Romney Slams Obama on Iran

Those of you that know me know that I am not a fan of Mitt Romney. I don’t want to rehash the most recent Iowa Caucus, but my dislike of Romney stems from some of his actions as Governor of Massachusetts. But that is neither here nor there. Yesterday morning Romney was interviewed by Harry Smith on CBS’ The Early Show. But after viewing the interview that CBS did not get what it wanted. Clearly the network wanted an interview where the response was nothing but praise for President Obama and his policies. Instead what they got was an individual that was highly critical of the president. The following is a transcript from the opening exchanges of that interview.

SMITH:  Joining us now from Salt Lake City for an exclusive interview is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Good morning, sir.

ROMNEY:  Good morning, Harry.

SMITH:  We’ve heard much stronger language from President Obama yesterday.  Beyond language, though, is there anything, really anything, this administration can do beyond just condemning the behavior of the regime?

ROMNEY:  Well, I’m glad the president finally did rise to the occasion here.  It was not exactly a Ronald Reagan, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” moment.

SMITH:  All right, very different circumstances that have been trotted out by Republicans for the last five or six days now.  That was a crumbling regime in its last legs.  Let’s talk about this in realistic terms.

ROMNEY:  Well, in realistic terms, the president should have spoken from the very beginning, expressing the fact that we will always stand with forces of freedom throughout the world and that we will oppose tyranny.

That being said, I’m very pleased that the president did finally do just about that.  He broadcast his remarks into the Iranian world through — in Farsi.  So he is getting that message out.  And it’s very different to speak truth than to meddle in their affairs.  And I’m glad the president has made that move.

And at the same time, I think we should be asking other voices in the Middle East to have similar comments to make sure that people understand that this is not a legitimate regime, that it’s a sham democracy.

Like I said above, I am no fan of Mitt Romney, but I have to give the guy credit. He hit the nail on the head in his first response. I am glad that Obama finally decided to show his support of the Iranian protesters, but it could have been so much more. He had an opportunity to inspire millions around the world to throw off the shackles of tyranny in much the same fashion that Ronald Reagan did in his famous “tear down this wall” speech from Berlin. When compared with that great leader Obama’s response seems lukewarm at best.

Host Harry Smith seemed to have a different opinion. In the video Smith is clearly surprised that Romney is not falling all over himself with praise for the President. Smith even goes so far as to interrupt Romney’s response by asserting that the circumstances were very different. Smith’s lack of observation skills really surprised me. The Soviet Union was in a downward spiral and so is the Iranian regime. The difference is that the Iranian regime is unafraid to use violence to put down the protesters.

As I stated above, I am no fan of Mitt Romney, but I have to thank him for standing up for freedom. As for Harry Smith, until he can regain his objectivity he has lost my respect.

Is this the type of Health care we want?

As President Obama puts on his one sided show on ABC last night with no other viewpoints at all allowed during this program. I want to express my personal experience with this universal health care as I had a nephew who moved to Canada back in the 1970′s. He ended up getting hepatitis C the nasty one. He was put on a waiting list for some time just to get treatment for the disease. After a year they decided to put in a stint in his liver as hepatitis attacks this organ.So he was put on a waiting list of 6 months or so to have the stint put in. The doctor wanted to check to see if it might have any clogging or blockage after a year. So he was put on another waiting list for this procedure to be done he waited for over 6 months again before the stint could be checked for any blockage it turned out fine.
But can you imagine waiting in fear that every day that passes it could becoming blocked and any moment you could die, it’s living on the edge every day it would drive a person insane. Since none of this was an emergency your put on a waiting list. They might discover that you have cancerous tumor but 6 months to a year or more might go by before you can get in to have the surgery to remove the tumor. By that time it might be to late to do any good. Is this the type of health care any of you want ??? There would be millions of people we know and love that would have had a speedy surgery here under our current health care system. They now would be put on waiting lists and if the appointed board decides that your age is to far along and the cost of saving your life isn’t cost effective then your doomed to die or go to another country and pay out of your own pocket to have the surgeries.As we have seen many Canadian folks coming to America to have surgeries they can’t get or would have to wait to long to have.
This is the type of health care we have coming and it’s gonna cost trillions. And millions of people will be doomed to die to cut costs. And who suddenly determined Obama knows all and has all the answers and this is the way to go??? I didn’t know a community organizer had all the answers.Universal health care has failed in every country that has tried it and yet we continue to keep pushing for it.This is doomed to fail.If this gets put through and we start seeing people dieing while waiting for care you can thank the one person who made it all possible Barack Obama.  God bless every soul this will effect for years to come because sooner or later it will effect everyone.We will know of someone who will be  told to wait and died while waiting or was told sorry  it’s gonna cost to much to save you and your to old.And will the universal health care force people who already have good insurance to drop it and take it? With my personal experience with my watching my nephew worry for better part of 3 years this is something I sure would not want to push on anyone. He lived in fear everyday for that time, that each day could been his last while he waited to be treated.I don’t want to be living in fear like that.And if a lot of you out there knew of or had a loved one live like this you sure wouldn’t want this health care plan.

McKinley’s Memos-June 25, 2009

Paul-McKinleyNext Wednesday is not only a day to flip the calendar and start a new month – it is also the day when the new laws passed during this year’s legislative session go into effect. Though many of the new changes to Iowa’s code will not generate a lot of attention, one outcome of the 2009 legislation session – the state’s new budget – will likely dominate discussions in Iowa for the next year.

Ever since the Legislature passed and Governor Culver signed the new $6.3 billion dollar budget, the largest budget in the 163 year history of the state, independent and non-partisan analysts with the state’s Legislative Services Agency (LSA) suggest Iowa will likely face a budget deficit well over $900 million dollars by the time the next legislative session commences in January. Yet, many other experts already believe the budget deficit will grow larger and Iowa’s fiscal hole will get bigger because the economy continues at a sluggish pace. Iowa did not even have a one billion dollar budget until 1976 yet many predict that Iowa’s budget deficit will top one billion dollars.

Prior to this year’s session, Governor Culver and his legislative allies ballooned the size of government by nearly a billion dollars – a 21 percent increase in spending. This past session, they continued to grow government and then used the state’s credit card to add $1.7 billion dollars of debt to create temporary government make-work positions. Newborns today will have graduated from high school and college, started their career and probably their own family by the time this new debt is paid off and that is just the consequence of one legislative session. I know that most family’s and employer’s budgets have not grown by that much in such a short period and it is fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable to believe that government should grow that fast too. Iowans expect their government to live within its means just as any family must do.

Iowans are becoming increasingly alarmed about the state’s fiscal future, record spending and record deficits but they are also concerned with the deficit of fiscal leadership from the governor and his counterparts in the Legislature. Governor Culver recently told reporters that he was not aware of how many dollars were left in the state’s ending balance, even as this year’s state budget teeters on the edge of being unbalanced, a result that could force the Legislature to come back to Des Moines for a special session this summer.

Even more recently, the governor said, “We have a $441 million coffee can – it’s the largest cash reserve ever in the history of our state.” Yet, earlier this year, the state’s ‘coffee can’ had $640 million dollars. As the budget continued to grow, $200 million from the state’s savings account got raided and then spent. Those remaining reserves, plus the $204.3 million left from the federal spending bill passed earlier this year, will not last long considering the severity of upcoming budget deficit crisis unless Governor Culver and legislative Democrats opt to significantly raise taxes on Iowa families and employers, make deep cuts or ask Washington D.C. for another bailout.

Last week, Iowa Workforce Development announced that Iowa’s unemployment rate had climbed to a level not seen in the last 22 years. There are over 96,000 unemployed Iowans and the number continues to grow as more reports surface of layoffs and cutbacks. This is consistent with the story published only a few months ago by U.S. News and World Report showing that Iowa is second to last of all the states in the country when it comes to friendliness to businesses. Only West Virginia has an employment climate that makes Iowa’s high taxes, onerous rules and regulations and proclivity to discuss anti-jobs legislation that will stifle job creation and economic growth seem more appealing. Iowa cannot afford to be near the bottom in the nation because we are not just competing with other states – we are competing with other countries too.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Maine Miracle” shows that a turnaround can happen if the leaders of a state understand that providing tax relief through cutting taxes and encouraging investment is the best way to grow the economy and put more people in to sustainable private sector jobs. Unlike Iowa, Maine leaders understood that growing the size and scope of government, taxing to spend and borrowing to spend is not the ticket to economic prosperity or more sustainable private sector jobs. Maine, according to the Small Business Survival Committee, had the third worst job climate in the country. “No state has improved its economic attractiveness more than Maine has this year,” proclaimed the author of the story. Maine Governor John Baldacci, who happens to be a Democrat said, “Without employers, you don’t have employees.” Then he added, “The best social services program is a job.”

In contrast with Governor Culver and his party members in the Legislature, Senate Republicans have offered hundreds of millions of dollars in real cost savings solutions and have proposed a bold set of pro-growth initiatives that will grow Iowa’s economy – not grow Iowa’s government. Our plan would provide an immediate jolt of adrenaline to Iowa’s economy as a result of aggressive, limited, one-time tax credits. In our plan, we have also addressed the need to plan for the economic future because the economy is constantly evolving and our state needs to be prepared to adapt for the new jobs that will be coming in the years and decades ahead. Our ambitious proposal is aimed at re-establishing the principle of free market capitalism as the engine of economic growth in Iowa. Unfortunately, because we are not yet in control of the Legislature, the current majority party refused to even allow our initiatives to be discussed – let alone be voted on.

Our state is uniquely situated to weather this current economic storm because Iowans are blessed with common sense and we still cherish freedom, understand personal responsibility and value hard work and honesty. I know that while these are challenging times, challenges always provide opportunities. As Iowans, we should take this opportunity to grow our state and provide a future for our children and grandchildren that all of us can be proud of. This is not the time to be spending record levels of taxpayer dollars, adding record levels of debt or enacting new tax increases and job killing bills. This is the time to make government smaller, leaner and more efficient. When we pursue the right priorities, like growing Iowa’s economy instead of Iowa’s government, we can be assured that our best days will be yet to come.

Senate Republicans are working hard to earn the taxpayers’ trust because we know that Iowans deserve a surplus of competent and experienced economic leadership and we will continue to work hard to make a difference for your family, your business, your school and your community.

As always, I welcome hearing from you and can be reached by phone at 515-281-3560 or by e-mail at paul.mckinley@legis.state.ia.us

Paul McKinley

Iowa Senator

www.mckinleyforiowa.com

www.facebook.com/paulmckinley

Guest Commentary – At What Point by Tom Shaw

During my twenty years of service in the U.S. Navy I lived in and visited many foreign nations.  I was stationed in the Philippines during the “People’s Power” revolution and participated in a historic port visit to Shanghai, China in May, 1989, during which the Chinese took to the streets to protest the communist regime (remember Tieniman Square?).  In both cases, I always wondered, at what point did the people risk their lives to stand up against their tyrannical government.  More specifically, at what point did the military and police decide to side with the people and rebel against the government.

Searching for an answer to this question is not just an academic exercise for me.  Although I am retired from active duty, I am still obligated in my oath to support and defend the Constitution.  In my current capacity as a Police Chief, I am sworn to uphold the law.  So, at what point would I, and all others in my position, determine that the assault on our Constitution is so severe it would warrant us from disobeying laws and regulations that are clearly in violation of the powers granted by the United States Constitution?

The principles upon which our Nation was founded have been slowly eroding over time.   Due in part to changing social values and a diffusion of personal responsibility, the words and philosophies of our Founding Fathers do not ring true to many of today’s citizens.   Apathy, which has replaced the natural fear of government, and the ever increasing reliance upon government institutions have created a ripe environment for the growth of abusive power by our elected officials.  The power of “We the People” has slowly been ceded to elected officials, which in turn, emboldens them to slowly usurp the Constitutional principles and move towards a socialist approach.

Smugness and arrogance seem to rule the political scene today.  Just look at how the Tea Party protesters, who merely exercised their right to assemble and redress their grievances, were ridiculed.  Recently, the Department of Homeland Security released an intelligence assessment which demonized veterans as potential domestic terrorists.   The huge amount of federal borrowing in the effort to create an economic stimulus has just enslaved our grandchildren to the government.  The Iowa Supreme Court recently created a “right”, where none such existed, when it proclaimed Iowa’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman unconstitutional.

Although it is not recognized by most, tyranny, in the form of increasing government intrusion into the citizen’s private lives eerily marches on.  One day we will wake up and say, “Where have our freedoms gone?”  Freedom lost will not be regained.  So again, at what point during the slow transformation from a republic to a socialist state we will say, “Enough is enough.”    Abraham Lincoln had the following to say during his First Inaugural Address, March 4th 1861, “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their “constitutional” right of amending it or their “revolutionary” right to dismember or overthrow it.”

It is my greatest desire that I should never have to face the decision that our forefather’s had to make.  One cannot comprehend the gut-wrenching choice that was laid before them when they had finally reached “their point.”    What courage and bravery they showed when they risked life and property to stand against tyranny.  With the growing fear and distrust of government at all levels, will there be an incident which sparks a nationwide rebellion?  If so, at what point do the military and police side with “We the People” and determine that defending the Constitution overrides protecting the sitting government?  I pray that America continues to use the peaceful political process to work out its differences and that I may never have to determine “At What Point.”

Tom Shaw is an independent candidate for Iowa House District 8.

Guest Commentary-Loebsack Votes Present on House Resolution

Christopher Reed-2008 Republican candidate for US Senate in Iowa

Christopher Reed-2008 Republican candidate for US Senate in Iowa

In today’s world we sorely need leadership. Unfortunately, Iowa’s Second Congressional District is being left with very little, if any. A real leader is not afraid to take a stand on the issues whether said stand is popular with the public or not. A real leader will not sit on the fence, or stick a toe in to test the waters, before making a decision. A real leader makes decisions based on convictions, principles and confidence, rather than looking to others before making a decision.

With the current state of world politics, we cannot afford leaders without conviction and without direction. Recent events in Iran and North Korea have shown that ours is a President without conviction and lacking the fortitude to be a world leader. A complete inability to make a decision while the world is watching not only makes us look weak, but also leaves the world wondering just where the United States stands.

Recently, the United States House of Representatives took up a vote to support Iranian freedom strugglers. The resolution passed overwhelmingly and almost unanimously. In fact, only 3 Representatives voted against the majority. Iowa’s Second District Congressman Dave Loebsack was part of that minority. It was with this vote that Mr. Loebsack demonstrated that he is one of those leaders without conviction and lacking fortitude. Mr Loebsack does not have the courage of his conviction enough to make a vote on this issue. He is so afraid to vote in any manner that President Obama will not approve, he decided to vote “Present” on this matter.

In today’s world we need true leaders. Mr. Loebsack demonstrated late last week that he is not the leader we need in these times of not only economic turmoil but also world geo-political strife. A vote of “Present” on this issue tells Iowan’s that Mr. Loebsack either doesn’t care about Iranian’s who are seeking fair elections or he is afraid to upset his President who was also unable to make any decisions on the matter.

Today, Iowa needs a leader in Washington that will lead with conviction and principles. Iowa needs a leader from its second Congressional District that does not have to test the waters before making decisions. I am confident that this leader will emerge soon and allow the voters of Iowa’s Second District a real difference and finally give this district the leadership it is currently lacking. It will be up to the voters of this district to decide if a lack of leadership and constant votes for fiscal blunders is “good enough”. I am sure the informed voters of this district will rather have a disciplined and principled leader who will give them fiscal responsibility, sound ideas on defending this country and getting us back on our feet with jobs and a stable economy.

Christopher Reed

Marion, Iowa

Overestimated water needs: Clarke County reservoir project

Well, what do you know: “Clarke County reservoir questions grow.”

According to an article in the Des Moines Register “planners overestimated how much water the Clarke County area will need in the future.”

The landowners have been saying that the water studies have used inflated numbers. It is about time that this part of the land grab story is made public.

I found the entire Des Moines Register article very interesting, especially the last few sentences from Sandy Kale, chairwoman of the Clarke County Reservoir Commission.

“Osceola and the surrounding areas really need this,” Kale said Monday.

“It is a project based on water supply. That’s the focus.”

And why would we believe Kale or anyone else from the Clarke County Reservoir Commission? NEED? I would say it is a WANT and it looks like the land grabbers in Clarke County will do whatever it takes to get what they WANT.

Doug Robins surely would tell you that the landowners NEED their land. They NEED to have a life free from people who see dollar signs for development and recreation.

And the focus? I say it NEEDS to be on the people who seem to be willing to do anything to get what they WANT.  The deception of the land grabbers is starting to surface.

Iowans are paying attention to the injustice being played out in Clarke County. We don’t take lightly the attempt to get around the eminent domain law. We care that life is being made miserable for hard working Americans who don’t have the power of government agencies to help them in a battle for their homes and farms.

We care.

Appreciation for Rep. Jodi Tymeson and Rep. Jeff Kaufmann

In this day of lack of ethics and less than honest elected officials who are voted in to serve the citizens of the United States of America, two Iowa Representatives have distinguished themselves for their efforts to stand up to the greed and deception happening to Clarke County landowners.

With thankfulness and with appreciation I acknowledge Rep. Jodi Tymeson, R- Winterset, and Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, for standing up for rural Iowans who are fighting a painful, expensive, and unnecessary battle to keep their property.

A simple thank you is not enough to acknowledge the efforts of Tymeson and Kaufmann. Both Representatives have spent countless hours speaking to the media and standing up to those who are attempting to grab up precious land in Clarke County.

My post/thank you is sincere, it is heartfelt and it is necessary. I am certain that the landowners of Clarke County and of other counties who are at risk for a similar land grab have already shared their immense gratitude to such dedicated elected officials. These Iowans who have suffered much know the blessings they have in Kaufmann and Tymeson.

This thank you is from one citizen of Iowa who values honesty, dedication, and the kindness that Tymeson and Kaufmann are exhibiting with their work for those who suffer from the misuse of eminent domain.

Please join me with your appreciation for Jodi Tymeson and Jeff Kaufmann. Also, let WHO Radio, Jan Mickelson, Steve Deace and other media outlets know that you value the media exposure that has been given to the landowners of Clarke County as they fight to keep their property.

Why wont Iowa legalize the sale of fireworks?

On my way home from a road trip to Indiana as I came through Missouri. I noticed many Iowa cars and people making the annual trek to Missouri to buy fireworks.Most of the cars in the Sheltons fireworks parking lot was from Iowa. It’s hard to estimate the amount of money that pours across the borders each year to purchase fireworks and thats not all they purchase when your out of state. Food, gas, cigarettes, soda, beer and what ever you come across you would want to buy. As crazy as the Democrats and Governor Culver are to spend money, I have yet to figure out over the years why we don’t legalize fireworks? We’re not a state where we have to worry about causing forest fires with careless use of fireworks. Another knock against it is that people will get hurt. Well people already are getting hurt from their use anyways and I don’t foresee any large spike in injuries than we already have. And look at the money that the state would create and keep here in Iowa. Instead of going across the borders. For one there would the sale of fireworks permits to people interested in selling them that would go to the state of Iowa. Also sales tax permits will have to be issued yet another source of income to Iowa. And the actual sales taxes applied to sales of fireworks would come into the Iowa budget as well. Fireworks have been banned in Iowa for a long time but the state does little enforce the ban to stop them. Most of the police or sheriff officers I know don’t care as long as your not causing a disturbance or getting stupid in large crowds with them or waking people up in middle of the night with them. And every year thousands of Iowans go to North Dakota or Missouri to purchase fireworks. I’m 43 years old and grew up with firecrackers and bottle rockets around with some crazy friends and amazingly all of us still have all our fingers and toes and eyes. And we blew up alot of things.Its amazing our governor is so willing to expand gambling in Iowa but wont allow the sale of fireworks that would keep alot of money here in Iowa. To do projects for Iowans not help build roads and bridges in other states.Its time that this silly ban is lifted and time to keep Iowa money here in Iowa doing things for us.

Technology Creating Families or Creating Social Issues?

An ongoing battle in the United States Supreme Court is being waged on whether Social Security benefits should be given to dependants of deceased individuals. That is, children conceived after the death of a parent. Patti Beeler of West Branch, Iowa has been fighting this court battle seeking benefits for her now 6 year old daughter who was born 2 years after her father’s death. After being denied benefits, Mrs. Beeler had taken her case all the way to the Supreme Court stating that her daughter, Brynn, is entitled to the money her father paid into Social Security before his death.

At first glance of this story in the DM Rag many thoughts started running around in my head. My first thought was that Mrs. Beeler had knowingly had a child as a single mom and was now asking the state for money to help raise this child. Moreover, Mrs. Beeler used invitro-fertilization, a very costly procedure to begin with. My second thought was “How dare this woman take the state for a ride and expect the state of Iowa to help her care for a child that was conceived a year after the death of the father. I kept coming back to the point that this woman entered into single parenthood, knowingly, with a very costly procedure and wanted help. She knowingly entered into a situation where she would be a financial responsibility of the state. When you look at it this way it seems pretty ridiculous and clear cut to me. Why should Social Security, a benefit that can’t keep up with the aging population, be further stretched to include offspring conceived after the death of a spouse?

One could also condemn Mrs. Beeler for conceiving a child knowing that she would be raising this child without the child’s father.  Whether or not the deceased spouse, Bruce Beeler, consented to postmortem parenthood, does not necessarily mean that this was in the best interest of the child.  If this was the case, however, should the parents not have considered the financial obligations of this beforehand? Not knowing what the outcome would be to seeking benefits for an unborn child, is it safe to rely on this to raise a child? Does the child of Patti and Bruce Beeler deserve to brought into this world to be raised in a single parent household as well as be a financial dependant of the state.

These were my thoughts before I read the story of course.

There is a softer side to this argument, and by reading the article in the Des Moines Register I learned that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Not long after the Bruce and Patti Beeler met, they were engaged, with plans to have a family. Not long after that, Bruce was diagnosed with leukemia and stored his genetic material so that after treatment the couple would be able to conceive.  But, as the couple planned a wedding they also planned a funeral and was witnessed signing a document giving consent to the use of Bruce’s genetic material after death.

Knowing this side of the debate, is it safe to argue that because Bruce paid into Social Security and children that were born of him are now entitled to it, no matter the date of conception? Should this pass in the Supreme Court, a wide range of questions need to be answered?  How many children could a person have using a deceased spouses genetic material and still seek benefits? What time limits will be placed on the conception of the children that benefits will be sought for? What constitutes consent between a living and a dead spouse? Should the current state of our Social Security system be weighed when making this decision in the courts? What other types of non-traditional parenthood could also be affected by this Supreme Court decision?

But I think, in the end, that we should go back to the fact that this is now a single parent household. Do we want to further encourage adults to continue to make decisions about having children just to keep the memory alive, even if it is the will of the deceased?  Is this fair? Is it fair to the child? Is it fair to the state? Is this something that we should encourage knowing that children raised in a home with 2 parents are far better off than when raised in a single parent household?

McKinley’s Memos June 19, 2009

McKinley’s Memos

Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley

Paul-McKinleyA few weeks ago, Governor Chet Culver signed a $6.3 billion dollar state budget, the largest budget in the 163 year history of the state. Days earlier, he added his signature of approval to $1.7 billion dollars worth of borrowing and spending bills that will literally leave future generations of Iowans to foot the bill for this decades of debt. This year’s high school graduating seniors will be nearly 50 years old before that debt is paid off and Iowans will only see the benefit of some short-term temporary make-work positions as a result.

Prior to this year’s session, Governor Culver and legislative Democrats ballooned the size of government by nearly a billion dollars – a 21 percent increase in spending. How many family budgets have grown by that much in such a short period? Iowans expect their government to live within its means just as any family must do.

As a result of all of this new spending, borrowing and growth in state government, the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency estimates that next year’s budget deficit will be over $900 million and could easily exceed $1 billion dollars if the economy does not begin to pick up steam. Iowa did not even have a $1 billion dollar budget until 1976 and now we could be looking at a deficit that exceeds $1 billion dollars.

Yet, Governor Culver said yesterday that there’s “no need for alarm”. Because the governor and his party counterparts in the Legislature grew government instead of cutting it this year, Iowans will either see drastic cuts next year or they will feel the chilling affects of major tax increases at a time when Iowa families and businesses can afford it least.

A Radio Iowa story written by O.Kay Henderson does a very good job laying out the situation. I would encourage you to read this short but informative story. CLICK HERE to read the entire article on the Radio Iowa website.

Governor Chet Culver says there’s “no need for alarm” about the condition of the state budget, while Republican legislators accuse the Democratic governor of a “wrongheaded” approach to a pending financial crisis.

The state’s fiscal year ends June 30th. State tax collections have fallen below expectations, causing some to question whether the budget may wind up in the red. Culver says he does not share those concerns.”

“Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley of Chariton says it appears the governor is opting for a “wing and a prayer” approach.

“That’s his decision. He’s in a position to do that,” McKinley says. “…But I think to imply that the state’s fiscal matters are in good shape is absolutely wrongheaded.”

“McKinley, the Republican leader in the senate, counters that Culver “refuses to accept reality” and start making dramatic cuts in state spending.

“You know, I’ve traveled all over the state…and people are really up in arms over the fiscal condition and the lack of attention to the fiscal state of affairs of Iowa,” McKinley says. “

To read the entire article, please CLICK HERE to read the Radio Iowa story titled, “Culver, GOP quibble over state of state budget”

As always, I welcome hearing from my constituents and can be reached by phone at 515-281-3560 or by e-mail at paul.mckinley@legis.state.ia.us

Paul McKinley

Iowa Senator

www.mckinleyforiowa.com

www.facebook.com/paulmckinley

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 695 other followers