From schools to the RMV, from welfare programs to roads and bridges, every time we pick up the paper we are besieged with stories about the failures of government. At some point we need to realize that the incentive to become and remain profitable simply does not exist in the public sector. And it never will.

The only solution is to outsource the management of the MBTA to a private entity. In a best-case scenario, a private entity might turn around the MBTA. If not, however, the services will need to be cut and the system streamlined so that only the profitable lines and rails are maintained.

As such, there might be difficult and unpopular choices to be made. However, if we do not make those choices, the alternative - bankruptcy - would be a much worse fate.

At the same time, I am acutely aware of, and also committed to, addressing the deep backlog of road and bridge maintenance around the region. All transportation maintenance has suffered as a result of the huge investment in the Big Dig, which we are still paying for.

Over the next 24 months, we'll go through a process of long-term financial projection and explore alternative funding options. We'll also need to make sure that all cost-cutting options have been fully reviewed.

Funding options on the table include further fare increases, a gas tax increase, congestion fees for driving into the city, some form of highway mileage charge, and increased application of general tax revenues.

Fare increases, perhaps on a more gradual, consistent basis, are likely to be an inescapable element, but we need to limit the impact of the increases on the vulnerable, especially the disabled.

Fare increases alone are unlikely to solve the T's problems -- fares cover a small portion of the T's budget. And, of course, we also need to do more for many of our roads.

Among the other major funding sources, I tend to favor a gas tax increase because it is simple and familiar and entirely committed to transportation purposes, but I am also intrigued by the concept of a congestion charge.

I'd like to hear more from experts and from my constituents about that option - how it would work in practice and whether it would be perceived as fair.

Most recently, the Pioneer Institute announced that the result of these efforts will be to actually reduce the number of physicians practicing in the state.

At the risk of being a one-trick pony, my position is consistent. Government should get out of the healthcare business, with the very important exception of providing services for those who cannot afford them.

But any time the government gets involved in any facet of our lives, from funding higher education to buying up mortgages to healthcare, the end result is never good.

Government has a role to play in society, but it is a limited one.

Health care is complicated today - almost every care episode involves many people, in some cases dozens or hundreds of people, and a host of expensive devices.

There is a broad consensus that care needs to be better organized and standardized to lower costs and improve quality. The cost-plus chaos of unmanaged care has to end.

Most industry leaders understand the problem, and the industry is already moving in the right direction, but it has a long way to go.

I think that law we passed this year will create a whole lot of new information about what is really happening in the industry - costs, quality, and market power will be increasingly clear. With that transparency, I think the industry will have added motivation to reorganize in cost-effective ways.

I believe we will have to continue to work hard on the issue over the years to come, but I feel that we can honestly hope for care that is both less expensive and better quality - consumers should have better options than they do today.

This speaks to my earlier point. The non-governmental entity - charter schools - provide the better service.

Ironically, however, the supposed champions of public education, liberal Democrats, resist the need to act by lifting the cap, all while trying to convince the electorate that they are the compassionate ones, concerned for our children and their futures.

In fact, they are more concerned with placating the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and for this blatant disregard for our children they should be held to account.

I don't have an ideological position for or against charter schools, and I feel that the right cap level is a judgment call that needs to be re-examined periodically.

Whether we should raise it again depends on:

1. Whether the state has succeeded in issuing new charters up to the cap and whether the new schools have demonstrated reasonable stability and quality;

2. The level of demand for new charter placements;

3. How the districts from which the new schools would draw students are performing.

We should recognize that the mere fact of low test scores in a district is not proof that the schools themselves are performing poorly - low test scores result from a combination of factors, some of which are not within the control of the schools, like nutrition, home stability, parental supervision, etc. Test scores need to be taken in context.

In cases of doubt about how to evaluate district schools, I listen closely to parents. I was heavily influenced in the 2010 conversation by the voices of parents from the most affected districts. I do believe strongly that we should respect the wishes of parents and if they are asking in sufficient numbers for new options, we should strive to meet their demands.

And while unions do have a place in this country, we cannot restrict non-union firms from bidding on work, especially when that work is paid for by the taxpayer.

Government has an obligation to the taxpayer to consider every facet of every bid - from cost to the ability to finish a job on time. Restricting its own ability to service the taxpayer while at the same time excluding qualified bidders is just plain stupid.

In a very large construction project, which is dependent on a large union labor pool, a PLA may be useful to resolve differences among unions about roles and responsibilities on the job and generally to insure a smooth project.

On the other hand, the PLA may not be in the public interest because it may exclude some competitors.

I'm not sure that that one can make a blanket statement about PLAs, and as a result, I think that decision-making about PLAs should generally be an executive branch matter.

However, we can never forget that the large majority of the recipients earned their current benefits. There is certainly no shortage of examples of people who have beat the system, and those loopholes need to be closed, and people who committed fraud must be prosecuted.

However, government signed on the dotted lines, and should not renege on their promise.

Going forward with new employees and with new labor agreements, government should hold the line, and if unions strike, so be it.

However, we must not renege on our promises. Those existing recipients made career decisions based on those agreements, and to try to change them now is simply wrong. I would not want it done to me, nor would most people want it done to them.

Pay the current obligations as agreed, and move forward knowing that we can never let this type of financial mismanagement happen ever again.

In other words, they should have a plan that combines a safe cost-of-living adjusted benefit similar to Social Security with an opportunity to save in a tax-advantaged savings vehicle.

Over time, our 106 different employee pension systems in Massachusetts should be consolidated into that simplified new system; provided, however, that existing employees and retirees should not be forced into the new system.

I've written about these ideas at length here: http://willbrownsberger.com/index.php/public-employee-benefit-reform

I am a strong pro-life advocate. It is my belief that abortion is a crime against God and Nature, because regardless of the pretty words used to describe it (pro-choice), every abortion terminates a life.

To those who say that it is a woman's right to choose, I would remind them that our founding fathers were very explicit about the fact that our "rights" are inalienable because they come from God. Man cannot give rights - he only can preserve and protect them.

So just because it is legal, and I do not dispute that, it does not make it a "right". There are good laws and bad ones. We need to begin a mature and productive debate on this particular law, and move toward some type of middle ground where there is more respect for the sanctity of life.

Voted for increased transparency (2009)

Voted against casinos (2010)

Voted against three-strikes bill (2011, 2012)

Voted against punitive motor vehicle rules targeted at immigrants (2012)

Voted against Citizens United resolution (2012)

Voted for bottle bill (2012)