What is the Value of a Woman’s Life? by Pat Bertroche

November 29, 2009 by 2 Comments

What is the Value of a Woman’s Life?

 

By J. Patrick Bertroche , D.O.

 

When the US Preventive Services Task Force, released the new breast screening recommendations yesterday, it ignited a firestorm of debate within the medical community and the nation. To recap what the recommendations are, I will briefly go through them. No mammograms for those over 74, no routine screening for women under 50 years of age, don’t do regular breast self exams, and pushes back recommended screenings from every year, to every two years. The USPSTF cited a lack of evidence as the reasons for the new recommendations. Keep in mind that this very same government organization found sufficient evidence for the recommendations it now does not recommend a short seven years ago.

 

As a side note, just not a week ago, the government agencies responsible for tracking and warning about H1N1 admitted they “may have inflated” the numbers for H1N1 in the “interest of national health”.

 

What’s left out of the debate, is the role of government, and how that will change with Obamacare. Right now, the different groups involved with breast cancer, such as doctors, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology, are all discussing the merits, or demerits, of the latest government guidelines. Does it strike anyone else funny that the USPSTF is REVERSING itself in the midst of the worst economic meltdowns in recent history? If they issue guidelines that ration care, which is what they are doing, then it saves money on Medicare costs. Conspiracy? The USPSTF is funded from Oregon.

 

But the scariest thing about the guidelines is that it points out the glaring problems with a “best practices panel”, which both the House and Senate bills contain. 7 years ago, there was sufficient evidence for breast self exams, annual mammograms for EVERYONE, and routine yearly screenings starting at 40. What happened in the meantime? Did they have studies that showed these procedures weren’t helpful? Or did they have studies that showed there was something better?

 

Nope. The authors of the guidelines admit that there aren’t any studies that support the new guidelines, and in fact says there aren’t enough studies for the recommendations, and call for studies to study the recommendations. Sheesh. So if there aren’t adequate studies, upon what are they basing their recommendations?  Britain.  Just like I’ve said before.  Pres. Obama is setting up a system exactly like the British.  How has that worked for Britain?  Breast cancer survival rate is 69%.  In the US, it is 84%.  Why is there a difference?  According to a study in the 2008 Lancet Oncologist, it is due to Britain’s “best practices panel” recommendations that mirror almost exactly the latest USPSTF recommendations.  And those recommendations boil down to delays in diagnosis, delays in treatment, and limited access to quality treatments.

 

If the Government has a “best practices panel”, they would have to change the way women receive breast care. And the USPSTF study isn’t even proven. It’s just a recommendation. Medical recommendations change rapidly.  Can you imagine the chaos surrounding this subject if the Government had to decide what to do now? Well, I know. They would ration care, because that’s what they do. Why do you think we have four (4) Medicare supplemental programs? Is it because the Government isn’t rationing care? Or because they are?

 

And, more importantly, who should decide what a woman’s life is worth? Who should decide how often you need to be screened for breast cancer?  You and your doctor?  Or a panel of government bureaucrats and their lackeys?

 

And for the best part. As we speak, James Sokolove and his ilk are firing up the copiers to file suit against every doctor, x-ray manufacturer, and hospital who ever did mammograms. Pres. Obama has plenty of reform for doctors and hospitals, who actually try to help people, but no reform for lawyers, who only want to line their pockets with other people’s grief and greed, driving up everyone’s cost for health care.

 

I’ve had enough. Haven’t you?

Pat Bertroche, D.O.
YOUR Congressional Candidate

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , ,

Guest Commentary: Even Pres. Obama Knows the Government Interferes with Efficient Health Care

November 10, 2009 by 3 Comments

Pat Bertrocheby Pat Bertroche, D.O.

 

As Swine Flu, or to be PC, H1N1 influenza, sweeps across our nation, the media is filled with all kinds of contradictory information.  There are vaccine shortages, but they are not critical now.  Or there’s a problem with the vaccine, but it’s safe.  And, of course, the inevitable slew of experts giving their expert opinion that disagrees with the other experts.  However, there is one sparkling point of clarity: the US government, and even Pres. Obama, knows that government interference leads to less health care efficiency, more costs for health care, and hampers everyone trying to do their best to protect our citizens from disease and illness.

 

Here’s my proof.  Pres. Obama declared a National State of Emergency, and because he declared a National State of Emergency, “Doctors and hospitals are relieved of the usual governmental regulations and this will help more efficiently treat patients with H1N1.” (ABC news 10-24-09 morning)

 

Here’s more proof from CNN.  The lifting of regulations “gives the federal government more power to help states…by lifting bureaucratic requirements — both in treating patients and moving equipment”.  Later in the article, another great analysis about why you don’t want government in your medicine.  “Obama’s action allows Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ”to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements” to help health care facilities enact emergency plans to deal with the pandemic.”  Here’s the link to check it out yourself.  http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/24/h1n1.obama/index.html

 

And what does the Washington Post say about it?  They quote Jennifer Nuzzo of the University of Pittsburgh ’s Center for Biosecurity as saying “…we can focus on the care of patients rather than focus on administrative hurdles. In disasters, you often don’t have the time or luxury to keep the paperwork in order. You want hospitals focusing on patients.”
What about when there isn’t an emergency?  It’s ok then to clog up the Health Care machine with government paperwork and bureaucracy?

 

I wonder what CBS has to say about it?  “President Obama has declared the virus a national emergency, cutting bureaucratic red tape. “  Imagine that!  The government cutting red tape, and it actually helps!  That’s not what the Loony Left and Pres. Obama say.  Here’s what else CBS said.  “With the H1N1 flu virus spreading farther and faster than expected, the emergency declaration from theWhite House means health care providers can respond to the crisis faster and bypass some federal regulations. This is a proactive move to basically get rid of the red tape so that hospitals don’t have to fight with regulators if the H1N1 epidemic gets bad later on,” said Dr.. Martin Makary of Johns Hopkins University Hospital .

 

Hmmm.  Pres. Obama declares a National State of Emergency, which reduces government interference, so doctors and hospitals can more effectively treat a serious illness..  Well, how ‘bout that?  Turns out that the government is as bad for health care efficiency and effective patient treatment as it is for mail delivery.  So can anyone explain to me why we are still having any further discussion about government run health care?

Pat Bertroche, D.O.
YOUR Congressional Candidate

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Guest Commentary: The Politics of Soda Pop Part Two

October 27, 2009 by 3 Comments

The Politics of Soda Pop, Part Two

 

By Tom Shaw

 

Independent Candidate for Iowa House District 8

 

 

“However (political parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

(George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept. 17, 1796)

 

 

I recently wrote an article in which I described the Republican Party’s abandonment of its core social values contained in its party platform in order to attract moderate voters.  In short, I likened it to the disastrous results when Coca-Cola changed its recipe to “New Coke” in order to attract Pepsi drinkers.  But the “politics of soda pop” don’t stop there.

 

Years ago I watched an interview with an executive from RC Cola on a television news magazine.  He described the power and leverage that was held by both Pepsi and Coke in the soft drink market.  His assertion was that although the two soda giants were in fierce competition with each other, they colluded together to make sure that no other soft drink company could successfully expand its market share.  A clear example of this was provided when he told about his company not being able to purchase vending machines in order to sell its product.  According to him, when RC Cola would order vending machines from a manufacturer, Pepsi and Coke would buy up the machines at a higher price in order to keep them from being used by RC Cola.

 

George Washington was clearly, and justifiably, concerned about the inevitable corruption which would prevail if political parties misused their power.  His ominous prediction has clearly come to pass in recent years.  Both major parties, Democratic and Republican, have gained such a stranglehold of power, for the sole sake of power, that they will collude together to make sure no other voice is heard.  They, like Pepsi and Coke, do not want any outside competition and therefore will link hands together in order to stifle any challengers to their dominion.  The two parties have become very adept at conditioning voters that they are the only game in town.  Want proof?  Just tell someone that you are going to vote for a candidate that is not a “D” or an “R”.  You will be labeled as a nut and be told that you are just wasting your vote, for everyone knows we have a “two-party system.”

But the electorate is waking up and openly defying the parties.  The ranks of independent voters are swelling and the parties are experiencing a mass exodus.  “We the People” are starting to demand not only more choices in candidates, but candidates that truly represent their values.  Our election system was never meant to result in “I voted for the lesser of two evils”, but rather that voters should have a range of options so that they can say “I voted for good today”.

 

As an RC Cola candidate, I know the challenges that I face in overcoming the party system.  The parties have mutually designed the “straight ticket” voting process to purposely inhibit candidates like myself.  The “straight ticket” argument is also used as leverage to force or coerce candidates to run on a Democratic or Republican ticket.  I say it is time for the voters to shed their party shackles and vote based on their principles.  And I end this with a reminder from Samuel Adams, “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote …. that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Guest Commentary: The Politics of Soda Pop

September 7, 2009 by 2 Comments

The Politics of Soda Pop

By Tom Shaw

Independent Candidate for Iowa House District 8

tom-shaw-1While a guest on WHO Radio’s “Deace in the Afternoon” program, I was challenged by a caller who disagreed with my decision to leave the Republican Party and to run as an Independent.  The caller believed that I should remain as a Republican and try to change the party from within.  His thought was “What if workers at Pepsi drank Coca Cola?”  This very question solidified my belief that an organization’s brand name was less important than its product.

A few years back, Coca Cola decided that it wanted to increase its market share by enticing Pepsi drinkers with a product named “New Coke.”  Now mind you, Coca Cola had been successful for many years with its recipe and had established a loyal customer base.  But for some reason the company’s leadership chose to follow the advice of their business advisors and change the recipe.   I believe that everyone recalls what happened … the “New Coke” was a colossal failure.  It did not attract new customers, but it sure created an outrage from their customer base and the company lost market share.  But give Coca Cola credit as they realized that it was not their brand name which sold the product but rather its recipe.  Hence they returned to “Classic Coke.”

So it goes with the politics of the Republican Party and its “Big Tent” strategy.  At both the national and state levels, the party’s leadership has abandoned the very principles that made the party successful in the past.  The party’s state platform is created through a series of committee’s which start at the precinct level.  The platform truly is the voice of “We the People.”  During the last election, rather than listen to their loyal customers (We the People) and promote a successful product (platform), the party believed that the way to victory was to promote candidates who did not adhere to the platform.   The net effect was that many grassroots republicans did not actively or enthusiastically promote Republican candidates, and even worse, stayed home on election day.

As I campaign throughout Iowa House District 8, I am told “I’ll never vote Republican again because I’m too conservative” or “It’s great to have conservative Independent to vote for because the Republicans are not conservative anymore.”    I truly believe that there is a major shift in how “We the People” view their party affiliation.   As I talk to more and more voters, I am reaffirmed in my belief that folks are looking for principled candidates and not whether there is an “R” or “D” behind their name.  Speaking on behalf of the conservatives that I have met, the Republican party “brand name” will no longer be enough to garner conservative votes and, to be successful again, they must revert back to the “Classic” Republican party.

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Guest Commentary-Why Am I Running by David Funk

August 25, 2009 by 11 Comments

Why am I running?

By Dave Funk

David FunkIt’s obvious to all of us that our nation’s economy is tanked; unemployment is rising; and respect for America and its values is collapsing throughout the world. The “hope” and “change” thing sold to the American people last fall is not really working out.

Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and through a series of legislative missteps have increased the costs of doing business for all of us through higher taxes, excessive spending and massive federal intrusion into the private sector– including taking over banks and manufacturing companies.

In the last few weeks, the US House of Representatives has voted to impose massive energy taxes on our country based on the theory (some may even say fraud) that climate change is manmade.  This tax hides behind the name “Cap and Trade.” Democrats in Congress and the executive branch are also on the cusp of taking over our entire health care system through the use of scare tactics that claim highly exaggerated figures about uninsured Americans. The reality is that nearly ninety percent of Americans have health insurance and well over three-quarters of us are happy with our current plans.

Last fall, in the President’s Message in the Safari Club International’s Iowa Chapter quarterly newsletter, I wrote the following regarding the then pending election;

“As a nation we are at a fork in the road, one turn, towards the left, is in a direction much like our European allies have gone, to more government intrusion, higher taxes, fewer individual rights, and unrelenting attacks on our traditions as hunters and to top it all off; stagnate economies. The other turn is toward the right, to freedom and liberty, lower taxes, [and] a vibrant economy…..”

What is a fifty year old, retired Iowa Army National Guard helicopter pilot, disabled airline captain and father of four doing running for Congress when I could stay home and play with my four year old twins, Amelia and Zachary?

It’s easy. I don’t want to face my son twenty years from now when he asks me, “Dad, in 2010, when there was still time to save this country, why didn’t you do something?”

It’s time that real Americans step up and save our country, before it’s too late.

That’s why I’m running for Congress in Iowa’s 3rd District, and to find out more about me, check out www.FunkforCongress.com

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with ,

Guest Commentary: Shaw Issues a Challenge

July 21, 2009 by 3 Comments

tom-shaw-1I most strongly propose an amendment to Iowa’s Constitution which would provide an absolute guarantee of the individual right for Iowans to “Keep and Bear Arms.”   I believe that the following language, adopted from Idaho’s state constitution, would ensure against state infringement on this most important right:

 

“The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

 

Iowa is one of only six states that does not provide a constitutional guarantee to its citizens.  This leaves Iowans vulnerable to gun control groups to advocate for restrictions on the ownership of firearms and ammunition.  The gun control groups could use the same tactics used by homosexual activist groups in legalizing gay marriage.

 

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the basis for individual citizens to keep and bear arms.  This individual right was recently affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision of District of Columbia v. Heller.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court considered many factors, one of which was that several of the original states included Second Amendment language in their own constitutions.  It drove home the point that that armed citizens are essential to the defense and security of individuals, states, and the nation.

 

Iowa’s constitution (Art. I, § 1) states: “All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”  What is missing is the guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms in order to defend life, liberty, and property.

 

It is important at this time to affirm Iowans’ right to keep and bear arms as failure to do so may result in restrictions which do not outright ban firearms ownership, but rather make ownership difficult or unduly expensive.  Consider this from the (Iowa) Legislative Services Agency (Legal Services Division for the General Assembly):  “The Supreme Court’s decision interprets the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and is limited in application to the District of Columbia’s total ban on handgun possession in a private District of Columbia residence.  The case involved only federal law, so the Court’s decision does not apply directly to the states.  Although the Court did caution that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited as possession by felons and mentally ill persons may be prohibited, for example, the Court did not specify or give guidance on what such limitations are or should be in regard to State or local gun laws.  The exact scope of permissible firearm regulations by the states is thus left unsettled.” (emphasis added) 

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Guest Commentary-Independence Day

July 4, 2009 by 2 Comments

Independence Day

Christopher Reed-2008 Republican candidate for US Senate in Iowa

Christopher Reed-2008 Republican candidate for US Senate in Iowa

On this day we pause to celebrate our nation’s independence from tyranny and oppression. Some 233 years ago a brave and courageous people stood up and declared they were taking back their God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These men not only forged the greatest nation man has ever seen, but too, they believed We the People was the best course shape their world, and it still works today. Many correlations can be drawn between 1776 and 2009.

In 1776 our fore fathers stood up against Taxation Without Representation. They believed it was unfair to be taxed and over-taxed on goods and services they consumed without ample representation in England. Similar to today’s Congress, Parliament crossed the line with taxation. Today, we find an ever growing number of American’s who feel their voice is not being heard in Washington and they are not being represented fairly. Evidence of this can be found in the numerous symbolic ‘Tea Party’s’ that will take place this Fourth of July around our nation. Recently, a filibuster-proof Congress narrowly passed the single largest tax increasing bill known as Cap and Trade. This bill was passed under the guise of good intentions for our future. Make no mistake, this is nothing more than a power grab by a power hungry, out of control Government.

In 1776 our fore fathers longed for freedom and liberty from an oppressive, dictatorial regime that no longer represented their values and desires. They were smaller in number, weaker in arms and less organized as a citizenry. However, their will to be freed from bondage was only bested by their belief that God gave them their liberties and not the empirical leader. In the years to come as the war was not going well, an autonomous, sovereign nation decided to get involved. The French believed our cause was just and it was right to intervene. Today, we find a tyrannical Iranian regime oppressing its people. Some of our leaders say we shouldn’t meddle in their conflict, they feel it is not our place to relieve suffering and bondage around the world. If the French had taken the same stance, where would the United States be today? What of the millions we have liberated around the world over the past 233 years. Are we honoring those who died for their freedom?

In 1776, our fore fathers suffered under a tyrannical, oppressive leader that imposed egregious taxes, unfriendly legislation and general disregard of their people’s desires. Under the guise of caring for their needs and safety, the far away Empire fast became more and more over-bearing and pursued all angles to tax the citizenry and inflict heavy-handed decisions that were counter productive to the citizens’ freedoms and liberties. The men of the time decided enough was enough and stood up in the face of overwhelming odds and decided to be free men and rid themselves of tyranny. Today we find ourselves with leaders in a far-away Washington who, under the guise of caring, are inflicting us with legislation that is counter-productive to individual success and personal initiative. Our leaders today, like those of our fore fathers, believe they know better than the rest of us and are better suited to care for our needs than are we.

Today is Independence Day. We do not need a radical uprising, civil revolt, nor do we need a war of revolution. What we do need today is an evolution. We need the collective citizenry to stake a claim in their own independence. We need people to decide today that they are best equipped to tend to their own pursuit of happiness. We have a unique opportunity on this day to decide that yet again, we will not accept Taxation Without Representation. Our next great Independence Day will come in November, 2010 when we have a chance to say no to potential tyranny and oppressive leadership in Washington. We have a chance to be bold and elect leaders that will stand up for what is right and remember that the government that governs best, is the government that governs least.

Christopher Reed

Marion, Ia.

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Guest Commentary-Senator Grassley: Part of the Problem by Luke Priest

July 3, 2009 by 1 Comment

Senator Grassley met with residents of Marion and surrounding counties this morning at the Pella Community Center Auditorium. The place was packed out. 150+ I would say. Unfortunately, a bastion of individual liberty, and limited government it was not.

The discussion was dominated by discussion about healthcare. I listened for over an hour to people asking about one section of President Obama’s new insurance plan, or the Republican’s version of the same plan and listening to Grassley expound on what “we want” and “our goals are”. If you want to know what Grassley wants, and what his goals are they are namely government interference in the free market to control costs of healthcare, and more welfare to decrease the number of uninsured in the country. (Read increased bureaucracy that either increases total cost, or limits availability of healthcare, and greater deficit spending to buy the votes of the ignorant.) Anyway, after listening to this for over an hour I had had a belly full. During a rather disorganized part of the discussion I interrupted and requesting that we simplify the matter. If you get down to brass tacks, where, with the exception of Veterans benefits, and possibly federal employee benefits, does the United states Constitution give you the right to vote to spend a single penny of public monies on private medical expenses? I was summarily ignored and derided as being a “young person who doesn’t think healthcare important.” I was also informed that if I should get in an accident and end up a quadriplegic that the tax payers would shoulder my expenses.

Senator Grassley then returned to the previous discussion about Medicare vs. Obamacare, and though I kept my hand up for the rest of the discussion hoping to be able to reiterate the idea of enumerated powers, the 10th amendment, and point out that he had not answered my question, I was deliberately passed over for the rest of the meeting.

So, I would rank Senator Grassley as a part of the problem with the Republican Party. He is a neoconservative who supposedly supports fiscal responsibility and limited government, but when you get down to it, the solution to the problem, any problem, is more big government.

On a positive note, he did promise to co-sponsor S604, provided we send him letters reminding him that in his Town Meeting on July 3rd, in Pella, Iowa, he promised to co-sponsor S604.

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Guest Commentary-Asleep at the Wheel

June 27, 2009 by 3 Comments

Christopher Reed-2008 Republican candidate for US Senate in Iowa

Christopher Reed-2008 Republican candidate for US Senate in Iowa

Sleep:  to be careless or unalert; allow one’s alertness, vigilance, or attentiveness to lie dormant

Meeting: an assembly or conference of persons for a specific purpose

Rollcall.com had a story this week about United States Congressman Dave Loebsack (D-IA-02) being asleep during a meeting on health care. It can be said that meetings in Washington are probably not as fun as running marathons in Cedar Rapids or attending rallies with Nancy Pelosi in Des Moines. However, how long should Iowa’s Second District continue to put up with this complete lack of leadership? My answer: about 16 more months.

In these perilous times of tumult and world chaos, can we afford leadership like this?

The book Improving Leadership Effectiveness says “The quality of leadership, more than any other single factor, determines the success or failure of an organization”. Well friends, we cannot afford failure of the organization known as the United States of America. Unfortunately, keeping Mr. Loebsack at the helm will almost assuredly accomplish just that.

We need a leader who will not only stay awake and alert during important meetings, but we need someone in Washington that will stand up for what is right for Iowa and America. We need a leader who is willing to make tough choices and stand up for what he believes in.

Today, more than ever, we need real leadership in Washington, and sadly it is lacking from Iowa’s Second District. Dave Loebsack is alright with being asleep at the wheel, but the voters in District #2 need to be awake and ready to enact a change in leadership come November, 2010.

Christopher Reed

Marion, Ia.

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , ,

McKinley’s Memos-June 25, 2009

June 25, 2009 by Leave a comment

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

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 695 other followers