Now just a couple weeks after another horrendous flood that displaced hundreds of families and cost millions of dollars in damage, Mike Ferguson is able to use his 7 years of clout in the House of Representatives to get -- $10 million. And Ferguson admits that this is as much as he can get for his district, saying that someone else will have to do the job if it's going to get done.

Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-7th Dist.) said he hopes the $10 million represents "a floor" for fiscal 2008 funding. But with action in the House of Representatives uncertain, it may be up to the U.S. Senate to add money, he said.

It'll be up to someone else. Perfect attitude for a backbencher Congressman who hasn't the juice or the ability to lobby his colleagues to get what his people need.

Even worse is the attitude of the White House, which admits that they failed to help Bound Brook and Manville, who got the brunt of the flooding in 1996, 1999 and 2007.

The Army Corps of Engineers could complete flood barriers around Bound Brook in two years if funding is "accelerated," according to Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Woodley Jr., who oversees the agency. ...

Prodded by Congress, President Bush has proposed $10 million for flood control in the Green Brook Basin, which includes Bound Brook. But Corps and local officials said roughly $30 million is needed to complete a mile of flood barriers along the Raritan River, which again inundated the downtown during the April 15 nor'easter.

"I've submitted the president's budget and that's what I stand by," said Woodley, whose office directs the Army's civil works projects. But he acknowledged that funding level means work would not be finished for an estimated three years.

So one small portion of the project -- $30 million or 6 percent of the $430 million cost -- could be completed in two years, and the White House is not willing to provide the funding for it. And they admit that "stand by" that decision which could once again cost the federal government far more if their is yet another flood.

And Mike Ferguson can't convince them to put the whole $30 million in the budget to get the work done. He can't convince his colleagues of seven years to provide this funding.

If he can't get this kind of support while pictures are still in the paper, families are still living in shelters and businesses are months from re-opening then how can we expect Ferguson to adequately represent us in Congress?

To The Chronicle:

I am concerned about the announcement by Congressman Mike Ferguson that the federal Army Corps of Engineers will be doing a study on the Rahway River and flooding.In particular, as I understand it based on what I have read and my conservations with local officials, Cranford would still have to pay for the improvements.That is an incredible outrage. I am not sure whatwill been gained by putting the federal government in the driver's seat.Cranford has a hard-fought five-phase flood control plan underway. We do not need more advice -- we need federal funding.

Until I was criticized last yearby Congressman Ferguson's staff, I had never said an unkind word about his intentions. I do so now because I am worried that we plan to trust another politician who has appeared because he is concerned about re-election.His new moderate stancesseem more designed to get people to forget his continued role in the surge in Iraq and the billions of wasted hard-earned taxpayer dollars and many American lives on an ill-conceived civil war.

What I still do not understandis where has he been?Why has it taken him six years to find Cranford? Six years he has had to recognize this problem.This is not a new problem. Instead of being engaged, he has resorted to telling residents last weekthat this is the first time the key decision-makers have sat down together to discuss this issue.I still remember Republican Township Committee members Phil Morin and Tom Denny'smission to get the Army Corps of Engineers to do something.Theythen met with key officials, yet the Corps said the project wasn't big enough to be on their radar.That was just a few years ago.Now we plan to trust a congressman whotolerated his staffmisrepresenting my actions asmayor,without the courtesy to apologize and express his concern about this problem.In 2003 and again in 2006, Congressman Ferguson was provided a detailed explanation of the problem, and he was invited to come to Cranford last year several times.

I will shut my mouth and be confined to my quarters if I am wrong and results are recorded.Most importantly,I will apologize for this letter and my agitation.But my agitationgrew last week when I saw the damaged neighborhoods in the northeast quadrant.

I debated whether to send this or not because all of us have to be on the same page to get the most funding because Cranford has already stepped up significantly to resolve this problem.But I want to state without a doubt there will be accountability on this problem -- as much as I can ensure. So the test will be the staying power of the federal financial effort, and not the photo-ops in bucket trucks.

DAN ASCHENBACH
Cranford

The writer, a Democrat, is a former mayor and member of the Township Committee.

How is it that things like this don't become news stories, with political leaders attacking members of Congress for incompetence. This blog was started when I was Council President in North Plainfield, and has had a few other elected officials post here and yet the words "Dump Mike blog" have never appeared in the Courier News or Star Ledger except on the letters pages.

You'd think this kind of stuff would be news. Not in this day and age.

hat tip to jfc521 over at Blue Jersey

Of course, Ferguson has repeatedly refused to do so.  In February 2006, he said it pretty clearly to Newhouse News:

Asked if he would refund the DeLay funding, Ferguson said, "No, I'm not going to. Those contributions were appropriate."

Anyway, DeLay is still under indictment in Texas for violating campaign finance laws (not the appropriate ones, I am sure), and now it looks like the feds are closing in on a no-show job his wife got with Alexander Strategies, a lobby firm started by former DeLay staffers Adam Kidan and Tony Rudy.

FBI agents continue to interview aides to former Rep. DeLay, offering immunity in exchange for testimony, individuals close to the investigation say. Justice officials ask whether former aides paid the Texas Republican's wife $3,200 a month for a no-show job at their lobbying firm. DeLay, who retired last year, is on a book tour.

So, Mike, still think those contributions were "appropriate" or are you going to donate the money to charity like you did with Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Tony Rudy, Mark Foley, etc., etc., etc.?

Today the DCCC announced that Mike Ferguson is among their top 10 targeted Republican House members. Karl Rove also suggested that Ferguson was vulnerable, so maybe there is a chance for us again in 2008.

Well, I don't want to get my hopes up because we were left waiting for the D-Trip to show up in 2000, 2002 and 2004 also. But 2008 may be a little different, especially because we came so damnably close in 2006. Add that to the Democratic majority and the fundraising benefits that gives, and maybe they'll come through for us this time.

But we can't rely on that. We have to do it on our own this time, just like last time. The reason Blue 7th exists is because we wanted to show the national Democrats that there was a groundswell here in New Jersey's 7th. We proved it in 2006, but not soon enough to get them in. We will have to prove it again in 2008, along with our friends at DfA, Garden State Equality, Blue Jersey, etc., etc., etc.

Generally, the pharmaceutical industry hasn't been one of Pascrell's biggest backers, although his home district includes Roche's US headquarters, a large facility in Nutley, a 30-minute ride from the Lincoln Tunnel. So such a gathering shouldn't come as a total surprise, given that Democrats now control Congress.

What is interesting, however, is this suggests the influence of Pascrell's Republican counterpart, Mike Ferguson, may be waning. Thel industry has given him tremendous backing and viewed him as the go-to guy among the Garden State delegation, since he sits on the House and Energy Commerce committee, which has jurisdicdtion [sic] over the FDA.

Mike won't go hungry, though. His dad founded a well-known healthcare ad agency that did business with drugmakers and was later sold to a larger advertising conglomerate.

First he loses Tom DeLay, then the majority House, and now will get less from the pharmaceutical industry?

Looks like the playing field may be a little more level in 2008.

If the Democratic ascendance on Capitol Hill was supposed to usher in dark days for Republicans, it is hard to tell from talking to moderate ones like Mike Ferguson, who represents a suburban district in central New Jersey.

As the new Democrat-led House rushed to complete its business before adjourning for spring break this week, Representative Ferguson was marveling at the many bills that had been passed in Congress’s first 100 days, including one that would make it easier for unions to organize and another that would increase the minimum wage.

“Under the Republican majority, those bills would have never gotten to the floor,” he explained before heading back to his district. “Now they have been brought to the floor, and I’ve voted for them.”

Mr. Ferguson’s enthusiasm captures a peculiar political reality in the Capitol: many Republicans from swing districts in the Northeast are finding that life under Democratic rule has its advantages.

During the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, moderate Republicans were the stepchildren of their party, expected to vote with their conservative leadership on crucial issues, even if it meant taking positions that could anger centrist voters back home.

He's gone from Tom DeLay's (R-TX) favorite campaign check casher to a lover of the House under Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

If Ferguson really prefers a Democratic majority maybe we can help him along in November 2008?

With this action, the Commission has an opportunity to expand the deregulatory landscape to respond to the competitive marketplace for wireless services.

Essentially, Michael Ferguson and Sununu is asking the FCC to do nothing to regulate wireless businesses that will use the public airways -- for free -- to make boatloads of money. That same sentiment is what has given us such excellent cell phone service to date.

The real hypocrisy is that Ferguson would let the companies that broadcast broadband free reign using our airwaves, but wants to forbid you and me from recording radio shows. If you have TiVo, you know how great it is to record a show and skip the commercials. Ferguson would make that illegal for radio.

Ferguson wants to give the corporations freedom from government regulation, while regulate individual citizens.

The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Martin,

We write regarding your recent comments outlining upcoming Commission action to classify the offering of a wireless broadband service as an information service. As Members of the Congress who have been preparing legislation for this purpose, we were pleasantly surprised to learn of the Commission's impending action on the matter. Based on your comments, we trust that the Commission can complete such an item without delay, and we remain prepared to assist you, including taking legislative action, if necessary.

For procedural reasons, it is vital that the Commission take quick action to determine the regulatory framework with which wireless broadband providers must comply. Regulatory uncertainty over the treatment of these services only will delay deployment, depress penetration rates for Internet access, decrease consumer options, energize other regulatory bodies into action, and generate protracted litigation. By addressing this issue immediately, the Commission can ensure that all wireless broadband services -- whether offered by traditional wireless phone network providers, wi-fi networks providers, mesh network providers or otherwise -- are on equal footing for the purpose of complying with Commission rules, thereby preventing unfair competitive advantages to any one wireless broadband provider.

Equally important, the Commission's actions must result in the correct substantive outcome as well. Like previous Commission actions to classify similar services as information services -- namely cable broadband service, wireline broadband service, and broadband over powerline broadband service -- the Commission must expand the light regulatory touch afforded by Title I designation upon wireless broadband services. Beyond the competitive inequities that would arise if not done, wireless broadband services clearly meet the statutory definition for an information service. Moreover, such a classification will ensure that wireless broadband providers will be able to quickly respond to the changing marketplace and meet consumer demands without the undue burdens that can accompany Title II or III service classifications.

As broadband offerings proliferate, consumers will demand greater broadband mobility. With this action, the Commission has an opportunity to expand the deregulatory landscape to respond to the competitive marketplace for wireless services. Additionally, such a measure would continue the progress made since the start of the decade to reduce the unnecessary heavy hand of government regulation.

We look forward to seeing the Commission's action on this matter, and we ask that we be kept fully informed as this item proceeds forward. We also ask that this letter be treated as appropriate under Commission rules.

Sincerely,

John E. Sununu
U.S. Senator

Mike Ferguson
US Representative

On February 24, Congressman Mike Ferguson held an open house at his Warren office. During his brief meeting with me and another local activist, he repeatedly insisted that he is “totally dissatisfied” with the “status quo” in Iraq, and that his dissatisfaction led him to support President Bush’s troop “surge” and informed his “No” vote on H.Con.Res. 63, a resolution expressing Congressional opposition to both the surge and the more-of-the-same strategy behind it. Ferguson similarly expressed his dissatisfaction, and his support for the surge, in his Feb. 16 remarks to Congress during debate on the resolution.

The Democratic-sponsored resolution was non-binding, and therefore a tiny and inadequate first step – but a first step nonetheless – toward responding to the Iraqi peoples' passionate and well-documented desire for the Americans to get out, and the American electorate’s November demand that Congress end the war and bring the troops home.

The April appropriations bill will matter far more; money already appropriated in prior years can be used to end the war and bring the troops home, but cutting off future financing is the only way Congress can carry out its Constitutional duty, as a co-equal branch of government, to check the power abuses of the executive branch.

When I asked, Ferguson acknowledged he is aware of Congress’ equal power; that Congress has practical tools, including hearings, with which to exercise that equal power; and that the President is as bound to obey U.S. and international law as any other American citizen: that no one in a Constitutional democracy is above the law.

An interesting follow-up question for Mr. Ferguson is this:

“Given that the two most stable pillars of the status quo for the last four years have been blind obedience to Bush’s failed leadership and the inflammatory and deadly occupying presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, how will you reach your goal of changing the status quo by repeating obedient gestures toward Bush and adding more U.S. troops to Iraq?”

I think a better approach, for all members of the House and Senate, would be to ignore Bush, defund the war, and begin pulling the troops out immediately. There are several Democratic proposals to do just that, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Jim McGovern and many others. If changing the status quo is Mr. Ferguson’s intention, I hope he’ll show more thoughtful and responsive leadership, by co-sponsoring one of those proposals.

During the debate last week, he changed his tune and stridently supported the escalation: "It may also be, I believe, our last chance for victory. The President knows this, and I believe the Iraqi government and its people know this, too."

Now he needs to answer these questions: "What convinced you the plan you initially questioned is the right one? Was it new information from the Pentagon you have not shared with constituents? Was it political pressure from the Bush White House?"

Congressman Mike Ferguson is holding an open house at his office this Saturday, February 24, from nine a.m. to 11 a.m. at his Warren office [map]. This is our opportunity to make our feelings known about his continued support for the escalation of the War in Iraq.

Please join us in visiting his office at 9 a.m. to tell his staff how you feel about the Iraq War, and that he is not representing his constituents' view. We will -- politely and respectfully -- go into his office a few at a time to express our views as citizens, and then gather by the road as a group to show how many folks oppose the war.

Please make a sign or two to hold at the rally that says something like, "Out of Iraq Now" or "Ferguson, Bush and Iraq: Perfect Together." We'll be deep in a very red area of the district, so more sedate but blunt messages are probably best.

Ferguson is scared after that election last fall, and is working hard to shore up the base he lost. We have less than two years to keep the heat on and let the people of NJ's 7th district.

ANNOUNCER: Once again, live from Washington, moderator Gwen Ifill.

MS. IFILL: Good evening. Explaining Iraq, defending Iraq, connecting Iraq to everything else on Washington's agenda and everything that is not -- that's what been consuming lawmakers, diplomats, and presidents this week and it's what we'll talk about tonight starting on Capitol Hill, where the debate leading up to this afternoon's House vote revealed how deep the splits are and how hard they will be to bridge. Case in point -- the widely divergent views of New Jersey Republican Mike Ferguson and New York Democrat Louise Slaughter.

REP. MIKE FERGUSON (R-NJ): Members are being cynically asked to vote on a resolution that does not address victory or success. It does not offer a pathway toward the peace and the prosperity that are vital to the region. It simply plays politics with the war and in so doing, does our troops and their families here at home a terrible disservice.

REP. LOUISE SLAUGHTER (D-NY): The simple reality is that two- thirds of the American public, including myself, do not trust the president's judgment when it comes to the war. It's a conflict that has been defined by mismanagement and misinformation since before it began. Why would we help our enemies by refusing to change course?