Ready to Export the "Michigan Miracle" to the Rest of America?

Below is a series of facts and information that exemplify what happens when government grows and takes more of your money out of the economy. The economy shrinks, there are fewer jobs, people make less money, poverty increases. But, guess what segment of the "economy" added jobs? That's right, government jobs.

This is the future of America under Democratic leadership. Higher taxes, bigger government, and a declining standard of living for all Americans.

• Michigan
  was the only state where poverty rose last year, as well as the only one where
  incomes fell, according to U.S. Census Bureau.


• The 2007 median income in Michigan
  was $47,950, down 1.2 percent or $596 from the 2006 median of $48,546. The
  state's nationwide ranking slid from 24th to 27th.


• Nationwide, the median household income rose to $50,233, a modest increase
  of $665 from the previous year, although it was the third consecutive annual
  rise.


• They also showed Michigan's rate of "extreme poverty" — a yearly
  income of less than half the poverty threshold, or $10,325 for a family of four
  — jumped from 6 percent in 2006 to 6.5 percent last year. Eight years ago, the
  rate was 4.8 percent.


• Detroit's poverty rate rose to 33.8% making
  it the poorest city in America
  with a population of 250,000 or more.
  


• Michigan's unemployment rate held steady in July, but the state continued to lose jobs. 


• Michigan has had the nation's highest average annual unemployment rate since 2006.


• Total employment in Michigan has declined every month since January.
  About 29,000 fewer people were employed in July than the prior month.


• About 5,000 jobs were lost in professional and business services.
  About 4,000 jobs were lost in leisure and hospitality services, while
  another 4,000 jobs were lost in the trade, transportation and utilities
  sector of the economy.

Government was the biggest job gainer, adding 5,000 positions.

Ready to Export the "Michigan Miracle" to the Rest of America?

Below is a series of facts and information that exemplify what happens when government grows and takes more of your money out of the economy. The economy shrinks, there are fewer jobs, people make less money, poverty increases. But, guess what segment of the "economy" added jobs? That's right, government jobs.

This is the future of America under Democratic leadership. Higher taxes, bigger government, and a declining standard of living for all Americans.

• Michigan
  was the only state where poverty rose last year, as well as the only one where
  incomes fell, according to U.S. Census Bureau.


• The 2007 median income in Michigan
  was $47,950, down 1.2 percent or $596 from the 2006 median of $48,546. The
  state's nationwide ranking slid from 24th to 27th.


• Nationwide, the median household income rose to $50,233, a modest increase
  of $665 from the previous year, although it was the third consecutive annual
  rise.


• They also showed Michigan's rate of "extreme poverty" ‚Äî a yearly
  income of less than half the poverty threshold, or $10,325 for a family of four
  — jumped from 6 percent in 2006 to 6.5 percent last year. Eight years ago, the
  rate was 4.8 percent.


• Detroit's poverty rate rose to 33.8% making
  it the poorest city in America
  with a population of 250,000 or more.
  


• Michigan's unemployment rate held steady in July, but the state continued to lose jobs. 


• Michigan has had the nation's highest average annual unemployment rate since 2006.


• Total employment in Michigan has declined every month since January.
  About 29,000 fewer people were employed in July than the prior month.


• About 5,000 jobs were lost in professional and business services.
  About 4,000 jobs were lost in leisure and hospitality services, while
  another 4,000 jobs were lost in the trade, transportation and utilities
  sector of the economy.

Government was the biggest job gainer, adding 5,000 positions.

Should Illegals receive Social Security benefits? Carl Levin thinks so.

Many of you have heard the story about my parents. They came to America in 1949 looking for opportunity and liberty. But to get here, they had to apply for immigration. They had to have a sponsor, a job, and a place to live lined up before they could come here.

Once they got to the United States, they were responsible for learning English, on their own. They did all these things because they saw coming to America as a privilege, not an entitlement. My parents became American citizens at the first opportunity.

A couple of key reasons why my dad wanted to come to this country were so that he could live and work where he wanted without first seeking the permission of the government. In fact, he started his own business and relocated several times.

As a self-employed citizen, my dad paid into the Social Security system. He knew that, meager as it might be, he was paying into a program that would provide part of his retirement and a minimal safety net for my mom to lean on should he precede her in death. In fact, my dad did pass away eighteen years before my mom.

Social Security benefits were there for her. They helped, along with a small nest-egg my dad had built, to provide for her until her passing. I don’t think my dad would have been pleased to find out that Carl Levin voted to continue providing Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.

Should Illegals receive Social Security benefits? Carl Levin thinks so.

Many of you have heard the story about my parents. They came to America in 1949 looking for opportunity and liberty. But to get here, they had to apply for immigration. They had to have a sponsor, a job, and a place to live lined up before they could come here.

Once they got to the United States, they were responsible for learning English, on their own. They did all these things because they saw coming to America as a privilege, not an entitlement. My parents became American citizens at the first opportunity.

A couple of key reasons why my dad wanted to come to this country were so that he could live and work where he wanted without first seeking the permission of the government. In fact, he started his own business and relocated several times.

As a self-employed citizen, my dad paid into the Social Security system. He knew that, meager as it might be, he was paying into a program that would provide part of his retirement and a minimal safety net for my mom to lean on should he precede her in death. In fact, my dad did pass away eighteen years before my mom.

Social Security benefits were there for her. They helped, along with a small nest-egg my dad had built, to provide for her until her passing. I don’t think my dad would have been pleased to find out that Carl Levin voted to continue providing Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.

Illegal Immigration and Sanctuary Cities

Here is another issue where Senator Levin and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. It seems that whenever a vote comes up in the US Senate regarding dealing with illegal immigration issues, Mr. Levin is on the wrong side of the issue and the wrong side of the American people. For more detail on his voting record, go here.

One of the hottest topics in this state is "Sanctuary Cities." Detroit and Ann Arbor are sanctuary cities. They are described as cities that do not allow funds to be used to
enforce federal immigration laws.

Carl Levin has voted at least twice in the Senate to support Sanctuary Cities. He supports allowing cities like Detroit and Ann Arbor to defy federal guidelines...that help federal agents crack down on illegal immigration. We all know that most illegals come here looking for a job, not to do harm. But, first of all, how do we know which ones are just here to work and which ones are here to do harm?  And secondly, we must realize that many of those who come here illegally with good intentions are still using our health care and education system and (thanks to Carl Levin's support) even our Social Security System without paying anything in.

As your US Senator, I will support legislation that will remove incentives for foreign nationals to come here illegally. The United States is a nation of immigrants. (My parents came here legally from Holland in 1942.) But, we must insist that those who wish to come here to start a new life in the land of opportunity and liberty do so through legal channels.

Illegal Immigration and Sanctuary Cities

Here is another issue where Senator Levin and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. It seems that whenever a vote comes up in the US Senate regarding dealing with illegal immigration issues, Mr. Levin is on the wrong side of the issue and the wrong side of the American people. For more detail on his voting record, go here.

One of the hottest topics in this state is "Sanctuary Cities." Detroit and Ann Arbor are sanctuary cities. They are described as cities that do not allow funds to be used to
enforce federal immigration laws.

Carl Levin has voted at least twice in the Senate to support Sanctuary Cities. He supports allowing cities like Detroit and Ann Arbor to defy federal guidelines...that help federal agents crack down on illegal immigration. We all know that most illegals come here looking for a job, not to do harm. But, first of all, how do we know which ones are just here to work and which ones are here to do harm?  And secondly, we must realize that many of those who come here illegally with good intentions are still using our health care and education system and (thanks to Carl Levin's support) even our Social Security System without paying anything in.

As your US Senator, I will support legislation that will remove incentives for foreign nationals to come here illegally. The United States is a nation of immigrants. (My parents came here legally from Holland in 1942.) But, we must insist that those who wish to come here to start a new life in the land of opportunity and liberty do so through legal channels.

Mortgage Fraud Crisis

Senator Levin railed last month about the speculators on Wall Street who were playing the market on oil and causing the price to go up. This month apparently, speculation, even illegal speculation is OK with Mr. Levin. He was hailing the new "HOPE for Homeowners" $300 Billion (with a "B") taxpayer funded bailout of home purchasers who went too far out on the limb and found themselves upside down on their mortgage. What Mr. Levin fails to say is that many of those borrowers did so out of speculation on the real estate market. They even did so fraudulently, misrepresenting their income or debt load to get the loan.

This problem is so bad that the FBI has set up an investigation called "Operation Quick Flip" to investigate this growing problem of mortgage fraud. You can read more about this issue in my latest newsletter. Sign up for it on the right of the screen.

Mortgage Fraud Crisis

Senator Levin railed last month about the speculators on Wall Street who were playing the market on oil and causing the price to go up. This month apparently, speculation, even illegal speculation is OK with Mr. Levin. He was hailing the new "HOPE for Homeowners" $300 Billion (with a "B") taxpayer funded bailout of home purchasers who went too far out on the limb and found themselves upside down on their mortgage. What Mr. Levin fails to say is that many of those borrowers did so out of speculation on the real estate market. They even did so fraudulently, misrepresenting their income or debt load to get the loan.

This problem is so bad that the FBI has set up an investigation called "Operation Quick Flip" to investigate this growing problem of mortgage fraud. You can read more about this issue in my latest newsletter. Sign up for it on the right of the screen.

American Dream About to Become American Entitlement

Senator Carl Levin is working overtime giving out goodies on the backs of the taxpayers. Today, we look at the "mortgage crisis" in America and how Mr. Levin proposes to solve it. With your money. 

Home Ownership: American Dream or American Entitlement?
 
Certainly, you have heard the headlines and read the stories. The news media has done an effective job of telling America that the home-ownership sky is falling. If you were to believe the news reports, the dream of home ownership is about to come crashing to the ground.

Perhaps we should look at the facts about home ownership in America. The numbers of individuals and families who own their own home has been on the rise since the 1960's. In 1960, 62% of homes were owned by the occupant. That number grew to almost 66% by 1980 and stands at just under 68% today.

Foreclosures, which have "skyrocketed" in the last two years, increased to a rate of just over 1% of all mortgages.  It should be noted that many, if not most of these foreclosures were caused by borrowers who falsified information on their mortgage application. They did so either out of the desire to "own" their own home or for the purposes of speculation on the future value of the home.

And what is the government's answer to this "crisis?" A $300 billion bailout for the same frauds who borrowed the money in the first place.
 
Senator Levin to the Rescue!
 
To hear Mr. Levin tell it, we really are in a serious crisis and those who have defaulted are all victims. A story that appeared in the Saginaw News on August 14 under the headline, "Senator: Nation's Mortgage Crisis Puts Every Neighborhood in Limbo," Levin is quoted as saying, "Neighborhoods and cities are at stake." The fact is, in Michigan many neighborhoods and cities are at stake, but it isn't because of a mortgage crisis. That is just a very convenient excuse for the Senator to use.

Mr. Levin goes on in the newspaper story to talk about the HOPE for Homeowners plan. This government program is explained fully by the Heritage Foundation in an essay written on May 6, 2008. Here is an excerpt: 

"Under the legislation, lenders that chose to take part in the voluntary program would agree to receive 85 percent of the current assessed value of the house, while the borrower would receive a refinanced loan equal to 90 percent of that new assessed value. Refinanced loans would be 100 percent guaranteed by the FHA, and the new lender would have no further credit exposure if the borrower subsequently defaulted. If the homeowner subsequently walked away from the new loan, and if the FHA lacked the resources to back the loan, then the taxpayers would cover any losses."

The three most important things you need to know:

• The foreclosure rate in the United States is about 1% of all mortgages


• The government bailout will cost $300 Billion


• Taxpayers would cover any losses

But understand, demagogues like Carl Levin love programs like these because it allows them to travel back to the district as heroes who are bringing HOPE for Homeowners. Read the story in the Saginaw News. Then read the essay at the Heritage website. Tell me I am wrong. But remember, "taxpayers would cover any losses."  

Illegal Speculation Rewarded by the Taxpayer
 
There is a real irony here. Lately, Carl Levin has been blaming "speculators" for driving up the price of oil. Those speculators are legally trading their own money on oil price futures. They risk making a tidy profit or losing it all. But now, that same Senator is bailing out those who speculated on the future value of their home by lying on their mortgage application. So, while Levin persecutes those who speculate honestly, he is willing to bail out those who speculated illegally. And worst of all, he wants to use YOUR MONEY.

The bottom line is this: It is wrong to use taxpayer dollars to bail out individuals who take speculative risks or who knowingly defraud the lender for personal gain. In fact, the government (taxpayer) should not be in the business of bailing ANYONE out for any reason. This is not what government was intended to do. I will not support such behavior with your money.

There is one additional hard-hitting, candid essay, Will Your Tax Dollars Go to Mortgage Cheats?  Read it and understand.  
If you like what you are reading, please forward it to a friend. If you don't like it, tell me. You can send me a note, get campaign updates, read my newsletter or my blog at:

JackForMichigan.org
Contribute to the campaign here. 

When it Comes to Energy, It's Time to Buy American!

anwr.orgDid you know we buy much of our oil from countries like Saudia Arabia (home of nineteen 9/11 terrorists), Russia (home of the former KGB agent Vladimir Putin), Iran (home of nuclear threat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), Venezuela (Hugo Chavez), and other unstable countries like Chad, Libya, and Angola?

Don't you think it would make sense to use our own oil from places like Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the outer continental shelf? There is probably enough oil in Alaska alone to cover our imports from all those other countries.

So, what is stopping us from drilling here and drilling now? It is a long list of mostly Democrats including, of course, Carl Levin.

When it Comes to Energy, It's Time to Buy American!

anwr.orgDid you know we buy much of our oil from countries like Saudia Arabia (home of nineteen 9/11 terrorists), Russia (home of the former KGB agent Vladimir Putin), Iran (home of nuclear threat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), Venezuela (Hugo Chavez), and other unstable countries like Chad, Libya, and Angola?

Don't you think it would make sense to use our own oil from places like Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the outer continental shelf? There is probably enough oil in Alaska alone to cover our imports from all those other countries.

So, what is stopping us from drilling here and drilling now? It is a long list of mostly Democrats including, of course, Carl Levin.

Would Right-to-Work Legislation Bring Michigan's Economy Back?

In past newsletters, I have discussed the issue of "Right-to-work." I introduced this legislation because I truly believe it would revolutionize the economy in Michigan and make this state a jobs magnet. I have enclosed a copy of an article from Gary Glenn, who had personal involvement with the issue in Idaho some years ago. I have also attached a link to an article from the Mackinac Center for Pubic Policy which is very enlightening. I hope the day will come soon when the Michigan legislature will act on this concept that twenty-two other states have embraced.

-------
 
Right to Work is more than economics
by Gary Glenn  for Michigan Business Review
Thursday August 14, 2008

I led the Idaho Right to Work effort for six years, culminating in the successful 1986 ballot campaign in which Idaho voters approved a Right to Work law, despite our being outspent 3 to 1 by union officials intent on defending the "pay up or you're fired" system of job discrimination against employees who choose not to join or pay dues to a labor union. Right to Work is more than just an economic development issue, on which the proof is both overwhelming and conclusive. Idaho (1986) and Oklahoma (2001) roared into first place nationally in both job and income growth within two years of enacting Right to Work.
As the only Right to Work state in the Great Lakes, Michigan would become an economic powerhouse overnight as industry in the region rushed to relocate.

But even moreso, it's an individual freedom and freedom of conscience issue, even a moral issue.

One example: Polls in 2004 showed that two-thirds of union households in Michigan voted in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, constitutionally protecting one man, one woman marriage. Yet national and state AFL-CIO officials formally opposed and spent their members' compulsory dues money campaigning against both the state and federal marriage amendments.

Thus, tens of thousands of Michiganians, who voted in favor of constitutionally protecting traditional marriage, are compelled as a condition of employment to financially support a private organization that lobbies and campaigns against their moral and religious convictions. That's just one of the many issues on which union officials campaign at odds with the views of individual employees compelled to finance those activities.

Should every person in Michigan be free to hold a job whether they belong to or support a private labor organization or not? Of course they should. Should it be illegal to discriminate against and fire an individual on the basis of membership or nonmembership in, or financial support or non-support of, a labor union or any other private organization, either way? Of course it should.

And if Right to Work should end up on some future election ballot, union officials will have a hard time convincing Michigan voters that Alabama or Texas or Florida or Arizona or Iowa or Tennessee or Nevada are poverty-stricken Third World-style economies.

If Right to Work is presented primarily as a Big Business issue, the corporate boardroom's plan for economic recovery, the advantage will remain with union officials.

But if it is presented as a worker's issue - with the helpful side-benefit that it will likely attract hundreds of thousands of new jobs to Michigan - then it may have a shot of surviving union officials' compulsory-dues-financed $50 million ballot campaign advertising gauntlet.

Outlawing job discrimination on the basis of union affiliation is philosophically, morally and politically justifiable, even if it had no effect on Michigan's economy. At the same time, no single change in public policy would more dramatically or immediately reverse Michigan's ongoing economic decline.

Gary Glenn is president of the American Family Association of Michigan. He lives in Midland.

Get more information about this issue here and here.

Are you ready for the big Levin-Hoogendyk debate

Public television station WGVU Grand Rapids has extended an invitation for a "town hall style debate" between me and Senator Carl Levin. It would be a wide open forum for 60 minutes and it would be simulcast on seven public television stations statewide as well as on several NPR affiliated radio stations. I have already responded that of course I am willing to debate Mr. Levin anytime, anywhere.

It would be a huge disservice to the voters in Michigan if they were not allowed  to see first hand where the candidates stand on the issues and for Mr. Levin to answer for his 30-year track record as a US Senator.

He has yet to respond to WGVU's request. Perhaps he could use a little encouragement. Would you like to see this debate take place? I encourage you to contact Mr. Levin and let him know you are looking forward to watching him in a debate with his Republican opponent. You can e-mail the campaign office or call 248-443-6846. It only takes a moment to let them know.

You may also contact the station and thank them for offering to air the debate. General Manager Mike Walenta can be reached at walentam@gvsu.edu [mailto:walentam@gvsu.edu] or you  can call him at 616-331-6737.

Carl Levin's Extremely Radical Abortion Agenda

photo by Michael Clancy www.michaelclancy.com

One issue where the Senator and I are as far apart as possible is on the matter of the right to life. Everyone knows that the term "right to life" first came from the Declaration of Independence, which said that we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.  The US Constitution follows that assumption. Specifically, in the 14th amendment it includes the statement, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." That being the case, the next question is, "what is a person?"

This was a question the Supreme Court apparently struggled with back in 1973. But science has caught up with what Dr. Suess knew back in 1954, "A person is a person, no matter how small." There is no disputing it anymore. Human life-- personhood -- begins at conception, when a completely new individual with his own DNA is created.

OK, we know personhood and human life begin at conception and we know the the United States Constitution assures protection of human life. What is it about these two facts that so many cannot grasp? Take Carl Levin, for example. This Senator has an agenda that is so radically anti-life, so opposed to the protection of the unborn, it defies explanation. How radical, you may ask?  Let me cite some examples:

• He has voted seven times against a ban on partial-birth abortion
  


• He voted against a bill to make it a crime to injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of a crime. This bill passed with 61 votes in the Senate
  


• He voted against a bill to make it a crime to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. It passed the Senate with 65 votes
  


• He supports using your tax dollars to pay for abortions for federal employees and prison inmates
  


• He is opposed to parental notification when a minor obtains an abortion
  


• He voted against a resolution to propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade
  


• He supports the destruction of embryos for research purposes

My question to those who agree that elected officials should defend, protect, and uphold the Constitution is this: are you going to vote for Carl Levin this year?

Carl Levin's Extremely Radical Abortion Agenda

photo by Michael Clancy www.michaelclancy.com

One issue where the Senator and I are as far apart as possible is on the matter of the right to life. Everyone knows that the term "right to life" first came from the Declaration of Independence, which said that we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.  The US Constitution follows that assumption. Specifically, in the 14th amendment it includes the statement, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." That being the case, the next question is, "what is a person?"

This was a question the Supreme Court apparently struggled with back in 1973. But science has caught up with what Dr. Suess knew back in 1954, "A person is a person, no matter how small." There is no disputing it anymore. Human life-- personhood -- begins at conception, when a completely new individual with his own DNA is created.

OK, we know personhood and human life begin at conception and we know the the United States Constitution assures protection of human life. What is it about these two facts that so many cannot grasp? Take Carl Levin, for example. This Senator has an agenda that is so radically anti-life, so opposed to the protection of the unborn, it defies explanation. How radical, you may ask?  Let me cite some examples:

• He has voted seven times against a ban on partial-birth abortion
  


• He voted against a bill to make it a crime to injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of a crime. This bill passed with 61 votes in the Senate
  


• He voted against a bill to make it a crime to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. It passed the Senate with 65 votes
  


• He supports using your tax dollars to pay for abortions for federal employees and prison inmates
  


• He is opposed to parental notification when a minor obtains an abortion
  


• He voted against a resolution to propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade
  


• He supports the destruction of embryos for research purposes

My question to those who agree that elected officials should defend, protect, and uphold the Constitution is this: are you going to vote for Carl Levin this year?

Levin: "It's not a bailout!" Oh, really?

A story in MIRS reports that Carl Levin is backing a $300 BILLION bailout of homeowners who overextended themselves and two mortgage providers who did the same.

"Levin met with representatives from housing groups, including the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and Community Economic Development Association of Michigan (CEDAM) for input on the broad legislation, which authorizes the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) to insure $300 billion in mortgages."

I love this quote:  "We're not bailing out anybody," he said. "Everyone has to contribute." That quote says so much. Let me give you my translation. We (the federal government) are not bailing out anybody. Everyone (the taxpayer) has to contribute (pay more taxes).

In other words, instead of letting the market handle this, and letting those who got themselves into trouble pay the consequences, WE, (the ones whose homes are paid for or who stay current on our mortgages) are going to pick up the tab and in the process, add a few more billion to the massive debt that our children and grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren...will have to pay back.

Mr. Levin, it is time for tough love. It is time for personal responsibility. If you get yourself into trouble, you should get yourself out. Please don't continue to pile more debt on my family while absolving people of responsibility for their bad decisions.

Levin: "It's not a bailout!" Oh, really?

A story in MIRS reports that Carl Levin is backing a $300 BILLION bailout of homeowners who overextended themselves and two mortgage providers who did the same.

"Levin met with representatives from housing groups, including the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and Community Economic Development Association of Michigan (CEDAM) for input on the broad legislation, which authorizes the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) to insure $300 billion in mortgages."

I love this quote:  "We're not bailing out anybody," he said. "Everyone has to contribute." That quote says so much. Let me give you my translation. We (the federal government) are not bailing out anybody. Everyone (the taxpayer) has to contribute (pay more taxes).

In other words, instead of letting the market handle this, and letting those who got themselves into trouble pay the consequences, WE, (the ones whose homes are paid for or who stay current on our mortgages) are going to pick up the tab and in the process, add a few more billion to the massive debt that our children and grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren...will have to pay back.

Mr. Levin, it is time for tough love. It is time for personal responsibility. If you get yourself into trouble, you should get yourself out. Please don't continue to pile more debt on my family while absolving people of responsibility for their bad decisions.

And on the Subject of Government Efficiency...

Some may have heard that the Federal Election Commission reported I had failed to file my campaign pre-primary report on time. The deadline for postmark was midnight, July 29th. We shipped it out on the 29th for next-day delivery via United States Postal Service. Feel free to go to the FEC web site and see for yourself, big as life, the Hoogendyk for Senate campaign filing, dated July 29, 2008. http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00446641. In spite of this, the FEC issued a press release on August 1 that I had not yet filed.

Either the quasi-government post office failed to deliver it on time as promised, or the government-run Federal Election Commission lost it somewhere in the mail room for seven days. We are still trying to find out, but it takes a while to get answers from a government-run agency in a timely manner.

Lesson learned, from now on, we will file with UPS!

And on the Subject of Government Efficiency...

Some may have heard that the Federal Election Commission reported I had failed to file my campaign pre-primary report on time. The deadline for postmark was midnight, July 29th. We shipped it out on the 29th for next-day delivery via United States Postal Service. Feel free to go to the FEC web site and see for yourself, big as life, the Hoogendyk for Senate campaign filing, dated July 29, 2008. http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00446641. In spite of this, the FEC issued a press release on August 1 that I had not yet filed.

Either the quasi-government post office failed to deliver it on time as promised, or the government-run Federal Election Commission lost it somewhere in the mail room for seven days. We are still trying to find out, but it takes a while to get answers from a government-run agency in a timely manner.

Lesson learned, from now on, we will file with UPS!

Core Principles Is Moving

You will automatically be redirected to our new site. If you are not automatically redirected, please click www.JackforMichigan.org/Core to continue reading and commenting!

Thanks for your support!

Jack Hoogendyk

Primary Election Results Encouraging

In 2002, a good year for Republicans in Michigan, Carl Levin received 67% of the primary votes cast for Senator, while the unopposed Republican received 33%. In Tuesday's primary, Carl Levin received 53% of votes cast for Senator, Jack Hoogendyk received 47%. And they say this is a good year for Democrats?

Could it be that voters really are looking for "change?" Have they finally figured out that the big government, spend-us-into bankrupcy policies of Carl Levin are not working?

I am here to offer positive alternatives: less government, lower taxes, balanced budgets. Seems like the taxpayers are ready for it. We have a long way to go, but my advice to Mr. Levin is the same as that often given by the immortal baseball great Satchel Paige, "Don't look back, something might be gaining on you."

Carl Levin's Rhetoric on Energy

As I have learned more about the Carl Levin legacy of leadership in the US Senate, I have discovered that his modus operandi is to use his government-paid staff of 53 to spend thousands of hours researching and writing 400 page reports that always come up with the same answers: It's George Bush's fault or Big Oil, or Big Wall Street, or the speculators...meanwhile he is rigid in denying the development of the domestic free market for energy.

The taxpayers are catching on. They recognize that preventing the development of nuclear, clean coal, and domestic oil and gas is just plain wrong. It's time to lift the lid on the domestic market.

Carl Levin's Rhetoric on Energy

As I have learned more about the Carl Levin legacy of leadership in the US Senate, I have discovered that his modus operandi is to use his government-paid staff of 53 to spend thousands of hours researching and writing 400 page reports that always come up with the same answers: It's George Bush's fault or Big Oil, or Big Wall Street, or the speculators...meanwhile he is rigid in denying the development of the domestic free market for energy.

The taxpayers are catching on. They recognize that preventing the development of nuclear, clean coal, and domestic oil and gas is just plain wrong. It's time to lift the lid on the domestic market.

Dying Cities...What is the Common Link?

Forbes Magazine came out with a story listing the top ten "Dying Cities" in America. http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/08/04/economy-ohio-michigan-biz_cx_jz_0805dying.html

Ohio was Number 1 with four dying cities. Michigan was Number 2 with two cities, Detroit and Flint. When you look at the list, you might be struck that there are a couple of things these cities have in common. First, they are dominated by Democrats up and down the ticket: state senators and representatives, congressional representation, mayors, city council members, etc. Secondly, these two cities are run by the Big Unions, not only the labor unions but also the civil service unions.

Let's face it folks, over the last thirty-plus years, liberal democratic policies and big union domination have ruined two of the most beautiful and vibrant cities of the early 20th century. How about that change you mentioned, Mr. Obama? Oh, I'm sorry, you (and your new buddy Mr. Levin) want to give us more of the same, don't you?

Dying Cities...What is the Common Link?

Forbes Magazine came out with a story listing the top ten "Dying Cities" in America. http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/08/04/economy-ohio-michigan-biz_cx_jz_0805dying.html

Ohio was Number 1 with four dying cities. Michigan was Number 2 with two cities, Detroit and Flint. When you look at the list, you might be struck that there are a couple of things these cities have in common. First, they are dominated by Democrats up and down the ticket: state senators and representatives, congressional representation, mayors, city council members, etc. Secondly, these two cities are run by the Big Unions, not only the labor unions but also the civil service unions.

Let's face it folks, over the last thirty-plus years, liberal democratic policies and big union domination have ruined two of the most beautiful and vibrant cities of the early 20th century. How about that change you mentioned, Mr. Obama? Oh, I'm sorry, you (and your new buddy Mr. Levin) want to give us more of the same, don't you?

Change? You want change? Well, you might just get it, Mr. Levin

Last night may have been a bit of a foreshadowing of change to come. There seems to be a bit of an anti-incumbency mood out there in Michigan. At least one incumbent Democrat lost a House primary, one Republican who ran on her incumbent husband's name lost by a wide margin to two other candidates, and at least three outgoing state reps lost primaries in local races.

Look out Mr. Levin...there is a mood for change in the wind.

Change? You want change? Well, you might just get it, Mr. Levin

Last night may have been a bit of a foreshadowing of change to come. There seems to be a bit of an anti-incumbency mood out there in Michigan. At least one incumbent Democrat lost a House primary, one Republican who ran on her incumbent husband's name lost by a wide margin to two other candidates, and at least three outgoing state reps lost primaries in local races.

Look out Mr. Levin...there is a mood for change in the wind.

Levin's Big Government Solution to the Energy Crisis

Carl Levin announced yesterday at the Obama rally that he and his friends have figured out how to resolve the oil crisis: raise taxes $150 billion. He conceded that $150 billion over 10 years is no small number but said the country needs an "Apollo-like investment." Look out taxpayers, you know what the word investment means to Carl Levin? TAX increases! This proves once again that Levin sees big government as the solution to every ill. He's been doing it for 30 years, why stop now? It is time for a Senator who will NOT raise taxes, but cut government instead.

Levin's Big Government Solution to the Energy Crisis

Carl Levin announced yesterday at the Obama rally that he and his friends have figured out how to resolve the oil crisis: raise taxes $150 billion. He conceded that $150 billion over 10 years is no small number but said the country needs an "Apollo-like investment." Look out taxpayers, you know what the word investment means to Carl Levin? TAX increases! This proves once again that Levin sees big government as the solution to every ill. He's been doing it for 30 years, why stop now? It is time for a Senator who will NOT raise taxes, but cut government instead.

Is Carl Levin a Demagogue on Domestic Oil Production?

dem·a·gogue \ˈde-mə-ˌgäg \ noun.  A leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.
 
As the issue of whether or not to drill for domestic oil has been debated in Congress, I have done a little research on where Carl Levin has historically stood on the issue. His rhetoric is consistent; he does not want us to explore for or produce oil from domestic sources. Here is a summary of things he himself has said in the recent past about the issue:

• High Oil prices are due to the "failed policies of George Bush" and speculators.

His four-point plan to solve the probem of high prices and short supply:

1. We need more "cops on the beat" to police speculation (read MORE regulation)


2. We need to stop filling the strategic oil reserve


3. We need to develop alternative energy sources like wind and solar


4. We need to impose a windfall profits tax on the (evil) oil companies

Carl Levin "hailed the Senate vote to oppose drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge." He says that producing in ANWR would not create thousands of jobs, that ANWR contains less than six months supply of oil, that we should not "alter our pristine wilderness" (ANWR), and we should develop corn and soybeans for cleaner fuel. His latest salvo is that the oil companies already have millions of acres in the gulf under lease where they are not drilling and until they do, he will not vote for expansion of drilling off shore.
 
Much of Mr. Levin's rhetoric carries an undercurrent of suspicion that "Big Oil" and corporations are bad, that they are only interested in profit, and that they are dishonestly ripping off the public and lining the pockets of their executives and shareholders.

A Little Truthful Perspective, Please

There is no question that many corporations are corrupt. Certainly, some large businesses have lost their perspective on the importance of providing good jobs at a fair wage and sharing the profits with their employees. But companies like this are the exception rather than the rule. What irritates me is that Mr. Levin doesn't ever seem to suggest that government can be corrupt, also...not to mention wasteful, inefficient, bloated, fraudulent and woefully mismanaged.
 
Let's debunk some of Mr. Levin's assertions about why we have high oil prices:

• "Failed Bush policy on energy." Did you know that the Bush Administration put out a very comprehensive energy plan back in 2001? It included policies regarding helping the poor get insulation and heating assistance, conservation, alternative energy, protection of the environment, energy independence, improved delivery, and strengthening energy security and international relationships. That is not a failed policy.


• "Speculation on the market."  Speculation is nothing more than a willing buyer and a willing seller on the future price of a commodity. Thanks to speculation on the oil market by the airline industry, they are paying less for fuel than they otherwise would have. Speculation is not bad for the market, in fact it is healthy and has been going on for a long time. The Heritage Foundation has put out a very good essay on the positives of "speculation." Bottom line, it is not a major (let alone minor) cause of high oil prices.


• "We need to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve." While this may have been a small factor in the past, today it has very little to do with the price of oil. A little reading from the Department of Energy website and the SPR data page shows that there is a strategic need for a reserve and that the reserve is almost full. The rate it is being filled at now is about 2 million barrels per month; according to the latest Energy Information Agency data, we are using about 600 million barrels per month. One-third of one percent is being banked, not exactly enough to cause a steep rise in prices.


• "We need to develop alternative supplies." OK, I will go along with that one, but better to provide incentives and free market solutions than mandates, more taxes and regulation to force it to happen.


• "Place a windfall profits tax" on (evil) big oil. This is probably the worst solution of all. We tried this in the 1970's; it did not work. Read a little history about this bad idea. Here is an additional story that debunks the rhetoric about rasing taxes on oil companies.  

With regard to the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the rhetoric is totally out of control. The size of the parcel where the exploration would be done is infinitesimally small and is located in the middle of a flat frozen tundra. Furthermore, the advances that have been made in exploration and extraction have made despoiling of the environment virtually non-existent. Read more here. While this web site is put out by proponents of drilling in ANWR, the information is factual and helpful.
In summary, high oil prices are caused by tight supply and growing demand, mostly from China and India. Domestic oil exploration and production is essential to national security and the future stability of oil prices. Senator Levin will not acknowledge any of these facts but instead blames Bush, big oil and the commodities market. He would prefer rather than develop domestic production, we continue to depend on foreign sources for oil and send hundreds of BILLIONS to foreign countries. He sounds like a demagogue to me.

My Solemn Pledge

My promise to you is that as your U.S. Senator, I will make decisions and vote based on sound science and what is best for the country. In the case of energy independence, I will support the United States using its own sources first while encouraging free market solutions to alternative energy needs. We can drill safely for oil and natural gas right here, right now. In the long run it will lead to lower prices, market stability, and energy security.