From the Larry Smith for Congress Campaign:
Smith Says Jacobs didn’t Hold the Line in Annapolis, Likely Won’t in DC Either
Today Larry Smith, Republican candidate for Congress in Maryland’s Second District, criticized Primary opponent Senator Nancy Jacobs for her glaring failure to hold the line on spending in Annapolis.
“Last year, when Maryland’s fiscal situation was just as dire as today’s, Senator Jacobs failed to hold the line on spending. She clearly cannot be trusted to hold the line in Washington,” said Smith.
Here’s how Democratic Comptroller Peter Franchot characterized conditions in Annapolis at that time: “We’re basically spending every cent we have and maxing out the state’s credit cards to the nth degree. If something goes wrong in the economy again, we could be very vulnerable. We have no reserve capacity.”
Evidently, House Republican Leader (and 2012 Congressional Candidate) Tony O’Donnell shared Mr. Franchot’s view, because he chose to mirror the leadership of Congressional Republicans in Washington who had recently sworn off the practice of earmarking. Mr. O’Donnell not only convinced his House Republican delegation to swear off earmarks, he even tried to convince some Democrats to do so as well. In Leader O’Donnell’s letter to House Speaker Michael Busch, he addressed the idea of borrowing money to fund earmarks this way: “The focus should be on reversing the damage, not making it worse.” But alas, when Mr. O’Donnell reached out to state Republican Senate “leaders” for their support against earmarks, his reach fell short.
Yes, against the backdrop described above, State Senator Jacobs nevertheless sought out Democratic Delegate Dave Rudolph to help her secure an earmark directing Comptroller Franchot to borrow $100,000 to fund a new Giraffe house for the Plumpton Park Zoological Gardens in Rising Sun.
When Ms. Jacobs had the opportunity to stand tall with her party on fiscal responsibility, she not only failed to lead, she failed to follow. From the Washington Post, April 5, 2012:
“Senate Republican leader Nancy Jacobs (Harford) said she admires her GOP colleagues in the House for taking a principled stand against the creation of more state debt. But Jacobs said she recognized the political reality that Democratic leaders, who control both chambers, were going to divvy up the money regardless, and she didn’t want her constituents to get “shortchanged.”
“Shortchanged?” questioned Smith. “We’re the ones being shortchanged. Our kids have now been laden with more debt and debt service, and Maryland taxpayers are now subsidizing two zoos. The other one we help pay for is located in Baltimore City. It’s set to cost Maryland taxpayers $5.1 million this year.”
Just as important: Ms. Jacobs single-handedly managed to cede the moral high ground that Republicans could have held regarding earmarks during Session 2012.
Mr. Smith, on the other hand, is doggedly committed to downsizing the federal budget and national debt. This week, he released not one but two plans outlining ideas for downsizing the federal government.
“I am the only candidate with the plans to cut spending and the backbone to fight for it in Washington. I will not seek foolish earmarks. Voters can count on me to have enough commonsense not to fight for giraffe housing,” said Smith.
If Senator Jacobs and her colleagues in Annapolis would quit the practice of using our tax dollars to fund their “pet” projects, we would not have accumulated so much debt as a state and nation. I want a congressman who will cut waisteful spending and she clearly does not fit the bill. Senator Jacobs nolonger has my support. I am supporting Larry Smith who is the only candidate that is promoting solutions to restore our country’s economic woes.
“Pet” projects……Love the pun! I’m with Larry now!
The real truth of the matter is that the Plumpton Park Zoo is building a Giraffe Conservation and Education Center. This is not a 100,000 hand out. It is a matching funds grant. That means if the Zoo is to get the money it must raise $100,000. The grant has many conditions and the money will not be handed out automatically. All of those conditions must be met to before the grant can be made. Before Senator Jacobs would sing off, she made sure the project was designed to stimulate the economy with the construction process and once complete the Zoo would create several new permanent jobs. Mr. Smith is clearly short sited and playing politics by not telling the full story. If he can’t tell the full story about this issue, how can he be trusted in the future ? The grant was going to be made anyway. Senator Jacobs insured a set of conditions including job creation were part of the grant. Senator Jacobs has my full support now more than ever !
You know where grant money comes from, yes? Our taxes.
With Larry on this.
One faux pas above. I do think that the referenced Post article has been written. It certainly isn’t April of 2012. Yet.
Have any of the commenters ever been to the Plumpton Park Zoo? It is our local version of the movie, “We Bought a Zoo.” In fact, some HCC students made their own film on it called “Getting There: The Plumpton Park Zoo Documentary.” It’s on youtube.
The people there are working so hard to improve it. They have already improved the giraffe fence, rebuilding where he had pushed it out to feed off of a nearby tree.
Of all the things my tax dollars go to, I think this is a wonderful use for it.
Finally, I am not affiliated with them but I am a fan.
Government involvement in private affairs– at what point does the earmarking stop? Using the tax payers money to support a dilapidated giraffe zoo? Come on!!
To Cheryl: The “matching funds grant”… For starters, that is a great way to spin loose and unnecessary spending. But, if it was “going to pass anyway”, as a fiscal conservative (what Nancy is supposed to be) she should have stood her ground and realized what was at stake… our economy… and a precedent. There are multitudes of ways to fund projects like this one without using taxpayer money.
At the end of the day, a $100,000 earmark is not a crucial amount of money. However, on principal, it goes against the monetary ideals that republicans and fiscal conservatives believe in.
I believe that Larry Smith is the sort of guy that will not fold up under pressure. I also believe that he has the discipline and the wherewithal to adapt and seek out more creative solutions. As opposed to Nancy Jacobs who epitomizes the status quo.
Larry Smith is by far the most fit candidate to take on Dutch, and win! It is almost counter-intuitive to vote against him. Even to those that are fans of Nancy Jacobs, I would urge that you really think about what it is that your voting for. Larry Smith has solution proposals and foreign policy expertise to compete against Dutch with…. what does Nancy really offer?
I am with Larry on this. If the Zoo would like to fix something it should do so by getting donations from people and from business. It should not be asking for money from a state that is in a fiscal mess. Whoever gets to Washington is going to have tons of people in their office every day with their own giraffe house projects that they would like funded. We need someone who is going to resist the temptation and Nancy Jacobs has shown that she will not be able to resist. She said “she recognized the political reality that Democratic leaders, who control both chambers, were going to divvy up the money regardless, and she didn’t want her constituents to get “shortchanged.”” This country needs someone who won’t say oh well I might as well just go along. We need someone that would have said I don’t want my name attached to a “pet project” and that candidate is Larry Smith. This is an example in real time in front of the people’s eyes who attended the debate of Nancy giving in and Larry Smith standing up.