Kim Reynolds: Her Record Speaks For Itself

The question the grassroots will be wondering is if Kim Reynolds, the Lieutenant Governor pick by Governor Brandstad, is or isn’t a true conservative? Her record stands before her.

Well let’s see….she sponsored a bill determining when life begins that acknowledged the rights, privileges, and protection of the unborn.  Pass with flying colors—she IS pro-life.

She sponsored a bill to put in internet filters in public libraries to protect children. Pass

She sponsored a bill requiring drug testing for people applying for or receiving state assistance. The “Ur-in or Ur-out” system so that we don’t have to fund the drug addicted welfare crowd.  Pass

She sponsored a bill that would give Iowan’s the right to choose their health care, which is especially valuable as we fall under the dictatorship of the Federal Obamacare.  Pass

She sponsored a bill that would require the placement of a right-to-work notice to be placed on state property and in state publicans.  Pass

She sponsored a bill to create a website for the public so the public access to the state budget with details of expenditures and the tax rates for all districts of the state--real government transparency. Pass

She sponsored a bill to give veterans’, honorably discharged, the right to have a lifetime fishing and hunting licenses at a nominal fee--another great idea. Pass

She sponsored the economic development bill that would provide tax credits for new job creation while eliminating the government, mismanaged, “Grow Iowa Values Fund.” Less government at it’s finest. Pass

Sponsored a Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would fix the problem with how judges to the Iowa Supreme Court are rigged by allowing the Governor to nix the choices sent to him if they are not good choices and force the process to start over with better nominees. We really need this problem fixed as we have seen with the garbage handed down to us against marriage. Pass

She sponsored a bill to require voters to show ID before they vote. Genius. Couldn’t agree more. Pass

So essentially, Senator Kim Reynolds went into office and took the bull by the horns and got busy.  Her record is clear with…

Protect human life, protect kids, protect the tax payer from welfare abuse, protect our 2nd Amendment rights, protect our health care rights, protect the worker, establish government transparency, thank our veterans, reduce government from a useless program that cost the taxpayer millions, fix the problem with the nomination of judges to the Iowa Supreme Court and protect our votes at the ballot box from groups like ACORN.

Is Kim Reynolds a true pro-life, pro-family, conservative Republican (with a spine)?….Is the Pope Catholic (and I'm a Catholic)?  Yes, she is a true conservative.  Not only that, but she is a very kind woman and I personally like her. I think she is a very good choice for lieutenant governor and I believe she will do us proud.

Primary Night 2010: Branstad Polk Lead Shrinks to .......

166 votes at 9:59 p.m.  Wow???

Iowa Primary Race: The questions that have not yet been answered.

The debates are just about over and our primary Election Day draws near. As we enter the closing days of the campaign I find myself strangely unsatisfied by what I have heard from the candidates and the campaigns. Some of the most important and specific questions have yet to be asked, and, if asked, certainly not answered.

All three candidates say they will cut taxes. Every Republican says they will cut taxes. The rhetoric of lower taxes is no different than we've seen on a bienniel basis since, well, the 1850s. Given the current dire circumstances facing our state, is there a time better than now to establish some metrics by which we can evaluate which candidate is prepared to change the trajectory of state involvement in our lives, families and businesses?

So, to start, here's a simple questionnaire regarding taxes that every Republican deserves to have answered:

First, do we agree on first principles? I am a Republican because I believe in small government. Not just smaller government than the liberal progressives want but actually a small and limited government? Have any of the candidates actually committed to creating a small state government?

But talk is cheap. One's concept of a small government is, after all, ultimately subjective. I am confident that my concept of a small government is, shall we say, radically different from President Obama's concept of a small government. The proof of a committment to small government is perhaps best provided by a candidates description of who and what they will tax and to whom and what kind of services will government deliver. Let's start with the income side of the equation.

1. What state taxes will you cut?
2. By approximately how much?
3. How will you ensure that the burden of the tax cuts will not be shifted to other taxing authorities, like school districts, counties and municipalities?
4. How will you ensure that the burden of the tax cuts is not offset by increases in permits, fines, and other administrative and penal fees?

The other illuminating element is spending. All three of our candidates, like every Republican for 150 years, says they are for less spending. The Devil, as they say, is in details. What kind of a government will our candidate fund? Continue the nanny state that is bankrupting itself and our tax base or focus on the core missions of government. So,

1. What will you cut?
2. Approximately how much will that save?
3. How permanent are the cuts?
4. Will cutting the programs you suggest reduce the role of the government in our lives, families and businesses?

The VanderPlaats campaign website provides some idea of how he would answer the questions. MVP 2010 has put together a remarkably specific platform, in fact, although the competition sets the bar pretty low. When checking Branstad 2010 and Roberts for a Better Iowa I discovered the complete absence of a committment to do any specific act to change the status quo. Governor Branstad describes generally describes Iowa's economic situation when he left office but not a word about whose taxes he will cut, and, if so, by how much. Representative Roberts is even more vague, literally making nothing more than a generalized statement of a belief in lower taxes and smaller government.

For the last ten years our Republican candidates have given us nothing more than a very generalized statement of common beliefs as the reason to support them with our time, money and votes. That decade has given Iowa and the United States the Labor/Socialist/Democrat proto nanny state that is unfolding before us. If we want to hold elected officials accountable we have to have something more than the feel good pablum of thirty second spots.

Am I the only one that thinks we Republicans deserve some specific idea of what our leaders will do once the election is over if we are to get off the couch or the links and make the calls, lick the stamps and log the foot leather they will need to move Chet out of Terrace Hill?