Letter: One Real Option for State Senator
 |
To the Editor:
There is only one real option for state senator.
Adam Hinds does not support the $15 an hour minimum wage. Although initially stating he did, when faced with opposition from the Berkshire County Farm Bureau, Hinds suddenly changed his position. Then at the North Adams debate, the candidates were asked directly whether they fully support the $15 an hour minimum wage. All raised their hands except Hinds.
This is deeply troubling. First, Hinds does not support a more livable minimum wage; he certainly does not support labor. But second, we can no longer believe anything Hinds says. Adam Hinds panders to his audience, telling them whatever they want to hear. As state senator, money would hold Hinds to his words at our expense. On the Kinder-Morgan pipelines, Hinds has wavered similarly: he was undecided until popular opinion pushed Hinds to oppose it (NPR.org). Hinds is also opposed to wind energy in the Berkshires (Dalton forum); despite some drawbacks to wind, if not renewable energies then we continue with the standard contributors to climate change. His economic plan for the Berkshires maintains the declining status quo, and does not seek better and larger employers (theberkshireview.com). Hinds has also refused to limit campaign spending in this election, exhibiting a refusal to get money out of politics.
At the First United Methodist Church debate, the candidates were asked about the roots of addiction. Andrea Harrington's response blamed both a lack of mental health services, and teachers. She actually stated that her 10-year-old doesn't like school, linked that to teachers not providing enough positive encouragement to students, and then claimed that this contributes to addiction. When teachers are already fighting on so many fronts, it seems outrageous to fault them and burden them further — to say nothing of Harrington's questionable logic. Harrington, evidently, is not on the side of educators. Like Hinds, she was undecided on the gas pipelines being pushed on Berkshire towns early in the race, despite strong local opposition (NPR.org). At a later date, after it became the overtly popular (i.e. safe) stance, she declared herself opposed. She is also opposed to wind energy in the Berkshires (Dalton forum). Harrington is opposed to campaign finance reform, per her refusal to limit her spending in this race.
In contrast to these candidates is attorney Rinaldo Del Gallo, a Pittsfield native. He stood in opposition to the pipelines from the get-go. He supports, unequivocally, the $15 an hour minimum wage. He believes we need to attract better and larger employers to restore the economy in Pittsfield, as it once was. He supports renewable wind energy in the Berkshires. He supports single-payer healthcare. He supports campaign spending limits, and proposed them for this election. He supports tuition-free state colleges and universities. He supports a graduated state income tax, and the "millionaire's tax" — taxes that benefit the average person. He supports treatment over prisons for addiction.
But maybe most importantly (and most distinctly from his two competitors), Del Gallo has over the years repeatedly proposed and drafted local legislation (voluntarily) in the progressive vein — a plastic bags ban and a styrofoam ban (recently passed by several towns/cities in the County), a bathroom bill, animal welfare legislation, etc. Similarly, Del Gallo has also provided extensive pro bono legal work for various causes, including free speech and zoning.
Versus the actual records and proposed ideas of the other state Senate candidates, Rinaldo Del Gallo is remarkable in that his words and actions are the same, and progressive. He has put his money where his mouth is — and that's remarkable for a politician. Rinaldo Del Gallo is the only worthy candidate for state senate.
Greg Veremko
Dalton, Mass.
Tags: election 2016, endorsement, letters to the editor,
