Candidate Q&A: State Rep. Candidate Eric Estevez

This is the fifth article in a series of Melrose Patch Q&As with candidates seeking either the state Senate seat or state representative seat up for grabs in this fall's election.

Name: Eric Estevez
Party Affiliation: Republican
Candidate For: State representative representing Melrose and Wakefield Precincts 3-6
Challengers: Monica Medeiros (R), David Lucas  (R), Paul Brodeur (D)
Age:  27
Where you live and how long you've lived there: Wakefield since after college, family has lived in Wakefield since early 50s. Born in Melrose.
Family: Two brothers, one captain in the U.S. Army and one in college, mother originally from Wakefield in New Hampshire and father in Florida. Grandparents on mother's side in Wakefield, grandparents on father's side in Puerto Rico.
Current occupation and former occupations: Senior lecturer teaching political science and international affairs at Northeastern University. Interned for Jeb Bush in Miami while going to school in Florida. Worked briefly as a high school social studies teacher and at Fidelity Investments.

Melrose Patch: You previously ran for state representative in New Hampshire. Can you talk about that campaign, whether you've run for any other elected office, and why you chose to run for state representative now?

Estevez: My family's from Wakefield, I was born in Melrose, but I did grow up in New Hampshire. When you're a little kid, you can't really control where you grow up. I ran for state representative in New Hampshire and it was not a real all-out campaign; it was my senior thesis project when I was in college. I was a political science major and I got together with my faculty advisor and the dean of arts and sciences at my university and because I was political science major, we needed to do a senior thesis project. So I came up with the idea to run for office and get a real hands-on experience of what politics is like. I ran for state representative; it was more of an educational endeavor. When you're running for state representative in New Hampshire, it's very different than it is in Massachusetts. New Hampshire is the third largest legislature in the English-speaking world behind the British Parliament and the U.S. Congress. They get $100 per year and they get a fancy license plate. They have something called proportional representation in New Hampshire — for every 3,000 people a district is awarded a representative. So my former hometown in New Hampshire had 13 representatives for that district. It's not a full-time decision like it is in Massachusetts — it's a part-time gig. And it's a very important job, don't get me wrong, but it's not a full-time position like it is in Massachusetts. It was not an all-out campaign and it was an educational experience.

Also, I was elected to serve on the budget committee for my former hometown in New Hampshire. I served one term on the budget committee, which is similar to a finance committee in a city. It was actually very important, that position, because we were in charge of balancing the books and deciding what we can afford and not afford. I served one term on that committee and then I moved to Massachusetts, where my heart is. My heart's always been in Massachusetts. That's why I didn't run for re-election for that position, but I really did enjoy it and I learned a lot. I think the experience gave me the opportunity to be a better legislator for Massachusetts.

So now I'm running for state representative in Massachusetts. I really had no plans to run for this office. I was involved in the Republican Town Committee here in Wakefield — I'm the secretary, one of the officers — and I've worked  on a lot of campaigns. I was working for Richard Tisei for a long time. It's funny: I was going to be a Democrat, but I ended up being a Republican because of Richard Tisei. And I liked Ronald Reagan too, but we can get into that later. [smile] In any event, I'm running for state representative  of Massachusetts because I think there's a real lack of leadership in the country and in Massachusetts. I just think that the people deserve better than what's going on right now. I don't think I really need to go into detail. I think a lot of people are upset with the way things are and that's why they should vote for me. I'm the only candidate that's not part of the current political establishment.

There are many issues we're currently facing right now. The first is jobs. Jobs are extremely important, I know too many people who are unemployed, the unemployment rate is too high. In this country if you work hard, play by the rules, you should not be unemployed. Boston and Greater Boston is said to be the Athens of America, it's a very intellectual city and that's because we have so many colleges and universities here. Therefore, I don't think there's any reason why Massachusetts should be in a recession. But the reason we are facing a job shortage in Massachusetts is because the business climate, I think it's not a good place for people to do business here. Everybody talks about other taxes, they often forget about the corporate index tax — it's a tax on business based on the amount of profits they receive. At the present time, according to my research, Massachusetts has the third highest corporate index tax in the nation. So therefore, there's no incentive for businesses to come to Massachusetts if their profits are going to be taxed at an enormous rate. So we need to cut that, I think we need to cut other taxes so we allow businesses to come here and be prosperous.

I also think we need to promote Massachusetts more in the global economy and across the country. We need to tell people why Massachusetts is a good place to do business. Once again, Boston is the Athens of America. We need to tell people how we have the hard-working and intellectual workforce right here in Massachusetts that is ready to do the jobs. A lot of people our age, they move away because there's really no opportunities and I just think that's unfortunate. There's a lot we can do in regard to job growth. We can start with cutting the corporate index tax and other taxes to make Massachusetts more business friendly, and also promote Massachusetts more. These will not solve all the problems when it comes to job growth, but I think it will help in that regard.

Taxes is another issue. We're having a big holiday this weekend, a sales tax holiday, which sounds good on the surface, but what about the other 300 some-odd days of the year? I thought it was very unfortunate that the Legislature raised the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent. I think any economist will tell you that the worst thing to do in a recession is to raise taxes. You don't need to be an economist to figure that out, but when you raise taxes, that gives less money for businesses to hire people. Two, it gives the consumers less money to spend. It really trickles down and hurts everybody. I think we need to roll back the income tax. Several other taxes need to be rolled back. One of the arguments for high taxation is that without the taxes, the state would have revenue to fund the social services. But what we need to do is cut wasteful spending. If you cut wasteful spending, we'll have money to fund these social services. That was the whole argument with raising the sales tax to 6.25 percent, that we'd have to cut social services if this tax was not raised, but I think there was other wasteful spending that could have been cut. What about pension reform? I never hear anything about pension reform. So there's a lot to do in that regard.

Local aid is important. Local aid is extremely important and I think the job of any Legislature is to go Beacon Hill and fight to get as much state aid as possible back to the district. A lot of elderly people rely on this local aid. A lot of elderly people, on fixed incomes; kids and their schools, without local aid the schools aren't properly funded. The roads are a mess, they're unsafe. And ultimately, home values fall. So whether people like it or not, politics affects them. It's important to get a legislator that's going to fight for local aid. So jobs, taxes and local aid. Those are the three biggest areas I care about. And I care about as education as well. That's the foundation of any society. An educated society is a strong society, but I want to focus on jobs, taxes and local aid, because I think education falls under the local aid category. The more local aid I can get for the community, the stronger our schools can be. Those are the three most important issues I care about as state rep and I'm running because there's a lack of leadership and I want to bring a political science approach back to Beacon Hill. I'm ready and qualified for the job and I hope these people give me a chance.

Melrose Patch: As part of your PLUS (Promote, Leverage, Update and Stimulate) plan on your website, you support rolling back the sales tax to 5 percent from 6.25 percent, an increase approved by the Legislature last year. This November voters will likely have the chance, in the form of a ballot question, to vote on just that topic— to rollback the state sales tax from 6.25 percent to actually 3 percent. Do you support rolling back the sales tax to 3 percent and, regarding your stated support of repealing the sales tax increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, how would you adjust or make up for the $739 million the Department of Revenue has estimated that increase has brought in to the state over 10 months?

Estevez: I would support rolling the sales tax back to 3 percent rather than 5 percent. Although I'm a very optimistic person, I'm also a practical person. I think it would be a very difficult fight, given the current state of the Legislature, to even roll the income tax back down to 5 percent. It is possible to roll it back down to three percent, but it would be a very difficult fight in the Legislature, so I'm just being practical. If I am elected, it's very important to use diplomacy and it would be a very difficult fight to roll it back down to 3 percent, although I do support it.

In regards to the lost revenue that would take place if it was rolled back to 3 percent rather than 5 percent, I've said many times we don't really have a budget problem, what we have is a spending problem in Massachusetts. I just think we're going to have to continue to make some cuts in regards to wasteful spending. I think it is possible.

Melrose Patch: You also called for instituting a 5 percent tax rate for all business entities. The Massachusetts corporate excise tax is calculated by adding two different measures of tax: a net income measure, and either a property measure or a net worth measure, depending on whether the corporation is a tangible or an intangible property corporation. The income measure is calculated at a rate of 9.5 percent of the corporation's taxable net income apportioned to the Commonwealth. The property/net worth measure is imposed at a rate of $2.60 per $1,000 of either a corporation's taxable Massachusetts tangible property or its taxable net worth. So, two questions: when you say you want to institute a 5 percent tax rate for all business entities, are you specifically calling for a 5 percent income measure and the elimination of the property/net worth measure as part of the corporate excise tax calculation? And, what specific cuts in the state budget would you propose in order to make up for that lost revenue?

Estevez: First of all, the reason why I said that I think we need to make 5 percent the standard tax is because I think there is a lot of unpredictability in Massachusetts. It's very difficult for companies to relocate to Massachusetts and do business in the long term if the business climate is unpredictable. I wish I could even bring that 5 percent lower, but I'm just being a practical person, once again. The reason why I came up with that 5 percent tax plan is just to make it simple and easy for businesses to do business in Massachusetts, number one, and number two, so they have somewhat of a measure in which to base the tax guidelines by so there's a predictable business climate to do business in the long-term.

Once again, I think we need serious pension reform. Serious pension reform. Number two, I think that it's very difficult to give any specific cuts at this particular time because if I'm elected, circumstances change in politics. It's very important for every legislator to look at the public policy before they make a decision. So I think that if there is a particular spending measure that is not directly aimed at helping the people of the commonwealth, it's a waste of money in my opinion. It's very difficult to say what specific things I would cut right now because I'm not in office right now, and because the circumstances would change in January 2011. Again, if there is any spending measure that is not directly aimed at helping the people of the commonwealth and advancing the commonwealth, it's going to have to be cut. That's it. It makes no sense to be spending taxpayers money on something that is not helping at least one person in the commonwealth and is not helping move Massachusetts forward. There's a lot of that going on right now. I don't want to look at the past, but I mean, the Big Dig is a perfect example. I think it's important we study history so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. If there's any type of behavior or procedure going on similar to the Big Dig in the future, I'll be the first one to speak up.

Melrose Patch: On the business climate: your plan also calls for various tax credits — including business income tax credits for existing Mass. Companies and real estate tax credits for businesses moving to Mass. — the creation of a state fund for small and mid-sized businesses to finance major capital expenditures, and expanding the Full Employment credit for employers from the current $1,200 per employee to $3,600 per employee. How do you propose paying for these tax credits?

Estevez: Once again, we don't have budget problems, we have spending problems. I just think we need to allocate our resources to more worthwhile endeavors, to state it simply.

Melrose Patch: On your website, it reads, "Many of our Business regulations are old and outdated, which inhibits growth for existing companies and is a disincentive for start-ups and potential businesses.  We can eliminate and/or reduce the layers of bureaucracy, redundancy and streamline the disparate set of departments and divisions to form one comprehensive source for Business rules and regulations." Can you be more specific with regard to these actions? Are you calling for creating one central government agency specifically for business?

Estevez: Absolutely. I think if we merge all of the different departments into one I think it'll save amount of tremendous money. There will be less red tape and it will be much easier for people to do business in Massachusetts.

Melrose Patch: Are there particular departments that you'd like to bring under one umbrella, to achieve that efficiency?

Estevez: There's a number of them right now. At this time, I cannot give an answer because I really have not looked at those specific costs that each department is costing the state. But I do know that the different departments are costing the state money. If we could merge different departments that basically provide the same service, then I think we would be a possible endeavor.

Melrose Patch: On your website under "Leverage our human capital" — this is something you brought up earlier — it states, "Massachusetts has many wonderful resources and chief among them is our access and abundance of highly educated and highly skilled workforce." You also list the high level of education attained by Mass. residents and the high rate of Mass. Civilians in professional or related jobs. So, when you say "leverage our human capital," what do you mean? In terms of promoting the state? And how do you specifically leverage the state's human capital?

Estevez:  Once again, the unemployment rate is too high and jobs are a priority in my opinion. I think too many Massachusetts are unemployed and under-emplyoed and it should not be that way. We're the most hard-working and intellectual work force in the country. My job as a state representative, and I hope my colleagues will join me at the State House next year, would be to promote Massachusetts. Let people know why Massachusetts is a good place to do business. I guarantee if companies come here, they will not be disappointed by the people we have here in Massachusetts. So I think it's the job of government to promote the kind of people we have here, the strong and intellectual workforce. It's almost like a sales pitch. That's what politicians on beacon Hill need to do. They need to sell Massachusetts and let people know why Massachusetts is a great place to do business.

John Winthrop, who was the first governor of the commonwealth  of Massachusetts, said Massachusetts "shall be a city upon a hill, with the eyes of all people upon us." That's just no longer the case anymore. Boston's called The Hub for a reason. Because that was The Hub of the universe, that was the center of action. I don't know what happened over the period of the last few years, whether it's been high taxation, the lack of leadership or just people that were not working in the best interest of the people. But Massachusetts I think has been left behind in many areas and we've got to get Massachusetts moving again. We've need to gout there and let people know why Massachusetts is a good place to do business and basically we need to get jobs back here. We have so many great hospitals, so many great universities and colleges — these are recession proof businesses. It just doesn't make sense why people come here from all over the world to get educated and then they leave because they can't find employment.

I walk around the neighborhoods around here and I see these big family homes where families used to live and they raised children. When my grandparents were in their prime, you know, these were all family homes years ago. Now you have these big homes that are occupied by one or two people, like a single person or a couple that's are working professionals. You don't have the families here anymore and young people, they don't stay here anymore. That's unfortunate. That's really the future of Massachusetts. I feel these young people who are leaving, number one, they're going to bring that hardworking, intellectual work ethic to another area of the country, and number two, that's less people that are going to be contributing to the tax base, the community and it's going to be a ghost town around here sooner or later. We've got to give young people an incentive to stay and give working professionals an incentive to stay. The only way we do that is by I think putting my PLUS plan into action and most importantly promoting Massachusetts, letting people know Massachusetts is a good place to do business and why we're going to create a healthy and predictable business climate. I hope that doesn't sound broad, but those are the issues.

Melrose Patch: Last month, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care struck a deal with state regulators to voluntarily limit its insurance rate increases for individuals and small businesses. This goes back to April when the state insurance commissioner announced he was rejecting the premium increases the industry proposed for small businesses with up to 50 employees, which he deemed "excessive," followed by the state Division of Insurance appeals board ruling against the Patrick administration in favor of Harvard Pilgrim. Is this kind of intervention a way to prevent health insurance costs from climbing higher and higher, or is this only a temporary stopgap? What can legislators do to control health care costs?

Estevez: I don't believe in big government at all, but I do believe in strong and effective governmental  action. A lot of people say, 'well, why doesn't the government mind its own businesss,' but what is the government's business? Is the business of government not to protect the welfare of its citizens? So, I'm confident that the intentions this was to protect the people from unfair rate increases in this very dangerous and uncertain world and economy, but as far as this particular legislation is concerned, I really can't give a statement right now because it was just put into effect recently. I think it takes one or two years for results to really show up. So, I think it's a little premature for me to make a statement right now. We'll just have to see what happens.

Melrose Patch: This year, the House indefinitely delayed on an 83-75 vote a proposal to require the state to verify that anyone over 18 who applies for state benefits is legally in Massachusetts. The amendment approved by the House prohibits the proposal from taking effect until Health and Human Services studies its impact on the state's economy and a new bill to require the verification is filed and approved. What would have you voted on this proposal and your thoughts on how the state can tackle the thorny issue of illegal immigration?

Estevez: Well the first is, yes, I would support this. I've done a lot of research on this issue. First of all, we'll all immigrants. My dad's from Puerto Rico, my mother is second generation from Italy —actually Sicily — and we're all immigrants in this country. That's something we need to respect and appreciate. But I think there's a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. In my opinion, people who are here illegally and don't respect our borders don't deserve to be here. This is an issue that's not going to go away. There's no easy answers, there's no easy solutions. It's unfortunate this issue continues to be politicized. In 20 years, it's projected that 50 percent of the U.S. population is going to be Hispanic. Now, in the northeast, we're immune from a lot of the immigration issues, but if you go to Florida, Miami, the southwestern part of the United States that borders Mexico, it's a real serious issue. Gov. Brewer down in Arizona had to step in and the Legislature had to step in because it's really the federal government's responsibility to secure the borders. Unfortunately, the federal government has not lived up to that responsibility in the last few years, so many states and most recently Arizona, have taken it upon themselves to address the issue. It's not going to go away — it's a serious issue. As long as people are search of a better life, they're going to continue to try and sneak into the United States.

As far as Massachusetts is concerned, we're not a border state, so although we may not be protecting our own borders so to speak, we are protecting our taxpayers. I think Massachusetts needs to do everything it can to protect the taxpayers, by not providing taxpayer money to support services for illegal immigrants. I'm for any legislation that prevents illegal immigrants getting any kind of benefits. I hope that other legislators not only on Beacon Hill, but in Washington demonstrate political courage and put the American taxpayer first and say enough is enough. But once again, this issue is not going to go away and it's going to continue to get worse in my opinion, as people continue to come to the United States for a better life. It's also proven that immigrants have more children than American citizens. That's just a fact. So their numbers are going to continue to multiply. But I think it's important we deal with this issue of securing the borders so we don't even have to talk about this. The reason we have to discuss this is because the federal government is not protecting the borders. The borders were guarded in the first place, it prevented people from coming in, we wouldn't have to worry about an estimated, what, 50 million illegal immigrants in the United States. And that's just an estimate. It's just a crazy issue and it makes no sense to me that we can go around the world, protect the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we can't protect our own borders here at home. It just makes no sense. So I think we have our own problems in our own country. We have to start protecting the border and as far as Massachusetts is concerned  — I don't want to go off into a tangent, we're not a border state — but we do need to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any kind of government services.

Melrose Patch: The state passed an education bill earlier this year that targets underperforming schools, expands the authority of school superintendents in struggling districts to fire teachers, and increase both funding — and the potential for more — charter schools. What are your thoughts on this bill? Did it go far enough, not far enough, too far?

Estevez: I think it's too uncertain to say whether it went too far or not far enough, but what I do know is that the Weld-Cellucci administration back in 1993 passed the Education Reform Act and that's been very successful. Ever since then, 17 years ago, Massachusetts has been number one in testing. There's an old saying if it's not broke, don't fix it, so I think that policy was very effective. Now, I think the governor went ahead with this because he wanted to get additional funding, but I think it's just unfortunate that politics got in the way of children's education. I released a statement on this.

Melrose Patch: Your press release on the state education board voting to adopt national academic standards in lieu of the state's own standards? You had come out against that move. Why were you opposed to it?

Estevez: Once again, Massachusetts has been number one and I think Massachusetts should continue to be second to none when it comes to testing. The policies that we had in effect, they cost a lot of money because we had a lot of research, they cost a lot of time. We had a lot of academic and professionals doing research into the current guidelines put in place by the Weld-Cellucci administration in '93. It was proved to be effective year and after year and I just think it's unfortunate we're going to follow the lead of national standards, when we have been second to none. Massachusetts is home to the first public education in the country. Massachusetts has been second to none in education for years, and if we adopt these national standards that's saying we want to settle for second best. I just think that's unacceptable. The policies we had in effect were working. There was no need for htat. Once again, I think politics came into play. I don't want to assume anything, but I'm sure the governor wanted the support of the teachers' union and all that. The policies we had in effect were successful — there was no need to adopt these national standards. If you're doing something and it's working, why change it?

Melrose Patch: Your campaign suffered missteps early on in the spring and most recently, the Wakefield Observer reported that a woman reported to the Wakefield Police that you forcibly removed a bumper sticker for David Lucas from her car parked in her driveway.  First, what's your response to that allegation regarding the bumper sticker, and second, how do you overcome these earlier missteps in your campaign?

Estevez: First of all, David is a friend and I like David a lot. I would never disrespect him like that. That allegation is just ridiculous and I didn't even respond to it because I think the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts deserve better than political candidates bickering and engaging in politics as usual.

As far as the other allegations,  I defended my resume on the steps of the State House — I believe you were there — and in no way was I trying to embellish my resume or mislead the voters. Listen: politics can be a very dirty business sometimes and no matter what happened during this campaign, I have tried to stay positive and focus on the real issues that affect the people, such as jobs, taxes and local aid. I may have made some minor mistakes because everything I do is non-scripted, but in life you learn from your mistakes, you don't dwell on them, number one. And number two, my opponents, I have a lot of respect for them and I consider them friends; their campaigns, I think, may have engaged in politics as usual and I think it's rather obvious that from time to time, they may have gotten a little aggressive.

Melrose Patch: You've gotten aggressive as well, attacking your opponents in press releases for not debating or not taking stances on issues.

Estevez: I have been aggressive, and I think that's because we need leadership. We need strong and effective leadership. I'm going to fight every day for the people of Melrose and Wakefield in that State House. I think it's very important to have an issue-orientated campaign that's focused on the issues that does not get personal and nasty. Unfortunately, my opponents don't think that's possible, but I think it is. That's why I admire Ted Kennedy so much, and I really miss Teddy a lot. Ted Kennedy was fiercely partisan, yet at the end of the day, he would walk across the aisle and shake the hands of the opposition. Even when he was in a heated political debate on the floor of the United States Senate, he never initiated personal attacks on his opponents. He focused on the issue at hand. That's the kind of legislator I'm going to be. When Ronald Reagan was president, people used to bad mouth him all the time, accuse him of doing this and that. The guy always had a smile on his face, stayed positive and he also came up with something he called the '11th Commandment.' The 11th Commandment, according to Reagan, was 'a Republican shall not speak ill of another Republican.' So my opponents can say whatever they want about me, but I want to say positive and keep this campaign focused on issues. That's what the people deserve.

There's too much of that B.S. down on Beacon Hill and in Washington. That's why nothing gets done. That's why a lot of your friends are unemployed. That's why all these people here [Brothers Deli and Restaurant in Wakefield] look at them, they look depressed. I don't see one person smiling, do you? Everybody's pissed off. Listen, we need leadership, all right? It's time to move this state forward. I have the qualification and skills to move the state forward, and I'm going to stay positive. I'm going to stay positive and stay on my message and continue to talk about the real issues that face the people of the commonwealth.  That's what they deserve and I think that's expected of me, anyway. I could have responded to all this stuff, but it's a waste of my time and it's a waste of the people's time.

Melrose Patch: The stock answer for any legislator, when asked about their main priority or concern on Beacon Hill, is the budget and specifically local aid. Besides the budget and local aid, what is your main priority if you are elected to the House?

Estevez: Put Massachusetts people back to work. We've got too many people out of work here. It's unacceptable. They say the unemployment is approximately 10 percent? It's probably 20 percent — I'm going to tell you why. Once somebody exhausts their unemployment benefits, they're no longer counted as being unemployed. These part-time and seasonal people no longer count as unemployed. These under the table workers, and there's a lot of them, when they lose their job, they're not counted as one of the unemployed. So the unemployment rate is probably 20 percent. That's one out of every five people. People that are employed, a lot of them aren't receiving any benefits. A lot of these people under-employed, they're not making enough money. They're making just enough money to put food on the table and pay their rent. I feel bad for these families with kids. They can't even pay their bills. Massachusetts, when this new census comes out this year, Massachusetts may have lost population. That's not by accident; that's because there's no jobs here, there's no opportunity. People are moving to other states — North Carolina, Texas, Florida. There's no opportunities in Massachusetts. That's unacceptable. We going to get Massachusetts back to work. And I'm not just some phony talking about it — I came up with a plan.