My opponents are the incumbent ten-term Republican Christopher Shays, 60, and the two-time Democratic candidate Diane Farrell, 51.

• Shays claims to be for smaller government. But has the government gotten smaller in the nearly two decades he's been in office?
• Farrell doesn't even pretend to want smaller government. She wants to spend your money how she sees fit.

Each of them wants to steal. They want to take your money and spend it on whatever programs will get them elected. In other words, they are using your money to buy their votes. Whether they want to steal money and use it for public schools or public arts programs, they have no right to do so.

On May 24, 2006, USA TODAY reported: "Federal, state and local governments have added nearly $10 trillion to taxpayer liabilities in the past two years, bringing the total of government's unfunded obligations to an unprecedented $57.8 trillion. That is the equivalent of a $510,678 credit card debt for every American household... USA TODAY compiled a list of all taxpayer liabilities — federal, state and local — to provide a fuller look at the nation's financial condition. The numbers are based on official government reports. Americans' government obligations are five times what people owe for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other personal debt. The $57.8 trillion liability is the amount that government needs now, stashed away and earning interest, to generate enough cash to pay future obligations."

Here are some examples of how my opponents contribute to this burden.

• Farrell Against Free Markets. Farrell thinks she can make a better Wal-Mart by paying employees more, giving them more health benefits, and changing the hours of the workweek. And yet she has made no attempt to actually start a competitor. Instead she wants to force Wal-Mart to change. Basically she joined a rally to tell the owners of Wal-Mart how to spend their money. It's one thing if she holds this opinion as a citizen. But this is an indication of how she wants to run the country into the ground. "Congressional Candidate Diane Farrell... will sign a pledge to fight for a 'Better America.'" That pledge is available on WakeUpWalMart.com and essentially states that Farrell will tax you to pay for universal health care for everybody and will make working at reasonable wages illegal for American citizens. She either doesn't understand what free markets are or she thinks our freedom is less important than her personal whims (or rather, those of the Democratic party to whom she owes her allegiance).

• Shays Raises Taxes and Increases Government. Despite claiming to be for smaller government and fewer taxes, in seven out of the eight votes tracked in this report, he voted the exact opposite way. He even voted for an omnibus appropriations bill costing taxpayers $388.4 billion. "The increasing use of omnibus bills to combine several major appropriations bills into one giant bill makes it virtually impossible for a conscientious citizen to evaluate his congressman's performance. Such bills mask many unconstitutional activities of the federal government!"

• Farrell is a Typical Left-Wing Democrat. Farrell doesn't even claim to be for small government. She wants to make it as big as she can. She is a pure representative of the big government wing of the Democratic party. Her endorsements page lists numerous labor unions and government employees: Ironworkers Union, Sheet Metal Workers Union, Brick Layers Union, American Federation of Teachers, and so on. Do you think any one of them are hoping to reduce government interference with our daily lives? Or are they hoping for more handouts at the expense of the taxpayers?

• Shays Buys Art With Your Money. It's so easy to spend other people's money. It doesn't make you a philanthropist. It makes you a thief. "This year, Shays sponsored an amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill that will increase NEA funding by $5 million. Shays was able to secure the NEA an additional $10 million last year and the same amount in 2004."   

• Farrell Against Choices for Children. Did you think you would be choosing how to educate your children? Not if she's elected. From her website: "I will strongly oppose private school vouchers." First she'll steal your money and then she'll figure out how she wants to educate your flesh and blood. She doesn't seem to realize that education should be a state, local, and parental choice, not a federal Farrell one.

• Shays Dumps on You. In essence, he took by force thirty bucks out of every Stamford household and gave back feces.  "Stamford will receive $1,500,000 to support its Waste-to-Energy Project project, the low-emissions waste-to-energy electric generation facility that will turn dry, pelletized sewage sludge into 5 megawatts of electric power in a region facing major electricity shortages and electric grid congestion." If it's such a brilliant idea, he should quit his day job and do it in the free market. If the free market doesn't want it, why should we be forced to pay for his smelly excrement?

• Farrell the General Contractor. If you need a house built for too much money, call her. She spent $38 million in Westport to construct one single solitary school. What's worse is if you live in Connecticut, you paid for part of it. Presumably Farrell felt absolutely no compunction in using your out-of-town money to build herself a photo op.

• Who Steals More? Both of my opponents are falling over themselves trying to take the title of "Biggest Money Waster Ever!" Farrell says she is "outraged" that Shays isn't spending more money on doing research into rail security. Shays answers that in fact he is spending MORE than Farrell would. First of all, it's hard to imagine a stupider mission than conducting research into improving rail security. Security should be a border control issue to keep bad people out, not something that confines Americans. If you're installing a security system in your home, you don't make the chair secure and the table secure and the hallway secure but leave the back door open. You get good locks and an alarm system and then you travel freely within your home. Apparently not at the homes of Shays and Farrell. Is there even a difference between these two any more? The argument is whether or not citizens should be fleeced and have their money spent on doing research for three years on how to make trains safer. The original bill called for $150 million. Shays changed it to say any amount necessary. This is fiscal conservatism? There's not even a cap on the amount he would take in order to RESEARCH safety. Just imagine how much the actual implementation would cost a few years down the line. The bottom line is both Shays and Farrell are fighting over who can steal the most.
  Farrell: "I'd spend $150 million!"
  Shays: "Oh, yeah? Well I'd spend an infinite amount!"
  Farrell: "Oh, yeah? Double infinity!"
  Shays: "Infinity infinity!"
  Farrell: "Infinity squared!"
  Shays: "Ooh, nice. How about infinity to the infinite power? Does that work?"
  Farrell: "I don't know."
  Shays: "Me neither. Call it a draw?"
  Farrell: "Okay. Next issue. I'd spend a billion dollars!"
  Shays: "I'd spend a trillion dollars!"
  Farrell: "I'd spend a quintillion dollars!"
  Shays: "Can I use that infinity one again?"

• Shays Will Zip Your Lip. To Shays, campaign finance reform means limiting who you can give your money to. Not only is each individual limited in how much they can contribute personally, but they also have to report their full name, address, occupation, and employer to the federal government, for Shays to peruse at his leisure. Talk about a chilling effect. Isn't who you vote for supposed to be confidential? Aren't you likely to support monetarily a candidate that you intend to vote for? So doesn't all this reform simply give government an exact list of who their opponents are? Not only this, but if you are a corporation or a union trying to use treasury money to support a candidate that is good for your business or union, you can't do it within the last 60 days before a general election. Apparently free speech is a right Shays won't let you have.

• Farrell Will Rain on Your Parade. Don't try to have a good time without Farrell. She will crash any party within a thousand miles if it'll get her a photo op. "Planners of the annual neighborhood festival said Farrell, the Democratic candidate for the 4th Congressional District seat, pushed her way into the June 4 parade, along with sign-carrying supporters even though she was not invited and was asked to leave... `The whole thing was orchestrated. This was no accident. When she was told she was not invited, she continued on as if I was the most insignificant person on the planet.' "  She feels she's entitled to do whatever she wants, and go wherever she wants. Her campaign's response to her fiasco? Her campaign manager said: "What I think is pathetic is the Shays campaign is focusing on who's marching in a parade instead of the thousands who are dying in Iraq." The key term, of course, is pathetic. Does she really think she is above the law? Is this the kind of person anyone would trust to uphold the Constitution?

There are plenty of other examples. If you find interesting ones, feel free to contact us.

Both of my opponents seem proud of thinking up new ways to spend your money. Any statements on their website that you read, or any quotes by them you encounter, note they virtually never say, "That's not up to me and it shouldn't be a Congressional issue. That is a local question, not a federal one, and should be left to the states, towns, and communities, and ultimately the people to decide."

We've been forced to vote for the lesser of two evils for too long. Now there's a chance to vote for good.