Category: Homeland Security

February 18, 2007

Mike Ferguson Supports Escallation of Iraq War

Here are some annotated highlights of Mike Ferguson's take on the Iraq War resolution passed last week by the House. His comments are in italics, with ours in plain text.

I am disappointed that the strategies employed thus far have not been more successful and that our progress in Iraq has been too slow, and I am saddened that those who have drafted this resolution are offering no alternatives of their own for our mission in Iraq. Indeed, they are prohibiting consideration in this Chamber of any alternative.

Yes, Mike, the debate is limited because this debate is about a specific proposal to add 21,500 more troops to Iraq, continuing the failed policy the Bush administration has attempted at least four times (in Fallujah twice, in Baghdad twice). I also find it difficult to accept your desire to debate alternatives in Iraq when you were in the majority for the first three years and ten months of the war and prohibited any debate during that entire time! Why is it only now that you are in the minority you want open debate?

Even better, your claim they are prohibiting debate on alternatives is a load of cow manure. You were given five minutes to say anything you wanted. So was every single member of the House of Representatives. No one said you may not bring up alternatives to what you admit is a failed policy. You chose to do that on your own, and then blame the Democrats. If you had an alternative, you could offer one. But you've been steadfast in just lockstepping behind the President and refuse to change your tune even as you see the situation imploding.

Continue reading "Mike Ferguson Supports Escallation of Iraq War" »

Mike Ferguson Supports Escallation of Iraq War

Here are some annotated highlights of Mike Ferguson's take on the Iraq War resolution passed last week by the House. His comments are in italics, with ours in plain text.

I am disappointed that the strategies employed thus far have not been more successful and that our progress in Iraq has been too slow, and I am saddened that those who have drafted this resolution are offering no alternatives of their own for our mission in Iraq. Indeed, they are prohibiting consideration in this Chamber of any alternative.

Yes, Mike, the debate is limited because this debate is about a specific proposal to add 21,500 more troops to Iraq, continuing the failed policy the Bush administration has attempted at least four times (in Fallujah twice, in Baghdad twice). I also find it difficult to accept your desire to debate alternatives in Iraq when you were in the majority for the first three years and ten months of the war and prohibited any debate during that entire time! Why is it only now that you are in the minority you want open debate?

Even better, your claim they are prohibiting debate on alternatives is a load of cow manure. You were given five minutes to say anything you wanted. So was every single member of the House of Representatives. No one said you may not bring up alternatives to what you admit is a failed policy. You chose to do that on your own, and then blame the Democrats. If you had an alternative, you could offer one. But you've been steadfast in just lockstepping behind the President and refuse to change your tune even as you see the situation imploding.

Continue reading "Mike Ferguson Supports Escallation of Iraq War" »

November 25, 2006

Mike Ferguson and Hillborough's Mercury

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.

October 23, 2006

Letter: Stender is best choice for 7th CD

The following letter was published in the Home News Tribune on October 23, 2006:

Stender is best choice for 7th CD

Democrat Linda Stender is clearly the best choice for our state and our nation in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District. She would provide needed checks and balances against the corruption of the Bush administration.

Stender disagreed with Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, but supports our troops and would pressure Bush for an exit strategy that brings soldiers home safely. Incumbent Rep. Mike Ferguson, R-7th Dist., however, has repeatedly given the Bush administration a free pass on oversight and accountability when it comes to Iraq and even voted to keep the troops there indefinitely.

Stender supports stem-cell research, which provides the best hope of curing many illnesses plaguing our nation. Ferguson, while claiming to be for stem-cell research, voted against it in Congress.

Stender supports a path toward energy independence. She would stand up to the big oil companies and would not allow price-gouging. She favors progress toward better and cleaner energy sources, which would reduce oil demand and reduce prices as well as protect the public.

I encourage voters to elect Stender. She would block the radical Bush agenda and help get our country back on course.

Charles Versfelt
RARITAN

September 12, 2006

Mike Ferguson Exploits 9/11 For Campaign Cash

Like hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans, Congressman Mike Ferguson participated in an event commemorating the horrible attacks of 9-11. It was a time of togetherness and rememberance of a terrible day.

There's one difference between how Ferguson commemorated the event and how the rest of us did it, though. Mike sent out an e-mail newsletter to supporters with a full color picture of him at the event and used it as a fundraiser for his Congressional campaign.

Here's a screenshot of the e-mail, where you can clearly see the buttons looking for volunteers and campaign cash directly to the left of the article on the 9-11 ceremony.

Mike Ferguson Exploits 9/11 For Campaign Cash

Wrong choices, wrong Congressman.

Continue reading "Mike Ferguson Exploits 9/11 For Campaign Cash" »

August 28, 2006

Enough

Linda Stender is hitting back at Mike Ferguson with mailings, a radio ad and -- from what I hear -- a television ad up on cable. I haven't seen it, but if you have put it in the comments. These three posts are the current pieces going out in the mail.

The first is about Ferguson's unlimited support for President George Bush's Stay the Course strategy on the Iraq War. You can click on either image to get to a pdf of the piece and mail it to your friends.

Front
Linda Stender's mailing highlighting Mike Ferguson's Iraq War position

Back
Linda Stender's mailing highlighting Mike Ferguson's Iraq War position

August 21, 2006

Letters: Ferguson myopic on residents' views

The following letter was published in the August 21, 2006 Courier News.

The line about Lebanon is great.

Ferguson myopic on residents' views

When election season rolls around, pundits of all stripes inevitably rehash tired cliches such as this one: "All politics is local." For Campaign 2006, I'd like to offer an update: All politics is local -- when you're hopelessly out of touch with your constituents.

Two events last week prove my case for the change. First, in Connecticut, we saw Sen. Joe Lieberman (a statesman and a class act) lose the Democratic primary because of his frustratingly stubborn support of the Iraq quagmire. His loss did not signal a win for left-wing bloggers, nor did it symbolize the end of civility in politics (Republicans ended that years ago). As Lieberman campaigned on the 18 years of pork he brought back to Connecticut, the results showed that incumbents who refuse to value their constituents' opinions are vulnerable.

Second was yet another glossy, taxpayer-funded advertisement mailed home that proudly advertised the pork Rep. Mike Ferguson recently secured for the district. In the midst of the diplomatic crisis in Lebanon, the best our congressman can do is to talk about walkie-talkies for Lebanon Township. The juxtaposition was priceless.

Mike Ferguson is busy talking about repaving Route 22 instead of addressing the many serious issues of the day, because his views on the issues that matter are out of synch with those of his constituents. From blindly supporting the Iraq war and advocating for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, to voting against stem-cell research and promoting irresponsible energy policies as gas hovers at $3 per gallon, Mike Ferguson's positions better represent Georgia's 7th District, not New Jersey's 7th.

It is time to change direction, and fortunately this November, we have a chance to do so by electing Democrat Linda Stender to Congress, a proven leader who will actually represent our views in Washington.

KEVIN CUTRO
Westfield

July 19, 2006

Linda Stender for Congress Video -- Mike Ferguson and George Bush

Found this video today from the Linda Stender for Congress campaign linking Mike Ferguson to George Bush's failures. It's really not hard to do. Click to watch the video.

UPDATE: This video is not from the Stender campaign. In fact, it has no disclaimer so we do not know where it comes from. If you know, please put it in the comments!

Linda Stender video of Mike Ferguson and George Bush

July 05, 2006

Letter: Ferguson jumps gun on mercury

The following letter was published in the Courier News on July 5, 2006:

Mike Ferguson's recent campaign ad praising himself for the removal of mercury in Hillsborough is yet another election year ploy by the Republican congressman.

The facts concerning the mercury removal are this: Nevada has yet to approve the transfer, and the Defense Department has no firm scheduled removal date. The chances of the removal ever happening are dubious at best. Yet Ferguson tries to deceive the voting public once again. Ferguson has voted with Bush on every failed policy out of this failed administration.

We don't need another rubber-stamp Bush sycophant in Congress.

JAN FLEEDLE
Hillsborough

June 02, 2006

Does Mike Ferguson Really Care About Anti-Terror Funding?

Congressman Mike Ferguson likes to act tough when it comes to homeland security. He's always ready to stand by a firefighter or local Republican politician and announce a grant, but his votes on funding anti-terror activities show a lack of concern for his constituents and the threats we face.

Last year, Ferguson voted for a budget bill that slashed homeland security funding for the states by $700 million, a 30 percent cut in money for first responders and security. Now it turns out that, due to that cut in funding, New Jersey will see significantly fewer homeland security dollars than in the past. According to the Star Ledger, New Jersey

will receive less federal money for anti-terror and disaster preparedness programs this year, as the Bush administration cut the state's overall security funding by $8 million to $51.9 million.

New Jersey was hit hard by the 911 attacks, with 694 Jerseyans losing their lives. Some of the 911 terrorists lived in New Jersey. Two weeks later New Jersey was attacked again when letters containing weaponized anthrax were mailed from Hamilton, NJ to politicians in Washington, D.C. We have some of the largest ports in the nation, a huge international airport.

Yet Mike Ferguson's vote to cut Homeland Security funding cut our security money by almost 16 percent.

It's worse when you consider that while Union and Middlesex County are in the corridor where the majority of New Jersey's funding will go, the towns where it will go will not be in the 7th district. Target ports in Elizabeth, Perth Amboy are out of district, along with sensitive areas like Plainfield and Hillside. Somerset and Hunterdon Counties -- almost half of the district -- will share $18 million with 15 other counties.

In short, Mike Ferguson has voted to slash funding for local homeland security, and the Republican administration has made it even worse by sending money to other states with fewer targets. The result is less money, less security and more evidence that Mike Ferguson is not the right person to represent the 7th district.

Contact Mike Ferguson's office and tell him you want him to stop cutting our homeland security funding, and go back to fighting for the people he's supposed to be representing.

Warren, NJ: (908) 757-7835 (v) or (908) 757-7841 (f) or e-mail
Washington, DC: (202) 225-5361 (v) or (202) 225-9460 (f) or e-mail
Campaign Office: (732) 560-4700 (v) or (732) 560-4790 (f) or e-mail.

Also, please write letters to the editor on this and other issues related to Mike Ferguson. 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. More local sites can be found at Dump Mike Letters.

May 07, 2006

Playing Politics With Port Security

Congressman Mike Ferguson sent out a press release [1] last Friday announcing his vote on a bill to improve port security. But the vote, which was 421-2, really didn't deserve a press release. Almost every member of the House voted for it, after all, so it would be more newsworthy if Ferguson had voted against it.

Until you realize that this release is intended to obscure the fact that Ferguson voted earlier in the day to weaken the bill in the fight against possible nuclear weapon attacks by terrorists.

An amendment was proposed which would have required scanning for nuclear materials at the point of origin, before the containers shipped to the United States. With fears rising the Iran could build a nuclear weapon, that North Korea has them already and that there are hundreds of unsecured nuclear devices in former Soviet republics, this would seem seem to be a no brainer.

But Ferguson sided with the Republican leadership and voted down this amendment in favor of scanning most containers when they are already in our ports. Instead of stopping potential nuclear bombs before they get here, Ferguson would rather we wait until they reach our home ports before checking.

As Ferguson's own press release notes:

Port Newark/Elizabeth, operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, form the largest port complex on the East Coast and are just outside Ferguson's 7th District, which includes portions of Hunterdon, Middlesex, Somerset and Union counties.

Ferguson could very well have sent out a press release which would have garnered media coverage if that's what he wanted: FERGUSON VOTES TO WAIT FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO REACH UNITED STATES BEFORE SCANNING, RISKING THE LIVES OF EVERYONE IN HIS CONGRESSIONAL DISRICT.

Now that would have gotten him in the paper.

Continue reading "Playing Politics With Port Security" »

May 02, 2006

Immigration Rally At Ferguson's Office

Earlier this year Mike Ferguson voted for a law that would make all undocumented immigrants felons and criminalize anyone offering assistance to undocumented immigrants. That includes churches and lay community groups offering food to the hungry, shelter to the homeless and comfort to the afflicted. The bill was so draconian that the Catholic leader of Los Angelos, Cardinal Mahoney, instructed all priests to violate the law if it passed.

More than 100 immigration reform activists rallied at Congressman Mike Ferguson's office as part of the Day Without ImmigrantsFerguson has yet to defend his vote, and his staff has refused to answer questions about his rationale. Yesterday scores of immigrants and supporters of immigration reform rallied at his office, and according to eyewitnesses the staff refused to come out an meet with the ralliers. But staff was happy to return the call of a Courier News reporter:

More than 100 people demonstrated for immigrant rights outside Plainfield City Hall, about 70 people protested at Republican Rep. Mike Ferguson's office in Warren, according to workers there, and a small group showed up at Rep.Rodney Frelinghuysen's Morristown office.

This repeats a pattern for the Ferguson office: they dodge or refuse to answer questions from constituents, yet they will talk to the newspapers at any time.

Continue reading "Immigration Rally At Ferguson's Office" »

March 27, 2006

Letters: Ferguson's record far from favorable

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

March 12, 2006

Letters: Ferguson's missteps outweigh achievements

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

March 09, 2006

Letters: Ferguson's Mercury Deal a Ploy

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

Letters: Ferguson's Positions Too Weak

The following letter was published in the Courier News on March 7, 2006.

Ferguson too lax in taking stances

I do not think that Rep. Michael Ferguson's response to the Dubai Ports World takeover of six U.S. ports is worth the commendation offered by Mr. Farah's letter as published in the Courier News on March 1.

My experience was entirely different. I had heard the news about a United Arab Emirates-based company taking over the running of the ports. On Feb. 21, about a week after the story broke, I called Ferguson's Washington office to express my opinion and was told that Mr. Ferguson had no opinion regarding this issue.

I subsequently called other New Jersey representatives that morning -- Rush Holt and Rodney Frelinghuysen -- who both were against the takeover. Sen. Frank Lautenberg's office explained that he already was at work with his colleagues to propose legislation. It seems to me that Mr. Ferguson was very late in making up his mind, possibly waiting to see public reaction or maybe awaiting White House instructions. Only upon seeing the overwhelming opposition to this takeover did he reluctantly adopt a position. I believe he should be chastised more than applauded.

I note that once again, the Bush administration is trying to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling with an appropriation for this in the federal budget bill. The last several times this was tried, it was defeated and in this, too, Mr. Ferguson was late in showing his disapproval in spite of his claim that he supports environmental preservation objectives.

Mr. Ferguson should be criticized for lengthy water testing before adopting a position.

LOIS RIGGS
Branchburg

October 31, 2005

Mike Ferguson Votes To Close Fort Monmouth Base

Congressman Mike Ferguson joined the entire New Jersey Republican House delegation in voting to close Fort Monmouth. The closing of this base will cost hundreds of jobs in Central New Jersey, many of them in the 7th District Ferguson represents.

Under the Pentagon plan, Fort Monmouth will be closed within six years and its primary electronics, research and acquisition functions will be transferred to Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. This will mean the loss of an estimated 5,000 civilian jobs, 467 military positions and thousands of other jobs and numerous business that indirectly support the Army base and its mission.

It is possible that Ferguson could explain this vote away by saying he was voting for the overall realignment plan and had to accept the Fort Monmouth closing as part of the deal. However, that doesn't explain Ferguson's total absence from the effort to save Fort Monmouth during his five years in Congress.

This Courier News editorial notes Ferguson's lack of effort while lauding others:

But Rebovich said Republicans pushing Forrester's candidacy have to answer why the state's six GOP congressmen, some with considerable seniority, were not successful in saving Fort Monmouth from the Base Realignment and Closure panel. Three of the GOP congressmen -- Rodney Frelinghuysen, Jim Saxton and Chris Smith -- fought hard for the post.

And back earlier this year Ferguson voted against cutting $53 million from the base closing effort and transfering those funds to the Veterans Administration to care for wounded and sick soldiers. That amendment failed by just one vote, and had Ferguson voted with his district and veterans it could have made a difference for all of us.

Contact Mike Ferguson and ask him why he was AWOL from the effort to protect New Jersey jobs and security by calling his office at 908-757-7835 or using his website contact form.

You can also make your feelings known by writing letters to the editor to local and regional papers: 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.

Another option is to write on message boards on the Internet. You can pick them by county or by town and write what your Congressman is doing.

September 20, 2005

Courier News: Ferguson Trumpets Using Homeland Security for "Pork"

The Courier News noticed that Homeland Security money is being used by the federal government no to provide protection against terror attacks but for funding regular municipal expenses. They also noticed that Mike Ferguson likes to trumpet the misuse of Homeland Security funds as pork instead of working to right for real security in our state.

Meanwhile, it's readily apparent that many of these equipment upgrades represent wants more than needs. Earlier this year, state records showed that nearly two-thirds of the homeland security grants awarded in New Jersey over three years hadn't yet been spent -- more than $14 million worth.

It's no coincidence that the latest Hunterdon awards were trumpeted last week by U.S. Rep. Mike Ferguson, R-New Providence. From the beginning in the 9/11 aftermath, homeland security funding decisions have been scarred by pork-barrel politics. And the reality is that a Lebanon Township receiving more than $300,000 in two years smacks of pork.[snip]

Federal and state officials need to better differentiate between what local first responders would like to have for normal public safety and what they truly should have for regional homeland security.

Considering the lack of federal funds going into securing transit and our ports, this is a good point.