Dump Mike Ferguson (NJ7)

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)

The following letter was published in the October 19, 2006 Independent Press:

Elect Stender to Congress

To the editor:

George W. Bush won't be on the ballot Nov. 7, but there is a way for us to register our anger over his administration's policies and principles. We can reject one of the individuals who has been a Bush Administration enabler, Republican Congressman Michael Ferguson.

For those who are appalled by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, abuses of human rights and civil liberties and countless other actions of this imperial president, we must take the only opportunity we have in the 2006 election and return Mike Ferguson to private life.

Linda Stender, the Democrat candidate in the Seventh Congressional District is an excellent choice to replace Ferguson. She believes in an orderly ending of our tragic adventure in Iraq, supports stem cell research, overturning tax breaks for the wealthy and the end of warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

It's time to elect Linda Stender and a Democratic Congress.

Paul C. O'Shea
Summit

Posted by admin at 07:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Congressman Mike Ferguson (NJ-7) likes to talk about his record in cutting taxes, and to blame Linda Stender for voting to increase taxes during her two decades in public service. In fact, Ferguson claims he has never raised taxes and signed a pledge for Grover Norquist saying he would never vote to raise taxes.

Yet in May of this year Ferguson voted to increase taxes on teenagers who are saving money for college.

Under the new law, teenagers age 14 to 17 with investment income will now be taxed at the same rate as their parents, not at their own rates. Long-term capital gains and dividends that had been taxed at 5 percent will now be taxed at 15 percent. Interest that had been taxed at 10 percent will now be taxed at as much as 35 percent.

The increases, which are retroactive to the first day of the year, are expected to generate nearly $2.2 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, which issues the official estimates.

It makes you wonder what the heck Ferguson has against kids without trust funds going to college, especially given his status as an "educator." Here he is increasing taxes by $2.2 billion on college savings, making it harder for poor and middle class children to attend college.

And back in February Ferguson voted to cut $12 billion from student loan programs that are sometimes the difference between attending a four year college and taking a couple classes at night.

That's $14 billion dollars Ferguson voted to take away from kids who want to attend college, improve their futures and contribute to America.

Wrong choices. Wrong Congressman.

Posted by admin at 07:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Congressman Mike Ferguson makes a big deal of his support for tax cuts slated to the richest members of our society. Often he – and many other Republicans -- claims that the Bush tax cuts make our economy stronger and more competitive. It turns out that, according to the Wall Street Journal, that is just not true.

To start, the impact of the Bush tax cuts mean more money in some folks' pockets. That is, on the face of it, a good thing. But the problem is that while cutting taxes reduces revenues, President Bush and Congressman Ferguson have been drastically increasing spending. And when you reduce revenues and increase spending you get deficits.

This chart is from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's August 2006 The Budget and Economic Outlook [PDF]:

When Ferguson and Bush took office there was no deficit, and we were paying down the national debt. Immediately after their first budget and the massive tax cuts the deficit started to grow. Keep in mind that this chart doesn’t include off-budget items like the $300 billion for the War in Iraq, which makes the deficit all the higher.

The Congressional Budget Office concurs with this simple bit of math, and in 2005 noted that:

The new numbers confirm what many analysts have predicted for some time: that budget deficits in the decade ahead will stem less from the lingering effects of the downturn and much more from rising government spending and progressively deeper tax cuts.

Continue reading "Mike Ferguson's Economic Policies Make the United States Weaker" »

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

Well, apparently all we have to do is wish for things and they appear! Here is Linda Stender's new television ad about her campaign against Mike Ferguson here in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District. Enjoy:

Posted by admin at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The following letter was published in the Sunday, July 30 2006 Courier News:

Ferguson misusing taxpayers' money

I am looking at a mailing titled "Update from Congressman Mike Ferguson." It is printed with color photographs on both sides of heavy cardboard stock. This is one expensive piece of advertising. There is no stamp on it because it states, "This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense."

This is clearly campaign literature. With important issues facing our nation such as the Iraq war, which is causing the United States to fall deeper and deeper into debt, a war that Ferguson consistently supports, perhaps taxpayers wouldn't mind paying for a newsletter that provided real information. But the only "news" in the expensive advertising material I received proclaimed "Ferguson announces the winner of Art Contest, and Military Academy Nominees and Congressional Service awards."

If Congressman Ferguson put these announcements, which are of interest to such a limited number of his constituents, on his Web site, it certainly would have cost the taxpayers much less.

Voters in the 7th District have a very important choice to make in November. I encourage them to learn about Linda Stender (at www.lin dastenderforcongress.com) who will spend taxpayer's money more prudently and on issues the voters care about such as improved education and the preserving the environment.

MAUREEN GREENBAUM
Watchung

Posted by admin at 09:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The following letter was published in the Cranford Chronicle on Thursday, June 29, 2006

No support for the middle class

To The Chronicle:

Another Congressional scorecard has been issued, and U.S. Representative Mike Ferguson has received another failing grade. This new scorecard was released by the Drum Major Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit progressive think tank based in New York. The title of DMI's report is Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record.

Representatives were graded on their votes on eight House bills, which addressed issues such as estate tax repeal, bankruptcy and consumer protection, energy policy, small business health insurance, and cuts in domestic programs. Mike Ferguson scored zero percent and was awarded a grade of "F".

Overall, Republican representatives from New Jersey scored 0-50 percent, and Democrats scored 75-100 percent. With his votes, Ferguson was part of a Congress that, in the report's words, "disdained the concerns of middle-class Americans and opted instead to favor the already wealthy and powerful in vote after vote... (and) championed the wish lists of oil companies, the insurance industry, and credit card issuers over the concerns of middle-class consumers and small businesses."

Let's take a brief look at just one of the eight House votes, the repeal of the estate tax. This tax affects less than 1 percent of the wealthiest American families. Elimination of this tax would cost the United States nearly $1 trillion in lost revenue in the first ten years after repeal. Mike Ferguson voted to eliminate the estate tax. Which domestic programs will he be willing to destroy in order to pay for this trillion-dollar loss? Medicare? Medicaid? College loans? In 2005, Ferguson voted to cut $39 billion from these programs as part of the ironically named "Deficit Reduction Act" -- never mind that the huge federal deficit is largely a result of President Bush's irresponsible and lopsided tax cuts, which were supported by Mike "Rubber Stamp" Ferguson.

According to a recent analysis of national census data by the Brookings Institute, the middle class is shrinking. Between 1970 and 2000, middle-income metropolitan neighborhoods declined from 58 percent to 41 percent, and middle-class suburban neighborhoods decreased from 64 percent to 44 percent. Middle-class families in metro areas fell from 28 percent to less than 22 percent. These shifts have been accompanied by an increase in lower-income families.

Mike Ferguson just wants more of the same. Since 2001, Ferguson's House votes show that he cares most about millionaires and big corporations, and has little regard for middle-class families. How many failing grades must Ferguson receive before we fire him and send him home?

JOHN CANTILLI
Cranford

Posted by admin at 05:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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.

Posted by admin at 07:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This letter was published in the Courier News on May 15, 2006. No link is available.

Ferguson playing cynical game

I can't figure out Rep. Mike Ferguson. Last December, he touted his support of the Deficit Reduction Act, which narrowly passed the House and ultimately cut the federal budget by $39 billion over the next five years. Most of those cuts affected vital social programs and student loan assistance. At the time, Ferguson said that the "budget represents tough choices and key reforms to reduce the deficit." Though those cuts were harsh, his dedication to deficit reduction was encouraging at a time when budget shortfalls were crippling state and local governments.

Yet on May 10, Ferguson voted in favor of a tax-cut bill that proposes to extend the tax breaks on dividends and capital gains through 2010 (they currently are slated to expire in 2008). This law will reduce federal tax revenue by $70 billion between now and 2010 almost twice the amount "saved" in the name of fiscal responsibility last December. And these tax breaks will only benefit people who have substantial investments in the stock market.

The bill also would protect more taxpayers from having to pay a higher alternative minimum tax a wise portion of the tax code intended to prevent the wealthiest Americans from craftily sheltering all their income from taxation. According to Ferguson, because that law was written in 1969, and has not been adjusted for inflation, it is now impacting 19 million families whose incomes are as "low" as $75,000. While that may be "low" for us in the 7th District, try explaining your need for tax relief to the rest of the country, where the national median income is about $44,000.

The tax cut may be advantageous for the 7th District, but I challenge us all to consider the common wealth over our own self-interest when thinking about tax policy. Whether our government protects the wealthy or the vulnerable is a moral issue of the highest importance.

The refrain risks becoming a cliche why do Republicans continue to push tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest among us?

Is now the time for tax cuts, or for fiscal responsibility? It cannot be time for both. The only justification I can think of for Ferguson's support of these two contrasting bills is that he follows the whims of his party leadership rather than considering the logical impact of his votes. Either that, or he thinks so little of his constituents that he hopes the promise of tax breaks will distract them from Congress's reckless disregard for financial discipline. Are we buying it? Time will tell.

DAVID J. ALLEN
Hillsborough

Posted by admin at 07:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The following letter was published in the March 31, 2006 Courier News:

Writer wrong on Rep. Ferguson

To the writer Matthew Moench, who naively boasts, "Republicans and Mike Ferguson want smaller government," I must ask the following question: Huh?

Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in federal government spending in 30 years. Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The Republican Congress, along with Mike Ferguson's loyal support, has enthusiastically assisted this budget bloat. These are the hard facts provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

So I ask Moench: What is the source of your inaccurate claim? Is it Mike Ferguson's Web site? Or is it Rush Limbaugh's radio show? Or do you just make this stuff up?

JOSH SWEENY
Bridgewater

Posted by admin at 06:25 PM | 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)

The 7th congressional district in New Jersey has a very high average family income, but it is also a district full of working poor, seniors and immigrants. The values we hold, to improve the lives of our families and communities and protect the most vulnerable, are universal. We have a right to expect that our Congressman would not only share them when giving speeches back home, but also when he votes for legislation in Washington.

Yesterday Ferguson voted for a bill a budget bill that included the following reductions in services to the most vulnerable Americans:

• Higher Medicaid premiums for all recipients -- senior citizens, widows and the disabled -- and freezing payment to home health care providers, two changes that will make it harder for senior to afford to stay in their own homes instead of being forced into nursing homes;
• Allow health care providers to deny care to any Medicare recipient who can't afford to pay required cost-sharing, denying poor and indigent seniors needed medical care;
• Increased Medicaid prescription drug co-payments for benefit recipients and reduced payments to pharmacists, moves that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says will increase costs for 1.3 million Americans, half of whom live in poverty ;
• Remove seniors from eligibility for Medicare if they had donated significant money to charity in the previous five years;
• Count the equity in a home as wealth for determining if someone is eligible for Medicare, forcing seniors to sell family homes to receive benefits;
• Reduce student loan funding by $12 billion, increasing the interests rates and repayment costs for recent graduates; and
• Federal funds intended to help force deadbeat dads to pay for children they fatheres was cut. That's right, they reduced money to help single moms force the father of their children to pay child support.

These cuts will impact a large portion of the 7th Congressional District. The Census reports that in the 7th Congressional district there are 21,646 people living under the federal poverty rate who are eligible for Medicaid, and 80,6732 senior citizens who are eliigible for Medicare. That means at least 100,000 people in the district will be negatively impacted by these changes. Add in everyone with student loans and the number rises again, since there 24 percent of residents 25 years or older have at least a bachelor's degree.

Continue reading "Does Mike Ferguson Represent Our Values?" »

Posted by admin at 07:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Phyllis Salowe-Kaye, executive director of New Jersey Citizen Action, wrote an excellent opinion piece in the Asbury Park Press this weekend. I highly recommend reading it. Here are some highlights.

A lesser known fact is these tax cuts have been slowly phased in to make it easy for politicians to avoid answering the tough questions about who is going to pay for them. So far, about 80 percent of the tax cuts have been realized, and the full effect of tax cuts will be felt in 2010.

We got a glimpse of who is paying when Congress voted to cut $40 billion from vital health care and education programs in the wee hours of Dec. 19. Instead of citing the recent tax cuts as the reason for these devastating program cuts, or admitting they did not have time to read the 774-page bill before they cast their vote, the Republican majority told us sacrifices need to be made for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. This is a puzzling rationale when you consider that a day later, the Senate approved $27 billion in tax cuts for the richest people in the country.

Congress' "Robin Hood in Reverse" approach is nothing but mean-spiritedness. Instead of giving relief to the 1.2 million people in New Jersey or the 45 million people nationally without health insurance, Congress approved cuts that will push people off Medicaid and cause the number of uninsured to rise even higher.

In New Jersey, 485,000 of the people who are at risk of losing their coverage are children. It is unconscionable to ask children and other New Jersey residents to go without health care so the wealthy can get another tax cut. ...

During the early morning hours of Dec. 19, New Jersey Republican Reps. Frank LoBiondo, H. James Saxton, Scott Garrett, Michael Ferguson and Rodney Frelinghuysen made a bad choice and voted "yes" for this terrible budget. But because the Senate made some minor adjustments to the budget after it passed the House, another vote on the legislation is scheduled for Wednesday. This will give our representatives another chance to review and understand the negative impacts of the budget, and do the right thing by casting a "no" vote.

Call Congressman Ferguson's office today and urge him to vote NO on the budget to protect New Jersey's most vulnerable citizens. In New Jersey, call (908) 757-7835. In Washington D.C., call (202) 225-5361.

Posted by admin at 07:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Congressman Mike Ferguson claims to be a moderate, but when moderated rebelled at the thought of cutting health care for children from the federal budget yesterday he was not with them. In a vote that thankfully failed, Ferguson voted with the Republican House leadership to cut Medicaid and SHIP health insurance funding for children.

Today the House leadership scheduled a cote for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and Ferguson is expected to support the bill. This transfer of federal resources from the poor and uninsured to the most fortunate Americans would demonstrate beyond any doubt that Ferguson is not a moderate, but a Tom DeLay, George Bush Republican.

You can’t say that Ferguson doesn’t understand the problem of the uninsured in America, or in New Jersey, or even in the 7th Congressional District he represents. In May of this year he demonstrated his grasp of the problem in front of a crowd of people looking for ways to afford medical care for their families:

"There are 45 million uninsured individuals in the United States and more than 1 million are living in New Jersey," said guest speaker U.S. Rep. Mike Ferguson, R-Hunterdon.

Here are some of the benefits cuts Ferguson supported by voting for this spending bill:

The House measure would cut about 220,000 people off food stamps, allow states to impose new costs on Medicaid beneficiaries, squeeze student lenders, cut aid to state child-support enforcement programs and trim farm supports. …

A provision denying Medicaid nursing home benefits to people with home equity of $500,000 would be modified by raising the limit to $750,000.

Most of what is there is pretty obvious, and impacts the people of NJ7 who need food stamps, Medicaid and student loans to reach the American dream. There are three-bedroom colonials houses in NJ7 that go for $750,000, houses that people bought as young parents and today all their wealth is tied up there. How do you deny a wife nursing home coverage because they paid their mortgage off over the past 30 years?

And worse is the provision to reduce funding for tracking down deadbeat dads. There is no justification for the miniscule saving you can get with this cut to reduce the amount spent to track down parents who refuse to pay to support their own children. It's close to unconscionable.

Ferguson is showing his true colors as the radical House leadership pushes through cuts to the very programs that allow middle class and moderate income families to rise up and reach the American dream. He cares more about the wealthy people he grew up with than the people he was elected to represent.

Posted by admin at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Star Ledger's John Farmer calls the position that cutting taxes is always a good thing "lunatic."

There's something lunatic about the opposition among some conservatives -- not all, by any means -- to any tax increase to help finance the guns- and-butter policies of the federal government under the Bush administration. [snip]

Here we are fighting a two-front war, facing massive new costs for home security and rebuilding along the Gulf Coast while laboring under runaway federal spending and the biggest total debt burdens in our history -- but no tax increase, please. Indeed, what we need, according to this view, is even more tax cuts. What could they be smoking?

The purveyors of this view -- usually found in such redoubts of the Republican right as Forbes magazine, the editorial cubbyholes of the Wall Street Journal and the cloistered confines of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation -- appear to believe tax hikes at all times, under any conditions, are bad. Why? Because they interfere with the free market and depress the economy.

Here's one other guy who holds that position: Mike Ferguson. He's even signed a pledge that reads:

I ,____________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district of the State of _________ and to the American People that I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

It doesn't matter if we have been attacked, are at war, have the worst natural disaster in history, a five year stalled economy, or a record deficit and record new federal spending. Mike Ferguson says he will never consider raising taxes under any circumstance.

But sometimes tax increases are needed, and make the lives of ordinary Americans better. Farmer lays out the historical lesson of the last 20 years:

And despite the insistence of the editorial imams at the Journal, tax increases do not always depress the economy or reduce federal revenue, as George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton demonstrated.

With the country in a slump at the start of the 1990s -- largely the product of Reagan-era tax cuts and exploding deficits, the model for this Bush administration -- the first Bush and then Clinton pushed through tax increases. Conservatives in the media and Congress went ballistic. Bob Dole, the Senate Republican leader at the time, predicted a profound recession. Nothing of the sort happened.

Instead, economic activity increased smartly, and the Bush and Clinton tax rate hikes were perfectly timed to take advantage of that rebound in the form of huge federal revenue gains. As a result, the annual budget deficit was wiped out and the incoming administration of the younger Bush was given the gift of a roughly $250 billion surplus -- which, of course, it has transformed into a $330 billion deficit.

One Republican and one Demcoratic president raised taxes, and the best economic times this country has ever seen resulted. It doesn't always happen, and at some times cutting taxes is the best strategy.

But refusing to consider the possibility of increasing taxes to fund increased spending is, in Mr. Farmer's words, "lunatic."

via ChangeNJ.com, a new public policy site for progressives.

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

Congressman Mike Ferguson appears to believe that the federal government is funded by some source other than taxation. There is really no other way to explain his willingness to vote for record budget increases, pork filled transportation bills, over $200 billion for the Iraq War and more than $50 billion for relief for Katrina and still want to cut taxes!

"The economy has taken a real hit," says Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-7th Dist.). "We shouldn't give it another hit by raising taxes, or allowing tax cuts to expire."

Congressman Ferguson voted earlier this year to repeal the estate tax and says he wants to "lower the tax rate for dividends and capital gains." These taxes cut revenue to pay for budgets, transportation, war and relief but don't do much to help anyone making less than the top incomes in the country.

The most likely move is an extension of tax cuts on stock dividends and capital gains that were scheduled to expire in 2008. More than half the money would go to the wealthiest 0.2 percent of the population, those with annual incomes over $1 million, according to a joint study of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.

Congressman Ferguson wants to cut taxes for the rich while increasing spending drastically. If we ran our households like this -- reducing income and increasing spending -- we'd wind up in bankruptcy in no time. Except that Congressman Ferguson voted earlier this year to make it harder for middle class folks to declare bankruptcy.

It's not a question of whether this dollar spent or that dollar spent is right or wrong. It's simply a question of whether Congressman Ferguson should continue spending money he doesn't have and driving our country deeper and deeper into debt and national financial crisis.

We should take a second to write Congressman Ferguson on his website or call his office at 908-757-7835 and ask how he intends to pay for all this spending.

You can ask the same question in newspapers by writing 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.

Posted by admin at 07:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)