influence the outcome. Businesses and employees are resistant to taxing current health care benefits but very few people are opposed to taxing those that get big paychecks.

I think we are heading down the wrong path regarding health care "reform" once again. There is no question that most people want to improve health care in many respects, including but not limited to, the quality, cost, and delivery, but the devil is in the details and we may end up no better off than we started except of course with more complexity and greater cost.

The economic firestorm that we are in the midst of is yet to be contained, or for that matter, completely understood.

Some things are very clear like the fact we spent more than we earned, as individuals and as a nation, for decades on end. That we know for sure, and regardless of who we blame the most for this situation there is no bigger economic mistake one can make.

This is something that I harp on often, and I expect I will keep on doing so because I do not have any reason to believe things will change; see: Ignore Washington -- keep saving; General Patton makes a point.

CNBC is reporting a Second Stimulus May Arrive by Christmas - I hope it looks different than the last one.

It is being reported that

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday urged passage of at least $61 billion in new economic stimulus funding this month, but said the future of the legislation requires the cooperation of Republicans in the Senate and President Bush.

I am having deja vu all over again! At least $61 billion but discussions are ranging up to several hundred billion dollars. I hate this idea and stated so numerous times last March, including one of my most important stories of the year (I think) Fund roads & bridges NOT mad money stimulus.

How many billions are Paulson and Bernanke asking for? Seven hundred billion dollars. Now that's real money! And the administration is touting this new program as if they knew what they were talking about.

We have heard folks wondering how and why Treasury Secretary Paulson should be given the power and discretion to do as he sees fit with this bailout money.

We have heard people speaking about the pain and the injustice, along with the doubts and reservations about the concept of giving away so much money.

Actually giving this handout to companies that have demonstrated such corrupt thinking and irresponsibility (see SEC opens the gates and the world drowns) is a supreme injustice given that their decisions led to the collapse of once-mighty financial industry titans. See Lehman Bros 158-year sad ending for just one example.

Has anyone asked how the Treasury came up with that number? Can someone explain the difference between $700 billion and a blank check?

It is alarming to me that the same people who screw up the economy (or stand by watching) are the ones that are now promoting the remedies. They have proven without a shadow of a doubt that this is not their strong suit. The proposed economic stimulus package has bi-partisan support and calls for an estimated $156 billion of tax rebates ranging from $500 to $1,000 (+ $300 for each child) that might show up in May.

If we are going to add on to our already humungous joke of national debt, than I want to invest this capital in something that will bring a higher return on invested capital (ROIC) than the paltry one time mad money. That expenditure should be for national infrastructure projects like roadways, bridges, tunnels, and waterways.

We have all heard about the poor condition of our national infrastructure and the hundreds of billions of dollars of repair work and replacement that is desperately needed.

This alternative would bring visible results that every single person in the country would benefit from and improved linkages always stimulate economic growth. Road improvements even reduce fuel consumption by shortening routes and reducing friction both strategically and physically.

Gee whiz what a shock Crude hits new record above $95 in after-hours trading and other commodities will not be far behind. Can't wait to see what gold, sugar, and even water will cost as the dollar becomes more worthless. I have written many recent pleas to leave the rates alone because it was fairly obvious what would happen if rates were cut yet again. In a 9 to 1 vote the Federal Reserve Board voted to cut rates by a quarter point to 4.5%.

Only Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City opposed the increase. He preferred no change in the funds rate. Let's make him chairman of the board. Better yet, maybe he would make a good write-in candidate for president. I wonder what he thinks of federal spending, the war in Iraq, health care, education -- He has certainly peaked my interest and I do not know him at all, but he has made a good impression so far.

In Europe the Dollar is falling, while gold passes $800. Where will it all end? It cannot end well if nobody wants to "pay the piper". When you consider the reasoning behind the Feds rate cut you have to be concerned. The rationale behind the cuts is that the lower borrowing costs will induce consumers and businesses to boost spending, energizing economic growth.

This one obviously became "A Bridge Too Far" fetched, as Alaska Abandons Infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere' included in last year's budget as part of the traditional pork-barrel spending that goes on in Washington -- usually following long speeches about trimming the fat.

There is probably nothing more universally consistent in a campaign speech than the promise to cut federal spending. Of course politicians are equally consistent on failing to do so once they are in office. However, in the case of this infamous bridge to an Island of a few hundred residences, the political heat, under the proverbial magnifying glass, was too much.

The public outrage and direct lobbying from various budget watchdog groups and with the support of Senator Tom Coburn, Representative Jeff Flake, and Representative Mark Kirk, the State of Alaska has officially abandoned plans to pursue the infamous Gravina Bridge. Money is still earmarked for the state, but the recently elected new governor decided to drop the project.

Wall Street and its scoreboard stock exchanges are jubilant with the 0.5% cut in the prime rate. But all is not well. As expected, gold and oil hit record highs on the news yesterday and the sky's the limit. The dollar will be losing value and foreign investors will be buying increasing amounts of our equities, including land, buildings, public and private companies. Expect American ownership to decrease.

The fact that the Federal Reserve sought to pacify investment bankers and individuals who made bad deals in an effort to shore up what was starting to look like big trouble in the "heartland" is not, I think, worthy of celebration. Yes, we should be grateful that Ben Bernanke and crew are keeping a watchful eye on the pulse of the economy and did not wait until we drowned to throw in a lifeline. But for this conservative group to make the cut they had to think things were bad, and that is not exactly heartening news.

Transportation stocks are not doing well this morning, and neither are delivery companies. FedEx Corp (NYSE: FDX) and United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) are showing losses or treading water, even though the overall market is notably up. Why? Fuel costs.

We heard a lot of nice sentiment from President Bush Tuesday night but, alas, it is another case of too little, too late. (Or... is it never too late?) It would be great if the $18 billion in "pork barrel" spending he mentioned is really cut by restricting the ease with which our legislature can attach its pet projects to entirely unrelated bills under the cover of darkness. This is the equivalent of about seven weeks of spending on the Iraq war, at current levels.

It also begs the question as to what the administration was thinking until now, as we spent perhaps $100 to $120 billion during his watch on an abundance of special projects. If we give the President and his team credit for on-the-job-training the first year, even though every candidate makes cutting government spending a part of his platform, the administration should still have done something earlier, especially with Republicans steering this ship! This is very embarrassing -- and shameful!

It makes me think the attitude in Washington was that 'the Democrats got theirs, now we're going to get ours'.