Your information shows an effort to reduce governmental operating costs by combining the resources of various municipalities to include a private organization, and this is certainly noteworthy in today's age of growing government.

Municipal government has no duty to supply recreation when the private sector can offer the same services. Your belief that the merger of the L-S Rec into the L-S Y is in fact a "classic example of keeping government from reaching into areas that it has no business entering" sounds flawed from the multi-government involvement required to put this deal together in the first place.

If this facility could be profitable without the participation (or guarantee) of tax dollars, it is likely that private industry would have jumped at the opportunity to build it. But private enterprise did not get involved ... government did.

This combined recreation center is another example of the socialization of our economy that is necessary to bring recreation to our citizens when private enterprise is forced out of the marketplace by the competition of a growing local government. Smucker seems to be a willing participant in the further socialization of our economy rather than a agent of change helping to create a business environment condusive to job creation in the private sector that can occur without the involvement of tax money used to construct buildings.

I think most of us would agree that it is very easy to say that you are going to cut by 2%. Thats great. Now Mr Smucker, why don't you publish a list of the programs that will be reduced/cut and by how much for each. I would also appreciate a list of initiatives that you will tackle in order to keep this 2% reduction from showing up in other taxing entities. When I see this list published, I will believe that you might be able to make a change. Until then, I will just chalk it up to another politician blowing a lot of hot air.

I almost forgot, since you can not make this change on your own, and it will take a lot of votes from across the state, I would appreciate a list of other politicians who support your cause.

Just a side note. Maybe we should begin recording these campaign promises and proposals that help get politicians elected. Then each year, we can evaluate the job they are doing and the progress made towards these campaign goals and their pay would be adjusted accordingly, just like many of us in the business world face yearly goals for our own jobs. If they don't do what they say, no cost of living increase. If they don't do better next year, then they get put on probation. And by the third evaluation, if they don't improve, their next campaign should be censored so that they can not make any campaign promises. Maybe this would help slow down some of these impossible to achieve, but headline grabbing promises so many of them make.

Sure, I would be glad to answer it. All you have to do is look at the candidates website and you can find a multitude of answers. Amazing technology, isn't it?

After reviewing a campaign mailer just received from Smucker, and then his website, I do not find the "multitude of answers" that you say are there.

The following quotes were copied from the Smucker for State Senate flyer .... long on fuzzy "Republican sounding" rhetoric and devoid of specifics:
Lloyd Smucker is a lifelong resident of Lancaster County who was brough up in a tradional home where faith, family and conservative values are the basis of who you are.As a businessman, he has met the challenges of the private sector: creating good-paying jobs for 145 local families, developing and sticking to a budget, serving and leading people, overcoming obstacles and making tough decisions.As a West Lampeter Township Supervisor, Lloyd Smucker is applying his business world experience to government and making a positive difference for taxpayers. Without ever raising property taxes, Lloyd had improved services for residents, safeguarded farmland from development, managed growth, earned his township a top bond rating from a national financial firm, and developed innovative public-private partnerships to meet local needs without burdening taxpayers.Here are some observations and comments on the above highlighted claims:

Conservative Values - Religious, certainly. Fiscally? Only if he is not philosophically comfortable spending other peoples' money on projects that are not the proper role of local and state government. That does not seem to be the case.

He has met the challenges of the private sector - It appears that a very large percentage of revenue to the business that Smucker gained his experience in "meeting the challenges of the private sector" is by growing a business that depends upon tax-funded construction projects. Notice the special interests of the businesses who attended and spoke to the press at his recent fund-raising event.

Without ever raising property taxes - The high growth and addition of new homes and businesses to the property tax roles with West Lampeter Township adds more money to grow local government without the need for raising the property tax. Under these circumstances, a true fiscal conservative would have reduced taxes to all residents rather than spend it by growing government even larger.

Earned his township a top bond rating - Yikes! Guess what's coming next!

Developed innovative public-private partnerships - No need to explain this concept much further than the Lancaster Convention Center deal .... the "private sector" makes the money while taxpayers floats the bonds and assumes the risk.

By Smucker's own words, he is a true Dale High apprentice.