Press & Links
Primary Results
OCPF
Westford Eagle
Boston Globe
Commentary
Valley Patriot
Lowell Sun
Something Else
|
|
Voter Guide Questionnaire
Published in the various sections of the Boston Globe, segmented for distribution
to the voters. Here are my replies in case you do not read the Globe. This is my
position. I invite and rather need your commentary whether you agree or not.
- Q: The Mass. Taxpayers Foundation
recently recommended that local officials be given the power to design their
own health plans without having to negotiate with the unions, and that state
retirees use Medicare for their primary health care coverage.
Do you support these proposals?
A: Yes I do. Further, there is no reason that the cities, towns and Districts
have been abandoned by the State Government in all manner of cost savings. Pooling
of resources is a good idea when the result is that Economy of Scale so often
discussed can be leveraged to reduce cost.
This sense of elitism must be stopped. I wish to bring to your attention Articles
of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, V, VI and VII which
specifically empower the people to change government and by extension of that
sentiment, prohibit government from changing the people.
[Return]
|
- The foundation also proposed changes in state and municipal
pensions, such as increasing the retirement age and capping annual pensions
at $100,000.
Do you agree?
A: One pension, disbursed at Federal Social Security age limits with reductions
in benefits patterned after that agency's policies. Terminating the unfair
advantage which results in either the increase for work not performed in one
job against another as well as the whole nonsense of multiple pensions for
multiple careers. I would suggest turning over the entirety of State and
Municipal Pensions to Social Security except for two reasons; first, the Social
Security System may soon vanish and it therefore becomes imperative to
resolve the issue 'In-House'. Second, doing so would reduce the size of the
General Fund and therefore reduce the interest earned on accounts as well as
the float wherever it may occur.
Capping is a good idea especially in consideration of multiple pensions and
not wishing to further speculate, it seems prudent to offering a buy-out with
a deadline that will benefit the pensioner to the extent that they and all
current employees become responsible for themselves by managing their own
retirement plans. The matter of grandfathering comes to light in this
argument, but that is a matter for the courts where there should be far less
stomach given the conditions the one-party policies have brought to the lips
of every citizen in the State.
[Return]
|
- Q: Do you believe in keeping the requirement that a student must pass
the MCAS or an MCAS-like test in order to graduate from high school?
A: MCAS is expensive and unnecessary. One less test would provide an instant
savings nearing $20M annually PLUS the untolled sums wasted in argument and
breath over the accountability it provides.
It is that word 'Accountability' that is often bandied about by educators,
who refuse to use it with regard to the job they do, or should do. It is true
that there is a certain lack of parental responsibility with respect to minor,
school-aged children which places lawmakers squarely in the sights of both
groups when they wish to lay blame. However, it is unfair to use a broad
brush for either of them, but there is ample room to improve on both parts, or
so it would seem.
It is not government's job to do anything more than provide the means by which
an education is possible.
The choice is left to the student regardless of venue, when it comes to
performance or excellence.
A MCAS requirement for graduation is as absurd today as it was when first
proposed. The number of students passing MCAS is in no way related to anything
that resembles anything more than dumbing down both the curricula and the test.
So, just in case you missed it, the governor prodded the Mass Board of Education
to concede the Massachusetts curriculum, par excellence, in favor of the Common
Core which favors students elsewhere.
These lines from Article III of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
guarantee us the rights and what is ignored as School Choice:
"And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of
the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied
to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or
denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise
it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or
precinct in which the said moneys are raised."
They should not, and cannot, be construed to be a "Church and State" issue.
It is time we took ourselves seriously with respect to all things government.
- Q: Should the state Legislature be exempt from the state's public
records law?
A: No
- Q: Cite any votes (if an incumbent) or positions (if a challenger or
newcomer) you have taken that disagree with the stance taken by your party�s
legislative leadership.
A: The attempt here to punctuate the ability of any candidate to stand on his
or her own two feet, nose-to-nose and toes-to-toes with the party leadership
is well noted. However, as a Republican, I am little burdened with this
anomaly as it does not exist. Commonly, we the people of the Commonwealth
have witnessed a Republican Executive branch facing one after another
Veto-OverRide for the business as usual Democrat House and Senate. Bill
after Bill and Tax after Tax has zipped past every Governor's desk and now
with the tacit resistance, all of it for show and none of it for us, comes
complete and utter control of both the House and Senate with a Democrat
pretending in the Executive seat. This sentiment, as horrid as it sounds has
been displayed before the Nation and we do not like it.
I do not like it. My neighbors do not like it. Legal Immigrants do not
like it and it has got to stop and that it shall with vigorous voter turnout
in November.
As to the question, there is only one bill supported by few of the Republicans
in power at any capacity in Massachusetts and my disagreement shall serve
notice. That bill is the Mass Health bill which requires the purchase of a
product, demands commerce, eliminates choice, imposes a fine, is cost uncontrollable
and once again cedes power of the people to a private, special interest that
has neither standing in the Commonwealth or in the United States of America.
- Q: Will you make public any questionnaires you fill out in pursuit
of the endorsement of unions or other groups?
A: Yes and in summary, I'd like to suggest that you must not be
surprised that the solutions sought by powerful unions represented in some
questionnaires are all the same. They require that we spend more money or
they require we spend more money on them and their special interests. There
are those who seek to retain and support the rights we have guaranteed in the
Constitutions of the United States and Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
nearly all of them suggest we could save money in so doing.
Funny how that works out. Save money by sticking to our creeds and have
more to spend on those who believe they need more. I'm shocked!
I intend to post them on my WebSite in the coming weeks.
This is the one of them. As in the others, it is my position, in my very own
words, published, submitted or not.
- Q: Should the Legislature be subject to a full audit?
A: Yes, why not? You should pardon me for suggesting that the public might get
annoyed at a public display of the waste, fraud and abuse. If charity begins
at home, well then it stands to reason that Waste, Fraud and Abuse start there
as well.
Another clich� that you might consider is 'What is good for the
goose is good for the gander'. Indeed, the Government at all levels is empowered
to do our bidding, but often that becomes a grey area in which definition is
lacking specificity. In fact, it is only grey when it comes to the Legislature
while the rest of the rules seem written to protect them from us.
Imagine that. I support totally transparency and I do not mean to suggest
that stops with it being public record that is obtainable only by using
high explosives to crack the safe in which is stored the tools necessary to
break the grip on public information.
- Q: Is the Legislature holding enough full formal sessions?
A: If what is meant by "full formal sessions" is to imply an eight hour day
or a full working day, then the answer is no. However, there is much work
done in committee which can often extend into the late evenings, nights and
weekends which are supposed to even out the true number of hours or sessions.
Some may call it busy work, but when the public is made aware of a weakness
in the code or law, or a loophole in the same, then it is the job of the
Legislature to close that loop and seek the fair and equal application of
any law to all persons.
One reason that may be given as excuse for this is a Latin Statement: Stare Decisis,
which is otherwise known as 'leave well enough alone'. In fact, if it has
been settled, then by all means 'leave the sleeping dog lie' and do not
awaken it for it may indeed bite.
I'm sharpening my teeth for the next Legislative Session as there are a
great number of things now done that shouldn't have been done in the manner
by which every legislator since has been quite happy to have left well
enough alone.
On the campaign trail, I have heard many of them. There are many more I'm
certain, so while the call to arms in this Election Year is 'Jobs, Spending,
Taxes and Healthcare' I am doing my best to take copious notes of the voice
of the people, who it seems have not been heard by many accounts until now.
- Q: Should there be term limits for the jobs
of House Speaker and Senate President?
A: There are such limits in the law and perhaps it is too long for most. Generally,
it is a seniority issues, by party affiliation, tenure and of course, age,
but those rules are used in the absence of the Senate President or Speaker
during formal sessions so called and such absence excused or otherwise. In
the State Senate, the limit is eight years which only seems reasonable when
the people vote in great numbers to upset, maintain or restore the balance
of power. I might suggest that this limit be reduced to four years as it
compliments my position on the excerpt from Articles V, VI and VII of the
Constitution of the Commonwealth as they pertain to the people's rights to
power and the sense of elitism that is all too pervasive.
|
|
