Dump Mike Ferguson (NJ7)

This week's flooding provides a window into the relative effectiveness of Congressman Mike Ferguson to advocate and deliver for the people of New Jersey's 7th Congressional District.

The year before Ferguson took office Hurricane Floyd hit our state, and towns like Bound Brook and Manville were devastated, with water rising to third stories of buildings and not falling for days. Other towns like North Plainfield – where I served as a Councilman at the time – had six feet of water rushing through the town. I know because I was one of the volunteers pulling people out of their cars to safety that day.

Now, in Mike Ferguson's seventh year as our DC Representative we have seen another flood provide the same kind of destruction. Added to the 1996 flooding of downtown Bound Brook that is three devastating floods in just over a decade.

I looked at the pictures of boats floating past second floor windows in downtown Bound Brook and thought it was 1999 all over again. The personal and business destruction is horrific, and the worst part is that it should be wholly unnecessary had our federal representatives come through with the funding we need to fix these flooding issues.

Since 1975 the Green Brook Flood Control Project has been studying and planning to make major engineering changes to the Raritan River and its tributaries to increase flow and retention, reducing the chance that such flooding can occur again. But all we have to date is a bridge and two levies, and the Army Corps of engineers estimates it will take $430 million in today's money to finish the deal.

You would think that after Floyd there would have been a major effort to fund this project, to get it going as fast as possible to protect the residents and business owners along this flood path. You would think that there would be some urgency to the work to protect our residents from continued natural disasters.

Mike Ferguson was first elected in 2000, along with a Republican President, a Republican Senate and a Republican House. His colleague, Rodney Frelinghuysen on the neighboring 11th district, was on the House Appropriations committee. Ferguson himself was being groomed by Tom DeLay in a leadership position as minority whip, the Texas House wheeler and dealer who could get anything done.

Add to this the fact that under Republican leadership earmarked funding for districts increased from about 1,000 a year in 1996 to 14,000 in 2005. Some of these earmarks were incredible, including $454 million for a bridge in Alaska that would have served just a few thousand people.

It's an ideal environment for a Representative to represent the needs of his district. His party in control, friendly with leadership, delegation member on the Appropriations committee money handed out hand over fist, and a real desperate need for completion of a project that would affect hundreds of thousands of people. It would take a pretty high level of incompetence to blow this one.

So what did Mike Ferguson get us for the Green Brook Flood Control Project? An average of less than $5 million a year, and some press releases and photo opportunities for the Congressman to show he cares.

At that rate, the project would take 86 years to completely fund, not including inflation and cost overruns.

Here's what Ferguson had to say in the Star Ledger last week:

"They said it was not appropriate to bring it up with the president, but I do not miss an opportunity to advocate for this project," Ferguson said. "I'm not going to take a back seat to anyone when it comes to advocating for this, and frankly the advocacy we've done has paid dividends." …

"It's tragic. It's heartbreaking. It's unacceptable that this project is not completed."

Paid dividends? It's astonishing that he has the gall, after six budget years under Republican control that he is proud of his efforts, and continues to brag in public about getting pittances tossed his way while touring the flood ravaged town.

One early estimate, though emergency management people are still counting, is that this flood will cost more than $70 million to recover from. Somerset County's taxpayers have already put aside one million dollars for cleanup and recovery from this year's story, money that didn't have to be spent. Millions more will be provided in grants from local, county, state and the federal government.

These short term costs in the millions don't even take into account long increased financial burden for insurance, which will be even worse than it was before for homeowners, renters and businesses. That's assuming they can get insurance.

All told our governments, business owners, insurers, renters and homeowners will be paying far more than $100 million to recover from this flood. We can assume that similar costs were associated with the floods in 1971, 1973, 1996 and 1999 -- adding up to far more than the $430 million it would cost to fix this problem and reduce the flooding along the Raritan River basin.

It's frankly ridiculous that we have to read in the papers about how Mike Ferguson and his colleagues are bragging on getting us $5 million a year when these floods are costing us an average of $25 million a year in recovery since Ferguson took office.

We've already run through 30 years, and two major floods in the past seven years. We need our Representative to deliver for us now to avoid the next one, or the next one.

But now Mike Ferguson is in the minority, Tom DeLay is gone and earmarks are under fire from all directions. Ferguson had a chance to make a difference, a nearly unprecedented chance, and he blew it.

Posted by admin at 08:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's not as catchy as "Stender is a Spender," but it turns out Mike Ferguson is a spender – and he's a tax raiser, too! Looks like he may have lost his only campaign item against Linda Stender should she decide to run again in 2008.

Because last week Mike voted for the Democrats' Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act (HR6) which the House Republican Study Conference calls, "$7.7 billion in tax increases over ten years, PLUS $6.3 billion in new royalty payments over the same period. (CBO, JCT)"

In all her years in the Assembly, on the Union County Freeholder Board, and as a Fanwood Mayor and Councilwoman Linda Stender never voted for an unbalanced budget. Sometimes that required voting for increases in taxes, but all 20 years of votes combined didn't add up to this single vote of Mike Ferguson's.

Assuming Stender runs again in 2008, Ferguson will now be unable to trot out the tax increasing, spender image he tried to tar Stender with because he'll just be further demonstrating his hypocrisy. We know he's increased spending and deficits in his time (see below), and now he is raising taxes.

And after he had signed a pledge for Grover Norquist saying he would never vote to raise taxes. Norquist gave Ferguson an award he'll probably be taking back now, and we've got the art to prove it!

Continue reading "Mike Ferguson is a Spender, And A Tax Raiser Too!" »

Posted by admin at 06:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mike Ferguson (R-NJ7) has repeatedly talked about how wonderful his support of the district is because he delivered $5M for the Green Brook Flood Control Project, though we've noted that at that rate it will take 86 years to complete the $430 million project. Ferguson appears to have figured that out himself, because this year he is asking for $25 million. From the Courier News:

Rep. Mike Ferguson has requested $25 million be included in the new federal budget for the Green Brook Flood Control Commission.

In a letter to Robert Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, Ferguson wrote that "without an additional $25 million, this project will not protect the people of Central New Jersey from massive flooding and possible loss of life in a Katrina-like event."

Ferguson also wrote that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is in charge of the project, has said that $25 million is needed over the next two years to complete the first phase of the project.

Ferguson didn't tell us in the past that his $5 million was just 20 percent of what was needed, but that's OK. We knew that the money was just a partisan political gift from the Republican majority so he could claim success in the campaign, even though it did little or nothing to actually help his constituents.

But now he is calling publicly for the full funding for the next two years. It's time to see if he is really the back bencher the NY Times called him, or if he can really support his district with the funding we need to protect our lives and property. He's on the record with the request, and we'll follow it all the way through.

Anything less than $25 million is a failure, from the mouths of both the Army Corps of Engineers and Mike Ferguson himself.

Posted by admin at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Last Friday was the last day of Mike Ferguson's third term in Congress, and he decided to end it with a bang.

Following on his work on the Terry Schiavo issue where he tried to play doctor, Ferguson now wants to pass Federal legislation telling doctors what to tell their patients. Again demonstrating his radical anti-abortion credentials, Ferguson wants to make every doctor counsel women seeking an abortion during the second trimester that the fetus feels pain. It did not pass.

Next, contradicting his campaign claims that he is an environmentalist and opposes offshore drilling, Ferguson voted for a bill that will expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Posted by admin at 07:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As we've noted before, Rep. Mike Ferguson claimed a lot of successes in the 2006 campaign that were either very minor or not true at all. The most egregious of these was the claim that he had moved mercury out of Hillsborough which is still there today and isn't going anywhere.

Repeatedly newspapers covered this claim, simply transcribing Ferguson's claim without every fact checking it or bothering to note that the mercury was still there. It is this kind of reporting that allows a do-nothing Congressman and back bencher to spin the facts and confuse voters.

Linda Stender only lost the election by 3,200 votes, and it is easily possible that had the Courier News been more critical in its reporting that people would have known of Ferguson's slight record on helping the district (for instance, noting that the funding for the Green Brook Flood Control Project was less than 2 percent of what is needed) that 1601 people might have changed their votes. That is why we must be strident in contacting editors and reporters over the next two years when they simply repeat Ferguson's words instead of reporting the facts.

And it is not as if the Courier News didn't know about the problems with Ferguson's mercury claim. They only decided to talk about it, though, a month after the election in this opinion piece from today:

Hillsborough officials remain confident that the mercury supplies at the GSA Depot will be shipped out of town in the near future. But some obstacles remain, primarily the opposition of the governor of the state where the mercury is headed.

Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn has vowed to fight plans to consolidate the Defense National Stockpile Center's mercury supplies now housed in three facilities -- Hillsborough, Warren, Ohio, and New Haven, Ind. -- to a U.S. Army depot in his state. Guinn has raised fears about potential contamination of nearby Walker Lake.

We can understand Hillsborough officials being a little troubled by the prospect of Nevada blocking the mercury removal. Mayor Carl Suraci said recently that he doesn't believe that Walker Lake is threatened and that objections from Nevada are unfounded.

Suraci may well be right. But if the situation were reversed and Suraci's community was on the receiving end of the mercury, it's a good bet he wouldn't be quite so cavalier about a potential threat -- regardless of how "unfounded" it might be.

The mercury needs to be moved from Hillsborough. But that doesn't mean that anyone else -- including Nevada -- particularly wants it, even if it's someplace "safer" than Hillsborough. It's one thing for Suraci to express confidence that the plans will go through. But he shouldn't be such a critic of the objections from the other side of the country. A miss for Suraci.

For the record, these elected officials from Hillsborough crying foul about the Mercury are all Republicans and all backed Ferguson's claims during the election. Had this information been reported by the Courier News back in October we might very well have a woman representing us in Congress.

We can't let it happen again in 2008.

Posted by admin at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The following letter was published in the Courier News, October 10, 2006:

Stender deserves endorsement

When the Sierra Club endorsed the election of Assemblywoman Linda Stender to represent the 7th Congressional District, the Sierra Club noted that she has supported environmental and quality-of-life issues throughout her career in public service.

In comparison, her opponent in the election has attempted to create the illusion of an environmental legacy based upon a single instance in which he became involved in the government's movement of sealed containers of stored chemicals.

In the real world, Mike Ferguson worked to protect manufacturers of polluting chemicals. He gave tax breaks to Big Oil so that oil companies could post record-breaking profits as our gasoline and heating bills skyrocketed. Is anyone foolish enough to think that a pre-election price drop will last?

Based upon my own personal experience and the experience of her many friends and neighbors over these many years, Linda Stender has established a record of responding favorably when it comes to preserving open space, maintaining tree cover, protecting historic resources and supporting quality of life.

Simply put, Linda Stender understands how we live our lives. She is our best bet in the 7th Congressional District.

WILLIAM T. FIDURSKI
Clark

Posted by admin at 09:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Bernardsville News is the first paper to give an endorsement in the NJ7 Congressional race between Mike Ferguson and Linda Stender. The nod went to Linda Stender. The paper is not too big and a weekly, but it is in extremely red territory and hopefully this kind of thing can make a difference there.

[UPDATE: The Hunterdon Review, also owned by Recorder, used the same editorial last week. Deep in the heart of redness!]

Vote for Linda Stender for Congress from the Seventh District.

She is articulate and bright. She has had local, county and state government experiences. Most importantly, she represents an end to the status quo acceptance of the failed policies of the Bush Administration, so unquestionably accepted by her opponent, Republican incumbent Michael Ferguson.

His response to the surprisingly strong Stender campaign is to blast Stender as a tax and spend Democrat.

Yet Stender, as a state Assemblywoman, voted against the Corzine budget and increased sales tax. Meanwhile, Ferguson, as member of the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate, has presided over a federal budget that has gone from a surplus position to a massive deficit.

It is ironic he complains about doings as the state level, yet he has never served in any state or locally elected office in his career. In fact, he only moved to the Seventh Congressional district so he could run for Congress after he lost his bid for a Sixth District Congressional seat in Monmouth County in 1998.

Nearly 60 percent of the district considers themselves Independent and we think Stender will more accurately reflect their philosophies than Ferguson.

We support Stender’s call for a re-examination of how we are conducting the war in Iraq, a position also called for by many retired Army generals and the majority of the nation. Ferguson is unquestioning of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war.

We support Stender’s call for embryonic stem cell research, so those whose loved ones are suffering from anything from Parkinson’s to Alzheimer’s to diabetes to paralysis may have hope for a cure. Ferguson staunchly opposes embryonic stem cell research and as such has earned the disfavor of Tricia Riccio, a crusader from Warren Township whose son Carl Riccio was paralyzed in a Watchung Hills Regional High School wrestling match in 2003.

Stender favors a woman’s right to choose on abortion, developing alternative energy supplies, and protecting the environment.

None of those issues carry much weight with Ferguson. He is anti-choice to the point of wanting to amend the Constitution to make abortion a crime even in the cases of rape and incest.

He garnered a pitiful 17 percent approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters, the political voice of the national environmental movement whose ratings reflect Ferguson’s voting record on key environmental and public health votes. Ferguson’s environmental rating is the lowest of the 13 members of the New Jersey congressional delegation, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Environmental issues are part of the core values of Somerset and Hunterdon county residents and those values should be represented in the halls of Congress by the person they elect to represent them.

Indeed, poll after poll shows Stender’s positions on the core issues this district thinks are important, from the Bush Administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, to stem cell research, to the environment, are more reflective of the majority of voters in this district than Mr. Ferguson’s. People in the 7th Congressional District should vote for the candidate who best reflects their values on Tuesday, Nov. 7 and that is Linda Stender.

Vote for Stender for Congress from the 7th District.

Posted by admin at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The following letter was published in the Thursday, September 21, 2006 Cranford Chronicle.

Stender is the right choice for Congress

To The Chronicle:

One should agree with John Cantilli and Andrew Bucko about their negative views of our present Congressman. A common-sense change for the better is surely Linda Stender.

Linda Stender is running for Congress in this upcoming election. Linda is the former mayor of Fanwood, and she is currently serving her third term in the State Assembly.

She believes in bringing the troops home from Iraq safely within a year and focusing the government's policy on real homeland security. Linda wants to enact a bold energy policy to make us energy-independent and wants to put an end to the billions of dollars in tax breaks given to the big oil companies. She strongly supports stem cell research, a woman's right to choose, and allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for low cost prescription drugs for senior citizens.

Linda Stender deserves our vote if we want a person who is not out of step and is not a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration's failed policies. She is the one who we should support on Tuesday, Nov. 7 for a seat in Congress.

MADELINE SPITZ
Cranford

Posted by admin at 09:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The following letter was published in the September 9, 2006 Courier News:

Stender attacks not based on facts

During the past few weeks, my mailbox has been inundated with condescending ads from Mike Ferguson's campaign with the childish slogan: "Stender is a spender." This distortion of Assemblywoman Linda Stender's record insults the intelligence of 7th District voters.

The trick Mr. Ferguson uses in his ads is a common one during political season: Municipal officials get blamed for rising property taxes when the culprit is usually the school board (in a state with a flawed system for funding public education). So, unless Mr. Ferguson gives me the facts, I'm not buying what he's selling.

Mr. Ferguson should have no credibility with voters in fiscal matters, anyway. Since he was elected in 2000, he has voted for budgets in Washington that turned the federal government's surplus into record budget deficits. The deficit for the budget year ending Sept. 30 is projected to be about $300 billion. In the midst of all this spending, Mr. Ferguson has voted for billions in tax breaks for gas and oil companies during a period of record-breaking profits and sky-high prices at the pump.

I think about Mr. Ferguson's votes every time I pull out my wallet to buy gas. And he thinks I should be worried about tax-and-spend politicians? The ones who scare me right now are those, like Mike Ferguson, who spend ... and spend and spend and spend, leaving a fiscal mess for my kids to mop up. It's time for voters in the 7th District to clean house and elect Linda Stender for Congress on Nov. 7.

SUE REPKO
Skillman

Posted by admin at 04:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the main claims made by this blog is that Mike Ferguson presents himself as a moderate when he is in New Jersey, but when he gets to Washington, D.C. he votes with President Bush and the right wing House Leadership like Tom DeLay and John Boehner. Often it takes some digging to prove it, but sometimes Ferguson provides the evidence by talking to the newspapers.

Linda Stender's campaign caught Mike Ferguson is an example of doing one thing in DC and saying another in NJ on price gouging by oil companies:

On September 28, 2005, Ferguson voted against a move to recommit HR 3402 so that it would have provided the Justice Department the authority to prosecute oil companies engaged in gas price gouging and impose fines of up to $100 million on corporations and up to $1 million in fines or 10 years in prison or both for individuals caught price gouging.

But here's what he said in the July 27, 2006 Westfield Leader:

“There should be zero tolerance for energy companies and retailers that engage in price gouging.”

If Ferguson really believed what he said and was an "independent" "moderate" Republican, he would have voted to hold oil companies accountable if they engage in price gouging. But he didn't.

The question now is if he flip-flopped on accountability, or if he is just pandering to the electorate during an election year.

Posted by admin at 07:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Though he is no longer a sponsor of the bill, Mike Ferguson voted today to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning gays from being legally married.

When he first ran for Congress, Ferguson had the endorsement of the left of center Human Rights Campaign and the right of center Log Cabin Republicans because he presented himself as a moderate on gay rights issues. He has since lost the support of both organizations because of his lurch to the radical right.

It is the same with his environmental record. In 2000 and 2002 Ferguson pretended to be a moderate and received the support of organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club. He has since jumped onto the right wing Republican bandwagon and lost the support of every single environmental group that backed him in the past.

Ferguson introduced himself to the public as a moderate Republican and has tried to maintain that facade. The truth is not in his flyers and website, but in his votes. And in his votes he is 100 percent in line with the right wing Republicans currently running DC and our country into the poor house.

UPDATE: After the jump

Continue reading "Mike Ferguson Moves To The Right Again" »

Posted by admin at 07:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

From the Daily Targum, April 16:

Linda Stender, the Democratic candidate for Congress in District 7, is fortunate in at least one respect: the case against her opponent Congressman Mike Ferguson, R-7th, is one that is easy to make. If politics were a trial, Ferguson would need to hire the best defense attorney in America to defend his record in Congress and would likely still lose.

On the issues of ethics and campaign finance, Ferguson has accepted $54,413 from former Congressman Tom DeLay and Americans for a Republican Majority, DeLay's political action committee. When the House of Representatives attempted to launch an inquiry into possible corruption of House members by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Ferguson voted to block the inquiry. One would do well to remember Ferguson received one of the largest fines in Federal Election Commission history, $210,000, for breaking federal campaign laws in 2000.

Regarding the environment, Congressman Ferguson voted "yes" to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and "yes" to the energy bills in 2001, 2003 and 2005. The League of Conservation Voters, a group that supported Ferguson in 2002, now rates him at an approval level of 17 percent, one of the worst environmental ratings of any member of the House of Representatives.

Ferguson has not been shy in forcing his own private, personal views of God and morality on the American people. Dubbed "Mr. Embryo" by his House colleagues, Ferguson has voted against every bill supporting embryonic stem cell research since he entered Congress in 2001.

Finally, on an issue that deeply impacts middle class families, the availability of student loans for college, Congress voted to pass the federal budget reconciliation act by a razor-thin margin of 216 to 214. Student loan programs account for more than $12 billion in cuts. A number of Republican members in Congress, including Chris Smith from New Jersey, voted against the bill; not Mike Ferguson - he voted for the budget and thus for the steep cuts in student aid.

Ferguson's record of lock-step support for the George W. Bush agenda is out of the mainstream in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District. His record in Congress is one that is inapposite to the views of most residents of New Jersey. The case against re-electing Mike Ferguson is strong; but voters, like juries, are a fickle group.

Posted by admin at 06:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The following letter was published in the April 6, 2006 Courier News:

Ferguson does as the Republicans do

In a recent letter, Nancy Singer claims, "Mike Ferguson has been a consistent opponent of opening the Alaska refuge to drilling."

That's simply not true. Congressman Michael Ferguson voted yes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and yes to the energy bills in 2001, 2003 and 2005. It's in the Congressional Record.

I don't think any sensible person would call this being consistent against drilling in Alaska. Sounds more like flip-flopping to me.

If you check Ferguson's voting record, you will see he has voted with Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress 90 percent of the time, which has led to the largest federal government ever, including record budget deficits, record national debt and record trade deficits. Ferguson has the same record of failure and incompetence that the Bush administration has.

Perhaps Ms. Singer should check her own facts before lecturing others.

SUSAN RENQUIST
Somerville

Posted by admin at 06:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This letter was published in the March 27, 2006 Courier News.

Ferguson's record far from favorable

Nancy Singer, in her recent letter to the Courier News, has accused me of being inaccurate and unfair in my criticism of Congressman Mike Ferguson.

I have very carefully checked not Mike Ferguson's Web site as she suggested, but the Congressional Record, which I believe is impartial.

There, I find that on April 21, 2005, Mike Ferguson voted "Yes" on H.R. 6, which stated in item F that 10 billion barrels of oil could be obtained from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Area and in item G that 9.3 billion barrels of oil could be obtained from the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

Mr. Ferguson, on June 15, 2004, voted "Yes" on H.R. 4503 to allow building a pipeline through the environmentally sensitive North Slope region of Alaska. This is the same place where 267,000 gallons of oil spilled due to a pipeline break on March 10, 2006. This spill is many times larger than the 38,000-gallon spill caused by the Exxon Valdez.

On April 11, 2003, Mr. Ferguson voted "Yes" on H.R. 6, which, in part, allowed oil drilling in ANWAR. On Nov. 18, 2003, Mr. Ferguson again voted "Yes" on H.R. 6, which again in part allowed oil drilling in ANWAR. On Aug. 2, 2001, Mr. Ferguson voted "Yes" on H.R. 4, which in part allowed oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to expand domestic energy sources.

My conclusion that Mr. Ferguson is not particularly environmentally friendly is supported by noting that in 2005, the American Wilderness Coalition gave him a grade of 33 percent, the Defenders of Wildlife also graded him at 33 percent and the League of Conservation Voters graded him at 17 percent. In 2004, the League of Conservation Voters graded him at 35 percent, and in 2003 it graded him at 30 percent.

Addressing the second area of Ms. Singer's criticism, Mr. Ferguson's tardy response to the Dubai Ports issue: Consulting the timeline as listed by CNN, I note that on Feb. 14, 2006, Charles Schumer notices and the New York Post condemned the acquisition. On Feb. 17, seven U.S. senators, including Hillary Clinton and Robert Menendez, called for a review of the acquisition and introduced legislation to block the sale.

On Feb. 18, Rep. Frank LoBiondo promised legislation requiring port security officials to be U.S. citizens. On Feb. 19, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended the deal, and on Feb. 21, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert called for the administration to stop the deal promising legislation.

Rep. Mike Ferguson, reacting with lightning speed, then said he would support legislation blocking the deal.

LOIS RIGGS
Branchburg

Posted by admin at 07:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Last month we noted that the League of Conservation Voters, a group that had endorsed Rep. Mike Ferguson in 2002, now rates him as one of the worst environmental members of the House with a 17 percent rating. His first year rating of 71 percent appears to be an aberation, since he has never had a positive score since.

Now we find that LCV is not alone. The NJ Public Interest Research Group scorecard for 2005 is out, and Ferguson receives only a 29 percent score. His lifetime score is just 34 percent.

Posted by admin at 06:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This letter to the editor was published in the Saturday, March 11 2006 Courier News:

Ferguson's missteps outweigh achievements

To letter writers Mr. Gwiazdowski (Feb. 23) and Mr. Lipani (Feb. 26), I say this: Yes, it is good that Hillsborough's mercury may be removed, if Nevada will actually take it. That still remains to be seen.

When a congressman finally, after five years in office, gets something done that affects your own backyard, it is natural to feel grateful. However, I would challenge you to look beyond your own backyard and consider other actions Mike Ferguson has taken that aren't so worthy of praise.

Did you know that in his vote to approve President Bush's new budget, he essentially is saying yes to deep cuts in farm subsidies, the receipt of which can make the difference in surviving or not for many small family farms in New Jersey?

During the next five years, Mr. Ferguson's Republican administration wants to "save" $5 billion in farm subsidy programs. Remember, this is still called the "Garden State," but for how long?

Did you know that voting for the budget means huge cuts to funding for student loans and, furthermore, raises interest rates on student loans in general? If your children need assistance with college expenses, you'd better take another job, because the loans will be harder and harder to get.

On another note, do you realize that the companies that handle student loans, and that will greatly benefit from the increases in loan rates, are all major contributors to Mike Ferguson's campaign? No wonder Mike didn't have a problem with this portion of the budget.

Did you know that Mr. Ferguson's support of extending the first-term tax cuts, which won't expire for years and will continue to benefit only the wealthiest Americans, will cost an estimated $1.35 trillion over the next decade? You may not feel the squeeze of that expenditure, but your children certainly will.

Mr. Ferguson's support of the administration's budget "savings" during the next five years is a way of euphemistically saying "cutting" $36 billion in Medicare benefits. Medicare is being shaved to the point of extinction, so you'd better not count on it being there as a real benefit when you and your family members reach what we now consider retirement age.

The same goes for Social Security, which Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Bush wish would just go away to the private sector. In fact, this Ferguson/Bush $2.77 trillion budget will raise the deficit so much that now the debt ceiling must be increased to avoid default.

More and more, we are becoming indebted to foreigners. Their financing of our poor economic habits makes us more and more beholden to foreign countries. Do we really want to increase our financial dependence on foreigners to the point that they can dictate our policies, such as who runs our major ports?

Mr. Ferguson finally jumped on the bandwagon to oppose the proposed control of our ports by the United Arab Emirates-owned company. What else could he do? Not only did New York's Sen. Charles Schumer and New Jersey's Sen. Robert Menendez take the lead in speaking out against the deal, but so did Mr. Ferguson's own Republican Party leaders Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist and a huge percentage of ordinary Americans.

To tout this as a "break" with the administration was a choice of miniscule risk to Mr. Ferguson. He would have seemed un-American had he continued to stand with the deal. Even Mr. Bush agreed to a delay to review the impact on port security after he found out about the deal.

Of special note along this line is the fact that in 2005, Mr. Ferguson and fellow Republicans voted against a measure that would have given $400 million to increase port security. It's interesting that having denied this additional funding to protect our country, he's now on record as a strong advocate. Could this be a flip-flop, or is he just blowing with the prevailing political winds?

Yes, it's nice when your congressman can do something for your community ... like new sidewalks and new fire trucks, even if it's with funds the government can ill afford. Perhaps he should consider using the funds he received from (and refused to return) Tom ("Corruption-with-a-Capital-C") DeLay's political action committee if he wants to present gifts to his constituent municipalities.

Perhaps he could even issue an apology for accepting that dirty money. Now that would be something to write about.

Joan Schell
Tewksbury

Posted by admin at 09:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This letter was published in the March 9, 2006 Cranford Chronicle:

To The Chronicle:

On his Web site, Rep. Mike Ferguson says "I believe I have a responsibility to protect our environment." Let's see how Ferguson is fulfilling this important responsibility.

The League of Conservation Voters ( HYPERLINK "http://www.lcv.org" \o "http://www.lcv.org/" www.lcv.org) recently released itsenvironmental scorecard for the first session of the 109th Congress (2005). Scores were based upon 18 House votes, covering issues such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, public lands, air pollution, endangered species, energy policy, CAFTA, water projects, natural gas drilling and facilities, fuel economy, MTBE liability, oil refineries, environmental funding, and environmental justice.

Ferguson's rating is 17 percent. Among New Jersey representatives, only Scott Garrett scored lower. Republican RepresentativesFrank LoBiondo, Jim Saxton, and Chis Smith scored over 70 percent. Democratic Representatives scored 83 to 100 percent.

If I were handing out grades, Ferguson's 17 percent rating would be an "F."Ferguson has failed the environment, he has failed the country, and he has failed New Jersey.In his taxpayer-funded mailings to residents of the 7th District, Ferguson often claims to care about the environment. What happened?

Ferguson has become a sock puppet of the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal.He is an obedient and loyal lapdog of the White House, and he votes along with Bush policy (and his indicted pal Tom DeLay) about 90 percent of the time.

Ferguson claims to be moderate andindependent.Don't believe it.He is usually just an automatic voteforthe conservative policies of the corrupt and dishonest Republicans who control the federal government.

JOHN CANTILLI
Cranford

Posted by admin at 05:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The following letter was published in the Courier News on March 9, 2006:

Mercury move just Ferguson's ploy

A recent letter from Shawn Lipani lauds Mike Ferguson for a purported move of stored mercury out of Hillsborough to Nevada.

However, the state of Nevada is vigorously opposed to this transfer, and transportation details have yet to be worked out. Indeed, the transportation of the mercury may prove to be more dangerous than allowing the mercury to stay where it is. The odds of this transfer ever happening are dubious at best.

This whole matter is an election year ploy by Ferguson to divert attention from his disastrous voting record against the environment. In fact, Ferguson voted against environment-friendly policies 80 percent of the time in 2005. Only the most naive voters will be fooled by this blatant political ploy.

Mike Ferguson is the single largest recipient of contributions from disgraced House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. And it was recently noted that Ferguson voted with DeLay 89 percent of the time. So if you like what DeLay has done, Ferguson is your guy.

Don't be fooled by election-year tricks. Ferguson's actual voting record contains the same miserable failures as Bush and Delay.

SHARON RAISLEY
Bridgewater

Posted by admin at 05:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We have long maintained on this site that Congressman Michael Ferguson presents a moderate face to the 7th Congressional District, but that when he goes down to Washington DC he removes the mask and votes as the true right wing conservative he truly is. For a time, he could get away with it and even fool progressive organizations into believing they could work with him.

As a result, early in his tenure Ferguson received endorsements from groups like the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), a non-partisan organization that endorses Democrats and Republicans. In 2001, LCV gave Ferguson an impressive 71 percent rating for his first year in Congress and endorsed his reelection in 2002.

Then things changed, and Ferguson's true voting patten emerged. After starting well, Ferguson finished his first full term with a lowly 59 percent rating. His second term score dropped even farther, slipping to 35 percent over 2003 and 2004 and losing the LCV endorsement.

Today the LCV ratings for 2005 came out and, as predicted last week, his environmental record plummetted to a lowly 17 percent.

This is from a guy who says this on his campaign website:

"If I think our leaders in the House or President Bush are wrong in advocating policies that would weaken our environment, I have and I will continue to stand up for what is right," Congressman Ferguson said. "As the father of three young children, I believe I have a responsibility to protect our environment, preserve open space and ensure our children and grandchildren inherit an environment that is vibrant and strong."

According to the League of Conservation voters, he stopped standing up for what is right years ago.

Posted by admin at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In 2002 Ferguson's campaign trumpeted his 71 percent rating and 2002 endorsement from the League of Conervation Voters as evidence of his independence from the Bush administration and his "strong" environmental record. At that time, Ferguson obviously felt that the LCV was a good organization and value their opinion.

It's time to take a look at the whole LCV record, and decide whether a lifetime

• 107th, 1st Session (2001) 71%
  107th, 2nd Session (2002) 38%
  107th Congress (2001-2002) 59%
• 108th, 1st Session (2003) 30%
  108th, 2nd Session (2004) 45%
  108th Congress (2003-2004) 35%

This doens't include the 109th Congress, the first session of which wrapped up last December. Ferguson voted twice to drill for oil in ANWR, for the Energy Bill, for forcing states to accept liquid natural gas terminals off their shorelines, and for the Bush adminsitration's Clear Skies program.

Expect that lifetime 41 percent rating to fall after last year, as Ferguson moves closer and closer to lockstep with the Washington Republican's demans.

Posted by admin at 06:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This letter was published in the Courier News on February 9, 2006:

I had to laugh when I saw the recent letter from Mike Ferguson touting solar energy in the Courier News. Since he is coming up for re-election this fall, Congressman Ferguson obviously wants his constituents to think he cares about the environment and about the high cost of energy, but he does not.

Ferguson voted for $8.1 billion in energy tax breaks for oil and gas producers, and $2 billion for subsidizing development of oil and gas production in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. These subsidies were doled out to oil companies who are currently raking in record profits. Exxon Mobil just posted a quarterly profit of $10.7 billion, the largest for any U.S. company, in any industry, ever.

Ferguson also voted for the disastrous 2005 energy bill that arose out of the infamous Cheney Energy Task Force. This bill does little to reduce our dependence on oil; weakens cornerstone environmental protections such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act; provides billions of dollars to polluting industries; requires damaging and invasive oil and gas activities on our coastlines; increases global warming pollution; and weakens the public's ability to give input into siting energy facilities. In fact, Ferguson voted against environment-friendly policies 80 percent of the time in 2005.

Ferguson also voted to increase Medicare premiums and to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, leading our nation to record budget deficits. Ferguson is a toady of the Bush administration. We need a representative who will think and vote independently. Ferguson is not the right choice for New Jersey's 7th Congressional District.

LISA TOTTEN
Bridgewater

Posted by admin at 06:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

On December 19, 2005 Congressman Mike Ferguson voted for a budget bill that included a provision opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling for petroleum. It was the fourth time he has voted for bills including this provision in five years, despite Ferguson's repeatedly claiming that he opposes oil drilling in ANWR and pointing to it as a sign of his independence from the Bush administration.

But more troubling than Ferguson's hypocricy in calling keeping ANWR oil rig free a "national priority" yet voting to approve drilling is that he repeatedly omits his true voting record when writing to his constituents. Twice before -- here and here -- we've published letters from Ferguson touting his three votes for failed amendments against drilling but conveniently leaving out his votes for approving drilling in successful bills.

And now he has done it again. In an e-mail dated January 4, 2006 Ferguson brags:

I have voted three times � in 2001, 2003 and 2005 � to prohibit drilling in ANRW.

This e-mail -- published in full after the jump -- was sent just 16 days after he voted to approve drilling in the budget bill. While it lays out excellent arguments against drilling in ANWR in order to portray Ferguson as an environmentalist, it fails to note he voted twice for drilling in 2005 and once each in 2001 and 2003.

The only way to stop Ferguson from continuing to mislead his constituents is to make his intentional mendacity public. Please write letters to the editor about this issue, and Ferguson's consistent inability to tell the truth about his voting record.

The Courier News is at letters@c-n.com, the Home News Tribune at letters@thnt.com, the Star Ledger at eletters@starledger.com, or the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com.

Continue reading "Mike Ferguson Continues to Mislead Constituents on ANWR" »

Posted by admin at 08:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apparently Congressman Mike Ferguson feels that the only time to vote his conscience is during an "up or down vote." Newhouse News' Bill Cahir covered Ferguson's flip-flop on ANWR in the Gloucester County Times.

Twenty-five Republicans - including LoBiondo, Saxton, Ferguson, and Frelinghuysen - signed a letter to House leaders saying they would not support the budget-cutting bill if the measure included a provision to open the Arctic refuge.

On Monday, 12 of those Republicans, including Ferguson and Frelinghuysen, reversed course and voted for Arctic drilling as part of the defense measure.

"It's kind of regrettable that this is how the end of the session happened. You see unrelated items get put together onto the same bill," Ferguson, R-7th Dist., said in a telephone interview.

"I had made it pretty well known through my votes over the last several and various communications that I don't support drilling in the ANWR. And through this process, they linked it to this bill that should have been about military funding. At the end of the day, I had to make a decision: Do I support the military pay raise, $1.2 billion for personnel force protection (and) body armor, emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? So I supported it, I voted yes," he said.

"When I've had a chance to vote up or down on ANWR, a clean vote, I've consistently voted against it," Ferguson said.

Blaming this on the House Republican leadership -- which used its "Leadership PACs to contribute $58,000 to Ferguson in 2004 alone -- is specious. If he wanted an "clean vote" Mr. Ferguson, as a member of Congress, and could have proposed an amendment to strip ANWR drilling from the bill. He did not.

Ferguson has been in Congress for five full years now, and has seen bills defeated and reintroduced. The idea that he had no choice but to support drilling in ANWR because it was attached to an unrealed bill is hogwash. Just a month ago enough Republicans opposed provisions in a budget bill that the House Leadership was forced to remove a number of portions of the bill -- including drilling in ANWR. Fellow New Jersey Republicans Frank LoBiondo and Chris Smith did it for the budget bill, and again on this bill.

Smith, R-4th Dist., joined LoBiondo as the two New Jersey Republicans who previously had objected to drilling in the Arctic refuge and also opposed the defense legislation.

LoBiondo "Smith, R-4th Dist., joined LoBiondo as the two New Jersey Republicans who hought the defense appropriations bill was an inappropriate place to put non-defense items, such as drilling in ANWR," said his spokesman, Jason Galanes.

Had he the courage of his convictions he could have joined Smith and LoBiondo in refusing to vote for the bill andforcing the removal of the ANWR provision. [In fact, the Senate is trying to force their leadership to strip ANWR from the same bill right now.] Instead, Ferguson chose to cave to the House Leadership.

With more pressure on House Leadership the ANWR provision could have been removed and the defense spending would have passed on its own. There was no risk that the soldiers would not get the support they need, and Ferguson has shown his true colors on this issue.

Posted by admin at 07:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

From the December 19, 2005 Courier News:

Energy bill ignores environmental fact

Let's try the truth for a change.

If you live in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District, you probably received a slick blue pamphlet from our congressman. This pamphlet portrays him as an environmentalist sponsoring a pro-solar energy bill. As the bill was promptly referred to committee, it's clear that Ferguson's real goal was to try to establish credentials as an environmentalist so we'd believe that he, unlike Bush and DeLay, was actually doing something to reduce global warming and U.S. reliance on foreign oil.

It's a good strategy in a state like New Jersey, where most residents believe there is a connection between the environment and their health, and where most residents believe what real scientists have to say about global warming. But the truth is Ferguson left out a few facts about his record and his party's record with respect to the environment.

While pennies from each dollar in the Republican-led energy bill would go to promote renewable energy, approximately 85 percent -- that's billions and billions of dollars -- will go to big oil, gas and nuclear interests. Even with ExxonMobil's huge profits last quarter, which came from high gas prices, these guys in Washington still want to subsidize these companies. Why?

One reason is that the Bush/DeLay energy bill would give billions to companies run by 22 executives who helped raise at least $100,000 each for Bush's presidential campaigns. Instead of helping to clean up our environment, the Bush/DeLay bill will allow more smog pollution for longer than the current Clean Air Act authorizes. This will mean more sickness and asthma for our children. Instead of actually doing something -- like improving auto or SUV emissions or cleaning up the huge coal power plants in the Midwest which pollute New Jersey's air so badly, it seems that Ferguson, Bush and DeLay listen only to one special-interest group -- the big oil and gas guys who pay to keep them in office to do their business.

Even if he wanted to protect New Jersey's environment, Ferguson has to follow the Bush/DeLay party line. In addition to taking $3 million from lobbyists and PACS, Ferguson has the distinction of taking more money from DeLay and his cronies than other congressman. This faithful support of DeLay and Bush allows Bush to do what he just did last week, walk out of a meeting of 189 nations who were attempting to find common ground on the environment and a way to reduce greenhouse warming. The only "green" thing about Ferguson is the money he pockets from big business and lobbyists.

Bush was wrong when he misled the country into war on Iraq, and he was wrong to put an inexperienced political appointee in charge of Katrina; what if Bush and his cheerleaders DeLay and Ferguson are wrong on greenhouse warming? Wouldn't this be a time to be conservative and prudent rather than taking such a highly risky gamble on our future?

PAUL HOGAN
Summit

On the same day this was published, Mike Ferguson again went against his own "strong" environmental stand to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from development by the oil companies and voted for the fourth time to allow the drilling.

Posted by admin at 05:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Blue 7th PAC member Kathy called Congressman Mike Ferguson's office to get an answer from them about why he voted to, once again, drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They wouldn't comment:

I just called his office in DC and the person who answered said he could not comment on this. Or if Ferguson was going to return any money that Delay gave him. And if Ferguson was going to be a real patriot and work to find out why Bush is spying on US citizens illegally.

So these are three questions Ferguson refuses to answer:

• Why did you vote to drill in ANWR
• Are you going to return the $54,413 you received from Tom DeLay?
• Are you going to call for hearings into the Bush administration spying on American citizens without warrents or court orders?

Let's get the answers to these questions. Please call Ferguson's DC office at (202) 225-5361 or his Warren, NJ office at (908) 757-7835 and ask him these questions. Please be polite and clear, and write your answers in the comments section below.

Posted by admin at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Congressman Mike Ferguson has long used his alleged opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National WIldlife Refuge (ANWR) as "evidence" that he is a moderate, an environmentalist and independent from President Bush. It is the signature position he and his office references in consituent letters, on his campaign website and to the newspapers when he is trying to hide his radical positions from view.

But Mike Ferguson's public position on drilling in ANWR -- his campaign site call is a national priority -- is a lie. He has proven time and time again that he will vote against his own position to support his party, and this morning at about 5 a.m. he did it again.

Working through the night, the House early today voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling as part of a military measure and narrowly approved a $40 billion budget-cutting plan as bleary-eyed lawmakers concluded a marathon weekend session.

Ferguson voted for this bill, and also voted for bills that included that provision in April 2005, and in 2003 and in 2001. He has voted for amendments to strip ANWR from previous bills, but when the amendment failed he stepped up and voted with his party.

This time Ferguson offered no amendment, and so his record on ANWR is now four votes for bills that approve drilling and three votes for amendments against. He could have joined nine other Republicans who voted against the bill, or the 10 Republicans who did not vote for it. But he did not. Instead he cast his vote for the drilling if ANWR for the fourth time.

The people of the 7th Congressional district deserve to know about Ferguson's hypocricy on ANWR and the environment in general. Please write to the Courier News at letters@c-n.com, the Home News Tribune at letters@thnt.com, the Star Ledger at eletters@starledger.com, or the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com and tell them about this consistent record of voting one way in Washington and talking another way in New Jersey.

UPDATE: John C. notes that just last Friday on PoliticsNJ.com Ferguson's spokesman played up the ANWR votes as an indication of how independent he is from the President.

"Voters are evaluating what their congressmen have done for them in their local communities, how they've gone to bat," says Jones.. "When the President is right -- like in lowering the taxes or in fighting the war of terrorism, Mike stands by him. But he's not afraid to oppose the president when he's wrong," referencing Ferguson's opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . .

Ooops.

Posted by admin at 07:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In April Mike Ferguson voted to allow the federal government to force states such as New Jersey to place liquified natural gas (LNG) transfer stations off their shores. Traditionally, of course, conservatives like Rep. Ferguson prefer to leave such decisions to the states.

The proponents suggested that states were being too stingy with allowing these terminals and the result was higher delivery costs and consumer prices. The opponents suggest that states should be allowed to determine whether potentially dangerous facilities that would be easy targets for terrorists and not be forced to host them against their will.

Now Congressman Ferguson has, in a largely party line vote, voted against an amendment to the Coast Guard appropriations bill that would require the Coast Guard to "conduct a comprehensive security and safety review of liquefied natural gas facilities."

Why would Congressman Ferguson vote to force New Jersey to put dangerous LNG transfer stations off its shore, but vote against comprehensive security and review of such facilities? I have to say, I don't know.

So let's ask him. Please send the Congressman a note or call his office at 908-757-7835 and ask why he voted to take the LNG decision away from the people of New Jersey and refuse to do security and safety reviews at the same time.

Posted by admin at 08:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Last month we caught Mike Ferguson misleading a constituent by sending a letter bragging on his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) a full eight days after he voted to approve drilling in that pristine Alaskan wilderness. We thought that was pretty bad, seeing as Rep. Ferguson calls banning such drilling a "national priority" on his campaign website.

Now it turns out we gave Rep. Ferguson too much credit, because he has been spinning the truth on drilling for oil in ANWR since his first year in Congress. In August 2001 he did vote for an amendment to stop the Bush administration's efforts to put oil rigs up in Alaska, but that amendment failed and the energy bill moved to the floor included approving the drilling.

Congressman Michael Ferguson voted YES to the energy bill, and YES to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on August 2, 2001.

Congressman Ferguson's website, campaign and constituent letters all talk about his opposition to drilling in ANWR, but doesn't mention he traded that opposition in return for an energy bill favored by the oil industry and opposed by environmentalists. And he knows that he traded drilling in ANWR for that energy bill, as noted in this October 22, 2002 Courier News article:

Environment: Ferguson broke with his party on drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, although he voted for an overall energy bill which included drilling.

"At the end of the day, I did feel that we needed an energy bill," he said.

[Source: August 3, 2001 New York Times article entitled, "The Crucial Votes in the House on the Energy Bill"]

Posted by admin at 03:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

One of Mike Ferguson's constituents received a letter signed by Mike Ferguson on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that blatantly misrepresents the Congressman's recent record on environmental issues.

Here's the letter, dated April 29, 2005 with the facts added in italics:

Dear Mr. ________

Thank you for contacting me regarding oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

Like you, I oppose drilling in ANWR. In fact, I have voted three times — in 2001, 2003 and 2005 — to prohibit oil and gas exploration in ANWR.

[On April 21, eight days before this letter, Congressman Ferguson voted to permit oil and gas exploration in ANWR as part of the energy bill. Since the constituent, like Congressman Ferguson, does "oppose drilling in ANWR" it seems like they would be interested in hearing about this vote.]

As a father of four young children, I share your dedication to protecting the environment, and I am committed to ensuring the environment shared by future generations is safe, clean and protected.

That is why, since first becoming a member of Congress in 2001, I have been a strong advocate of protecting our environment. For example, I have voted to uphold strict drinking water standards, voted to increase fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, and voted to block road construction and logging in our national parks.

[On April 21, eight days before this letter, Mike Ferguson voted twice to give blanket immunity to MTBE manufacturers in cases of groundwater contamination, even though there are at least two such pending lawsuits in his Congressional District. On March 20, more than a month before this letter, Mike Ferguson voted against an amendment to increase fuel efficiency standards by just eight miles per gallon in 10 years. The Congressman claims to be for clean drinking water and high fuel efficiency standards, but his votes in the days leading up to this letter go directly against that claim.]

In addition to opposing drilling in ANWR, I also have voted to prohibit oil and gas drilling on national monuments, off the coast of California, in the Great Lakes and in the Gulf of Mexico. I also support legislation that would prohibit oil and gas exploration off the New Jersey coast.

[Also on April 21, Mike Ferguson voted against an amendment that would have allowed oceanfront states like New Jersey to determine whether to allow liquefied natural gas terminals off their shorelines, and then voted for the energy bill that took that right away from New Jersey. A terrorist attack or major accident during a transfer of liquefied natural gas at one of these terminals would be as big an environmental disaster as an oil drilling accident.

Rest assured that in Congress I will remain a strong advocate of protecting and strengthening our environment.

After reading the letter, you can understand a constituent feeling pretty good about the environment. But after reviewing the votes of the past 45 days, the picture is much less clear.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your opinions with me and please visit my website at www.house.gov/ferguson for more information on issues important to New Jersey's 7th Congressional District.

Sincerely,

Mike Ferguson
Member of Congress

If you get a letter from Congressman Ferguson, please write to dumpmike@gmail.com and we will verify for you that his votes match his letter writing.

Posted by admin at 03:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

MTBE is a gasoline additive used to reduce pollution, but unfortunately it is also a groundwater and air pollutant in its own right. The federal government did require that additives like MTBE be included in gasoline in the 1990 Clean Air Act to reduce C0 emissions. The issue, however, is not MTBE in the gasoline but MTBE in the groundwater.

The oil industry has lobbied for years to get an exemption from lawsuits stemming from environmental destruction and human illnesses generated by MTBE in the drinking water.

There are hundreds of lawsuits right now from water companies and public utilities that simply demand that the oil companies clean up their own pollution. Included in that list are Elizabethtown Water and New Jersey American Water Company which provide water to much of Mike Ferguson's 7th Congressional District.

Yet twice last week Mike Ferguson voted (roll calls 129 and 132) and to give the polluters blanket immunity against lawsuits forcing them to clean up the MTBE, and in effect passed that cost on to local water companies and public utilities. And we all know that means we will be paying more for water in order to pick up the cost for the polluters.

This from a candidate who presents himself as "fighting to ensure our drinking water is safe from ... harmful contaminants" and "a strong champion of protecting the environment."

It seems that Candidate Ferguson and Congressman Ferguson have two different ideologies and voting records. Maybe the reason is that Mike Ferguson is the number one recipient of money from Texas Congressman Tom Delay, and it was Delay who inserted this language in the energy bill.

Contact Mike Ferguson on his website or by calling his office at 908-757-7835 and ask him why he thinks the residents of the 7th Congressional District should pay to clean up pollution we didn't create.

Send the answer you get to dumpmike@gmail.com or post it in the comments below.

Also, write a letter to the editor to the Courier News at letters@c-n.com, the Home News Tribune at letters@thnt.com, or the Star Ledger at eletters@starledger.com.

Posted by admin at 07:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's what Mike Ferguson wrote on his campaign website:

Congressman Ferguson has twice voted to ban oil drilling in ANWR. Groups from the Sierra Club to the National Wildlife Federation congratulated Congressman Ferguson for voting to block ANWR drilling. [snip]

Although protecting ANWR is a national priority, Congressman Ferguson also opposed oil exploration elsewhere in the country.

Here's what Mike Ferguson voted to pass as part of the energy bill [H.R. 6] that passed on April 21, 2005.

(10) According to published scientific, technical, and economic reports, the three contiguous North American countries have the resource base and technical ability to increase production of oil by at least 15 Mmbbl/d by 2025 and 20 Mmbbl/d by 2030 even before increases in coal liquifaction, biofuels, gas-to-liquids, and other methods of creating liquid substitutes for crude oil and crude oil products.

(11) This increase in North American oil production would be derived from a variety of resources including, among others--

(A) the United States oil shale resource base (2 trillion barrels of oil in place out of 2.6 trillion in the world) believed to be capable of eventually producing 10 Mmbbl/d for more than 100 years;
(B) the Canadian Alberta oil sands resource base (1.7 trillion barrels of oil in place), also believed to be capable of eventually producing 10 Mmbbl/d for more than 100 years;
(C) the United States heavy oil resource base (80 billion barrels of oil in place);
(D) the remaining 400 billion barrels of conventional oil in place in the United States of which 60 billion barrels are potentially producible with advanced CO2 enhanced oil recovery technology;
(E) the United States oil sands resource base of 54 billion barrels of oil in place;
(F) the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain area (ANWR) with a mean technically recoverable resource of more than 10 billion barrels of oil;
(G) the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) with a mean technically recoverable resource of 9.3 billion barrels of oil;
(H) the 12-18 billion barrels of oil likely to be producible in the Canadian Atlantic offshore;
(I) the extensive resources of the Canadian Arctic onshore and offshore;
(J) the extensive resources in the Alaskan Arctic offshore and the outer Continental Shelf offshore the lower-48 United States;

I guess protecting ANWR in April after an election is not as important as it was in the October before an election.

In fairness, Mike did vote for an amendment removing ANWR drilling from the bill on Wednesday. But by voting for the energy bill he voted for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Regufe and offshore in Alaska.

Posted by admin at 09:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

According to Mike's campaign website, Mike "voted to increase the average fuel economy standard (CAFE) for cars and SUVs" and "In New Jersey, protecting the environment is a bipartisan issue." Well, it appears he is not part of the bipartisan coalition.

Maybe someone on his campaign staff can explain why Mike Ferguson voted no on a common sense amendment to the energy bill on March 20th, 2005 that would have simply directed the Secretary of Transportation to "increase fuel economy standards from today's average of 25 miles/gallon to 33 miles/gallon over 10 years."

This would have cut our gasoline use by 10 percent through 2015, and even more after it was fully phased in. That's a lot of money saved, pollution avoided and terrorists defunded.

Four of New Jersey's Republican members of Congress -- Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ11-), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2), Jim Saxton (NJ-3), and Chris Smith (NJ-4) -- joined all seven Democratic members of Congress to vote in favor of increasing fuel efficiency standards. Only Mike Ferguson and Scott Garrett (NJ-5) voted against them.

New Jersey has some of the worst air in the country, and not just a little of the cause of that are all the cars on our highways. Our asthma rates for children are skyrocketing in cities and in suburban areas like the 7th district.

Gasoline profits in middle eastern countries are funding terrorism, and our dependence on that oil is a major risk to our homeland security.

And gas prices at one station on my way in to work today were at $2.35 a gallon for medium grade gas, putting a major crimp in the wallet of middle class commuters as they try to make ends meet.

Contact Mike Ferguson on his website or by calling his office at 908-757-7835 and ask him why he went against eleven of New Jersey's 13 members of Congress to ensure cars and SUVs with low fuel efficiency continue to clog the street and highways of the Garden State.

Send the answer you get to dumpmike@gmail.com or post it in the comments below.

Also, write a letter to the editor to the Courier News at letters@c-n.com, the Home News Tribune at letters@thnt.com, or the Star Ledger at eletters@starledger.com.

Posted by admin at 05:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)