10/4/12 Candidate Statement
When first elected, I promised to use a pragmatic, balanced approach while vetting the issues that face Connecticut. My record shows that I have kept my word.
As your State Representative, I supported statewide education reform, but worked to defeat measures that would have eroded local control of our schools. I also worked closely with my three towns’ First Selectman (regardless of party) to promote local control of land use and town management. Their universal praise is a matter of record.
As an environmental lawyer and leader on the Environment Committee, I have supported bills that secure open space and remove phosphorus from groundwater, but opposed costly new government recapture programs when private sector solutions already exist. Likewise, I opposed a laudable but legally flawed bill to label genetically-modified foods, but am now on the bipartisan panel to craft a sustainable bill.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I supported bipartisan measures to improve criminal ID reliability, but opposed early release of violent criminals. I also opposed laws that foster needless litigation, and coordinated the coalition that defeated a Trial Lawyers/majority bill that would have encouraged medical malpractice claims.
Finally, as a member of the Finance Committee, I have supported realistic pro-jobs initiatives, but opposed the current tax, borrow and spend fiscal policies that continue to bleed the private sector, hurt job creation, and have kept our state near last in most national economic measures.
I promise to continue this balanced, common sense approach, and appreciate your trust and support.
10/15/12 Candidiate Statement
Wow. Rather than address the issues that face our state -- i.e., rising poverty, unemployment, energy costs, government spending and taxation -- my opponent resorts to tired "Shaban is anti-women/anti-tree" tactics and political fibs. Let's set the record straight.
I actually voted yes on insurance coverage for breast screening in 2012, and opposed an earlier flawed version of the bill that was too narrow, used inapplicable medical standards, and included unrelated unfunded mandates. I oppose unfunded state mandates because they drive up local property taxes (an approach my opponent claims to support, except it seems for now).
The environmental criticism is absurd. My environmental record and credentials are impeccable, and I’m proud to have received a "low grade" from an interest group because I refused to do what they wanted, when they wanted it. I answer to my constituents, not to the dozens of special interest "coalitions" and "associations" that try to steer votes.
Lastly, the internet dating bill was a ridiculous idea, and the "transgender rights" bill was duplicative of existing laws and promotes needless lawsuits. Again, bad policy does nothing to protect those in need.
My opponent is a good and decent fellow, but is undeniably a "more of the same" big government democrat ala the current (but shrinking) majority in Hartford. He offers no ideas on how to solve our problems because he openly supports his party’s big tax/big spend polices that have exacerbated our problems.
I believe that a vibrant private sector will improve our lives and budgets -- not more taxes, government and inaccurate rhetoric.