Government has an input into a family's decision about abortion and contraceptive choices.

Why is this a problem? Any time the government forces opinions, perhaps especially life-style opinions, on the population, it has overstepped its bounds. Personal decisions are not the responsibility of the government, and shouldn't be. This intrudes onto the right of every citizen to have his own liberty, which was guaranteed in our Declaration of Independence.

The Solution: Remove government from the equation entirely. Personally, I would never make the decision to abort a child’s life, except in the case of a health issue. My wife and I don't agree with that option. This is our own personal decision. Our personal values cannot be applied to everyone, and it is not the government's job to regulate opinions and options, especially in something that is truly a matter of choice. I do not support legislation against abortions and contraceptive rights.

Quick Takeaway: The government should not be involved in the personal decision for individuals and families. I won't abort, but that doesn't mean nobody should be able to.

Currently, there is a set limit that any given individual can donate to a political candidate, which varies per level of government. There is also a limit that an official political party, both local and statewide, can donate to a candidate, and, once again, this varies with the level of government being sought, with lower limits at lower levels of government.

However, there is no limit to the amount that a special interest group, otherwise known as an "affiliated political party committee," APPC, can donate directly. This means that it's possible to accept an unlimited amount of campaign money from a specific group.

Why is this a problem? This puts politicians in situations where they might feel obligated, as if they need to cater to these large donors, or else risk losing that money next election cycle. As any reasonable person can tell you, having an elected official, who is supposed to represent the people in the county or district or state, etc., but who is instead beholden to a specific group or person or company, is not something that allows the elected politicians to truly represent the people who elected them. This needs to change.

The Solution: The ability for an APPC to form and to donate directly to a candidate should be immediately capped. Donation limits to the APPC should also be capped, so that multiple APPCs cannot be created to circumvent the laws, laws intended to protect the public from the elected officials' having alternative or ulterior motives.

The current limits for individuals and corporations can be maintained at the current levels, as they are reasonable. Luckily, there is a proposal on the table right now, SB 122, that seeks to eliminate the uncontrolled and murky APPCs so that donations are more closely regulated. I support this measure.

Quick Takeaway: It is not fair to the people to have elected officials who are driven by the thought of re-election campaign donations. The system needs to be modified so the people are represented fairly.

The current criminal reform system does not serve the purpose it is intended to serve. About 70 percent of former prisoners return to prison. This recidivism rate has been at 70 percent for decades. Obviously, the system is not working.

Why is this a problem? The prison system is commonly called a “correctional institution.” To live up to this name, the programs should be able to reform individuals and correct illegal behaviors. Instead, these institutions are actually enhancing criminal behavior and fostering additional criminal tendencies. We cannot allow minor offenders to leave the correctional institute as hardened criminals, as this does the opposite of what is intended.

The Solution: This is not an easy solution, but instead would be a process.

Step 1: Reduce the number of convictions. If we simply decriminalize or legalize marijuana, we have cut down on a massive number of arrests and convictions. This alone helps to reduce prison over-crowding. With the prison system not as full of non-violent criminals, the tendency for people to be corrupted and converted to hardened violent criminals is lessened.

Step 2: The private prison systems should be ended or more tightly regulated. Quotas on inmates so that revenue can be generated does not help the current situation. Additional arrests to feed a system at its current size is not fair to the population, but it is also wrong. Once we remove minor drug offenders as sources of revenue, the private prison system will look for alternative means. We cannot allow this to be the case and increase arrests just to feed the beast.

Step 3: End early release for good behavior. With the over-crowding issue and private prison issue solved, we now need to look at actual punishment for real criminals. Someone convicted and sentenced should serve out that sentence. Violent criminals being released early back into society does not promote true justice for the victims of the crime, and instead rewards a short stretch of good behavior instead of punishing the wrongful action. In a free society, individuals must be held responsible for their actions.

Quick Takeaway: When the prosecution of non-violent criminals and the prison system are both overhauled, we will have fewer violent criminals walking the streets.

Even though great strides have been made in the past decade or so in improving the rights of those historically discriminated against, for example, the LGBT community, minorities, and women, there is still room to improve. Most recently, HB623/SB666 and HB659/SB742 were both not passed in the Florida Legislature. These bills, literally titled "LGBT Anti-Discrimination" and "LGBT Housing Anti-Discrimination," were not passed. There is still discrimination against specific groups of people, and this is unacceptable.

Why is this a problem? This situation, like any other discrimination of the past, is real to the people who cannot live the same lives of liberty and freedom that the average citizen is able to live. These discriminatory laws and policies are counter to the very Preamble of the United States Constitution, that all men are created equal and all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How is it that the government imposes restrictions on these freedoms to a select few in our society? How can we stand by and accept these restrictions, knowing that if we were in the shoes of the oppressed that we would be arguing for fair treatment as well? It is really simple: Live and Let Live. Love Thy Neighbor. Do unto others as would have them to do unto you.

The Solution: No laws shall be made that allow for the government to exhibit any form of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, political leaning, etc. I will not support any legislation that supports restrictions on individuals and their personal freedoms.

Quick Takeaway: No laws shall infringe on people's right to live their lives as they see fit, within their own moral grounds, so long as they are not infringing on others' rights to live their lives as they see fit. Live and Let Live!

There is a continued debate between clean energy and cheap energy. The government has yet to be able to come to an agreement, as people on the right and left don't agree on anything in this field.

Why is this a problem? With government inaction or action too far on the right or left, the citizens are caught in the middle, paying too much for energy or receiving overly dirty energy that pollutes the water and the air. The government has not been able to solve the difficult question of how best to solve this clash between the two sides, and ping-ponging back and forth is not working either.

The Solution: Competition, plain and simple. Have you ever asked yourself why you have no options on your power source? Maybe you are against nuclear energy because of disaster concerns, but that's the only plant that can provide your house or business with power, so you must buy it. Maybe you're against coal plants because of environmental concerns? Too bad, you must buy it. Maybe you feel you're paying too much for power. Too bad, you must buy it. Isn't it time to increase our options? Why can't a private firm build a competing plant and tie into the grid? Then you have the option of purchasing coal-powered electricity, solar-powered electricity, nuclear-powered electricity, or just the most financially sound option. Go to the grocery store, and you have 15 different brands of cereal to buy. Go home, and you have one option for power. This is wrong, and private industry can provide the options people want as well as helping to drive costs down as innovation becomes a factor.

Quick Takeaway: Increased options in the energy sector will bring about lower costs and more acceptable choices for the consumer.

The government outpaces and outspends itself, falsely inflating spending to maintain budgets, using excessive tax dollars. The government and its agencies and subsidiaries have an overblown and unnecessary budget. Individual departments are not rewarded nor incentivized to save money, only to spend what was allotted – and more.

Why is this a problem? I know someone who works for an electronics recycling company that routinely gets government contracts for scrapping old equipment. The problem is that many of the devices to be scrapped (computers, servers, drivers, etc.) are brand new, still in the packaging, worth thousands and thousands of dollars! Why, you ask? The department was given a budget for new equipment, and used it, whether needed or not. If the appropriation wasn’t used, the same amount wouldn’t be appropriated next year, and that is the only concern of the specific department. This is a major problem and issue that is not solved easily. Just think, if you have $50 for lunch one week and only spend $40, do you make sure you spend $10 at the gas station on the way home? No, that money is instead saved. The government does not operate this way.

The Solution: One way to support spending reductions is to provide a shared-savings program. For example, if a department has a budget of $1,000,000 and only spends $500,000 throughout the year, the government would keep 50 percent of the savings and the department would be gifted the additional 50%. So, the department would then have $250,000 to spend how it sees fit, either saving it for next year, purchasing new equipment, giving bonuses, etc., and the government would have an additional $250,000 that it did not expect to have in the coffers. This provides money for emergency measures and means. Once this is built up enough, it's possible to reduce tax revenue, meaning tax rates, since it is not needed as much with the lowered costs.

Quick Takeaway: Government institutions must be incentivized to save money, not incentivized to maintain spending quotas. Providing reasons to save money is imperative.

Too many individuals attend college without forethought and graduate with debt and without direction.

Why is this a problem? Youth indebted to large educational loans with no thought as to actual employment to pay off those loans is an issue. Too many times do we see people chanting about needing free college education, when the truth is that people need to be offered more options during K-12 instead of always preaching about attending higher education. To function properly, the state, country, and world need more non-college educated individuals than we do degreed individuals.

The Solution: K-12 education needs to focus more intensely on schooling options such as shop, home economics, mechanics, agriculture, and such courses as health-care worker, etc. Students don't know what they want to do for a living until they are exposed to it, so exposure is key. We need welders, farmers, mechanics, drivers, maintenance folks, administrative assistants, and on and on. None of these trades necessarily benefit from higher education, but instead benefit the most from early teaching of the trades.

Why not provide a path to become a certified welder in high school? Why not provide a path to learn the trade of electricians? Why not teach about the benefits of organic farming? All these pathways should be available within the K-12 system so that upon graduation, young people are free to pursue their passion as a valued member of the workforce. The mindset that says, "To be successful, you have to go to college" is a mindset that has gotten millions of young people into debt for no reason, young people who then go into the workforce without proper skills and with a chip on their shoulder. We cheat ourselves and our youth if all available options forward are not considered and exposure is limited.

Quick Takeaway: Increase exposure to professions that don't require a college education, and you lower the number of students who choose a 2- or 4-year degree as the only path forward, taking on unnecessary debt.

Our roads are overcrowded. Florida is growing, and the rate at which we expand our current infrastructure is not enough. FDOT is not responding rapidly enough to the quickly growing population in the Tampa Bay Area.

Why is this a problem? This affects so much more than just your frustrating daily commute. It affects commerce, safety, pollution, tourism, and so much more. If we can ease the burden on our road systems, we can help out in all of the above sectors.

The Solution: Invest in private infrastructure. The current proposals for FDOT to create "express" toll lanes on the existing highway systems will only lead to increased traffic within the non-toll lanes. This is an option that the public overwhelmingly does not support, however they are moving forward. If private firms are allowed to look into dedicated express toll roads, light rail, ride-sharing, and any other means of alternative transportation, then we can reduce the number of vehicles on the roads each and every day. It’s time for Hillsborough County to move forward, and allowing private investments into our infrastructure is only a positive move.

Quick Takeaway: Private investments into public infrastructure, such as light rail, can have a major positive impact on the community.

Public schools are overcrowded. Florida's public schools are routinely rated among the bottom 10 states in the nation in performance.

Why is this a problem? Children, as the cliché accurately says, are the future. This is a fact. Providing them with a solid foundation with which to begin their lives is critical, no matter what that path may be. Currently, we have not been giving them the opportunities for learning and growth that are needed.

The Solution: More choices, period. There are multitudes of private and charter schools available. These can be freer to innovate and mold students as well as being better funded than the 100 percent public schools. Charter schools have been growing and becoming more and more popular, and they can sometimes obtain alternative funding, depending on the group operating the school. Private schools, however, are completely independent from the government and can cost quite a bit of money to attend. Studies should be done on the idea of utilizing the existing Educational Enhancement Trust Fund (funded by the Florida Lottery) to help subsidize families who have high performing children but cannot afford to choose an option other than public schools, similar to the current Bright Futures Scholarship program, but on a secondary-school level in lieu of only higher education. This is one example, not necessarily the only option.

On top of giving families additional choices without overburdening them, the public-school system should receive a larger portion of funds from the available tax revenue. On a broader level, the administrative waste seen in tax spending needs to be culled and money needs to be spent more wisely, not wasted in the broken system of maintaining budgets for next year (see "Government Budgets," above). Once we can straighten out that system and reward frugality in the government, then we can provide the required funding to the schools for equipment, educator salaries, maintenance, and overall new facilities to combat the ever-growing population in the state of Florida. Once the waste within spending on all levels is realized, additional funds become available without increasing taxation, and even potentially while decreasing taxation.

Quick Takeaway: More choices are needed in our school systems. This will help to lessen the burden on the public option and will allow for better-funded schools and programs.

The current stance on marijuana continues to ebb closer and closer to being publicly accepted on a similar level as alcohol. Eight states have already enacted legislation that either legalizes or decriminalizes marijuana for recreational use (including our nation's capital, Washington D.C.), and more than twenty states have laws allowing for medicinal marijuana. The views are changing, the knowledge on this plant is increasing, and the benefits appear to outweigh the negative stigma that has been associated with marijuana for centuries.

Why is this a problem? Alcohol prohibition did not succeed in the 1920s, and is widely seen as a failed approach to solving alcohol issues and used as an example of what not to do. This led to increased gang activity and a thriving underground black market for alcohol. Violent crimes, murder, bribery, etc. all increased during the Prohibition period. One would think we would have learned from that, but we are currently living in a state of prohibition on marijuana.

Studies have shown that this drug is one of the safest substances widely used recreationally. It is not physically addictive (on the same level as caffeine) and it does not damage the body the way many currently available substances can damage the body, such as alcohol, a widely used and accepted drug. It is time to stop living in the false world where marijuana is a banned substance and accept the facts for what they are.

The Solution: Marijuana should be legalized in the state of Florida for recreational use. We can follow states that have already enacted these laws as guidance, so that Florida can be on the cutting edge, but not the bleeding edge. We can generate hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue (Colorado generated more than $200 million thanks to marijuana sales, and increased tourism, in 2016 and it has a quarter of Florida’s population), potentially exceeding a billion dollars when tourists who visit Florida (113 million in 2016) are considered. This suggested measure focuses on three important points:

Additional income to the state, without increasing taxes on the populace, is always a welcome aspect into any governing body. The additional income can be spent on education (many schools are dilapidated and need serious overhauls, pay for educators is lagging well behind the national average, and supplies and resources are scarce and outdated), infrastructure (the roadways need expansion as Hillsborough County is growing at a rate that is outpacing the highway system, and the sewer system in Tampa is outdated and cannot keep up with heavy rains), or just lowering taxes for the citizens of the state in general, or helping in current crises as they come up, similar to the citrus greening issues we are seeing across the state.

Less tax money will be spent on incarcerating non-violent offenders. Many individuals who are in the penal system are there because a small amount of marijuana was in their car at a traffic stop, or something along those lines. While they are not confined for long, they are still a large rolling number that goes into the system constantly, costing about $20,000 per year per inmate. It is estimated that approximately 22 percent of the prison population are non-violent drug offenders. If we can lessen the number of people who enter the prison system, we reduce the state's fiscal burden to house, feed, clothe, and provide health-care for these individuals, thus saving taxpayer money.

With police not having to deal with minor amounts of marijuana on the streets, they are available to provide the services they are intended to do: serve and protect.

Quick Takeaway: When marijuana is legalized for recreational use, crime goes down, tax expenses go down, and state income goes up. It is win-win-win.

Too many individuals are addicted to opioids of one type or another. Florida is widely known to have this issue, and we have done nothing about it.

Why is this a problem? Addiction is a sad thing for the individual who is under the control of the substance and for the individual's family. Unfortunately, many of our pain-management practices have opened the door for individuals to fall into the trap of addiction. And when the pain pills are no longer an option, individuals many times turn to heroin to meet their addiction needs.

The Solution: There is no easy fix for this problem. What we need are steps toward the solution. The steps that would lessen this burden include:

1) Begin to prescribe pain management medication without the use of opioids when possible. There are situations that call for heavy-duty opioid prescriptions, but many times we have alternatives available that are not chosen. With the legalization of medicinal marijuana in the state of Florida, we will have an inexpensive and readily available alternative. We need to focus less on easily treating pain and more on properly treating pain. Once we have scaled back the use of opioids, thus helping to prevent new addicts, we can move on to the second measure.

2) Treat addicts as victims, not criminals. We all know that their use of opioids does not mean they are bad people. So why are they treated as such? Once we start to see them as victims of the drug, then we can begin to help them. Their “crimes” of being addicted should not come with jail sentences. Now comes step three.

3) Help them. We will have room in incarceration facilities for these individuals at this point, as we are no longer locking them up. This excess space can be utilized as a rehabilitation facility. If the individual chooses, it might be possible to create a rehab program in this already built and now unused facility space. If we can get the individuals clean, then we can get them back and contributing to society again, no longer a burden on the state.

Quick Takeaway: Opioid addiction is an issue in our state, and we need to treat the addicts as victims instead of criminals. Utilize alternative pain management medications to prevent future addictions.

There are groups and people that want to limit access to firearms for the public.

Why is this a problem? When access to firearms is limited, only the criminals have access to firearms. By definition, law-abiding citizens would be required to limit magazine capacities, caliber ranges, firearm types, etc., and criminals (who don't follow laws to begin with) would not be bound by these rules. Someone who is going to assault, rape, or murder does not care about the small additional charges for illegal firearm possession. The only portion of the population affected by firearm regulations is the law-abiding portion.

The Solution: End bans on firearms and allow citizens to protect themselves. Florida is a strong Second Amendment state, and it should stay this way.

Quick Takeaway: I will not support any legislation enacting further bans on firearms or the ability to procure firearms.