Share this candidate profile:

Anthony Armetta

Running for State Representative

4 CTNewsJunkie Reader Endorsements

Party: Libertarian Party

CEP Status: nonparticipating

Website: anthonyforconnecticut.com

Age: 26

Marital Status: Engaged

Current Residence: Manchester

Current Job: Project Engineer

Previous Job: Technician

Previous Job: Voice Actor

Education: B.Sc. Manufacturing Engineering Technology

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AnthonyArmetta2018/

Twitter:

Instagram:

Snapchat:

Periscope:

Would you vote for a bill that would legalize recreational marijuana? Why or why not?
Yes, I would. I do not believe it is the place of Government to regulate what we choose to consume.
How should the state balance the needs of vulnerable populations with the reality of another large budget deficit?
I believe the funds of the state are currently managed terribly (see recent reports of the raiding of transportation fund for other uses), and that fixing this inefficiency may allow us to care for the needs of these populations without a large deficit. (I am assuming that the term "Vulnerable Populations" refers to those who cannot work for medical reasons/disabilities). Smaller piece of a larger pie, still ends up bigger than a large slice of a tiny pie. If we have a strong economy we will not need to fret over consistently having deficits.
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?
This is a loaded question if I've ever seen one. Employees deserve the right to opt in or out of programs at their choosing. If an employee wants to participate in such a program voluntarily they should be able to, but requiring the use of such a system is similar to the failing social security system. It just wouldn't work for my generation, as we'd be working to support the retirement of a much larger generation than ourselves.
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?
A stronger economy with a greater quantity of better jobs is what we need. We can't simply pay for housing or food indefinitely. At some point, we have to address the root problem of a shrinking middle class in a direct manner. If we have a strong middle class, the needs for a safety net should be greatly diminished.
Will you support top-down efforts to regionalize local services with an eye toward more efficiency and reducing the state's obligations regarding ECS and/or other funding for towns? How would you go about it?
I believe that home-schooling should be viewed as a viable alternative to public schools. Give parents a voucher that is roughly equal to the cost of putting their child through one year of public school and allow them to choose whether to use that voucher for a year of public school, put it towards paying for a private school, or use it directly in the home-schooling of their own children. After all, they're paying for the education fund whether they're using public education or not.
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?
No, but I believe unions can and should negotiate family leave with employers. It is a good benefit, and often a necessary one. But it isn't government's place to force the hand of employers.
Where and how should state government focus its efforts in order to grow jobs?
We grow jobs by getting the government out of the way. Everywhere, there are brilliant minds with incredible ideas just waiting for the opportunity to turn their vision into a reality. Currently regulations on small business make it difficult to start a small business. In some cases even children trying to run a simple lemonade stand run up against such laws. We cannot expect jobs to grow by forcing them via subsidy or otherwise.
Would you support legislation to "ban the box," prohibiting employers from asking the question about criminal convictions on a job application?
No. It isn't government's place to interfere in the employee selection process, except in cases of discrimination (based on race, orientation, gender, etc.) Prior incarcerations are part of a potential employee's history, just like prior employment. It's relevant information.
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?
If we spend our existing transportation budget on transportation, we will meet the needs of sustaining the infrastructure. I think that it is unfair to the taxpayer that they must pay via tolls for the government's inability to stick with their budget.
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?
Allowing residents to dig their own wells and collect rainwater for personal use might be a good start. Water is a widely available resource that belongs in the hands of individuals. They should have the right to dig a pond on their land if they feel so inclined. As far as Eversource's bid for control of Connecticut's water resources, the creation of a monopoly on any natural resource is a dangerous thing. I do not believe out-of-state entities should be allowed to buy our water. This undesirable from an economic perspective; the potential export of water from our reservoirs could also spell environmental disaster. Private ownership of all water resources (as in, individual Connecticut resident ownership on a per-capita basis) is the ideal. Public ownership of these resources is not ideal, but still better than out-of-state ownership or corporate ownership. (I disagree with the "corporations as people" movement, as an aside). We're going to need this water over the next century, as the global temperature rises. Having such a critical natural resource put behind the wall of a large corporation, and rationed out at extortionate prices, would be a dystopian nightmare. This certainly seems far-fetched by our standards today, but it is nonetheless a possibility. A familiar refrain comes to mind: "I kept the water in the ground".
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 don't think some facets of zoning laws have any business existing, honestly. I'd pursue legislation to remove some aspects of zoning laws, such as the type of dwelling allowed in a residential area (within reason, as no one living in a two story home wants a 19 story condo to be built 50 feet away). However, I absolutely oppose any form of eminent domain. If the land that is being considered for the construction of a multi-family unit is already owned, under no circumstances should they be forced off their land. If they don't want to sell, they shouldn't have to.
How should the state address disparities in the Education Cost Sharing formula? What specific modifications would you suggest, if any?
See above. Tracking the proportion of children to adults in each municipality is a better gauge for the amount of funding needed than a simple measurement of local GDP/wealth.
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?
I believe that improving access to treatment (especially with the knowledge that seeking treatment will not lead to an arrest) will help to address the problem.