Jack Hoogendyk debates Carl Levin

For those Michiganders looking for Hope and Change . . .

watch Jack Hoogendyk crush Carl Levin in the debate 7PM Eastern on Sunday night.

Streaming video here . . .  www.wgvu.org

Levin vs Hoogendyk

A letter from Jack Hoogendyk.  Call your Michiganders and tell them to watch.

Is Carl Levin Ready for Prime Time?

Below, is the press release that went out last week about the debates that will take place between me and Senator Carl Levin. I want to thank all of you who pressured his campaign and the media to make this happen. It has been a long time since Senator Levin has debated his opponent on live television before a statewide audience.

Please help us spread the word! Tell all your friends to be watching their local PBS affiliate at 7:00 p.m., Sunday, October 19th. In fact, you may want to call the PBS affiliate to make usre they carry the debate.

I would not want to pass up this opportunity to ask you to consider a contribution to the campaign. If everyone reading this sent in as little as $10, we could do so much more; purchase more yard signs, buy more media. We have a real uphill battle, but things are looking better everyday. If you can make a contribution, $10, $25, $50, please do so here.

Thanks, again for your help in getting these important debates. And, thank you for your support and prayers. God bless.

Hoogendyk for US Senate FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Danae Brack Campaign Manager 517-444-1181

Hoogendyk and Levin to Face Off in Two Debates US Senate Candidates Will Meet in Detroit and Grand Rapids Michigan – October 2, 2008 – US Senate candidates Jack Hoogendyk and Carl Levin have agreed to participate in at least two debates this election season. The first, scheduled for October 19th, will be hosted by WGVU and Grand Valley State University. All seven of Michigan’s public television stations have agreed to broadcast the debate live at 7 pm. The second debate will be the following day, October 20th, at the Detroit Economic Club. “The unusual thing about these debates is that no negotiations were involved whatsoever — at least, not that our campaign knew about,” said Hoogendyk. “Senator Levin’s office sent a letter on September 2nd offering to open up negotiations regarding potential debates, but since that time no one from my campaign has been able to begin to negotiate or even to make contact with the Levin campaign. Phone calls, letters, and e-mails received little or no response. Finally we were contacted by the debate hosts to inform us that Senator Levin had agreed to the debates. “However, I am glad that Senator Levin recognizes the value of making himself available to answer the voters’ questions and make known his positions on the issues. I look forward to the opportunity to tell the voters why reform is needed in the US Senate, and how I plan to bring that about.”

A letter from Senator Carl Levin

About 5-6 weeks ago, I wrote to Senator Carl Levin about the current energy supply issue. Here is his reply.

Dear Mr. Salvador:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the price of gasoline. Record high gas and diesel prices have reverberated throughout our economy, hitting the pocketbooks of all Americans and inflating the price of everything from food to manufactured goods. Action is clearly needed to combat these skyrocketing energy prices, which are a threat to our economic and national security.

During the past few years, both as Chairman and as Ranking Member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), I have led a number of investigations examining U.S. energy markets and rapidly rising oil and gasoline prices. As a result of these investigations, I have been advocating a number of measures to address the rampant speculation and lack of regulation of energy markets, which have greatly contributed to the recent run-up in fuel prices. Four specific policies should be immediately adopted to combat the absurd prices Americans are paying at the pump. These policies are contained in the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 (S.3044), which was introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) on May 20, 2008. I am an original cosponsor of this important legislation.

First, we need to put a cop back on the beat in all energy markets that affect the U.S. to prevent the excessive speculation and price manipulation that drives up the price of a barrel of oil. The trading of contracts for the future delivery of oil and gas has increased six-fold since 2001. Much of this increase can be attributed to speculators, who buy and sell futures contracts for crude oil and leverage them just to make a profit, creating an artificial “paper demand” that does not accurately reflect actual market conditions. While the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the main federal regulator charged with policing U.S. energy commodity markets, has the authority to regulate certain commodity markets, until recently it could not police some of the biggest energy markets due to the “Enron loophole,” a provision in law that exempted electronic energy exchanges from government oversight. In September 2007, I introduced legislation ( S.2058 ) to close the Enron loophole and regulate electronic energy markets. I was able to successfully work with my colleagues to insert language from S.2058 into the Farm Bill, which was enacted into law when the Senate voted to override President Bush’s veto. Since the House of Representatives had previously voted to override the veto, it became law.

In addition, I have worked with my colleagues on additional legislation to close the “London loophole,” which has allowed traders of crude oil in the United States to route their crude oil trades overseas to avoid the limits on the trading of crude oil that apply to trades made on U.S. energy exchanges. I introduced the Close the London Loophole Act (S. 3129 ) and have co-sponsored Senator Durbin’s bill, S. 3130, which contains the same provision and other measures to bolster the CFTC’s ability to police the energy markets.

Another policy I have long advocated to help alleviate some of the upward pressure on oil prices is the suspension of the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ( SPR ). In 2003, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report showing that the Bush Administration’s policy of placing large deposits of oil into the SPR was increasing prices, but not overall U.S. energy security. For the past few years, over repeated objections from its own experts at the Department of Energy (DOE), the Administration continued to fill the SPR regardless of the price of oil or market conditions. Given the fact that the SPR is more than 95 percent full, it makes little sense to fill the SPR when the price of a barrel of oil is hitting record highs on a daily basis. That is why I co-sponsored a bill ( S.2598 ) to suspend the SPR fill for one year, or until prices fall to more acceptable levels, whichever comes first. In addition, during debate on the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act (H.R.3121), I supported an amendment similar to S.2598 that was passed by the Senate by a vote of 97 to 1. Similar legislation was passed by the House of Representatives and the provision became law, thus stopping the Bush Administration from continuing to put expensive oil into the SPR. I am glad that Congress finally passed this legislation, which will save taxpayer money and relieve some of the pressure on the oil markets that has been driving prices relentlessly higher.

While closing the Enron loophole and stopping the filling of the SPR may help lower energy prices in the near-term, we need to develop a long-term, comprehensive energy plan to decrease our reliance on oil. By investing in new technologies and alternative energy sources, we will significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I have long been a supporter of advanced automotive technologies such as hybrid electric, advanced batteries, hydrogen and fuel cells, and have promoted development of these technologies through federal research and development and through joint government-industry partnerships. The federal government must first do its part to develop these technologies so that they will then be within reach of the American consumer.

Finally, while the American consumer is increasingly burdened by record prices at the pump, major oil companies have been reporting record-breaking profits. Instead of utilizing these windfall profits to develop new technologies or boost production, these companies have been buying back shares to inflate their earnings and reap further profits. I have supported windfall profits taxes in the past, and I will continue to support them in order to encourage the sensible use of oil company resources. If such a measure were tailored correctly, it would encourage oil and gas companies to dedicate more of their profits for exploration, expansion of production capacity, and investment in advanced technologies to secure our nation’s energy future.

These common sense policies could do a great deal to lower energy prices and alleviate some of the pressure the average American is feeling in this difficult economy. On June 4, 2008, the Consumer-First Energy Act was brought before the full Senate for debate. Unfortunately, the minority party filibustered this bill, and on June 10, 2008, the Senate fell short of the sixty votes necessary to limit debate, which effectively blocked further action on this legislation.

Recently, there have been calls to develop more of our domestic oil and gas resources to counter the dramatic rise in gas prices. While drilling for more domestic resources would do little to impact oil and gas prices in the near term, I have supported environmentally responsible efforts to increase the domestic production of oil and gas and to allow for exploration in an environmentally sound fashion. For instance, in December 2006, I supported passage of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act (H.R.6111, P.L.109-432), which included, among other things, a provision to open certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing and to prohibit oil and gas leasing in any area less than 125 miles from the Florida coastline.

However, I do not support efforts to drill in environmentally sensitive areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I believe opening these areas to drilling is the wrong way to address our energy problems. The oil reserves in ANWR are too small either to ensure the United States’ energy independence or to have a significant impact on energy prices. Furthermore, drilling in ANWR and other sensitive areas could have devastating and permanent effects on fragile ecosystems. I will continue to oppose drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin

First, I’m grateful for Carl Levin, or his office, for taking the time to reply. My thoughts on some of his topics.

1. “Enron” oversight. Now, I’m not naive enough to think that corporations are angelic. But, since Enron, my company’s leadership has been anal about training and compliance with laws regarding accuracy in reporting inventory, insider trading, conflict of interest. These CEO’s do not want to go to jail and they will do what they can to comply with the law. NOTE: I USED THE WORD COMPLY. If the law doesn’t work, CONGRESS should change it for all corporations not just the oil companies.
2. Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 (S.3044): How do you lower consumer cost by increasing the corporate tax burden?????? I don’t think I will ever understand that. Read the FairTax book. Want the government to lower gas prices? Encourage investment in research to find alternate energy sources or more efficient engines by giving TAX BREAKS.
3. Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 (S.3044): Stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserves – are you kidding? Do you think the Chinese Army gives a rat’s patuti about what you are paying for gas? There’s a reason it’s called STRATEGIC. It is there to protect us.
4. IT IS TIME TO DRILL FOR OIL in ANWR AND OFF THE AMERICAN COAST. The Chemical Industry has reduced emissions by 73% since the 1980’s. My personal experience is that chemical and petroleum companies invest billions of dollars each year to improve environmental performance of existing plants and to implement the best technology available on new plants.

I’m no great fan of John McCain, but, his $300 Million prize proposal is a way to stimulate ingenuity. Could he pull it off? I don’t know. But, I do know that prohibitive environmental laws and taxes will not stimulate investment and research.

Like my old boss used to say, “LET’S JUST DO SOMETHING!”

A letter from Jack Hoogendyk

Today, I received a letter from Jack Hoogendyk. I’ve pulled out 1 paragraph that I think is important.

Thank you again for your faith in our campaign and the principles on which it stands: less government, lower taxes, individual responsibility, a strong national defense, and the preservation of the values that made this country the greatest nation on earth.

He received over 30,000 signatures from all 83 Michigan counties – a strong showing. He has a 75% name recognition compared to 95% for Sen Levin.  He has a legitimate chance to defeat Carl Levin.

Here’s part of Carl Levin’s glorious record (taken from ontheissues.org):

• Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
• Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
• Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
• Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
• Rated 78% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
• Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
• Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
• Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
• Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
• Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Jack Hoogendyk needs your help to win this election. Visit Jack for Michigan to donate.

Jack Hoogendyk Jr (R)

Raised:	$36,910
Spent:	$21,583
Cash on Hand:	$15,326
Last Report:	Mar 31 2008 12:00AM

Carl Levin’s Fund Raising

Raised:	$6,041,985
Spent:	$2,864,021
Cash on Hand:	$4,170,210
Last Report:	Mar 31 2008 12:00AM

Jack Hoogendyk officially running for Senator

In case you’ve been waiting for me to tell you, Jack Hoogendyk has turned in 30000 signatures to get on the ballot (2x what was required).

Last week I sent a letter to Senator Levin asking when he would sponsor a bill that would encourage domestic oil exploration, in addition to investing in alternative energy research. It might surprise you that he has not responded.

It is time for someone like Hoogendyk to represent Michigan.

I’ve donated to his campaign. If you are ready for a change in Michigan leadership, you should too.

You can do it here: Jack Hoogendyk for Michigan.

Hoogendyk vs Levin for US Senate

I like Senator Levin so much, I’d like him to start spending more time in Michigan.

Let’s send Jack Hoogendyk to Washington.  Here are some reasons.

If you want to research Hoogendyk, this is his most informative website.  I think anyone from Texas (township) deserves a good look.

If you really want to research Levin go here.