Dump Mike Ferguson (NJ7)

Did you attend either of Congressman Mike Ferguson's town meetings this weekend at the Bernardsville Library or at the Flemington Municipal Hall? If so, please write your notes in the comment section below. If you wrote down any quotes, or if he said anything off-center (like that he would never let his class act like this when he was "teaching" political science) please post it on the Dump Mike blog as well.

I'm trying to get a historical record of these meetings.

Also, if you intend to go to the Bush/Ferguson rally on Friday please be sure to take some photos and take notes for this site, as well. We need a reporter or reporters to help accurately depict the event.

Please also consider joining our research team. We have a lot of information to go through and we need researchers, letter writers and other activists to make this project a success. Just reply to this message if you are interested in helping out with either reporting on Friday or working on the project.

Posted by admin at 07:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

I attended a town hall meeting hosted by Mike Ferguson in Bernardsville, NJ this morning and came away not too impressed. Given that I am writing on a site called DumpMike.com this is really not surprising. Still I was amazed at the outright misinformation that Mike peddled, and the fact that he apparently believed it either through ignorance or incompetence. Here's some of my notes and pics, with more to come.

Mike Calls for Bipartisanship, Then Insults Democratic Colleagues

In the traditional bipartisanship two-step, Mike had a placard that said, "Partisan Bickering Will Not Strengthen Social Security" but slapped his Democratic colleagues around. The first bullet reads, "Social Security's financial challenges require a thoughtful, bipartisan solution."

He's right. So it's a wonder that he went on the attack on more than one occasion against his Democratic Colleagues.

In response to a question, Mike said, "What is the Democrat's solution for Social Security? Zip." Realizing this might not have been the best answer, he continued after a beat, "The only people who are talking about solving the problems of social security are Republicans. They (Democrats) seem to be saying there is no problem with Social Security and if we leave it alone it will get better."

That's not really bipartisanship, but if it were true I guess you could say it was honest. Unfortunately for Mike, it is not true.

Congressman Frank Pallone is a Democrat who serves NJ's 6th Congressional District which borders Mike Ferguson's 7th District. Frank Pallone called for the President to form a bipartisan commission on Social Security like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did in 1983.

Congressman Rush Holt is a Democrat who serves NJ's 12th Congressional District which border's Mike Ferguson's 7th District. Rush Holt says that we need "to take Social Security in for a tune up, not haul it to the junk yard." His PowerPoint presentation ends with this line: "To assure full benefits 50 years from now, bipartisan adjustments are the right solution."

Since both Democratic Congressman Pallone and Congressman Holt have called for action to ensure Social Security solvency, it would appear that either Mr. Ferguson is not talking to his colleagues across the aisle (or down the street) or is engaging in partisan politics. Either way, this doesn't help out with crafting a "bipartisan solution."

Furthermore, Ferguson exacerbated his attack on Democrats with this clever line:

The only Democrats who seem to be willing to do something about Social Security are either out of office or dead like Senator Moynihan."

If this is Mr. Ferguson's idea of reaching across the aisle, he has a lot of learning to do.

Mike Doesn't Know the Scope of the Problem

In response to a question about why borrowing $1 or $2 trillion to implement private accounts, Mike responded that this amount was just a drop in the bucket compared to the "$75 trillion of debt Social Security will have by the end of the century." This is, of course, patently untrue.

When an attendee (who I was later told was an economics professor at Rutgers University) at the town meeting spoke up to say that $3 trillion was the correct number Mike responded, "Three trillion dollars by seventy five years is not what I have. The statistics I have are different."

Earlier in the evening Mike said that all his numbers come from the Social Security administration, but he must have been confused since this is what the Social Security administration has to say about the 75 year "unfunded mandate":

Social Security's Chief Actuary projects that in present-value dollars the total net Social Security cash flow for years 2004 through 2078 is projected to be nearly -$5.2 trillion. When the trust fund balances of $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004 are added to this value, we get a financial shortfall (or unfunded obligation) for the 75-year period of $3.7 trillion.

Mike also got the entire $75 trillion number wrong, as well, and should have read the House and Senate Republican Conferences' talking points on Social Security [pdf] to see that even they say the 75 year "unfunded mandate" is just $10 trillion. That's wrong, too, but at least it is closer to the truth.

If he is going to be off by almost a trillion dollars a year in his estimates, you have to wonder if Mike really understands the scope of the problem or the efficacy of the various solutions to make up the difference. How can he possibly judge the different proposals when he thinks the problem is 20 times worse than it is?

Mike Uses Misleading Lifespan Data To Suggest Social Security Is In More Trouble Than It Is

In this picture you can see Mike trying to take a bit of 100 percent accurate data and produce 100 percent misleading conclusions to make it look like Social Security is in more trouble than it really is.

As you can see (click for a bigger picture), Mike is pointing to a chart with the following bullets:

• In the 1930s, when Social Security was created, life expectancy was 60 years.
• Today, it's 77 years.
• That means seniors are living longer.
• And their retirement nest eggs must last longer, too.

Again, since Mike said all his data came from the Social Security Administration we'll go to their Trustees Report, Table V.A3-Period Life Expectancies which charts life expectancies from 1940 to now. This table has two types of life expectancy, from birth and from the traditional age for retirees, 65. Essentially, these are the average number of years someone born can expect to live, and the average number of years someone who successfully gets to 65 can expect to live.

In 1940, the average lifespan for males from birth was 61.4 years, and for women it was 65.7 years. Today, the averages are 74.7 for men and 79.6 for women. Now, that seems a pretty dramatic increase except that this number means absolutely nothing to the Social Security administration when they try to figure out how long someone will receive benefits.

Why? Because when you calculate from birth that means that infant mortality and childhood diseases move the average significantly down. If you have four people and one dies at birth and the other three live to 100, the average lifespan for this group is 75.25 years. Yet Social Security would still have to pay each of the three who lived to 100 benefits for 35 years.

If four people lived just 75.25 years and they had retired at 65, then the combined payouts would have lasted just 41 years. However, given that one died at birth and the others lived to 100 then the combined payouts would last for 105 years. Using total lifespan numbers is totally useless when trying to figure out how much Social Security will have to pay out.

The change from around 60 to around 77 year life expectancies is a function of lower infant mortality, greater workplace safety and dramatically improved health care in this country for those under 65, but has little to do with Social Security benefits.

Taking the numbers from the age of 65, a man turning 65 in 1940 would have lived an additional 11.9 years and a woman an additional 13.4. Today those numbers are 16.1 and 19.0 respectively. This means that men would receive Social Security about four more years now than then, and women about four and a half years more.

While Americans on average are living longer than in the 1930s, seniors are adding just four years or so. While this is significant, it is just one quarter of the 17 year difference Mike put on his chart.

It is the number of years someone lives after they reach retirement that matters, but Mike uses the average lifespan from birth in an effort to make the problem look worse than it is. The 2004 Social Security Trustees Report is very clear on this.

Mike Ferguson Confused About the Facts At Hand

One of the odder moments was when Mike was trying to make the case that there will be fewer workers per retiree in the future. This is absolutely true, but Mike said on at least two occasions that the workforce was shrinking. One time he said, "There are fewer people in the workforce than we had 20 years ago."

This is just not true, and anyone who pays attention to labor issues and unemployment rates knows it. I said, politely because I knew that Mike's staffers had stumbled onto this site and I did not want to cause a scene, "Congressman, twice you've said the workforce is shrinking. It's not."

"I'm getting my numbers from the Social Security Administration, all my data is from the Social Security Administration," he responded.

"But its not right. The workforce is growing," I said. He moved on, and I sat down. [During the question and answer period he refused to call on me, which was kind of weak. Some folks got multiple bites at the apple and I sat in the back with my hand raised waiting to be called on.]

I don't know what the Social Security Administration has to say about workforce levels in the United States, but I did go to the horses' mouth and checked with the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics to see the workforce levels.

• In January 1985, there were 114,876,000 people in the United States labor force.
• In January 1995, there were 132,038,000.
• In January 2005, there were 147,979,000.

That's an extra 43 million people in the workforce, which isn't shrinking any way you look at it.

The only way to figure this is Mike got confused, thinking that a lower ratio of workers to retirees would necessarily mean a lower number of retirees, which is just not the case. The reason why the ratio is changing is not fewer workers, but more retirees. Mike should know that.

Ask Mike If He Was Wrong About These Issues

I'm happy to make corrections to anything in this post today if I was wrong. The Ferguson staff had a young woman making a video tape of the entire event, so if I misquoted Mike or was confused about what he said all they have to do is show me the video and I will do a mea culpa here.

But Mike should also do the same. He passed out some flatly untrue information today whether by error or calculation, and that information should be corrected. Write to Mike and ask him if he will stop making these claims and using this false information. Call his office at (908) 757-7835 or write to him from his Congressional Website.

When you are done, leave the answer in the comments for or write to dumpmike@gmail.com.

Posted by admin at 04:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A few days ago we noted that Mike Ferguson's Congressional website lists only the Republican-led counties he represents -- Somerset and Hunterdon -- but not the Democratic led counties -- Union and Middlesex.

Today Mike has a couple "town meetings" on issues facing the people of the 7th District, and in what can only be considered expected behavior is holding them in Somerset and Hunterdon.

Is Congressman Ferguson afraid of Democrats?

Posted by admin at 06:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From NJ Citizen Action:

It looks like Ferguson's office staff deserves to be complimented for playing dumb over the phone all week long only to announce a town hall meeting with 24 hours notice. Ferguson's office has just announced that SATURDAY'S MEETINGS ARE ON for Saturday and we are moving quickly to try to get some turnout for this event. We are calling on all available people to come out to at least one of these meetings tomorrow to tell Ferguson to Keep the Promise of Social Security. Ferguson's staff held off on announcing the meeting until the last minute to minimize turnout from the opposition- Don't let him get away with it! Here are the details for both meetings: 10 a.m. at the Bernardsville Public Library on 1 Anderson Hill Road in Bernardsville.

1 p.m. at the Flemington Borough Hall on 38 Park Ave. in Flemington.

If you plan to attend or have any questions, please respond to this email or call Mike Olender at 723-246-4772 x13.

Thanks and we'll see you on Saturday!

Posted by admin at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mike Ferguson claims to represent the interests of everyone in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District, but has proven himself to be a partisan of the highest order. His voting record is nearly 100 percent in line with the Bush administration, and he has gotten involved in supporting Republicans in municipal campaigns in towns like Bound Brook in Somerset County.

But maybe the weirdest thing is that on Ferguson's Congressional web site, the one that is supposed to be non-partisan, he links to only two of the official web sites for counties he represents: Somerset and Hunterdon. I put screen shots of the website with the "Choose a Destination" drop down called out below, but you can check it out yourself.

Why would he select these two counties and leave out links to Union or Middlesex Counties?

My guess is that Ferguson selected these links because the Freeholders in Somerset and Hunterdon are all Republicans like Mike Ferguson, and the Freeholders in Union and Middlesex are all Democrats. After all, why would a highly partisan right wing Republican want to promote counties run by the opposition party?

But that web site is paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, and is their property. It is not to be used for partisan political purposes, and Mike should be told to link to all the counties he represents or none.

Remember, when Mike Ferguson first ran in the 7th District he was found guilty by the Federal Election Commission of using half a million dollars in illegal funds and paid more than $200,000 in fines, and now there is another FEC case against a group for illegally funneling campaign supprot to Mike during that campaign. There is a long history of misuse of funds here.

Why is Mike using a web site paid for with our tax dollars for partisan purposes? Ask him yourself: Call his office at (908) 757-7835 or write to him from his Congressional Website.

When you are done, leave the answer in the comments for or write to dumpmike@gmail.com.

Posted by admin at 03:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

UPDATE: Congressman Ferguson is NOT holding town hall meetings on Social Security this weekend. Congressman Frelinghuysen is holding them at:

10 am
Morris Township Town Hall
50 Woodland Avenue
Convent Station, NJ

1 pm
Rockaway Township Town Hall
65 Mt. Hope Road
Rockaway, NJ
___________________________________________
Mike Ferguson is going to have two town hall meetings on Social Security in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District on February 26, 2005 at 10 am and 1 pm. The location is yet to be determined.

To see what the Congressman has said about Social Security, check out this letter he sent me earlier this month.

Posted by admin at 02:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Not only would Michael Ferguson vote to deny states the right to determine whether gays have the right to get married, but he is a cosponsor of the bill to get it done.

Here's the full text of the Federal Marriage Act which would amend the United States Constitution:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Posted by admin at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mike Ferguson supports the "Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005," apparently thinking that giving the FCC additional powers to control what is broadcast over the airwaves will protect his children from seeing bad things.

We'll leave aside the question of what Mike considers bad things.

But has Mike ever heard of cable TV, on which there are scores to hundreds of additional channels that the FEC has no control over? Channels like HBO that show Sex in the City and The Sopranos, shows which I would never let my daughter watch? Or MTV which has the beachhouse shows that are little more than titilation fests?

This bill is simply an effort to limit the first amendment rights of Americans while doing little or nothing to protect children from viewing things they should not see.

Here's Ferguson's comments on the bill:

As a father of four young children, I am glad to see that the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act has once again come to the House floor and it is on its way to passage and signature by President Bush. While I ultimately believe that it is parents' responsibility to closely monitor what their children watch on television, it is difficult even for conscientious parents when programs that feature explicit language or other subject matter are shown during times when children are commonly watching television.

Often, parents are in the position of having to be reactive, hoping that children will not fall victim to offensive images and words on their TVs. Congress must act to ensure that the FCC has the tools that it needs to prevent offensive images in our living rooms, and I believe we have done so with this bill and this legislation.

It has been fueled by bipartisan desire to ensure that broadcasters take responsibility for what is transmitted over their airwaves. It is timely and it is completely appropriate considering what the American public and our families have witnessed recently over our airwaves. We have seen the public airwaves turned into a race to the bottom. Who can be more offensive? Who can be more vulgar? Who can push the envelope a little further than the next guy? Who can do whatever they can to create a stir and to draw increased ratings by creating a buzz in our society?

Do we not have something better to offer to American families and American children? It is difficult to argue that our society and our culture has not become more coarsened over the course of the last few decades. Let us try to stop the coarsening of our culture. Let us try to offer our families and our children something better, something more healthy, something more wholesome.

Can we not do better? I think we can. And I think it can begin by passing this legislation.

Why is Mike trying to limit free speech without achieving the protection of our children? Ask him yourself: Call his office at (908) 757-7835 or write to him from his Congressional Website.

When you are done, leave the answer in the comments for or write to dumpmike@gmail.com.

Posted by admin at 07:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to Politifax, a federal judge has ordered the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to reopen a case regarding assistance that the conservative "Council for Responsible Government" gave Mike Ferguson in his 2000 primary. Tom Kean, now a state Senator, brought the complaint in June 2000 and then went to court to get the FEC to reconsider its decision not to hear the case.

Here is a brief of the complaint from the FEC website:

KEAN FOR CONGRESS v. FEC On September 18, 2001, the Kean for Congress Committee (the Committee) asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to find that the Commission's failure to act on the Committee's administrative complaint was contrary to law.

The Committee's administrative complaint, filed on June 1, 2000, alleged that the Council for Responsible Government (CRG), a Virginia corporation, had secretly funded campaign mailings in an attempt to influence the New Jersey Congressional Seventh District Republican primary. The Committee contended that the campaign mailings violated the Federal Election Campaign Act's prohibition on corporate contributions and also lacked the disclaimer required on public communications. 2 U.S.C. §§ 441b and 441d. The Committee also asked the Commission for injunctive relief to prevent the CRG from continuing to engage in the alleged prohibited activity.

Should this be found a campaign finance violation it would mean that Mike Ferguson won the hotly contested 2000 Republican primary for Congress with illegal help just as he won the 2000 general election for Congress with illegal help from his parents to the tune of more than a half million dollars.

This raises the question of whether Ferguson would be in Congress today if there hadn't been so much illegal support of his campaign. Ferguson won the primary with just 44 percent of the vote in a three way race, with his entire margin over Tom Kean, Jr. coming from Somerset and Middlesex Counties even though he had the party line in all four counties. He just barely beat Democrat Maryanne Connolly with fifty one percent of the vote in the general election.

And now it appears he won both the primary and the general elections with illegal financing. Would he have won both or either without illegal contributions? We'll never know, but we do know that with the illegal money and support he gained the power of incumbency and a much more Republican-oriented district after the 2000 redistricting [pdf].

Posted by admin at 07:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mike Ferguson seems to think he's in Washington not to represent the people of central Jersey, but to represent Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, the right-wing House Majority Leader who tried to use the Department of Homeland Security to track down his political opponents.

Rep. Ferguson says he supports concepts like "accountability" and "personal responsibility." Ferguson was one of five New Jersey Republicans in Congress who voted to exempt DeLay from a rule that requires a Congressional leader to resign his post when under indictment by a state grand jury.

The Republicans adopted this rule in 1993, claiming they wanted higher standards in Congress. But now that DeLay faces indictment on charges of felony money laundering, the Republicans abandoned their own rule. And they did it by secret vote.

But the cat is out of the bag. Mike Ferguson doesn't want you to know that he voted for the tailor-made rule change, allowing Tom DeLay to keep his post while under incictment.

By sheer coincidence, Ferguson received $42,403 from DeLay's PAC, making him the largest recipient of DeLay's PAC money.

Posted by admin at 11:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Among politicians, only President George Bush has received more money from the pharmaceutical industry than Mike Ferguson, member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Health.

A new plan by the Bush administration to test the nation's public school population for mental disorders and treat them with controversial drugs has raised an alarm among some medical science watchdogs and members of the mental health community, according to the June 27, 2004, New Standard.

Bush wants to launch a mental health and disability initiative that recommends the screening and treatment for students K-12 in public schools. The plan is based on a Texas program known as the “Texas Mental Health Parity.”

The Texas model has been implemented in other states, including Pennsylvania, where a government whistleblower, Allan Jones, has called it "a Trojan horse" for pharmaceutical companies. If enacted on a national level, the scheme would mandate widespread testing all across the country which would result in the recruitment of hundreds of thousands of new customers for the pharmaceutical Industry. [snip]

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in his 2 bids for the presidency, Bush has been the number one recipient of campaign donations from the pharmaceutical industry, in either party. The same Robert Wood Johnson IV, who has ties to the foundation mentioned above, and is also heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, raised over $100,000 for Bush’s 2000 campaign, and over $200,000 for campaign 2004.

The next top recipients, were Congressman Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) and Senator John Burr (R-NC), each of whom sits on Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Health, which oversee mental health and research, biomedical programs, food and drug policies, and Medicaid.

An obvious example of mixing drugs, money & politics, can be found with the drug, Zyprexa. It was one of the drugs recommended in the TMAP. With more than $4 billion in sales worldwide, in 2003, it was Eli Lilly’s top selling drug. In the US, for the most part, tax payers footed the bill for this drug. According to the New York Times, 70% of Zyprexa sales in this country in 2003, were paid for by programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Will Mike Ferguson support allowing Medicare and Medicaid negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry, his biggest benefactor? Why not ask him by calling his office at (908) 757-7835 or write to him from his Congressional Website.

When you are done, leave the answer in the comments for or write to dumpmike@gmail.com.

Posted by admin at 03:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Most of us already know that Mike Ferguson received one of the largest fines in Federal Election Commission history for vioalting federal campaign laws in 2000. That violation, $525,000 to his campaign from a trust fund set up by his parents, resulted in a civil penalty of $210,000.

Without this half a million dollars in illegal contributions, Ferguson might not have been able to win his Congressional seat by about 15,000 votes. $525,000 is a lot of money to a campaign.

But it is not the only time that Ferguson has violated federal law. Here he is in a photo from his web site delivering mail illegally! :-)

Posted by admin at 06:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The House of Representatives voted yesterday to force states to change their policies for issuing drivers licenses, including checking the immigration status of applicants and adding new features to the licenses.

New Jersey already bans illegal immigrants from getting a drivers license, and demands proof of legal status. The addition of new features to the drivers license will cost New Jersey taxpayers hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of dollars, yet the House did not provide any money to pay for this unfunded mandate.

Congressman Mike Ferguson did not vote on the bill, though eight of New Jersey's delegation voted against the bill. Only four voted for it.

Call Congressman Ferguson at 908-757-7835 and ask him if he supports the Real ID act, or if he would have voted against it. Then write to dumpmike@gmail.com or use the comment feature below and tell us his response.

UPDATE 2/16/05: It turns out Mike does support this unfunded mandate on the states. Here's his attempt to get his vote on the record:

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 418. Had I been able, I would have cast a vote in the affirmative as I am a strong proponent of the legislation and the goals it sets to achieve in reforming immigration policy in our country.

Posted by admin at 07:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Congressman Mike Ferguson says he opposes fixing Social Security by raising taxes and cutting benefits, but launches into a lauditory paragraph about how President Bush plans to phase out the guaranteed benefits of Social Security. It appears that Mike would rather risk American's retirement safety net in the stock market with the likes of Enron, WorldCom and other corporate criminals than pay a few extra bucks out of his Congressional salary.

Here's the letter he wrote me:

There's a lot of good stuff in there, including how he tries to push the time when Social Security will run out of money to 2018. It's a common trick among the people who want to end Social Security as a guarantee.

He's right that in 2018 we will pay out more in benefits than we collect in taxes, but there is a surplus of $165 billion that is growing every week when new payroll taxes are collected. This money is being held in US Treasury Bonds which cannot be defaulted on unless the government collapses.

The Social Security Administration says that we have enough money to guarantee 100 percent of benefits until 2042 even if we make no change in the system. Mike is trying to spook people by making us think the problem is closer than it is.

Posted by admin at 04:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Soon after his second swearing in, Congressman Mike Ferguson took a little trip out to the bars of Georgetown, Washington D.C. That night was a fateful one where a little flirtation -- he says -- turned into an embarassing event -- Lloyd Groves says.

In his dark suit, knotted tie and official congressional ID pin on his lapel, Republican House member Mike Ferguson looked out of place at the Rhino Bar and Pumphouse, a Georgetown saloon popular with college kids.

"He shouldn't have even been at the bar," 21-year-old Georgetown University junior Michelle Mezoe told us. "He and his group" – two unidentified staffers, also wearing suits – "stuck out like sore thumbs."

Yesterday Mezoe accused the congressman, a 32-year-old married father of three representing New Jersey's 7th District, of grabbing her in the wee hours Wednesday morning. She said Ferguson removed his ID pin and handed it to her, saying she could keep it if she would "come back and have a drink with me." Mezoe said she refused to return it unless Ferguson apologized for his "disrespectful" behavior. An apology was not forthcoming.

Is this the kind of man you want representing you?

Posted by admin at 07:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)