Jack Hoogendyk, (R) and Carl Levin, (D) faced off in the first of two debates at Grand Valley State University October 18. An hour was spent with questions from three panelists to help Michigan voters determine who would be best suited to represent our will in Washington.
The first question to Levin, if the citizens were asked are we better off now in the six years, like would say no, does that mean you are part of the problem?
Carl Levin’s Reply was predictable, “Bush administration.” then expanded on how he would help by helping manufacturing.. huh?
Jack Hoogendyk suggested Levin was playing the “blame Game,” and remind us that Levin has been here all the time as these problems truly began, through multiple Presidential and Michigan administrations. Its time for change.
Iraqi situation as relates to its ability to prosecute US soldiers there if they violate the law.
Jack Hoogendyk Surge is working need to do something for the autonomy of Iraq. Support Iraq’s ability to be autonomous and if someone violates their law they should be able to pursue criminal proceedings if appropriate. – Um Jack.. certainly should be conditional IMO , but given the time restraints of the debate, perhaps you couldn’t flesh it out?
Carl Levin Because of the dysfunctional conditions of the Iraqi courts under no circumstance should the soldiers face the courts. – I tend to go to this side of it, but Levin took the opportunity to expand on the talking points of how we need to get out and start sending the bill to the Iraqis.
Question to Carl Levin, you are 74, and you have served 6 terms why another?
Carl Levin “We have an obligation to our children and Grand Children, to leave this a better place” and then went on a bash the current administration rant, even mentioning manufacturing Jobs. (oh umm Carl? I know where they went.. and why.. but hey please go on) Asleep at the wheel administration, and then Bragged about earmarks to help Michigan towards energy technologies that he got. He defended earmarks then, because he KNEW he was going to get it from Jack.
Jack Hoogendyk who was asked it in a little different way: “Why should Michigan ‘sacrifice’ the seniority of Levin?” responded with “what has this senator done for us in the last 30 years?” And pointed out the imbalance in earmarks that this “senior senator” has gotten for us. “His rhetoric says he wants to lower the taxes on the middle class, but his voting record shows he has voted to increase taxes on small businesses, gasoline, airline fuel, family farms title transfers, married couples, families with children peoples estates when they die, capital gains, he scored an F with the National Taxpayers Union, and he wants to see the tax relief from earlier this decade canceled, which will mean 48 million coupleswill pay $3000 a year more on average.” He continues: 12 Million single women with a dependent will pay more than a $1000 a year more in taxes. 18 million Seniors will pay $2180 more per year and families of four earning $40000 will pay $2300 more in taxes. “
How do we strengthen the Auto Industry?
Jack Hoogendyk “lower the corporate tax rate, it would especially help a state like Michigan.” He also brought up Unions and labor relationships: “30 years ago when Levin was first elected, 45% of all the cars in the united states were made in Michigan, today its like 13-14 percent” and reminded us that “right to work” states are where the new plants in the US are building cars now. He brought up Levin’s support of “card check” but didn’t have time to elaborate, other than to say it would result in the loss of MORE Jobs. Jack mentioned how the government TAKES from the automakers in many ways and if they would “lay off” they wouldn’t need the loan of 25 Billion”
Carl Levin chastised Jack because he didn’t support the loan to the automakers, then suggested that the bill which recently pass congress (the crap sandwich bailout) contained help for those folks who Jack said Carl wants to tax. Then bashed the Bush tax breaks, and wants to go back to the Clinton tax rates. Says manufacturers have a GOOD relationship with the unions.
What would you do to address immigration?
Carl Levin says need to address “comprehensively” need to enforce but need to deal with reality of 12 million people and have a path to citizenship.
Jack Hoogendyk I would agree but illegals need to have incentives to come here illegally removed. And pointed out Levin’s failure in half a dozen areas which create more problems: Sanctuary Cities, supported an amendment to ASK PERMISSION from MEXICO to finish building the border fence, opposes photo IDs for voters, health care for illegals on taxpayer dime, “his record doesn’t always match his rhetoric.”
Both candidates were asked how they ranked Party, State, and Federal interests.
Jack Hoogendyk deferred to his “core principles” in guiding his decisions. The decisions that would be right for both state and federal decisions would serve us well. He also said that what seemed to be party interests weren’t always right, and referred to himself as a “maverick.” That actually brought a chuckle here, (my own) but is quite true. Jack has certainly gone against the grain and voted conscience first in the 6 years he has been State rep.
Carl Levin said both state and federal were equally first. He suggested that party needs are last. But one must consider the hive mind which he is a part of forgets that he was once upon a time a staunch Hillary supporter, and party is first. “We are [Democrats] Borg, we shall assimilate you, resistance is futile.” Funny, the [Democrat] “Borg” in this case have their own QUEEN as well, Jon Stryker for Michigan, (sorry couldn’t help but make the connection) George Soros for the national scene. He did say to some extent he votes according to the public opinion polls (how I heard it.. please correct me if I am wrong)
PART II continued tomorrow…..