Frequently Asked Questions

Perhaps Abe Lincoln or Winston Churchill come to mind. Perhaps Vince Lombardi or General George S. Patton. All these men were able to achieve extraordinary accomplishments, and three of the four during particularly dark times in history.

Definitions of Leadership are as numerous as recipes. While all of those definitions share similar traits, such as keen preparation, a foundational common thread is a deep sense of commitment to do something where there are no guarantees, and a duty and responsibility to a worthy mission. We live in a vulnerable world and to lead often means to take an unpopular route.

Leadership takes the courage to be imperfect and an ability to make a connection to the authenticity of the objective and relay that to those assigned to carry out the details. A good example of this is an orchestra conductor, successfully bringing together many individual performances into one of blended unity and execution.

A leader starts with a vision and must articulate that with clarity.  He must stay the course and demonstrate the wisdom to make corrections when needed.  A leader must exhibit the passion to get everyone singing from the same “sheet of music” or the mission will likely fail.

Outside of autocratic leadership, great leaders trust those who are delegated assignments and allow subordinates to get the job done without micromanagement. The best leaders hold those accountable for shortcomings and offer praise and gratitude freely to those who succeed.

While every orchestra must have a conductor, it is the musicians who actually get the work done. That work is accomplished through effective communication and cannot be accomplished without mastering the art of listening. Leadership is being able to effectively process the information at hand and deliver an understandable set of directives.

Decisions determine destiny.

Connecticut has suffered from a leadership void for years and the proof is our national ranking at the bottom of just about every financial metric. In a CT Mirror article the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, the state’s chief business lobby, cites 77% of businesses believing the state’s newly passed Family and Medical Leave program will harm their companies, with a further 53% saying the rising minimum wage will do the same.

These are the collective voices of many responsible for creating taxable wealth in the state. Government does not create wealth; it spends yours and that generated by businesses. Without a healthy private sector, Connecticut’s tax revenues will not be forthcoming. Who will pay to sustain our necessary state services?

My opponent publicly stated in 2018 that, “There’s nowhere else to cut.” I cannot accept that as truthful nor is that a statement of a leader. The position a Leader would take is not that we can’t cut state spending, but where and how much do we cut?

Conservatism embraces the rule of law, free enterprise and private ownership of property, combined with the moral obligation to do right by others. It encompasses the moral skill to discern what “doing the right thing” is and what that means and employs practical wisdom to solve social problems.  At its core lies the notion of personal responsibility, not dependence on the State. Conservatism is the opposite of Socialism and its values are enshrined in our Constitution, which promises to, “…secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”.

I disagree with the definition of conservatism cited by Wikipedia that “…conservatives seek to keep things as they are, while others want a return to the way things were at an earlier time.”  Personally, my interpretation of conservatism embraces some change and seeks government that is respectful of the values of conservatism, as we seek to strike a balance between what individual responsibilities are, while limiting the responsibilities of the State.

I believe that all politics are, and should be, local and that a bipartisan approach to decision making is not a bad thing:  more ideas mean better outcomes and more work gets accomplished.

We enjoy a federal republic and that was well conceived by the Founding Fathers who sought to keep most power directly with the governed. Unfortunately, today’s political system favors entrenched professional politicians and lobbyists, both being rewarded with power and influence determined by how long they have been serving and how much money they can raise. Many career politicians have never actually worked in the private sector.

As a fiscal conservative, I believe that smaller government and free markets are the surest ways to a robust and healthy economy. People are the best stewards of the wealth they have earned by virtue of their hard work, and they should be able to make the best decisions of how and what their money should be spent on. Almost all agree that no one will take better care of your money as you will. Oprah Winfrey said that the best life lesson she ever learned was to personally sign ALL the checks, whether they were her personal or business checks.

Government cannot create wealth; it can only spend yours. Government must first take money from individuals and businesses via taxation, before it can spend it on infrastructure, social programs, defense, education, etc. My conservative opinion is that we must act transparently to limit the burdens of excessive taxes that the Connecticut legislature has imposed upon us.

Government never has to take the risks that business people take on a daily basis. Efficiencies are designed into a free market system where good ideas, products and service are rewarded and bad ideas lose money or die. Government, armed with the power to tax, simply is not restrained by that mechanism. As our State budget has ballooned, so has our collective appetite for services that once provided, are rarely taken away.

I strongly believe in checks and balances in government, while operating with a high degree of transparency and efficiency.

For starters, we must clean house by eliminating complacency, mismanagement, corruption and overspending.  I would start by conducting forensic audits of each individual department. We can’t expect to fix things when we don’t know how or if they are broken. Use of enhanced technologies and best practices employed in the private sector, regardless of how government has always done things, needs to be prioritized.

I love my home state and would like to retire here. But like so many, I might not be able to afford to do that.

Connecticut has a financially dysfunctional government. Our present leadership in Hartford is unable or unwilling to control its spending, putting an unnecessary pressure on residents and corporations to pay the highest taxes in the country.

This fact is fueling an historic exodus of tax payers, resulting in less revenue for the state. While the Democrats continually try to find more tax dollars to fund their agenda, their only response to make up the lost revenue has been to double-down on their tax and spend policies.

I aim to help reverse that trend by supporting tax reform and returning Connecticut to fiscal responsibility, something the state was known for before the implementation of the state income tax in 1992.

Over the last twenty-five years, the Legislature has imposed a tax on just about everything. This appetite for revenue, coupled with one-party control, has mushroomed into excessive waste and gross mismanagement.

It is the basic duty of any legislator, to look out for the best interests of the constituents who elected them. The Democratic incumbent legislator for the 83^rd District has failed abysmally in this regard. She has had four terms to do something about the worsening state economy- but did nothing except vote the party line with Gov. Malloy for more taxes.

I will support new fiscal reforms that will reduce taxation liability on residents and corporations and bring back an entrepreneurial spirit to Connecticut.

• Open the lines of communication to constituents and gain more citizen participation and transparency in government.
• Bring back our pre-1992 competitive advantage by eliminate existing overburdening taxation:
1. Reform the state income tax
2. Reform the corporate income tax
3. Eliminate the gift and estate taxes
• Eliminate redundancy in government programs.
• Reduce regulatory interference for companies.
• Embrace legislation for zero-based budgeting.

President Ronald Reagan was at a fundraiser and told the following joke:

There was a kid outside a Democratic fundraiser selling kittens. When the people came out, he was holding up the kittens saying, “Buy a Democrat Kitten!”

Couple weeks later the Republicans held a fundraiser in the same place. And when the people came out, there was the same kid with the kittens. And he said, “Buy a Republican Kitten!”

One of the members of the press who saw him 2 weeks earlier said, “Wait a minute, kid. You were selling these kittens last time as Democrat kittens. How come they’re Republican kittens now?”

Kid says, “Because now they’ve got their eyes open.”

Regardless of how you may relate to the joke, the fact remains that the majority of paychecks for most Americans does not stay long in the pocket of the earner. Because of the increase in tax rates and the sheer number of things that have become “taxable” in Connecticut, as decided by Connecticut’s state legislature and our local governments, less and less of yearly wages are kept by the earner. Government takes that money, via all the taxes you pay, to pay for all the things it says it needs to provide for- all the services for all the citizens. That list grows every year too.

Funny thing is, you may not use some or most of the services the Government provides and pays for with your tax dollars. It seems not very fair. However, the argument goes that taxes that are collected on everyone, is for the good of society on the whole. Like public education, for example. A senior citizen couple on a fixed income, who have no children in the school system, still pays the same as a family that has 3 kids enrolled.

Let’s refresh with the fact that government does not create wealth; it spends what it takes from you and businesses to pay for all the things it says you must have. Only private enterprises actually create wealth by building things and providing sought-for goods and services.

A smaller government will take less of your money, leaving it in your wallet to spend for what you decide, not the government, on the things you and your family need. You know best what is needed in your household.

It’s about personal choice and individual freedom, to live how you want to live and make the best decisions affecting you and your family- not how someone else decides for you.

So, what can we do about it? You may have heard that the IRS tax code is somewhere around 80,000 pages long! In the 2016 Republican Presidential debates, Sen. Ted Cruz said his tax proposal would allow ALL Americans to file their returns on the back of a postcard. I think a flat tax, without loopholes, is by far and away the fairest, smartest and simplest way of collecting tax revenue.

According to Tax Foundation, in 2015 a flat tax of 10% for individuals and 16% for businesses, the bottom-line effect would have been:

1. Improved incentives to work and invest.
2. Increase gross domestic product (GDP) by 13.9%
3. Higher GDP would translate to 12.2% higher wages
4. Create 4.8 million new full-time equivalent jobs
5. Taxpayers would see an increase in after-tax income of at least 14%

Consider, why is no one else touting this program?

I believe an effective way to improving our society and ensuring personal freedoms, is to simplify many of the processes and requirements that the government forces citizens to follow. A Federal flat tax system would be one of those ideas I would fully invest time and study to make a working reality.

Secondly, think of the time and money you would save if you didn’t have to do all the tax prep, study rules changes, get professional advice or preparation assistance, etc.? Bookkeepers, accountants and CPA’s would still be needed to run and maintain accounting records used to derive taxable income and offer advice on managerial moves for both businesses, individuals, trusts and non-profits.

Reduce the restrictions on doing business and business will thrive, increasing the tax base and the economy will grow with the improved prosperity of the work force.