The MBTA
The MBTA is in crisis. This year, we saw both a fare increase and a reduction in service as a result of the agency’s fiscal problems. By common agreement, either the T’s debt obligations will have to be reduced – perhaps by having the state or another agency assume some of them – or its funding will have to increase. Please describe your favored approach to putting this vital transportation agency back on stable footing. If you favor more funding, please specify where it would come from, and what taxes or fees you would support for that purpose.
Democrat
This candidate hasn't responded yet; please check back later.
Constitutionalist
Every government agency in the Commonwealth is in crisis, and every crisis is due to the gross mismanagement in most agencies.
Corruption and greed is often the root of the problem, with overspending thrown in for good measure.
The "fix" eventually falls to the taxpayers who were never any part of any "common agreement." There is no either/or as the question asks.
Before any funding increase or taxpayer bailout happens, the T will have to restructure its operations. Reductions in salaries, coupled with employees paying a greater share of health benefits, coupled with pension caps, coupled with reductions in OPEB (other post-employment benefits), coupled with restructuring the number of years to be pension eligible, etc., etc., etc.
There is no magic pill except to throw out the baby with the bath water and start over. But we know that that will not happen until the Commonwealth's nearing insolvency finally rears its ugly head.
Healthcare
Massachusetts’s new healthcare cost containment law limits the growth of healthcare spending to the growth in the state’s economy and shifts from fee-for-service care to global payment models. Do you believe these measures will protect healthcare choices while preventing rapid increases in costs?
Democrat
This candidate hasn't responded yet; please check back later.
Constitutionalist
The healthcare industry has a captive audience. It is as top-heavy and bloated as government and is following the government paradigm of pathetic inefficiency.
It is not going to fix itself, and government doesn't have the capacity to fix anything unless tort reform is implemented along with caps on legal fees, which drive those awards.
Legislators, for the most part, are attorneys who have a vested interest in having a "sky is the limit" attitude (see corruption and greed above or the number 40%). It was never the intent of the Framers to have "Legislators for Life" for any group or profession to dominate the legislative and/or spending process.
Unions and lobbyists who financially support the campaigns of policymakers from one particular political party are a major part of the problem as well. Sure, we might not be able to ban the practice, but we can at least point to the genesis of the problem.
One answer would be voluntary term limits as envisioned by the Framers. But don't hold your breath…
Education
Many parents are looking for educational options for their children. It’s very hard to get expanded day programs in districts like Boston because the teachers’ union believes its members should be paid for the extra time they work. Charter schools offer longer days and longer school years at the same per-pupil cost, and there are more than 35,000 children on waiting lists statewide. Do you support raising the cap on charter schools? If yes, under what conditions?
Democrat
This candidate hasn't responded yet; please check back later.
Constitutionalist
Since the teachers' unions financially support candidates who will do their bidding to the detriment of candidates who would be willing to look at all the possibilities for true education reform, it will be a hard fought and lengthy battle to raise the cap, which should be lifted with no pre-conditions.
Charter schools are showing that they can do the job; so why mess with the recipe for success they have?
If the teachers' unions want more money, it should be merit-based. The more outstanding student-scholar graduates they produce, the more they receive.
The same old/same old mediocrity is just unacceptable.
Project Labor Agreements
The Patrick administration has imposed so-called Project Labor Agreements on three large construction projects that require that anyone working on them must be members of a labor union and firms must abide by union work rules. Non-union shops say those requirements effectively exclude them from bidding. Several studies show that projects done under PLAs or with only a small number of bidders cost more than projects that have more bidders. Unions, however, say the PLAs insure higher-quality work and offer a guarantee against strikes or other labor strife. Do you favor or oppose PLAs? Why?
Democrat
This candidate hasn't responded yet; please check back later.
Constitutionalist
I oppose PLAs simply because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating a special class of people, union workers, who have rights or benefits that others cannot have - in this case, the right to work, to be productive, and to be able to support one's family.
Why no one has challenged Deval Patrick on that is beyond me. I won’t go into the fact that the labor unions financially support people like Patrick and his ilk because of the favoritism they are able to buy (see corruption and greed in answer 1).
Amendment XIV
§ 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (§ 1) prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
~ From a Treatise on the Fourteenth Amendment
Employee Pensions
Do you think further changes to the state employee pension system are necessary?
Democrat
This candidate hasn't responded yet; please check back later.
Constitutionalist
Yes - and there are many.
Going forward, there should be dollar amount caps, increased longevity requirements, limits on OPEB amounts paid out, etc.
The system as it stands is unsustainable.
Legislative leadership
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.
Democrat
This candidate hasn't responded yet; please check back later.
Constitutionalist
Although I am a fiscal conservative and hold other conservative values, I no longer engage in partisan politics.
I will stand and work with or go toe-to-toe with either major party to the benefit of my constituency and to the people of the Commonwealth.
That is what the job is supposed to be all about.