Share this candidate profile:

Mark Stewart Greenstein

Running for Governor

3 CTNewsJunkie Reader Endorsements

Party: Amigo Constitution Party

CEP Status: nonparticipating


Age: 54

Marital Status: S

Current Residence: West Hartford

Current Job: Teaching, Education Consulting

Previous Job: Teaching, SAT Prep

Previous Job: lawyer

Education: B.A. Dartmouth College; J.D. Univ. of California Berkeley

Where and how should state government focus its efforts to grow private sector jobs and improve the business climate?
1) In New York. We are already a better state for business than New York, and a far better state for families: lower cost, better schools, less regulation. NYC earners pay 9% city tax!. I will be in New York every month to tout the benefits of a reviving Connecticut. 2) Throughout CT, by removing regulations that keep business from employing more, selling more, and innovating more. 3) Throughout CT, by removing barriers that keep people, especially women, from starting businesses. 4) Throughout CT, by ending the education monopoly which will attract more families to CT and thereby more businesses to serve them. 5) In Groton, where we should be building submarines for our allies. 6) In East Hartford, Windsor Locks, and Middletown, where we can be designing and building more aircraft for our allies. 7) In Stratford, where we can be designing and building more helicopters for agriculture, fire suppression, mapping, and tourism. 8) In Stamford, where we can be programming to the voracious appetites of overseas video viewers. 9) In Bristol, where we can be developing sports programming to showcase high school athletes worldwide.
Would you sign a bill legalizing recreational marijuana? Why or why not?
For sales to adults, yes. We should not waste energy fighting victimless crimes. We should not make citizens into criminals for minding their own business. Fight REAL crime instead. Marijuana is not a gateway drug; indeed its criminalization makes it a gateway for some who try it, say "big deal, what's the commotion", and then feel that other illegal hard drugs are similarly benign. The revenue we might gain is a flourish - the main reason for legalization is FREEDOM.
Projections suggest we’re facing yet another massive budget gap for 2019. What concrete steps will you take to close that gap?
End state welfare.
Would you support legislation requiring private employers to "ban the box," prohibiting them from asking the question about criminal convictions on a job application?
Government should not meddle in workplace relations. Doing so perverts the free exchange of labor for money. When government presses on one thing in the name of "fairness", it hurts many other realms. Even with a ban on the applications. you can't stop employers from researching conviction records. If it's important to an employer, they should be privy to a candidate's background. Now, some employers will hire ex-cons, especially those who've shown they want to make a new, wholesome life. Let employers have all information. I happen to be pro-rehabilitation. I am for shorter sentences, when behavior has been exemplary; I'm for making better transitions so convicts can job-search in the last 6 months of their incarceration. And in addition to launching a state "G-Force" and "Conn-Force", Connecticut under Mark Stewart will have an "Ex-Con force". I have personally hired ex-con's and it has worked out fine. Mental condition is most important for an employer to make a good hire, and most will not use a check-box screen, especially with this labor shortage. But if they want to screen this way, it is their right.
A recent report found 40 percent of Connecticut residents can't afford basic needs such as housing, food, health care, or child care. What would you do to improve their situation?
Extricate from Medicare and ObamaCare, two monstrosities that keep low-income people from saving. Work with DC to get us out of Social Security, the most regressive tax we have. It's especially vile for African-Americans, who pay in longer and on average take benefits for less time after age 65. For the truly poor, i'd like to see more of their services privately funded. Private funds and private control over causes are BETTER for the recipients.
Based on estimates that out-of-state drivers would contribute 30-40% of overall revenue if highway tolls are implemented in Connecticut, would you support tolls with or without offsetting cuts in the state's gas taxes?
No tolls. If NEEDED, we can raise revenue better with mileage-based use fees. These collect revuenue on all-roads, not just 4-lane highways, so it's fairer. Collections can be adjusted for vehicle weight, for high-congestion times and (somewhat) for in-state vs out-of-state vehicles. We can set up Mileage-based use fees in three months, for about $750,000, whereas tolling will take at least three years and over $10,000,000. The same devices help insurance companies determine safer drivers, and help police reconstruct accidents. See more at
What are your transportation priorities?
Until we have an assiduous transportation work force, and a system that rewards getting work done quickly, i would do minimal repairs. After June 2021, we'll be able be much more cost-effective because we won't be as tied to state labor contracts. Then we can enlist crews who actually like when the majority are holding power tools or manning heavy equipment.
Should Connecticut be cooperating with President Trump’s zero-tolerance policies on illegal immigration or resisting?
Very complex. Here goes: Connecticut will protect good immigrants. Good = 1) learned basic English before coming here 2) espoused American values to their own community before coming here. 3) once here have not taken welfare, or are repaying the welfare they obtained This is the kind of immigrant we should WANT. I will protect them. If it comes down to a federal/state dispute, our forces will align to protect residents of our state. Now, in the name of SOVEREIGNTY, we have the right to turn back illegal newcomers. In the name of CULTURE, the great American culture that some recent newcomers (egged on by Leftists and nihilists) wish to dilute, we have the duty to acculturate newcomers to the American way. That means communities that teach their children Sharia law to replace American law, and those who disdain English immersion for their children should be considered "child abusers" and stopped. For all newcomers, we should take the opportunity to steer them to communities where their presence is an asset and not a likely burden. Some cities are overburdened (not because of population, but because they don't let free markets properly serve a growing population) while many rural areas are losing population. We could condition residence for the first seven years in the USA on staying in an underpopulated area "of need". New immigrants create economic vitality of their own. They are often our best entrepreneurs and our best workers for others who run businesses. Their new communities become marketplaces that existing businesses want to serve. Seven years is a modern route to a PhD or a professional firm's partnership. Seven years also approximates the average time a would-be immigrant is held up in limbo, in a country they'd like to flee. Let's open the gates to good immigrant, with conditions. Even with conditions, virtually everybody in line now would gladly exchange to be quickly brought to the best place in human history, the sovereign U.S.A. More is at
Would you seek to repeal a new Connecticut law that mandates insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act?
I would not enforce the law. We would then SHOW the world the sky is not falling in on needy people, and get the General Assembly to repeal the law. ANY laws that needlessly force businesses into the schemes of a few bureaucrats, so help favored groups, should be repealed. I happen to like using the welfare function to cover pre-existing conditions for children; (I'm ambivalent about coverage for adults.) In all cases, don;t legislate against innocent buisnesses to do your political directives.
Much of Connecticut is economically and racially segregated because many towns lack affordable housing and local zoning regulations prohibit multi-family dwellings. How would you propose incentivizing municipalities to start allowing multi-family units and other affordable housing options?
I would not use the state for carrot-and-stick with towns. Municipalities can decide on their own if they want to have lower cost housing if they want. This way Connecticut will have a wide variety of towns. We can retain some tony towns (which not coincidentally are where most not-so-well-off people would LIKE to go to, and are saving up to make the move). Keeping a standard that is based on wealth and how you keep your property is GOOD; it's why towns with these standards tend to grow. Now,I do encourage towns that want affordable housing to relax their standards for "non-family members in a dwelling". Most towns limit this to three. Were there a high limit, many nice hopes would be available to people who can't afford much.
How should the state address disparities in the Education Cost Sharing formula? What specific modifications would you suggest, if any?
It should abolish ECS. The formula will NEVER be fair. Towns will lobby and win; others will lose. The best way for fairer education is choice in schools. Let families choose a school in a different district if it's better for their child. In the process, this "market competition" will make almost all schools Better. They have to be better or they'll have to close.
Will you work to regionalize local services with an eye toward creating efficiencies and reducing the state's obligations under ECS and other town aid? How would you go about it?
No. Again, ECS should give way to a state-wide voucher system. See my "First 500" plan for schools at
Will you try to reopen the SEBAC agreement before it's due to expire in 2027? If so, what might you offer the unions in order to get them to agree to reopen the contract early?
No. I keep SEBAC as is. I honor promises. The best way the state gets out of a bad agreement AND uplifts workers is by encouraging privatization of many state functions. Then workers peel themselves out of SEBAC. They get more control over their workplace, higher pay, and even the incentive to launch a new, private service, with the state as their first client. See more at
Should the government's response to the opioid crisis be to focus on law enforcement to stop drug dealers, or improving access to treatment for addiction and reducing the overprescription of painkillers?
The government's response should be minimal. People pay little attention to laws unless there's a MORAL component. So let's re-instill one: don;t put anything in your body God didn't intend you to ingest. You can get high on life withoout drugs; God gives us such beautiful activities, and lets us visit such awe-inspiring places, all while listening to any music you can imagine...why the HELL do you need anything more!!!. As for opiods ingested because of a desire to avoid with a little pain. And if you must take something to relieve it, know that a temporary good feeling is NOT to be replicated. In essence, just...say..."no". You have a brain. It can make great use of your glands ornd sensual pleasures.
Eversource and some out-of-state entities appear to be attempting to buy control of Connecticut's water resources, and some of our quasi-public water agencies have signed away large amounts of water to commercial interests with little regard to future water shortages. What can you do to ensure that Connecticut residents maintain control of public water supplies in perpetuity?
I am not educated enough here. I do know that our General Assembly has given utilities like Eversource too much deference in the past.
The 459,000 family caregivers in Connecticut provide an estimated 427 million hours of care each year. Nationwide, nearly seven in ten caregivers report making work accommodations because of caregiving, including arriving late/leaving early, cutting back their hours, changing jobs, or stopping work entirely. Would you support a family leave law that provides paid leave to employees who have to take time off for family caregiving purposes?
I support smart employers, and women moving to work for smart employers. In other words. Vote with your feet. Then there's little need for legislation. Legislation is force; volutariness yields better outcomes.
In 2016 the Connecticut Retirement Security Program was created. It will give over 600,000 residents in our state a way to save for retirement at work. Knowing that employees are 15 times more likely to save merely by having access to payroll deduction, how will you continue the implementation of this important program?
I like the incentives. I want employees to see a smorgasbord of retirement incentives, some aided by the stat, most totally private. See more at