Run, don't walk, to the Wall Street Journal opinion page today. Their editorial "The Newest Entitlement" is essential reading.

The editorial begins:

The State Children's Health Insurance Program sounds like the epitome of good government: Who could be against health care for children? The answer is anyone who worries about one more middle-class taxpayer entitlement and a further slide to a government takeover of health care. Yet Schip is sailing toward a major expansion with almost no media scrutiny, and with Republicans in Congress running for cover.

Schip was enacted in 1997 to help insure children from working-poor families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid. In the intervening years, the program reduced the rate of uninsured kids by about 25% but has also grown to cover the middle class and even many adults -- and it gets bigger every year. Schip expires in September without reauthorization, and Congressional Democrats want to enlarge its $35 billion budget by at least $60 billion over five years.

Other highlights include:

-All cost overruns, however, are billed to the federal government.

-And since [sic] the states only get 57 cents on the dollar for Medicaid, they are working hard to transfer those recipients to Schip.

-The Senate Finance Committee has voted 17-4 to increase Schip spending to at least $112 billion over 10 years.

-Democrats apparently want to starve any private option for Medicare.

And still more:

Like all government insurance, Schip is "covering" more children by displacing private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, for every 100 children who are enrolled in the proposed Schip expansion, there will be a corresponding reduction in private insurance for between 25 and 50 children. Although there is a net increase in coverage, it comes by eroding the private system.

The WSJ describes Schip as "HillaryCare on the installment plan." Republicans should be fearful for their names to be associated with this proposal. Instead, the WSJ recommends that Republicans rally behind the alternative plan put forth by Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl. Their alternative accounts for population growth and reaches the nearly 670K uninsured children that Schip was designed to help, according to today's editorial.

Republicans in the House and Senate need to consider this alternative--and be mindful of the Big Government slippery slope that begins with Schip.

“It's actually funny they keep saying they will not tolerate this "coverage." Isn't it Hillary's LACK of coverage that caused this..?”

I’ve removed the hyperlinks because I don’t feel compelled to send any traffic their way. I did, however, think it was worth posting for a good laugh, much like my NOW post last Friday.

Without further adieu, I give you feminist nonsense:

Dear feminist friend,

Mainstream media coverage of women politicians has hit a new, unbelievable low. On Friday, the Washington Post ran a prominent article analyzing Senator Hillary Clinton's cleavage.

Let the Post know that this kind of demeaning coverage will not be tolerated. Senator Clinton is a distinguished member of the Senate and quite possibly the next president of the United States. Instead of writing about her strategy to end the war in Iraq or her plans to reform the health care system in this country, the Post devoted a feature story to analyzing her breasts.

Let's stop this ridiculous coverage now, in the early stages of the campaign, and demand that Senator Clinton is treated with the same dignity and respect as her male competitors.

In her article in the Style section of the Post, staff writer Robin Givhan calls Clinton's décolletage "a provocation" and declares that "showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way." Never does she consider that Clinton's minimally revealing neckline might have been the result of the 90 degree Washington, D.C. heat.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. The media has rabidly attacked Sen. Clinton for years for her appearance. For example, in his April 26 coverage of the first Democratic presidential debate, MSNBC host Chris Matthews commented repeatedly on Clinton's jewelry and outfit, saying he believed viewers "like the fact that Hillary was demure, lady-like in appearance." In early June, speculation on whether or not Hillary had gotten botox injections rippled through prominent newspapers and television programs.

Women politicians' clothes, hairdos, weight, and other physical characteristics have been the obsessive focus of journalists ever since women first began holding public office in this country. We've had it!

Let the Washington Post know that sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton or any women politician is unacceptable.

For Equality,

Katherine Spillar
Executive Editor  

In response to my column, I've received many emails from thoughtful Townhall readers.

Here's one, in it's entirety:

Were the putative conservative Democratic politicians truly conservative, they would not be Democrats. I tried to tell people taken in by the likes of Heath Shuler, for example, that, despite how he presented himself, he would vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House and would toe the Democratic party line on important issues. You are correct that the Republican Party is not perfect, but it is a heck of a lot closer to perfection than the alternative.

As for President Bush, he has not disappointed me because I never thought he was or would be a philosophically consistent conservative. He was, however, a whole lot better than what the other party was offering. He has, in fact, acted as president pretty much as his prior rhetoric and actions indicated he would. He made clear before he ever ran for the job, for example that he has a soft spot in his heart for illegal immigrants and that he thought the federal government should play a big role in education. I disagree strongly on both points, but I was not surprised to see him act in accordance with those expressed views. My greatest hope and expectation was that he appoint strong Constitutionalist judges and, with the glaring exception of the Miers debacle, he appears to have done so. He has been far from perfect, but he has been and is a man of his principles, even though some of those principles are misguided. He has pretty much delivered as advertised, and, at the end of the Bush presidency, the country will be on balance a better place for it.

Another reader sent:

True many in the rank and file are good representatives.  The leadership of the two parties is the problem.

The way they have not done their job on immigration and their ignoring the people is a prime example of the corruption.

Both parties should be thrown out.  The only question is how to preserve our way of life these politicians and their supports are intent on destroying.

Still another:

Thank you Katie for believing in a success story for our side next year. Too many gloom and doom GOP guys and gals need to get it together. Most of them though, like Novak, are stuck in the Beltway with no connection to the people. I call it the DC disconnect. Well anyway thanks for support, it is ubber important we keep Hillary, Obama, and Edwards away from the White House.

If you would like to share your comments about my column, feel free to post a comment on the column or here on my blog, or shoot me an email at katie.favazza@townhall.com. Thanks to those of you who have already responded.

And if you have more to say—and want more people to hear you--why not consider starting a blog on Townhall.com? Your thoughts could be highlighted in any number of ways on our site. Visit www.townhall.com/youropinion to see some examples and sign up.

If you have any questions, contact me and I’ll gladly help you get started.

While Bush undergoes a routine colonoscopy Saturday, he will transfer presidential powers to Dick Cheney. Here's a list of President Cheney's promises to the American people for his first 100 minutes.
 

Minute 1: Nuke Baghdad

Minute 15: Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security and replace it with Jack Bauer

Minute 36: Tea with Karl Rove

Minute 51: Nuke North Korea

Minute 65: By executive order, allot Wyoming 3 more senators… and a baseball team

Minute 73: Send Joe and Valerie Wilson to Guantanamo

Minute 81: Change into Darth Vadar costume and conspire with the Prince of Darkness

Minute 90: Actually pardon Scooter Libby, because the last president wasn’t cowboy enough to do it right the first time

Minute 93: “Respectfully but resolutely” assert importance of Halliburton

Minute 100: Hold press conference confirming the beliefs of Arianna Huffington and Kossacks nationwide that he is, in fact, evil


Special thanks to the Townhall staff members who collaborated with me, especially Matt Lewis, without whose brilliance this post might not have been realized.

Breaking News: Cleavage on Display

"There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton... There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable," the Washington Post reported.

NEWSFLASH: Hillary Clinton has breasts.

And apparently that "news" merits coverage in the Washington Post.

In a Style section cover story on Friday, fashion "reporter" Robin Givhan notes that Hillary Clinton has taken a brazen step for a woman politician by wearing a low neckline. "Showing cleavage," says Givhan, "is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease."

Shock! Horror! A prominent woman showing confidence and physical ease!

Givhan goes on with her psychobabble: "It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed."

This article about the frontrunning candidate for U.S. president caused quite a stir in the NOW office this morning, eliciting reactions ranging from "You've got to be kidding!" to "What century is this?" The piece is definitely outrageous, but it's also hilarious. Absurdly hilarious. And it's an indictment of our society's lingering archaic notions of femininity, assumptions about breasts and sexuality, and fears about powerful women.

What do you think? Share with us your take on this story -- whether analysis or satire. We'll post the best ones on the web site. Send your submissions to cleavage@now.org.