We cannot ignore the problems of the MBTA. The T brings workers from the more urban areas to our community. These employees are vital to our health care facilities, our hotel and restaurant businesses, our schools, and more. And the T brings health care and home aides to our communities so our seniors may remain at home as long as they desire.

I am not in favor of fare increases, because riders' fares have recently been increased. Any further increase will cause a drop in ridership, putting more cars on the road and increasing our already frustrating traffic situation.

Public transportation not only gets cars off the road, it helps reduce or contain air pollution caused by automobiles.

An increase in fares will harm the economy. Some people may not be able to commute to Boston at all, thereby increasing unemployment in the area. Those who rely on their cars will face expensive costs for parking and gas, and therefore their bottom-line take home pay will decline.

For these reasons, we cannot increase fares.

Money to operate the T has to come from somewhere. Massport can take greater financial responsibility, which can help somewhat.

But beyond that, we are going to have to look for dedicated sources of revenue. Many options have been discussed. I will fight hard for a way to fund the T without impacting those working people most dependent on it, by adopting tax credits and deductions to offset any increases that may affect these families.

Providers will be paid to keep us healthy, rather than per service they provide. A healthy person will likely have access to covered gym memberships, weight loss programs, and wellness checkups, for example. This means a person would save money on the gym her or she already attends, or have a financial incentive to join one. It will lead to a more fit society, which benefits us all.

Early detection of illness through covered checkups will save all of us money, and prevent advancement of disease or conditions that may be hard to treat in later stages.

Imagine if costs do not inhibit our opportunity to go to the doctor for a routine checkup, and at that checkup a condition is found that, treated properly, presents no threat to our long-term health. But if it had been allowed to fester, it could have been life-threatening. This new system will allow for more of these routine exams, and will lead us to a healthier society.

There are certainly costs that arise in any system. But the Legislature and Governor Patrick have proposed a law that levels the playing field for all of us. No longer will health care providers be free to raise prices faster than the growth of the economy. Health care is one of those fields that is susceptible to free-market pricing, because we do not shop for a good deal when we need it most.

There are many areas where the government should not intrude in our lives. This is one of the ways government makes our lives easier by giving consumers a voice.

I have no objection to an increase in the number of Horace Mann charter schools. They are located within a school district and involve children from the same district. So any transfer of a student from a mainstream public school to a charter school in the same district has no net financial affect on the school district itself.

However, when it comes to Commonwealth charter schools, I do not support an increase in the cap.

This is because Commonwealth charter schools are funded by the communities that otherwise would have educated the child. The community would pay money to the charter school regardless of where the school is located, and be deprived of the use of that money in the mainstream school.

Eventually a reimbursement is provided by the Commonwealth, but the reimbursement is rarely enough to equal the lost revenue. The towns and cities lose money.

I support strong mainstream public schools. A growth in the number of Commonwealth charter schools is not something I would encourage, because it harms the financial interest of the mainstream public school.

PLAs provide contractors with a reliable and steady source of workers, and predictable costs.

They provide union workers with jobs they so desperately need.

Because PLAs streamline the labor process, they help projects reach completion deadlines on time (something we badly need in our district as road reconstruction on Middlesex Turnpike in Burlington and Bedford demonstrate).

Importantly, workers give up the right to strike, and cannot be locked out, so we know labor strife will not interrupt the projects.

PLAs encourage projects to stay in state. Both contractors and workers will come from the Commonwealth, and I am in favor of creating jobs in the Commonwealth, not taking them to other states.

Finally, a non-union shop can still participate in the project by associating with a union source. All it has to do is pay union scale, which is fair to all workers.

Like other states, Massachusetts chose not to pay into the public retirement system for several years due to the declining economy, although deductions were taken from employees' wages. When workers retire, they have a right to expect the pensions they earned will be there for them.

Due to the growing number of retirees of the baby boomer generation, and limited funds due to economic choices, we will face a crisis if this situation is not addressed in the next few years.

Massachusetts is not alone in this situation. Nationwide, all states face a serious issue with unfunded pensions, and experts estimate that the total problem, in present-dollar terms, is as much as $2.5 trillion nationwide (see www.statebudgetsolutions.org).

In present-value terms, Massachusetts' unfunded pension debt ranks 38th in the nation, which is not good, but is ahead of Northeast industrialized states New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. States that rely on industry and have high populations are naturally the most affected by the unfunded pension problem.

We, like other states, must address the problem of unfunded pension liabilities before the retirement benefits are due. The Legislature has attempted to tackle this issue before. The last attempt raised the age of eligibility. Other solutions have been discussed.

Until I have the opportunity to review the records of the Legislature and see what has been tried or proposed thus far, I am not in a position to fairly and adequately propose solutions to the situation. I am not willing to give a short-shrift answer to a complex problem only to appear decisive to voters. Voters can rely on me to play it straight with them.

I believe in equality for women. I would have voted for Lilly Ledbetter and the Equal Pay Act. The majority of my Republican friends would not.

I believe in equal rights of all people under the law. I believe in a woman’s right to choose during the early stages of pregnancy. I believe the government should not impose laws that restrict the right of a physician to prescribe medication to a patient on purely "moral" grounds.

I believe that the expression "judge the individual, and not the party" should be used by the voter, not the candidate. When it is used by the voter, it means the voter has found a quality in the candidate of the party he does not usually align with that the voter admires.

I hope that voters of all parties will judge me for who I am. Included in that analysis they may consider that I am running as a Democrat. I will not ask you to judge me as an individual, and ignore my party, because the fact that I joined my party is a fair piece of information available to the voter for consideration and in my case I am proud of my choice.

Of course, I am not beholden to a party and do not agree with everything it has pursued.

One issue with which I disagree is casino gambling. I do not think the Commonwealth should rely on funding that comes largely from people who cannot afford to contribute. I do not think it is a good idea for the Commonwealth to pluck a percentage of the losses of gamblers. What goes on in Las Vegas should stay in Las Vegas, or, in my opinion, not come here.

As a teenager, I lived in Ledyard, Conn., the home to Foxwoods casino. Foxwoods was not built when I lived there, but I still hear from people who are there. The casino has harmed the region. It creates terrible traffic, as the roads and bridges of the small community were not built for the huge amount of congestion attracted to the region. The casino may be a destination, but very few of its patrons stop to support other local interests (the tourist area in Mystic several miles away aside).

Even if people in a particular area of Massachusetts are in favor of a casino, I still would not support it. I would not put something I would not want in my backyard in somebody else’s neighborhood. For that reason, I would not have voted in favor of casino gambling.