Category: Social Security
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 second is about Ferguson's unlimited support for President George Bush's policies both domestically and internationally. You can click on either image to get to a pdf of the piece and mail it to your friends.
Front
Back
This letter to the editor was published in the Saturday, March 11 2006 Courier News:
Ferguson's missteps outweigh achievementsTo 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
Mike Ferguson sent another of his very informative newletters at taxpayers expense the other day. In this one he asks residents for their opinions on pressing issues of the day.
Here's the survey:
With the massive baby boom generation beginning to retire in 2008, Social Security faces significant financial challenges. What would be your first priority to strengthen Social Security?
- Increase payroll taxes on today's workers
- Reduce Social Security benefits for today's seniors
- Reduce Social Security benefits for future seniors
- Increase the retirement age for future seniors
- Allow today's workers to use a portion of their payroll taxes to establish personal retirement accounts
- No changes should be made to Social Security
On U.S. Policy in Iraq:
- American troops should be withdrawn immediately or within the next several months
- American troops should be withdrawn only after Iraq is stable, even if that takes several more years
The best way to reduce the national debt is to:
- Reduce spending, even if it means cutting funding for important or popular programs
- Raise taxes, even if it means average Americans pay more
Needless to say, the survey is pretty well slanted. Even worse, if you look carefully at the return side of the survey you have to add postage or "Post Office will not deliver without proper postage."
Since you pay for the postage regardless -- your taxes or your stamp -- we're asking everyone to fill out the form and mail it back to Rep. Ferguson in an envelope with an extra piece of paper containing your complete feelings about these issues. If you tossed your copy or never got one, you can download it by clicking the images above.
UPDATE: Tickets are only available from Congressman Saxton at (609) 261-5800, Congressman Smith at (609) 585-7878, and Congressman LoBiondo at (609) 625-5008. All of these are Republican Congressmen who represent Burlington County. Rob Andrews, a Democrat who represents three towns and seven percent of Burlington did not get any tickets.
Wonder why not? After all, this is paid for with tax dollars, and Democrats pay taxes, too.
Dick Cheney is coming to New Jersey on Friday for another staged event in support of the Bush Social Security Tour.
A friend of mine, Mitch, called the White House to see if he could get tickets. Mitch was told that New Jersey members of the House of Representatives had tickets.
Being a go-getter, Mitch then Called Congressman Pallone's office and was told that they had no tickets. Only Republican Congress members got tickets.
If true, this means that our tax dollars are being used for a wholly partisan event that is intentionally excluding Democratic constituencies. We've seen this before -- including with Mike Ferguson earlier this year -- and this would be additional evidence.
I want to find out if this is true. Please call every Congressman -- Democratic and Republican -- in the state (numbers below) and ask them if they have any tickets for Vice President Dick Cheney's event on Friday. If they do not, ask them if they are out or if there are more coming.
Please send the response you get to dumpmike@gmail.com or put it in the comments section below.
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-01) (856) 546-5100
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-02) (609) 625-5008
Rep. Jim Saxton (R-03) (609) 261-5800
Rep. Christopher Smith (R-04) (609) 585-7878
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-05) (201) 712-0330
Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-06) (732) 571-1140
Rep. Michael Ferguson (R-07) (908) 686-5576
Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-08) (973) 523-5152
Rep. Steven Rothman (D-09) (201) 646-0808
Rep. Donald Payne (D-10) (973) 645-3213
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11) (973) 984-0711
Rep. Rush Holt (D-12) (609) 750-9365
Rep. Robert Menendez (D-13) (201) 222-2828
Here are a series of pictures from the rally in Westfield last week. The pics are courtesy of Westfield's own Jacalyn Engler. Welcome, Jacalyn!
Click the pic to get a really large version.
Here is the text of a radio ad running in New Jersey today about Mike Ferguson and Social Security:
"CUTS" – New JerseyThis week President Bush brought his risky plan for Social Security to New Jersey — a plan that would end Social Security's guaranteed benefits and tie our retirement savings to the ups and downs of the stock market.
How does President Bush plan to pay for this risky scheme you ask.
First, he'll borrow $4.5 trillion from foreign countries. Then he'll cut benefits by up to 40%.
Cutting benefits and borrowing trillions from foreign nations won't solve Social Security problems - it WILL make them worse.
Call New Jersey Congressman Mike Ferguson at 908-757-7835 and tell him you do not want your benefits cut.
Call Congressman Ferguson and tell him to oppose President Bush's risky scheme that would put in jeopardy our social security benefits here in New Jersey.
We cannot afford to be silent.
Paid for by Democratic National Committee. www.democrats.org. This communication not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The DNC is responsible for the content of this advertising.
You can also listen to the ad in MP3 format.
I was not able to get to the Westfield protest -- work, you know -- but want to hear all about it! Please post comments about the event below.
If you took pictures, please send them to dumpmike@gmail.com and I will post them on the site. Please include your name and town if you want attribution for the photo.
On Friday, March 4th President Bush will come to the 7th Congressional District for a "town meeting" on Social Security with Congressman Mike Ferguson. The meeting, at the Westfield Armory, is being called a "discussion" but it is simply another orchestrated event for the President's supporters.
Tickets for this "public" opportunity to discuss retirement security with President Bush are being handed out by only three entities: The White House; Rep. Ferguson's office; and the Union County Chamber of Commerce and Somerset County Business Partnership.
The White House and Rep. Ferguson support of President Bush's Social Security proposal, and so does the United States Chamber of Commerce which accredits both county business organizations. The national Chamber is a prime funding source for the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, a business coalition which was formed to back private investment of Social Security dollars.
With only supporters of the President's plan distributing tickets, the likelihood of any opposing views attending the "town hall" is pretty darn low. But they do not want opposing views in the audience. The President has been orchestrating events such as these all over the country with hand-picked audiences to reflect his own positions and make it appear the public supports private accounts.
However, anyone who attended Rep. Ferguson's town meetings last Saturday knows this is not the case. In open meetings in Bernardsville and Flemington the Congressman was directly challenged on his support for this plan, and on his weak grasp of the reality that Social Security faces.
I was amazed to hear Rep. Ferguson announce firmly and with resolve, "There are fewer people in the workforce today than there were 20 years ago." He repeated the claim twice.
But it is simply untrue. The Department of Labor says that in 1985 there were about 115 million people in the workforce, and in 2005 there are 148 million. That's a 33 million person, 28 percent increase that Rep. Ferguson didn't know about.
Rep. Ferguson also announced with authority that by the end of the 21st Century the Social Security shortfall would reach $75 trillion dollars. He used that stunning number to demonstrate that the President's plan to add $1 or $2 trillion to the deficit for private accounts was small potatoes.
But the Social Security Administration's trustees report from 2004 says the shortfall will be just $3.7 trillion, more than $70 trillion less than Rep. Ferguson's assertion. When told by a member of the audience had bad data, Rep. Ferguson stubbornly insisted, "That's not the information I have."
These are the basic facts of the entire issue: how many workers will pay into the system or retire, and how much debt do we need to make up. Yet Rep. Ferguson misstated both in public meetings intended to educate the public on the issues facing Social Security.
If he believes these numbers, his position on Social Security is based on bad information. If he doesn't, then he is intentionally misleading the public for partisan gain.
We cannot address the issue of Social Security with misinformation and misstatements of fact. It is only with an engaged, educated populace that a proper, measured and financially prudent solution will be made.
If Friday is anything like last Saturday, President Bush and Rep. Ferguson will not be leading us into that direction.
[Download a flyer of this essay in Word for Windows]
Apparently the Republican legislators got together this week in Washington, D.C. to talk about what they heard from constituents at their town hall meetings on Social Security this weekend.
Here's how Tom DeLay characterized the meeting:
Hastert and DeLay talked with reporters after meeting with lawmakers just back from a week spent sampling public opinion on Social Security. DeLay said the session produced "not one negative comment by the members."
Not one negative comment? Either Mike wasn't at that meeting, or he isn't relaying what we saw in Bernardsville and Flemington last Saturday.
And, don't forget, Tom DeLay and Mike Ferguson are very close.
President George Bush is coming to Westfield on Friday morning (the Armory at 10:40 AM) to try to continue to sell his Social Security scheme. Congressman Mike Ferguson (NJ-7) will also be there. Join us to send them a message and Take Back America!
Fran Middleberg and Greg Romer from our Springfield, Union County Meetup are coordinating Democracy for America activities on the ground. Please contact Fran at fmiddleberg@hotmail.com or calling 973-912-4309 .
Here are some posters you can download and print. We're asking people to post them along Route 22 in Westfield to welcome the President and to carry them at the counter protest. Warning, the files are huge!
Did you attend either of Congressman Mike Ferguson's town meetings this weekend at the Bernardsville Library or at the Flemington Municipal Hall? If so, please write your notes in the comment section below. If you wrote down any quotes, or if he said anything off-center (like that he would never let his class act like this when he was "teaching" political science) please post it on the Dump Mike blog as well.
I'm trying to get a historical record of these meetings.
Also, if you intend to go to the Bush/Ferguson rally on Friday please be sure to take some photos and take notes for this site, as well. We need a reporter or reporters to help accurately depict the event.
Please also consider joining our research team. We have a lot of information to go through and we need researchers, letter writers and other activists to make this project a success. Just reply to this message if you are interested in helping out with either reporting on Friday or working on the project.
I attended a town hall meeting hosted by Mike Ferguson in Bernardsville, NJ this morning and came away not too impressed. Given that I am writing on a site called DumpMike.com this is really not surprising. Still I was amazed at the outright misinformation that Mike peddled, and the fact that he apparently believed it either through ignorance or incompetence. Here's some of my notes and pics, with more to come.
Mike Calls for Bipartisanship, Then Insults Democratic Colleagues
In the traditional bipartisanship two-step, Mike had a placard that said, "Partisan Bickering Will Not Strengthen Social Security" but slapped his Democratic colleagues around. The first bullet reads, "Social Security's financial challenges require a thoughtful, bipartisan solution."
He's right. So it's a wonder that he went on the attack on more than one occasion against his Democratic Colleagues.
In response to a question, Mike said, "What is the Democrat's solution for Social Security? Zip." Realizing this might not have been the best answer, he continued after a beat, "The only people who are talking about solving the problems of social security are Republicans. They (Democrats) seem to be saying there is no problem with Social Security and if we leave it alone it will get better."
That's not really bipartisanship, but if it were true I guess you could say it was honest. Unfortunately for Mike, it is not true.
Congressman Frank Pallone is a Democrat who serves NJ's 6th Congressional District which borders Mike Ferguson's 7th District. Frank Pallone called for the President to form a bipartisan commission on Social Security like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did in 1983.
Congressman Rush Holt is a Democrat who serves NJ's 12th Congressional District which border's Mike Ferguson's 7th District. Rush Holt says that we need "to take Social Security in for a tune up, not haul it to the junk yard." His PowerPoint presentation ends with this line: "To assure full benefits 50 years from now, bipartisan adjustments are the right solution."
Since both Democratic Congressman Pallone and Congressman Holt have called for action to ensure Social Security solvency, it would appear that either Mr. Ferguson is not talking to his colleagues across the aisle (or down the street) or is engaging in partisan politics. Either way, this doesn't help out with crafting a "bipartisan solution."
Furthermore, Ferguson exacerbated his attack on Democrats with this clever line:
The only Democrats who seem to be willing to do something about Social Security are either out of office or dead like Senator Moynihan."
If this is Mr. Ferguson's idea of reaching across the aisle, he has a lot of learning to do.
Mike Doesn't Know the Scope of the Problem
In response to a question about why borrowing $1 or $2 trillion to implement private accounts, Mike responded that this amount was just a drop in the bucket compared to the "$75 trillion of debt Social Security will have by the end of the century." This is, of course, patently untrue.
When an attendee (who I was later told was an economics professor at Rutgers University) at the town meeting spoke up to say that $3 trillion was the correct number Mike responded, "Three trillion dollars by seventy five years is not what I have. The statistics I have are different."
Earlier in the evening Mike said that all his numbers come from the Social Security administration, but he must have been confused since this is what the Social Security administration has to say about the 75 year "unfunded mandate":
Social Security's Chief Actuary projects that in present-value dollars the total net Social Security cash flow for years 2004 through 2078 is projected to be nearly -$5.2 trillion. When the trust fund balances of $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004 are added to this value, we get a financial shortfall (or unfunded obligation) for the 75-year period of $3.7 trillion.
Mike also got the entire $75 trillion number wrong, as well, and should have read the House and Senate Republican Conferences' talking points on Social Security [pdf] to see that even they say the 75 year "unfunded mandate" is just $10 trillion. That's wrong, too, but at least it is closer to the truth.
If he is going to be off by almost a trillion dollars a year in his estimates, you have to wonder if Mike really understands the scope of the problem or the efficacy of the various solutions to make up the difference. How can he possibly judge the different proposals when he thinks the problem is 20 times worse than it is?
Mike Uses Misleading Lifespan Data To Suggest Social Security Is In More Trouble Than It Is
In this picture you can see Mike trying to take a bit of 100 percent accurate data and produce 100 percent misleading conclusions to make it look like Social Security is in more trouble than it really is.
As you can see (click for a bigger picture), Mike is pointing to a chart with the following bullets:
Again, since Mike said all his data came from the Social Security Administration we'll go to their Trustees Report, Table V.A3-Period Life Expectancies which charts life expectancies from 1940 to now. This table has two types of life expectancy, from birth and from the traditional age for retirees, 65. Essentially, these are the average number of years someone born can expect to live, and the average number of years someone who successfully gets to 65 can expect to live.
In 1940, the average lifespan for males from birth was 61.4 years, and for women it was 65.7 years. Today, the averages are 74.7 for men and 79.6 for women. Now, that seems a pretty dramatic increase except that this number means absolutely nothing to the Social Security administration when they try to figure out how long someone will receive benefits.
Why? Because when you calculate from birth that means that infant mortality and childhood diseases move the average significantly down. If you have four people and one dies at birth and the other three live to 100, the average lifespan for this group is 75.25 years. Yet Social Security would still have to pay each of the three who lived to 100 benefits for 35 years.
If four people lived just 75.25 years and they had retired at 65, then the combined payouts would have lasted just 41 years. However, given that one died at birth and the others lived to 100 then the combined payouts would last for 105 years. Using total lifespan numbers is totally useless when trying to figure out how much Social Security will have to pay out.
The change from around 60 to around 77 year life expectancies is a function of lower infant mortality, greater workplace safety and dramatically improved health care in this country for those under 65, but has little to do with Social Security benefits.
Taking the numbers from the age of 65, a man turning 65 in 1940 would have lived an additional 11.9 years and a woman an additional 13.4. Today those numbers are 16.1 and 19.0 respectively. This means that men would receive Social Security about four more years now than then, and women about four and a half years more.
While Americans on average are living longer than in the 1930s, seniors are adding just four years or so. While this is significant, it is just one quarter of the 17 year difference Mike put on his chart.
It is the number of years someone lives after they reach retirement that matters, but Mike uses the average lifespan from birth in an effort to make the problem look worse than it is. The 2004 Social Security Trustees Report is very clear on this.
Mike Ferguson Confused About the Facts At Hand
One of the odder moments was when Mike was trying to make the case that there will be fewer workers per retiree in the future. This is absolutely true, but Mike said on at least two occasions that the workforce was shrinking. One time he said, "There are fewer people in the workforce than we had 20 years ago."
This is just not true, and anyone who pays attention to labor issues and unemployment rates knows it. I said, politely because I knew that Mike's staffers had stumbled onto this site and I did not want to cause a scene, "Congressman, twice you've said the workforce is shrinking. It's not."
"I'm getting my numbers from the Social Security Administration, all my data is from the Social Security Administration," he responded.
"But its not right. The workforce is growing," I said. He moved on, and I sat down. [During the question and answer period he refused to call on me, which was kind of weak. Some folks got multiple bites at the apple and I sat in the back with my hand raised waiting to be called on.]
I don't know what the Social Security Administration has to say about workforce levels in the United States, but I did go to the horses' mouth and checked with the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics to see the workforce levels.
That's an extra 43 million people in the workforce, which isn't shrinking any way you look at it.
The only way to figure this is Mike got confused, thinking that a lower ratio of workers to retirees would necessarily mean a lower number of retirees, which is just not the case. The reason why the ratio is changing is not fewer workers, but more retirees. Mike should know that.
Ask Mike If He Was Wrong About These Issues
I'm happy to make corrections to anything in this post today if I was wrong. The Ferguson staff had a young woman making a video tape of the entire event, so if I misquoted Mike or was confused about what he said all they have to do is show me the video and I will do a mea culpa here.
But Mike should also do the same. He passed out some flatly untrue information today whether by error or calculation, and that information should be corrected. Write to Mike and ask him if he will stop making these claims and using this false information. Call his office at (908) 757-7835 or write to him from his Congressional Website.
When you are done, leave the answer in the comments for or write to dumpmike@gmail.com.
From NJ Citizen Action:
It looks like Ferguson's office staff deserves to be complimented for playing dumb over the phone all week long only to announce a town hall meeting with 24 hours notice. Ferguson's office has just announced that SATURDAY'S MEETINGS ARE ON for Saturday and we are moving quickly to try to get some turnout for this event. We are calling on all available people to come out to at least one of these meetings tomorrow to tell Ferguson to Keep the Promise of Social Security. Ferguson's staff held off on announcing the meeting until the last minute to minimize turnout from the opposition- Don't let him get away with it! Here are the details for both meetings: 10 a.m. at the Bernardsville Public Library on 1 Anderson Hill Road in Bernardsville.1 p.m. at the Flemington Borough Hall on 38 Park Ave. in Flemington.
If you plan to attend or have any questions, please respond to this email or call Mike Olender at 723-246-4772 x13.
Thanks and we'll see you on Saturday!
UPDATE: Congressman Ferguson is NOT holding town hall meetings on Social Security this weekend. Congressman Frelinghuysen is holding them at:
10 am
Morris Township Town Hall
50 Woodland Avenue
Convent Station, NJ
1 pm
Rockaway Township Town Hall
65 Mt. Hope Road
Rockaway, NJ
___________________________________________
Mike Ferguson is going to have two town hall meetings on Social Security in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District on February 26, 2005 at 10 am and 1 pm. The location is yet to be determined.
To see what the Congressman has said about Social Security, check out this letter he sent me earlier this month.
Congressman Mike Ferguson says he opposes fixing Social Security by raising taxes and cutting benefits, but launches into a lauditory paragraph about how President Bush plans to phase out the guaranteed benefits of Social Security. It appears that Mike would rather risk American's retirement safety net in the stock market with the likes of Enron, WorldCom and other corporate criminals than pay a few extra bucks out of his Congressional salary.
Here's the letter he wrote me:
There's a lot of good stuff in there, including how he tries to push the time when Social Security will run out of money to 2018. It's a common trick among the people who want to end Social Security as a guarantee.
He's right that in 2018 we will pay out more in benefits than we collect in taxes, but there is a surplus of $165 billion that is growing every week when new payroll taxes are collected. This money is being held in US Treasury Bonds which cannot be defaulted on unless the government collapses.
The Social Security Administration says that we have enough money to guarantee 100 percent of benefits until 2042 even if we make no change in the system. Mike is trying to spook people by making us think the problem is closer than it is.
