District 5 House Race Article on Danny Glidewell

[Danny Glidewell]

Below is an article in the PanamaCity News Herald that describes my positions on the issues in the District 5 race.

http://www.newsherald.com/news/house-104073-p...

Danny Glidewell isn’t happy with the decisions being made in Tallahassee, and he’s hoping to change the way residents of House District 5 are represented.


“I don’t agree with what they’re doing in Tallahassee,” Glidewell said. “I think the people at least need to have a choice: Are we going to stay the way we’re going or have a different, a lot different, path?”


Glidewell faces incumbent state Rep. Marti Coley in the Republican race for the district that includes northern Bay County and Washington, Holmes and Jackson counties. The winner of that election next month will face unaffiliated candidate Travis Pitts and write-in candidate Eddy Holman in November.


Among Glidewell’s biggest disagreements is the way the state regulates school districts with mandatory teacher evaluations that impact pay, the way calendars are set and the focus on the FCAT.


“I don’t agree with the premise Tallahassee should be involved in local education at all,” he said.


He said it’s not his idea of limited government.


“These kids are our future, and we need to do a better job educating them,” he said.


The emphasis on testing has put them at a disadvantage, he said, because after graduation success will be defined by their abilities, not on how they perform on tests. “Someone needs to go to Tallahassee and tell them no,” he said.


Glidewell also said he would like the state to stop increasing fees. Among his concerns is the decision to increase the cost of tags and titles for vehicles and to obtain driver’s licenses.


Because there was no allowance for those who are elderly or with lower incomes, it put people in a position of having to decide between purchasing food and medication or making their vehicles street legal, he said. He said there should have been some consideration made to those who are most vulnerable.


Glidewell also said he disagrees with the decision to require state and local workers to contribute 3 percent of their incomes to the retirement system.


“The state of Florida basically placed a 3 percent tax on all state and local workers’ salaries,” he said.


He said the increase enhances the general fund rather than the workers’ retirement fund, and he doesn’t think it’s fair. “That’s not support in my book,” he said. “That’s sticking it to them.”


He said the state wouldn’t need additional revenue if it stuck to providing essential government services, stopped spending money where it wasn’t warranted and cut back on the duplication of services.


“The federal government is spending itself into oblivion and the state government is going to be doing the same thing if we’re not careful,” he said.

[j p nettles]

For starters I plan to vote for Mr. Glidewell. That being said, it's always a challenge to unseat an entrenched incumbent but my sense is that Marti Coley is a little too cozy with the Republican establishment in the state and although I'm a registered Republican, my views tend to be more Libertarian and I find corruption in all parties and I'm often criticized for pointing out ethical misconduct. Now I see that the NRA has endorsed Mrs. Coley but the NRA also endorsed that paragon of corruption Allen Boyd during his tenure so one must take NRA's endorsements with a grain of salt.

[Danny Glidewell]

For starters I plan to vote for Mr. Glidewell. That being said, it's always a challenge to unseat an entrenched incumbent but my sense is that Marti Coley is a little too cozy with the Republican establishment in the state and although I'm a registered Republican, my views tend to be more Libertarian and I find corruption in all parties and I'm often criticized for pointing out ethical misconduct. Now I see that the NRA has endorsed Mrs. Coley but the NRA also endorsed that paragon of corruption Allen Boyd during his tenure so one must take NRA's endorsements with a grain of salt.

Thank you, I appreciate your support. As far as endorsements go, it is hard to get an organization to endorse a challenger against an incumbent. Needless to say, I support 2nd Amendment rights which is the important thing.

[JudyJames]

Clarification is needed. An earlier post indicates that South Walton is not in Glidewell's district. If that is true, Glidewell should find another forum. If he represents Walton County, I have an observation then a question. He tells us what he hates about standardized testing ( implicating George W), but says nothing concrete about promoting k-12. Let's here your plan...all ears . BE SPECIFIC

[JudyJames]

Glidewell... Can you share with us the last time a serious piece of legislation impacting the second amendment was considered and how your opposition supported it?

[Danny Glidewell]

1. District 5 encompasses all of Walton, Washington, Holmes and Jackson counties as well as the northern 4 precincts in Bay County.
2. The best thing state government can do for k-12 is get out of the way and allow the local school districts to function. Parental and community involvement in the process is possible with local control but almost impossible if the state is in charge. Fully funding the class size amendment is also necessary. The citizens of this state have passed that initiative twice so obviously they place great importance in it. Third, the teacher evaluation and pay rates that were passed a couple of years ago should be repealed.
3. I know of no differences between my opponent and I regarding the 2nd Amendment. The NRA endorsed her, probably because she is the incumbent, but both of us received "A" grades from the organization.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask me.

[Andy A]

Would you please explain to me your Position that it is an infringement on employee's rights to be forced to contribute a measely 3% toward their very generous pension retirement? I certainly do not see it as any type of a tax, only a contribution to their retirement plan. For the record, me and my wife are retired state employees from another state and we contributed much more than 3% to our state retirement pension each month and none of our government servants to the people complained about it.

[Danny Glidewell]

Would you please explain to me your Position that it is an infringement on employee's rights to be forced to contribute a measely 3% toward their very generous pension retirement? I certainly do not see it as any type of a tax, only a contribution to their retirement plan. For the record, me and my wife are retired state employees from another state and we contributed much more than 3% to our state retirement pension each month and none of our government servants to the people complained about it.

Andy:

Thank you for the question. Florida workers have a very good retirement program. But historically those workers were paid less than the national average for their particular job based on the promise of that retirement. To change the conditions of employment in mid-career with no increases in pay is not fair. What the legislature did was place a tax of 3% on every employee's salary. I say this because the money did not go into the FRS nor was it used to enhance the funding or viability of the system long-term. It went into the general fund to be used to balance the state budget. That is simply not fair.
If the legislature moved to change the system for new employees that is one thing. If they placed the money into the system to strengthen it, that would be acceptable. Although since the FRS is the third strongest retirement system in the country, I do not know that much strengthening is needed. If the employees had an accounting of what they had contributed and some control over how that money was invested that would make things different. But taking money from our hard-working public servants; policemen, firefighters, paramedics, corrections officers, dispatchers,teachers, etc. because you lack the political will to cut spending is wrong.
Many of these people work two jobs just to support their family. A 3% reduction in pay is not insignificant to them or their families. In many cases both spouses work for one agency or another. Those families took a 6% reduction.
I favor a comprehensive, long-term solution to our problems with the financing of the FRS, not band-aid approaches. In my opinion this measure was passed to enhance revenue for the state and appease those who wish to cut state and local workers out of jealousy or covetousness.

[Andy A]

There is no doubt the 3% should go to the retirement system. If it doesn't, work to make sure it does. That said, for the taxpayer to foot the entire bill of state employee's retirement is ludicrous! They need to have some of their own skin in the game. As for pay, it would be my guess that the average state employee here far outstrips what state employees in other states take home. I admit it is only a guess and I'm too lazy to research it.

[lazin&drinkin]

Danny,

Your math needs some work. If both spouses in a family work and each takes a 3% cut, their aggregate cut is 3%, not 6%. A hypothetical example -- each makes 50,000 a year. Each takes a 3% cut. Total pay -- 100k. Total cut -- 3k.

[Danny Glidewell]

Danny,

Your math needs some work. If both spouses in a family work and each takes a 3% cut, their aggregate cut is 3%, not 6%. A hypothetical example -- each makes 50,000 a year. Each takes a 3% cut. Total pay -- 100k. Total cut -- 3k.

You are right, math was never my best subject. The idea I was trying to get across is that the impact on those families is much greater than a family with one party working in the private sector. Thanks for setting me straight.