Which of the following sources of revenue should be pursued by the state?

• Expansion of gambling: NO
• Income tax: NO
• General sales tax: NO
• Increase in I & D tax: NO
• LLC tax: NO
• Local meals & rooms tax: NO
• Adding tolls on I-93 (Mass. Border): NO

New Hampshire doesn't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. When a person, family, business, or state spends beyond its means, it leads to fiscal instability and deficits. We MUST create a more business-friendly environment to encourage existing businesses to expand and/or relocate to New Hampshire, and to let entrepreneurs know that New Hampshire is THE place to be to start up a new business. Responsible growth, encouraged by business-friendly taxation and regulation policies will help put New Hampshire residents back to work and ensure that the state has the revenue needed to perform its essential functions.

Adopt a cap on property taxes? YES

Though, I strongly believe that property taxes should be controlled at the local level, I also recognize the reality that citizen involvement at the local level isn't at the level it should be. Given the percentage of registered voters who actually turn out to town meetings, it wouldn't be difficult for an energized and organized minority in town to take control of the issue and impose higher taxes to impose an agenda possible not favored by a majority of residents. While, I place the responsibility for preventing this on the residents whose apathetic nature leads them not to get involved, and would like nothing more than to see that trend reversed, I believe capping property tax rates can serve as a safeguard against such actions.

Reform retirement benefits for municipal & state employees? YES

Absolutely! The current system is wholly unsustainable, and will lead us tomorrow to economic doldrums on par with what California and Illinois are experiencing today. It’s certainly not a problem that will be fixed entirely in one or two election cycles, but as is the case with other issues of this economic nature, if we can show the people of New Hampshire (and beyond) that we are serious about fixing the problem and are actually beginning to enact corrective measures, it will do wonders to alleviate some of the uncertainty we’re seeing now in our state’s fiscal future. And this, in turn, will boost our image as a fiscally responsible state, and as a state where prospective business owners and entrepreneurs will feel welcome.

Repeal the gay marriage law? NO

As a Republican with strong libertarian leanings, I am proud to be an unapologetic supporter of same-sex marriage. If marriage is as “sacred” an institution as opponents of same-sex marriage say it is, then let’s leave it up to the various religious institutions in the state to define marriage and make their own rules about who can and cannot partake in the rite of Holy Matrimony. Sanctity of marriage exists only in the eyes of the church. A couple entering into Holy Matrimony is essentially forming a covenant between themselves and their God. It is a sacred and deeply personal bond – one that must be respected and left alone by every level of government, from town hall to Capitol Hill. Like it or not, there is nothing “sacred” about civil marriage, as defined, licensed, and regulated by the State. The government does not require marriage license applicants to pledge their love to one another, nor their fidelity, their devotion to God, their intent to bear children, or even their present or future plans of cohabitation. Just about the only thing “sacred” about the concept of two people getting married, as far as the State of New Hampshire is concerned, is the $50 marriage license fee. The idea of amending the New Hampshire Constitution or the United States Constitution, for the purpose of barring certain citizens from entering into the contract of civil marriage with the State, is offensive to me. Our constitutions were drafted and ratified to define our state and federal governments and to limit the powers thereof to prevent the encroachment on the rights and liberties of the People. They should NEVER be used to restrict or further the rights and liberties of one group of citizens over another.

Have mandatory automobile insurance? NO

Have a mandatory seat belt law for adults? NO

Adopt a mandatory helmet law for motorcycle riders? NO

Decriminalize small amounts of marijuana for adults? YES

I will, however, oppose laws legalizing the importation of narcotics from countries where the drug trade and the money generated from it are used to finance terroristic organizations that threaten the stability of the region and pose a danger to open, democratic-style government.

Legalize medicinal marijuana? YES

Restrict the use of windmills and windfarms for power generation, based on:

• Amount of subsidies: YES
• Aesthetics: YES
• Environmental impact: YES

The development of alternate energy production and technology should be done by the private sector using private funds. I don't buy into the notion that government should be "investing" in this kind of research and development. Governments don't invest. They spend...and its not "their" money they're spending. While I checked "yes" on the issue of restrictions, I believe any such regulations or restrictions should be enacted at the local level where the People have control, not the politicians and outside special interest groups.

Repeal the death penalty? NO

Adopt constitutional amendment that reduces the role of the courts in the school funding challenge? YES

School funding should be handled at the local level. Again, this ensures that the People (parents, educators, taxpayers) are the ones making the decisions.

Amend NH constitution to permit citizens to vote on statewide issues in a referendum? NO

We have the most representative legislative body in the country in the NH House of Representatives with elections held every two years. No other state is as friendly toward citizen involvement in state government as New Hampshire. If the People are engaged and participating in the electoral process, there should be no need to go outside the system to get things done.

Adopt a top 2 primary system? NO

Leave immigration laws to federal government? NO

The federal government has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is both unable and unwilling to enforce immigration laws in this country. If the states, counties, and towns don't step up and assume that role, no one will.