John Mertens for U.S. Senate & Our Democracy

We have launched a new website! Please go to:

2010-08-28T01:28:00.002-04:00

www.Mertens2010.com

"New Ideas and New Process" Speech at Primary Watch Party

2010-08-11T07:05:00.005-04:00

Hello everyone! Thank you for coming! I especially want to thank Tom Marsh, the Independent Party candidate for Governor, for being here. Good to see you, Tom!

The primaries are over. The multi-millionaires have bought their prizes, and they have joined Tom Marsh and me on the ballot in November in the races for Governor and U.S. Senate. Linda McMahon alone spent more than $300 dollars per vote! But now, the campaign begins in earnest.

Tonight my campaign begins an exciting new phase. I’ve talked about many issues over the last year, and presented over 30 detailed position statements and solutions on my website, in debates and forums, in interviews and speeches, and on my monthly TV show. Now my campaign is going to focus on building a new political process, a new way to re-engage the voters who have been disgusted with politics, and who have lost faith in our democracy.
These last weeks we have seen the most relentless and prolific negative advertising I have ever seen. Commercial after commercial that insult our intelligence, and focus on some narrow, fabricated negative issue to attack an opponent. Aren’t you tired of being treated like an idiot that can be bought with millions of dollars of advertising? We want real conversation, not just showmanship! I want to help create a process that will elevate the level of discussion, and increase participation and accountablity, and I want your help. Tonight, I want to talk about a new type of campaign.

A few weeks ago I attended an event during Social Web Week in New Haven. I met some amazing people, who are passionate about rebuilding our democracy, and our democratic process. I’m delighted to say that they’ve agreed to help me build and champion a process to elevate the level of social discourse and increase involvement using social media. This may sound corny, but we want to create something new, using a social web, that will give everyone a voice and a chance to participate in the dialogue; something that will live on beyond this election, something that candidates in the future will ignore at their peril. Here’s what we want from our candidates: Answer the question that you are asked, honestly and completely, instead of sidestepping it or answering a different question. Stop rolling out attack ads that focus on some narrow and distorted issue, and instead have a civil conversation with the voters and the other candidates about ideas and how to solve our problems. We have the tools to do this, and I want to demonstrate how to do it with my campaign.

This will be the most transparent and inclusive campaign in history. Everyone will know where I will be, and what I am doing, in advance, and everyone will be invited to be there. And much more than that, I am asking everyone to be a full participant in the conversation. In person at events, online with unedited posts on my blog, through open conversations on twitter every week, I want everyone to talk to me, for as long as they’d like. I am asking everyone to re-engage in the political process. We will develop better ideas through inclusion! And we can build a new social web for civic engagement that will live on beyond November, to change the status quo, and in the long term, repair the lack of representation and true give and take in politics. It will be a model for politicians, so that, perhaps, they might become the public servants that represent us in a way that our founding fathers intended.

This campaign isn’t about me. This is about reversing the degradation of our political process, and rebuilding our democracy. You know what the negative, superficial advertising does. It drives down voter turnout and suppresses participation. The other candidates know this, and they’re doing it on purpose. Well, I am the ANTI-APATHY candidate. This is what you can expect from my campaign: Listening and dialogue, positive and constructive brainstorming, honesty, and open participation. I invite the other candidates to join me in this. And I ask you, the people, to help. The country needs you, our democracy needs you. Apathy is not allowed. Vote to raise the level of civic discourse by getting involved! And, there are a lot of people in this room tonight that will show you how to start. Find one, and introduce yourself.

Thank you for listening! And I will stick around to talk with any of you for as long as you’d like.

John on Lisa Wexler radio show today 7:45pm

2010-08-10T11:04:00.003-04:00

John will be interviewed on the Lisa Wexler radio show (TALK 1400 WSTC and 1350 AM WNLK) today for 5-10 minutes, between 7:45pm and 8pm. People can listen online at:
http://lisawexler.com/
John will discuss his campaign, and the primary elections.

Come to John's Primary Results Watch Party, Tuesday, August 10th

2010-08-08T00:24:00.002-04:00

John will host a "Primary Election Results Watch Party" 8pm Tuesday evening, August 10th, at the Sisson Tavern, 86 Sisson Ave., Hartford. All are welcome to attend!

Come discuss the results of all the primary races with John!

Watch the July 27th U.S. Senate Debate

2010-07-29T22:21:00.003-04:00

Please watch the U.S. Senate debate from Tuesday, July 27th, here:
http://ct-n.com/webstream.asp?odID=5671&odTitle=Federation%20of%20Connecticut%20Taxpayers%20Organization%202010%20U.S.%20Senate%20Candidate%20Forum

Come Meet John at Hartford Town Hall Today

2010-07-29T09:32:00.001-04:00

John will be at the Candidate Meet and Greet at Hartford Town Hall, 550 Main St. today (Thursday) from 10:30am-1:30pm. Come say hi!

CTnow's Coverage of the U.S. Senate Debate

2010-07-28T22:41:00.002-04:00

You can watch Channel 61's short piece on Tuesday's U.S. Senate debate here:
http://www.ctnow.com/videobeta/2bc95e6f-1139-47f7-b542-214806d1b6d3/News/US-Senate-Candidates-Debate-7-27

Watch the Independent Party Press Conference

2010-07-28T22:37:00.001-04:00

John and other leaders of the Independent Party speak on the Capital Steps. Watch it here:
http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/webstream.asp?odID=5650&odTitle=CT%20Independent%20Party%20Campaign%20News%20Briefing%20to%20Announce%20it%20has%20Collected%20More%20Than%20Enough%20Signatures%20to%20Field%20a%20Statewide%20Slate%20for%20the%20November%20Election

U.S. Senate Debate Tuesday, July 27, 7pm, Hartford!

2010-07-21T17:52:00.006-04:00

Dr. John Mertens will be one of four candidates participating in the U.S. Senate debate on Tuesday at 7 pm. The event will be broadcast by CT-N. See the press release below for details. Admission is free.
PLEASE COME!

PRESS RELEASE July 21, 2010
From: Susan Kniep, President, The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

YOU ARE INVITED TO THE JULY 27 DEBATE For the U. S. Senatorial Candidates
7:00 PM to 8:30 PM
Trinity College, Mather Hall, The Washington Room
300 Summit St., Hartford, CT

The Federation is delighted to announce a U. S. Senatorial Debate to be held on Tuesday, July 27, 2010, at 7 PM at Trinity College, Mather Hall, in the Washington Room.

All candidates for U. S. Senate have been invited to attend. We have received confirmation of attendance from Rob Simmons, Peter Schiff, John Mertens, and Warren Mosler. We would be delighted to have Linda McMahon and Richard Blumenthal participate as well.

The moderator will be a representative of the Journal Inquirer Newspaper of Manchester. We have invited various nonprofit organizations to submit questions of importance to their mission, to include CBIA, the Federalist Society, Yankee Institute and Voices for Children.

Nice blog coverage of an interview with John

2010-07-21T11:30:00.001-04:00

http://blog.freeyourdata.net/2010/07/21/our-political-environment-john-mertens-independent-candidate-for-us-senate/

Text and Video of John's Speech on How to Save the Economy

2010-07-07T16:48:00.004-04:00

John presents serious short, medium, and long term proposals that will repair and protect our economy. Delivered July 1, 2010, broadcast on CT-N, Connecticut's State Public Affairs Television and Streaming Network.

You can watch John's speech by clicking here:
http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/webstream.asp?odID=5597&odTitle=Independent%20U.S.%20Senate%20Candidate%20John%20Mertens%20Address%20on%20the%20Economy

Here is the text:

Hello everyone. Thank you for coming! And hello to those of you watching on TV or the internet. I’m here to talk about our dire need for government action to fix our economy in the short term, and protect and keep it healthy in the long term. The good news is, the solutions exist! Unfortunately, they are not being implemented by our elected officials in Washington because of a combination of ignorance, greed, cowardice, and corruption. We must all fight to overcome these forces, and build a coalition of true public servants in Washington that have the knowledge and courage to solve these problems.

Before I get into the details of my economic proposals, I’d like to tell you a little bit about myself. I’ve been a Professor of Engineering at Trinity College in Hartford for 20 years. I also teach some public policy and environmental science. I’ve been passionate about the need for real problem-solving in government for my entire life, and for my entire life I’ve been disappointed with the Republicans and Democrats we’ve sent to Washington. They seem to care more about building their party’s power, and getting re-elected, than they care about doing the right things. So, I started getting involved in independent party politics in Connecticut in 2006. That involvement has included the takeover of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, for which I’m on the ballot for U.S. Senate this November. I’m also seeking the nominations of the Independent Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party. I believe that all these minor parties, while they differ on many issues, overlap significantly in their commitments to honest and responsive government, and the protection of our constitution and our civil rights.

Some personal history: I grew up on a farm in northern California, in the middle of nowhere, 8 miles from the nearest post office. I learned what hard work is. I was the foreman of our harvest crew when I was 12, working 70 hours a week in 100 degree weather, usually supervising migrant farm workers from Mexico. With my parents’ encouragement, I worked my way through the local university and was a member of the first generation of my family to graduate from college. I earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, graduating summa cum laude, and was fortunate enough to go to graduate school at Stanford University and earn a master’s and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. I then landed my dream job at Trinity College. A few other things that I think give me a unique perspective: when I was 9, my parents leased our farm for two years and joined the Peace Corps. My family and I spent two years in Zaire, Africa, from 1972-1974. The experience changed my life, and gave me a deep love for the freedom and opportunities that we have in the United States. I also developed a respect and love for all the people of the world. In CT, I’ve volunteered with Hartford schools for 19 years, and I feel that I understand the challenges of our cities very well. During my twenty years at Trinity I’ve been very involved in faculty governance, and done a lot of committee work. I feel that all of these experiences make me well qualified to be your Senator.

So let’s talk about the economy: First our immediate needs. We have a real unemployment rate of 18%, when we include people who are working part-time and can’t find a full-time job, and people who have simply given up looking. And in some of our cities, unemployment is as high as 50%! Home and commercial property foreclosure rates are dangerously high, and they show no signs of going down. Some experts say this is our biggest concern. And small businesses, our biggest potential source for jobs, are struggling to survive. Our economy is ice cold, and it has the potential to get worse. People are suffering, and if things don’t change, there will be a significant long term toll on our citizens’ well being.

We have also seen our economy change over the last few decades in a way that has increased the disparity between working families and the wealthy. Corporate executives now make 350 times the average pay of their employees, while in the 1970’s they made 40 times their employees' average pay. And at the same time that this disparity has exploded, our tax structure has become significantly more regressive. If you add up all the taxes that we pay: Property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes such as gasoline and cigarette and cell phone taxes, state income tax, FICA tax, and federal income tax, we Americans pay on average 32% of our income in total taxes. I’m going to tell you a secret that you’re not supposed to know: the top 1% income earners in the United States only pay 31% of their income in total taxes. I’m going to repeat that: on average Americans pay 32% of the income in total taxes, and the top 1% income earners pay 31%. Do you think it’s fair that the richest Americans pay a lower percentage of their income in total taxes than the American average? I don't. And this is new. In the 1950’s, the top income tax bracket was 90%. Now it’s 35%. Over the last 50 years, our tax structure has become much more regressive, that is to say, it has shifted more to the working middle class. We may agree that this isn’t fair, but more importantly, it’s a disaster for our economy. Here’s why.

Unemployment levels are primarily a function of how much money is being spent in our economy. If more goods and services are being purchased, more goods and services need to be produced, and more people are hired to produce and sell those goods and services. Taxes reduce people’s spending power. If you increase taxes by $3,000 on a family that makes $50,000 a year, it makes a big difference. It makes it harder for them to make their mortgage payment, or buy health insurance, or pay their child’s tuition. It reduces their spending. If you reduce the taxes of someone who makes a million dollars a year by $3,000, it’s not going to change their spending much at all. So by making the tax structure more regressive, you’ve removed spending from the economy, and ultimately increased unemployment.

So all of these things are related. Spending levels, and therefore U.S. unemployment levels, are most affected by our overall tax rates. When unemployment is too low (which we approached in the 1990's), there is a shortage of workers for employers, it causes inflation, and hurts our economy. In this situation government should cool off the economy by raising taxes, which reduces spending, and stabilizes unemployment rates and inflation. When unemployment is too high (or in our current situation, WAY too high), government should lower taxes in a progressive way, putting more money into the hands of the average person, which increases spending, and creates jobs.

So I’m going to talk about one single, simple piece of legislation that will fix all of these problems: unemployment, foreclosures, small business failures, tax fairness, and to some extent, wall street compensation. It’s a change to our FICA tax structure. Right now, a family that makes $100,000 a year pays approximately $6,000 of social security tax. Do you know how much someone who makes $10 million a year pays? $6,000! This is as regressive as it gets! This also applies to the employer contributions to FICA; employers must match the tax payments that are deducted from their employees' checks, but only on salaries below $107,000. This is a huge tax burden on small businesses in particular. Here’s my proposal: eliminate FICA taxes for employees and employers for incomes below $100,000, and institute the current FICA tax of 7.65% only on additional income above $100,000. I call this FLIP THE FICA. This will allow working families to keep 7.65% more of their paychecks, which will help them pay their mortgages and spend reasonably. And it will reduce small businesses’ payroll expenses by 7.65%. These two things in combination will create a tremendous amount of jobs, greatly reduce the rate of foreclosures, greatly reduce the rate of small business failures, reduce government unemployment payments, and get our economy back on track very quickly. Flipping the FICA will also discourage corporations from giving huge bonuses to their top executives, because they would have to pay the same FICA taxes on the bonuses as they used to pay on their lower-income workers' paychecks.

In my plan, once the economy rights itself, and real unemployment drops below 8%, FICA taxes on incomes below $100,000 would be raised from 0 to 3.8%, and when real unemployment drops below 5%, FICA taxes on incomes below $100,000 would return to the original 7.65%. Medicare and Social Security benefit calculations for individuals would remain the same throughout the plan as they would have been without these changes. It’s as simple as that! Flip the FICA, until we have full employment, and then FICA for everyone, not just the working middle class. If we present this plan publicly, calmly and intelligently to members of Congress, perhaps we can embarrass them into doing the right thing, instead of protecting the interests of large corporations and wealthy people.

OK, how about longer term issues? How do we build a healthy economy down the road? I have four proposals:

1. Enforce antitrust laws. The United States developed the most vibrant and powerful economy in the world because we have been fantastic innovators, inventors, and entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, we’ve changed into an economy of huge corporations, because for the last 10-15 years our government hasn’t enforced, or done away with, antitrust laws. We need to swing the pendulum back to the other end of the spectrum, to give small businesses a chance to become our economic engine in the United States again. Here’s an example: we should break up each of the huge banks that are “too big to fail” into 10 smaller banks, primarily because they have also become “too big to function decently.” And we should do it now. I’m not the only person who feels this way. I encourage everyone to read “13 Bankers” by Simon Johnson and James Kwak.

2. If we are going to succeed in enforcing anti-trust laws, we will need to end corporate ownership of our government. This will require real campaign finance reform, and an amendment to the constitution that ends corporate citizenship and states clearly that money does not equal free speech. The recent supreme court ruling that gives multinational corporations free reign in spending on political advertising must be reversed.

3. Health Care reform: Health care is 17% of our economy. We need to address cost control. We should evolve our current system to function as a single payer system, with intelligent tort reform. There are many ways to do this, and I recommend that people watch my half hour TV show on Health Care on youtube. I also recommend that they read this book: "The Healing of America", by T.R. Reid. It’s an excellent presentation of the health care options we have.

4. We will not grow our economy unless we have an educated work force, and that’s going to require addressing the problems of our urban areas. I’m proposing a Marshall Plan for our cities, although it’s really a Marshall plan for every part of the country. It should have three components:

a. Education: We live in the era of the standardized test. We need to teach critical thinking, and how to work independently. We need to reform No Child Left Behind, and we need charter schools and vocational schools that have the freedom to implement innovative curricula, especially in our cities. We need to learn from New Orleans: after Katrina, they have rebuilt their school system from scratch, building about 50% charter schools, and 50% regular public schools. The charter schools are doing significantly better. We can also learn from model charter schools here in CT, for example the Common Ground High School in New Haven, which has greatly improved the performance and learning of high school kids. And in our existing urban public schools, we need to offer honors classes for students who want them. I’ve worked with a lot of good, smart kids in Hartford, who crave that opportunity.

b. The second part of the Marshall Plan is a federal jobs program that offers a minimum wage job with health insurance to anyone who is willing to work, anywhere in the country.

c. The final component is drug law reform: I support the proposals of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or LEAP, and the solutions proposed by Dirk Chase Eldredge in his book “Ending the War on Drugs”. I encourage everyone to watch my 30 minute TV show on U.S. Drug Policy on youtube. And just so you know, Mr. Eldridge is a conservative republican.

These four proposals will ensure that we grow a healthy and vibrant economy once we recover from our current crisis.

So how do we protect our economy from financial crises in the future? I see two likely sources of future crises:

1. Another mortgage crisis. The current regulatory bill being debated in Congress does a few good things, but it falls far short. Here’s a quote from Douglas Elliott of the Brookings Institution, who supports the bill: "The bill will not eliminate financial crises, but it will make them less frequent and considerably milder, which is all we can realistically accomplish.” Mr. Elliott is wrong on that latter point. I propose one single, simple piece of legislation that will prevent this kind of financial crisis from happening again: require any lender to keep ownership of a minimum of 30% of any loan they make, for the lifetime of that loan. I’ve talked to a lot of successful financial sector experts, and they agree with this proposal, and that 30% is the correct number: it would not hinder lending, but it would prevent coercive, risky lending, and it would prevent misrepresentation of the quality of bundled mortgages. This simple law would have prevented the current crisis, and it will prevent future mortgage crises.

2. The second area that I fear could cause a fiscal crisis is Energy Policy. The United States has never had a comprehensive and well-articulated energy policy. Until we do, our economy is vulnerable. See my website to read details of my national energy policy.

Thank you for listening. To summarize, my two most important economic proposals are also the simplest:
1. FLIP THE FICA to solve our immediate problems of unemployment, foreclosures, small business failures, and tax fairness.
2. Require all lenders to own a minimum of 30% of all loans for the lifetime of the loan, to protect our economy from a future mortgage crisis.
I also propose a host of changes to antitrust enforcement, corporate citizenship, health care, education, employment, and drug law reform that will build a healthy economy into the future. I encourage you to go to my website, www.Mertens2010.com, and watch my TV shows on youtube, for more details. By the way, my 30 minute TV show, John Mertens for U.S. Senate, is now running on public access in all 169 towns in the state. I discuss a different issue each month.

So, in conclusion, I am on the ballot in November. I offer an alternative to the same old baloney from the democratic and republican parties, or as I refer to them together, the INCUMBENT PARTY. That’s the party that takes hundreds of millions of dollars from special interests, and fails to represent us, the people. If you elect me, I will work incredibly hard, every day, for us. The voters. No one else. I ask for your vote in November. Thank you.

I’d be happy to take any questions.

Watch John's Televised Speech on How to Fix the Economy

2010-07-02T12:45:00.006-04:00

Watch John's major address on the economy, followed by a press conference, on CT-N on Sunday, July 4 at 9:59pm; Monday, July 5 at 6:32am and 7:39pm, and a TBD time on Tuesday evening.

CT-N is Connecticut's State Public Affairs Television and Streaming Network. Find the CT-N TV channel in your local area, watch it online, and/or find Tuesday's schedule here:

http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/

John to Deliver Major Address on the Economy July 1st, 3pm, Elizabeth Park, West Hartford

2010-06-28T17:24:00.002-04:00

U.S. Senate Candidate John Mertens will deliver a major address on the economy on Thursday, July 1st at 3pm, followed by an open question and answer session. The event will be held in the Garden Room of the Pond House Cafe, located in Elizabeth Park, 1555 Asylum Ave., West Hartford, CT. This event is free and open to the public.

It will be broadcast on CT-N, Connecticut's State Public Affairs Television and Streaming Network.

Brian Lockhart writes about availability of Blumenthal, McMahon, Mertens

2010-06-22T20:45:00.005-04:00

http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Media-availability-How-candidates-deal-or-don-t-531388.php

http://blog.ctnews.com/politicalcapitol/2010/06/16/john-mertens-what-do-i-have-to-do-to-get-some-traditional-media-attention/

Hartford Courant "Capital Watch" posts John's response to President Obama's speech

2010-06-21T09:54:00.004-04:00

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/06/independent-us-sen-candidate-j.html

Here's the content:

"I think politically, it was a fair speech," Mertens said via email this morning. "He emphasized the efforts that they are implementing and starting to implement now, and touched on all the issues. But it also exposes the weakness of the initial response, in the first two weeks, to the accident. I was infuriated during the first week by the usual practice of taking a 'best case scenario' view of the situation."

"As an engineer, I know that in order to protect the public good, we must always assume and prepare for the worst case scenario. Also, as an engineer and energy policy teacher, I was very disappointed that his discussion of energy alternatives was extremely vague. He didn't mention electric cars! We will never wean ourselves from oil until we convert to electricity as our transportation energy distribution system. And, unfortunately, I do not have a lot of confidence in Dr. Chu or Mr. Salazar."

T.V. Show "John Mertens for U.S. Senate" Running in All 169 Connecticut Towns

2010-06-16T18:16:00.001-04:00

Candidate for U.S. Senate Dr. John Mertens announced that his monthly television show is now airing on every public access television station in Connecticut. "John Mertens for U.S. Senate" features thirty minutes of in-depth discussion of a different issue each month, between the candidate and the guests.

The show has been running in most of the state since November 2009, but it wasn't until recently that it began running in East Hartford and Bloomfield. It is the first time that any public access show has run state-wide. "Every station has different technical and sponsorship requirements, and it has been a lot of work and logistics," said Mertens. "I would love to see other candidates spend thirty minutes talking about different issues, instead of campaigning with thirty-second commercials."

The broadcast schedule varies around the state, but in most towns it runs weekly or twice a week, often in prime time slots.

Show titles have included: "U.S. Drug Policy", "Social Security", "Health Care", "Jobs", "Afghanistan", "Energy and the Environment", "John Answers the Debate Questions", "Meet John" and "The Independent Party". Most can be viewed online at YouTube.com.

John Mertens Responds to Warren Mosler's Million Dollar Challenge

2010-06-07T15:44:00.001-04:00

John Mertens says that Warren Mosler's million dollars are safe. Mosler has offered one million dollars to any Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate who is on the ballot who can prove Mosler's economic theories are wrong.

"As one of two candidates currently on the ballot in November, I can say with certainty that Mr. Mosler's economics are correct: the U.S. will not run out of dollars or face a solvency crisis like Greece. And Mr. Mosler's jobs plan, while differing significantly from my proposals, would also work. Voters should pay close attention to the ideas of third-party candidates."

John Mertens Attending 33rd Annual Yeshiva of New Haven Gathering Tonight

2010-06-06T13:44:00.003-04:00

U.S. Senate Candidate John Mertens will be introduced at the 33rd Annual Yeshiva of New Haven Gathering tonight, Sunday, June 6th at 7:00pm at the Peabody Museum's Great Dinosaur Hall, 170 Whitney Ave., New Haven, CT. All other candidates for Connecticut statewide office have been invited to attend and be introduced.

The Keynote speaker will be Al Konetzni, Jr., Vice Admiral, USN (Ret.), Commander, Pacific Fleet. There will be a special tribute to Jeffrey B. Butler, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Connecticut Light and Power Company, and the presentation of the Community Service Award to Andy and Paige Weinstein, owners of Star Tire.

Jobs!

2010-05-16T13:01:00.019-04:00

We have a real unemployment rate of 18%, when we include people who are underemployed (working only part time jobs), or have stopped seeking work and are no longer included in the "official" unemployment figures. My goal is to reduce real unemployment to below 5%. Here's how we do it:

U.S. unemployment levels are most affected by our overall tax rate. When unemployment is too low, there is a shortage of workers for employers, it causes inflation, and hurts our economy. In this situation government should cool off the economy by raising taxes, which reduces demand, and stabilizes unemployment rates. When unemployment is too high (I would say if it gets above 7%), government should lower taxes in a progressive way, putting more money into the hands of the average person, which increases demand, and creates jobs.

I support a carefully crafted change to our payroll tax system until real unemployment drops below 8%, followed by additional payroll tax adjustments to provide a "soft landing" to our goal of getting unemployment below 5%. Here's my plan:

Currently, any household that makes less than $106,800 a year pays 7.65% of their payroll checks in FICA taxes. People who make more than $106,800 per year pay only 1.45% of their additional earnings into FICA! (See my positions on "Tax Fairness" and "Social Security" on this website). This means that a family that makes $100,000 a year pays approximately $6,000 of social security tax, and someone who makes $10 million a year also pays only $6,000 a year! This also applies to the employer contributions to FICA; employers must match the tax payments that are deducted from their employees' checks. This is a huge tax burden on small businesses in particular.

This is terribly regressive, unfair, and worst of all, very bad for our economy. Taxing lower income people more than higher income people prevents spending in our economy. If someone makes a lot of money, having an extra $6,000 a year doesn't really change their spending. But if a middle class family has an extra $6,000 a year, they will spend it. We should allow working families to keep that money to help pay their mortgages and pay their bills, which will create jobs and reduce unemployment. It will also help small companies meet their payrolls and stay in business!

Here's what I suggest:
Annual Family Income vs. FICA Tax Rate
less than $100,000: 0%
anything earned above $100,000: 7.65%
(Note: the 7.65% is only on the income above $100,000)

This will create a tremendous amount of jobs, greatly reduce the rate of foreclosures on houses, greatly reduce the rate of business closures, reduce government unemployment payments, and get our economy back on track very quickly. It will also discourage corporations from giving huge bonuses to their top executives, because now they would have to pay the same FICA taxes on the bonuses as they do for their lower-income workers' paychecks.

Once real unemployment drops below 8%, FICA taxes of 3.825% on incomes below $100,000 would apply, and once real unemployment drops below 5%, the 7.65% FICA tax would apply to all income levels.

Some would call this a "payroll tax holiday", but it is much more than that. It also addresses equity issues in our tax structure.

John to Attend African-American Affairs Commission 11th Annual Classic Awards

2010-05-06T10:36:00.000-04:00

John will attend the State of Connecticut African-American Affairs Commission 11th Annual Classic Awards on Friday, May 7th beginning at 6:30 pm in the Atrium of the State Legislative Office Building, 300 Capitol Ave., Hartford.

The Following Awards Will Be Presented:

Man of the Year: Dr. G. Duncan Harris, Dean of Student Affairs, Manchester Community College

Woman of the Year: Dr. Shirley A. Jackson, Associate Professor of Sociology, Southern Connecticut State University.

Youths of the Year: Ayibatari Sikpi, Old Saybrook High School and Aaron Eaddy, Glastonbury High School.

Lifetime Achievement: Jane L. Givenhand-Glover, Founder, Kente' Cultural Center

Business and Economic Development: Keith Newton Tinker, Tinker Realty and Insurance, Inc.

John attending Coffee Party meeting in Hartford tomorrow (Saturday)

2010-04-30T17:52:00.002-04:00

U.S Senate Candidate John Mertens will attend a "Coffee Party" in Hartford, Connecticut on Saturday, May 1, 2010, from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm, held at Real Art Ways on 56 Arbor Street.

From John's press release: "I strongly support the philosophy that deliberation from many viewpoints, guided by reason, is the best way to achieve the common good. That's why I'm running for office - to bring non-partisan problem-solving to public policy decisions."

John also supports the Coffee Party pledge: "As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process."

John Mertens Speaks on Energy Policy and Climate Change in Hartford on Wednesday

2010-04-27T23:51:00.002-04:00

U.S Senate Candidate John Mertens will speak on U.S. Energy Policy and Climate Change at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut on Wednesday, April 28, 2010, beginning at 2 pm, in McCook Auditorium. The presentation will be followed by a question and answer period. The event is free and open to the public.

John, Dick, and Peter in fashion show at Hartford Stage on Monday!

2010-04-27T23:45:00.003-04:00

From Dennis House:
This November there will likely be three candidates on the ballot for the U.S. Senate seat held by Senator Chris Dodd. Could this be the lineup of the Republican, Democrat and Independent we will be choosing from this fall? Maybe…but this trio will be representing the Senate race this Monday at the Hartford Stage.

Peter Schiff could emerge as the Republican nominee if Rob Simmons and Linda McMahon continue to damage each other so badly that the GOP decides to turn to someone who still has all limbs intact. Richard Blumenthal is the front runner for the Democrats, and John Mertens is running as an Independent.

All three will meet voters this Monday in a ……fashion show. Yes, the annual Capital Catwalk benefits Dress for Success Hartford, an organization that helps women prepare to enter the working world. The show also features local celebrities and personalities modeling the latest fashions from local stores and boutiques. There is also great food from local restaurants.

http://dennishouse.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/november-preview/

John speaking at U. Conn. (Storrs)

2010-04-25T20:16:00.001-04:00

John Mertens will visit the University of Connecticut in Storrs to address political science students on April 27 at 11 am.

Dr. Mertens will discuss the practicalities of implementing public policy solutions in American politics. He will address Medicare and Healthcare, Social Security, Energy Policy, Bank Regulations, US Drug Policy and other issues. He will also discuss the practicalities of running for office: ballot access, campaign funding and media access.

Those interested in attending should contact the John Mertens for U.S. Senate campaign via e-mail at: John@Mertens2010.com

John attending Green Party State Convention

2010-04-22T19:03:00.004-04:00

U.S. Senate Candidate John Mertens will attend the Statewide Connecticut Green Party Convention on Saturday, April 24, at the Portland Senior Center, located at 7 Waverly Ave., Portland, CT. The convention begins at noon, and is free and open to the public. John will be arriving around 2pm, following the 2010 Urban Issues Forum earlier in the day at the State Capitol.

U.S. Senate Candidate John Mertens Participating in 2010 Urban Issues Forum

2010-04-19T19:56:00.003-04:00

U.S. Senate candidate John Mertens will participate in the “2010 Urban Issues Forum” at the Connecticut State Legislative Office Building (LOB) on Saturday, April 24. This forum offers Elected Officials and Candidates running for office the opportunity to meet “face to face” with concerned citizens for an “interactive dialogue session” on issues affecting communities throughout Connecticut. The event is free and open to the public. Attendees can register at:
http://www.sojournerwomenspoliticalinstitute.info/Public_Registration.html
The event runs from 9am-1:30pm, in Room 2-C of the CT State Legislative Office Building, 300 Capitol Ave., Hartford, Connecticut.

AGENDA
9:00 A.M. Breakfast Reception: Meet and Greet with Elected Officials & Candidates
10:00 A.M. Presentations and Audience Q-and-A Session
12:00 P.M. Networking Break and Lunch
1:00 P.M. Wrap up Panel Discussion and Participant Recommendation Session
Candidates and elected officials will be on hand to answer questions and to listen to your concerns.

Sponsors of the event include The CT Health Foundation, Inc., the Commission on Children, the State of CT Office of Protection and Advocacy, the CT Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, the Black and Latino Caucus, the African American Affairs Commission , the Foundation for Educational Advancement, Inc., African Caribbean American Parents of Children with Disabilities (AFCAMP), Sojourner Women’s Political Institute, CT Federation of Black Democratic Clubs, CT Commission on Health Equity, the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women and the Connecticut Branches of the NAACP.

John Mertens Attending Forum at Eastern Connecticut State University

2010-04-13T23:45:00.002-04:00

U.S. Senate candidate John Mertens (I) will attend a candidates forum organized by the "Eastern Conservatives" at Eastern Connecticut State University from 3pm - 5pm on Wednesday, April 14, 2010. The event will be held in the Johnson Room of the J. Eugene Smith Library on the ECSU campus.

U.S. Senate candidates Linda McMahon (R), Rob Simmons (R), and Vinny Foras (R) are also expected to appear, as well as fifteen candidates running for Governor, a variety of constitutional offices, and Congress.

John Mertens Attending Sacred Heart University "Candidates Day"

2010-04-11T14:06:00.002-04:00

John will attend the Sacred Heart University "Candidates Day" on April 13, 2010 from 1pm - 3pm. The event will be held in the University Commons of the main academic building of the Fairfield, CT campus.

U.S. Senate candidates Merrick Alpert (D), Richard Blumenthal (D), Linda McMahon (R) and Peter Schiff (R) are also expected to appear, as well as 15 other candidates running for a variety of constitutional offices and Congress.

Each candidate will have a table at which they can meet attendees. In addition, Sacred Heart University students will videotape private interviews with each candidate, and posting the videos on the University website.

John says: "I'm looking forward to it! It's another opportunity for people to see and hear that I'm the only candidate that gives specific solutions to the huge long- and short-term problems we face (see the 30 detailed position statements on my website)."

John Mertens in U.S. Senate Forum at the Hartford Club on Thursday

2010-04-05T20:45:00.003-04:00

Dr. John Mertens will be the sole Independent to participate in the MetroHartford Alliance U.S. Senate Candidate Forum at the Hartford Club on Thursday, April 8, from 8am - 10am.

Seven candidates are scheduled: Merrick Alpert (D), Richard Blumenthal (D), Vincent Forras (R), Linda McMahon (R), John Mertens (I), Peter Schiff (R), and Rob Simmons (R). The event will be moderated by Tom Monahan from NBC 30.

It will be taped and broadcast at a later time by CT-N. It will also be filmed by the MetroHartford Alliance, and made available on their website. NBC 30 will also be taping for potential future broadcast.

U.S. Senate Candidate John Mertens to Address Milford Independent Party Town Committee

2010-03-29T16:50:00.002-04:00

U.S. Senate candidate John Mertens will speak at the Milford Independent Party Town Committee Meeting on March 31 at 7 PM, at the Stonebridge Restaurant, 50 Daniel St., Milford, Connecticut. Mertens is a Professor of Engineering at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, and also teaches courses in public policy and environmental science. The meeting is free and open to the public.

John became the first candidate in the country to earn a 2010 ballot line for U.S. Senate at the Connecticut for Lieberman Party statewide caucus on January 13. He is also seeking the nominations of the Independent Party, Green Party, and Libertarian Party.

John Mertens to Speak at Gateway Community College

2010-03-28T16:48:00.001-04:00

U.S. Senate candidate John Mertens will visit Gateway Community College in New Haven, Connecticut to address students of American Government classes on April 1, at 7 PM. Mertens is a Professor of Engineering at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, and also teaches courses in public policy and environmental science.

Dr. Mertens will discuss the practicalities of implementing public policy solutions in American politics. He will address Medicare and Healthcare, Social Security, Job Creation, Energy Policy, Bank Regulations, U.S. Drug Policy and other issues. He will also discuss the practicalities of running for office: ballot access, campaign funding, and media access.

Those interested in attending should contact the John Mertens for U.S. Senate campaign via email: John@Mertens2010.com

John's reaction to Dodd's Regulatory Bill

2010-03-15T23:44:00.005-04:00

John's reaction to the latest version of Chris Dodd's Financial Regulatory Reform Bill:

It does do some good things, and is an improvement upon the November version (see "Too Big to Fail" on my website). However, it does not go nearly far enough. We should reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, to separate most commercial and investment banking activities. And, after causing huge damage to our economy, and requiring huge amounts of taxpayer-funded bailouts, it's time to break up huge institutions like Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs into, say, five smaller (but still extremely large) institutions. Mr. Dodd says that "No legislation will stop the next crisis from coming." I do not agree. Stronger action to prevent entities from being "Too Big to Fail" can do the job. I would vote for Mr. Dodd's bill, but I would also fight hard for much stronger protections for us, the people.

Overview of Some Legislation I Will Fight For:

2010-03-05T14:25:00.010-05:00

A U.S. Senator enacts change through legislation. My opponents seem to forget or ignore this. Here's a summary of some of the specific short-, medium-, and long-term legislation that I will fight for. You can find details of each on this website, and by watching my TV show.

• Flip the FICA: to deal with unemployment, foreclosures, small business failures, and tax fairness, eliminate FICA taxes for workers and employers on incomes below $100,000, and institute FICA taxes on additional income above $100,000. When full employment is reached, FICA taxes for everyone.
• Require all lenders to keep 30% of every loan they make, for the lifetime of the loan, to prevent future mortgage crises.
• Social Security: remove the income cap, means-test payments (see TV show on YouTube).
• Universal Health Care, with cost containment (see TV show on YouTube).
• Make permanent a temporary renewable energy tax credit that is impeding investment.
• Close hedge-fund-managers tax loophole that costs us $6 billion dollars a year.
• Specific, large improvements in our ethanol policies.
• Implement a National Energy Policy for the first time.
• Require corporations to disclose compensation packages to stock holders. Transparency.
• Reinstate 1990 Budget Enforcement Act.
• Reinstate Glass-Steagall, and address “Too Big to Fail”.
• Fight for Constitutional Amendment that ends Eminent Domain Abuse.
• Fight for Constitutional Amendment that prevents corporations from donating limitless funds to political advertising, and states that corporations are not treated as persons.
• Urge reduction of troop levels in Afghanistan to 10,000. Focus on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, corruption and 60% unemployment in Afghanistan. Purchase all Afghani poppies.
• Fight for U.S. Drug Policy urged by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). (see TV show on YouTube.) Address 30% high school dropout rate in the U.S. with savings.
• Implement real campaign finance reform.
• Tax Fairness: our tax burden has been shifted to the middle class. Reverse this with more progressive tax structure.
• Keep government out of our personal lives.
• End tax credits for businesses that outsource jobs.
• Fight obesity and diabetes epidemic, replace corrupt FDA food pyramid with Harvard study.
• many more....

Lecture by John Mertens in Hartford, March 9, 12:15-1:15 PM

2010-03-03T21:38:00.002-05:00

U.S. Senate candidate John Mertens is presenting:
“The Nuts and Bolts of Public Policy, American Politics, and Running for Office”
in Hartford, Connecticut on March 9, 12:15-1:15 PM.

Dr. Mertens will discuss the practicalities of implementing public policy solutions in American politics. He will address Medicare and Healthcare, Social Security, Energy Policy, Bank Regulations, U.S. Drug Policy, and others. He will also discuss the practicalities of running for office: ballot access, campaign funding, and media access.

The presentation is in Boyer Auditorium, Albert C. Jacobs Life Sciences Center, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford, Connecticut.

The event is free and open to the public; all are invited to attend.

John Mertens is Guest on FOX 61's "The Real Story" on Sunday, Feb. 28

2010-02-24T07:59:00.003-05:00

John Mertens will be a guest on "The Real Story" hosted by Laurie Perez on Sunday, February 28th. "The Real Story" is broadcast in Connecticut on Sundays at 10:30am on FOX 61, 11:00am on WTXX, and 8:30pm on CTN.

Podcast of Dr. Mertens' appearance on WNPR's "Where We Live"

2010-02-24T07:55:00.002-05:00

You can listen here to John Mertens' discussion with John Dankosky on WNPR's "Where We Live":

http://www.cpbn.org/program/where-we-live/episode/where-we-vote-john-mertens

John Mertens on WNPR's Where We Live on Tuesday, Feb. 23rd

2010-02-21T21:21:00.003-05:00

Dr. Mertens will be the sole guest on WNPR's Connecticut radio show "Where We Live", hosted by John Dankosky, on Tuesday, Feb. 23rd, from 9-10 AM. The show is rebroadcast at 7 PM. The broadcast can be heard live online at http://www.cpbn.org/listen-live

Congress has made another huge mistake:

2010-01-26T17:58:00.004-05:00

"The Senate Tuesday rejected a plan backed by President Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the federal deficit this year despite glaring new figures showing the enormity of the red-ink threat."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-26-federal-budget-deficit_N.htm
" 'Yet another indication that Congress is more concerned with the next election than the next generation,' said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a sponsor of the plan."

I (John Mertens) would have strongly supported the formation of this task force. And this comes on top of a recent budget passed by Congress that increased spending for almost all agencies by 10%! Most companies and non-profits that I know of have frozen spending (if not cut it). Congress should have done the same.

John Mertens' Statement on Supreme Court Ruling

2010-01-24T20:42:00.005-05:00

I agree with President Obama's statements about the recent Supreme Court decision that lifted limits on corporate and union spending on political ads:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24address.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
We need to work to 1) pass legislation that can reduce the impact of the ruling, 2) change the balance of the court when the opportunity presents itself, and 3) ultimately pass a constitutional amendment that fundamentally changes the relationship between money, free speech, and politics.

In addition, and probably more importantly, I support sponsoring legislation that ends the treatment of corporations as persons. Read this letter by Ralph Nader:
http://www.nancho.net/corperson/cpnadrsa.html
I agree with this view. Here's an excerpt I would like you to read:
"The lesson that emerges from our 100-year-plus experience in treating corporations as persons for constitutional purposes is this: If corporations -- all of which are chartered by the government -- are given the same rights as human beings, human beings will not have the same effective rights as corporations. This is not only because of the massive financial and technological resources available to corporations, but the unique powers, privileges and immunities that are inherent in the transnational corporate form or accrete to it over time, and which allow corporations to overwhelm real persons' rights."

Tax Loophole for Hedge Funds Costs $6 Billion

2010-01-15T14:38:00.008-05:00

This is completely unacceptable, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have done anything about it. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would fight hard to close this loophole.

Hedge fund managers pay a much lower income tax rate than their secretaries. It's disgraceful. And it's because they donate millions of dollars to the campaigns of the incumbent politicians:
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/pm120/
Democrats pledged during the 2006 congressional campaign that they would close this loophole (created by a Republican congress) if they became the majority party. They did become the majority party, it's 2010, and they haven't closed it.

We need independent people in congress who will do the right thing!

Nice Article on CTNewsJunkie.com

2010-01-15T10:39:00.001-05:00

http://ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/connecticut_for_lieberman_party_nominates_john_mertens_for_dodds_seat/

Please Donate to the Rescue Efforts in Haiti

2010-01-14T09:29:00.003-05:00

CNN has done a good job of vetting aid organizations here:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/01/13/haiti.earthquake.how.to.help/index.html

John Mertens is First U.S. Senate Candidate to Earn 2010 Ballot Line

2010-01-14T08:09:00.002-05:00

John Mertens became the first candidate in the country to earn a 2010 ballot line for U.S. Senate at the Connecticut for Lieberman Party statewide caucus on January 13, 2010, in Hartford, Connecticut.

Mertens earned the U.S. Senate nomination with 52 votes. Peter R. Anderson of Bozrah, Connecticut received 2 votes.

Mertens is a West Hartford resident and a Professor of Engineering at Trinity College. He is also seeking the nominations of the Independent Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party.

John Mertens' TV show addresses Health Care

2010-01-11T05:16:00.003-05:00

Dr. Mertens' TV show "John Mertens for U.S. Senate" is now running in over 150 towns in Connecticut, on average more than four times a month. By the end of January it will be running in all 169 towns.

The most recent show is on HEALTH CARE. You can also view it on youtube:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=848lvRy7ipM
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS6aJYI0sTw
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ27rx6J2FE

Previous shows can also be viewed on youtube by searching for "John Mertens"

John Mertens welcomes Richard Blumenthal into the race

2010-01-06T12:17:00.003-05:00

Dr. Mertens welcomes Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal into the U.S. Senate race. "I'm looking forward to debating Mr. Blumenthal and all the candidates on a wide range of issues. I hope we will have many opportunities to talk about solutions to long term problems."

Photo is from the Hartford Courant's photogallery of U.S. Senate candidates:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ct-senator-potential-dodd-replacements,0,4970875.photogallery

John Mertens Proposes Energy Job Training Program

2009-12-21T11:38:00.005-05:00

John Mertens has proposed a major training program for future energy related jobs. Mertens cites a report from the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) that concludes that the United States is “facing a critical shortage of trained professionals to maintain the existing electric power system and design, build, and operate the future electric power system.” Mertens’ program would help provide tens of thousands of additional power grid construction and maintenance workers, as well as replacement of tens of thousands of skilled workers and engineers that are expected to retire in the next ten years.

The proposal uses $500 million of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to provide incentives and financial aid to 50,000 high school graduates over the next four years to enter technical school, community college, and four-year college programs to specifically become skilled energy sector workers and engineers, using existing funding mechanisms. The plan also includes using $100 million of funds from the ARRA to provide 100 competitive million dollar grants to engineering and science based charter high schools in urban areas. “Investing in infrastructure and renewable energy education will provide much bigger bang-for-the-buck than short-sighted, more expensive programs like Cash for Clunkers,” said Mertens. “It’s important to get the necessary human resources into the pipeline now.”

Mertens presents a National Energy Policy on his website that includes a long term goal of moving most passenger vehicles from liquid fuels to electricity by 2050, which would require a larger U.S. electricity generation capacity. He also proposes an upgrade of the U.S. electric power grid to accommodate renewable sources of electricity.

Op-ed piece by John Mertens

2009-12-06T17:12:00.003-05:00

Joe Lieberman is Wrong. Here’s What We Need to Do.

Joe Lieberman’s opposition to the “public option” for health care ignores the real issue: we’re facing a $36 trillion dollar shortfall in Medicare over the next 75 years! (To put this into perspective, the entire U.S. economy is $14 trillion.) It’s the biggest fiscal problem we face, and it’s the reason we need real health care reform now. Unfortunately, Joe Lieberman is not the only person obscuring the problem: we don’t hear Republicans or Democrats mentioning it either. This is one of the many reasons I’m running for U.S. Senate as an Independent.

We are facing this huge problem because of the changing age distribution of our population. In 1960 we had 5.1 workers paying into Medicare for each retired person. In 2005 it had fallen to 3.3 workers per retiree, and around 2030 we will reach an equilibrium of about 2.1 workers per retiree. There are two reasons for this: a generation of Americans were very happy during the years after World War II and had a lot of babies, producing a population bubble that is now entering retirement age (the baby-boomers); and life expectancy in the United States has risen steadily. These are good things! But they have produced an economic fact of life that we must deal with. After all, most of us non-wealthy people will rely on Medicare for our insurance when we retire. I know I will. (And, if elected, I pledge that I will not accept the premium health care insurance provided by taxpayers to members of the U.S. Senate. I will purchase my own.)

To deal with this problem it is critical that we reduce the cost of health care PER PERSON in the United States. We need to reduce overhead, stop redundant and defensive medicine, and create a much more efficient delivery system. To accomplish these goals, we must get everyone insured, implement intelligent health care tort reform, overhaul the health care information and billing systems, increase options for consumers, and eventually move to a single-payer system. A single-payer system can work with both private insurance companies and public systems (such as Medicare), and can provide a big reduction in overhead. You can learn more about this in the book “The Healing of America” by T.R. Reid. His book provides an objective non-partisan study of different health care models from around the world: private and/or public and/or single payer. Every member of Congress should read it. And here’s what the Republicans and Democrats are afraid to tell you: even if we succeed with all these savings, we will still need to increase the 1.45% Medicare payroll tax. If we confront this problem now, we won’t have to raise it as much as if we continue to bury our heads in the sand and ignore it.

The health care bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, and the current proposal in the U.S. Senate, is a good first step. But I am worried about working middle-class families that do not currently have coverage, do not qualify for subsidies under the provisions of the bills, and are required to purchase insurance. The “public option” needs to provide basic coverage that is affordable for people in this situation.

Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman recently wrote “Our political system’s ability to deal with real problems has been degraded to such an extent that I sometimes wonder whether the country is still governable.” We need calm, intelligent, non-partisan problem-solving in government! Unfortunately, Joe Lieberman has chosen to obstruct reform rather than present real solutions. Instead of threatening a filibuster, he should work hard to make sure the public option is well-designed, efficient, and provides an affordable option for basic coverage for the working middle class.

Dr. John Mertens is a Professor of Engineering at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the chairman of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. He is running for U.S. Senate in 2010, seeking the nominations of the Independent Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

John Mertens' appearance on Face the State postponed to later in December

2009-12-02T08:15:00.008-05:00

John Mertens will be the guest on WFSB-TV's "Face the State", hosted by Dennis House, on a show in December. (It was previously reported that he would be on Dec. 6, but the show has been postponed.)

WFSB-TV is the CBS affiliate in Connecticut (Channel 3). Face the State is a 30 minute show on Sundays at 11 a.m.

Second installment of John Mertens TV show available on YouTube

2009-12-01T16:15:00.003-05:00

John Mertens introduces himself and talks about his background on his monthly TV show. He also presents an overview of his positions on issues such as healthcare, the national debt, urban issues, TARP, eminent domain, and term limits.
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_wbOqg0_5U
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_2vwzOw0nI
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXDY5huM8zE

First installment of John Mertens TV show available on YouTube

2009-11-23T15:48:00.005-05:00

Dr. John Mertens discusses U.S. Drug Policy on his 30 minute monthly TV show with Cliff Thornton of Efficacy, and Joseph Brooks of L.E.A.P.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tuFjpQR4Z4
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBhb8JZkdjQ
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HExcNLoUyos

John Mertens is Guest on TV Show “Eye on Windham”

2009-11-17T09:45:00.000-05:00

U.S. Senate Candidate Dr. John Mertens is the guest on “Eye on Windham” on Wednesday, November 18, from 9-10 PM. “Eye on Windham” is a one-hour, live, unscreened telephone call-in show that is broadcast to 16 towns on Charter Communications Cable TV Channel 14. The show is co-hosted by Marvin Edelman.

Dr. John Mertens Leads in U.S. Senate Internet Poll

2009-11-15T19:30:00.004-05:00

Dr. John Mertens has received the most votes in an online poll conducted by GroundUp CT, a blog described as “A place to talk about the issues that are important to us.” Ground Up CT is also connected to Organizing for Connecticut (OFC), “a statewide, non-partisan, grassroots organization that is 100% volunteer.” GroundUp CT and OFC have no involvement with the Mertens campaign.

The poll has been ongoing since Nov. 6, and can be viewed at http://groundupct.wordpress.com/polls/

The poll asks:
2010 US Senate Race. Which one will you vote for?
Christopher Dodd (D) US Senator

Merrick Alpert (D) Software Executve, Ex-Aide to Vice President Gore, Attorney & USAF Veteran

Harold Burbank (G) Attorney, Peace Activist & '08 Congressional Nominee
Sam Caligiuri (R) State Sen., Ex-Waterbury Board President & Attorney
Roger Pearson (D) Ex-Greenwich First Selectman, Attorney & Sports Agent

Tom Foley (R) Ex-US Ambassador to Ireland & Businessman

Vincent Forras (I) Businessman & Volunteer Firefighter

Linda McMahon (R) World Wrestling Entertainment Ex-CEO, State Board of Education Member & Sacred Heart University Trustee

John Mertens (CFL) College Professor, Mechanical Engineer & Progressive Activist

Jack Orchulli (R) Ex-Fashion Clothing Company CEO & '04 Nominee

Peter Schiff (R) Stockbroker & Anti-Tax Activist

Rob Simmons (R) State Business Advocate, Ex-Congressman, Ex-Congressional Aide & Ex-CIA Agent

Too Big to Fail: Chris Dodd's proposed regulatory bill falls short

2009-11-11T21:07:00.008-05:00

You can read a discussion about Chris Dodd's proposed regulatory bill (announced yesterday) here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec09/banks_11-11.html

I believe that the proposal would do some good things (create better oversight of some banking functions), but that it consolidates too much oversight into one agency (imagine the still powerful banking lobby being able to target just one agency!), and that some parallel oversight should be left with the FDIC. Here's a statement from Simon Johnson, MIT Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics: "Well, the key is, obviously, you want a tough regulator going forward. You want an institution or a set of institutions that aren't going to be captured by the banks."

PROPOSAL FAILS TO PROPERLY ADDRESS "TOO BIG TO FAIL"

But this is not the biggest weakness of the proposal; the most important thing that new regulatory legislation should do is prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail". This is the biggest reason for our current economic disaster. Again from Simon Johnson, MIT Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics: "there's a little progress on this issue in the Dodd bill." and "But, really, that issue, what we do with these massive banks that, if they fail, they bring down the system, is not being addressed enough, either in this bill or in the Frank bill, and definitely front and center of the administration's original proposal."

It's very disappointing that during this relatively narrow window of opportunity to pass real regulatory reform, Chris Dodd has produced a 1,100 page bill that does not solve the biggest problem of all. From Joe Nocera, NY Times financial expert: "So, you know, if you have one Goldman Sachs, maybe you should have five Goldman Sachs, or five Morgan Stanleys that are smaller in size. These are issues that this Congress just does not want to tackle."

Our senators should listen to experts and create a regulatory agency that has the power to prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail", and prevent a repeat of what has happened. How can someone craft an 1,100 page bill and not include this?

Video of John Mertens Speech Posted by Independent Videographer

2009-11-11T00:19:00.003-05:00

On September 26, 2009 John Mertens spoke at the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayers Organizations breakfest meeting. Rob Simmons, Sam Caligiuri, Peter Schiff, Linda McMahon, and Tom Foley also spoke.

http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/24006492

Excellent Column by Tom Condon Discussing Energy Use

2009-11-09T19:04:00.005-05:00

I'm going to discuss this in my class tomorrow: "The Engineering and Public Policy of Global Sustainability"

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-plc-condon-dave-owen.artnov08,0,5274266.column

Nice to see accurate blog coverage of the campaign!

2009-11-04T11:50:00.001-05:00

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/10/independent-candidate-for-us-senate-from-connecticut-wants-multiple-party-nominations/comment-page-1/

Dr. John Mertens Produces First Monthly Television Show

2009-11-02T22:15:00.001-05:00

Candidate for U.S. Senate Dr. John Mertens announced that he is producing a monthly television show that will be shown on public access television stations around the state. "John Mertens for U.S. Senate" features 30 minutes of in-depth discussion of a different issue each month between the candidate and guests.

The first show addresses U.S. Drug Policy, with guests Cliff Thornton, Green Party Candidate for Governor in 2006 and founder of Efficacy (www.efficacy-online.org), and Joseph Brooks, retired Connecticut police captain and spokesman for the national organization L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, www.LEAP.cc)

The show will be broadcast November 6th, 9th, and 16th at 9:30pm on West Hartford Community Television, and will be shown on numerous stations around the state in December. It is available now on DVD to media representatives upon request: John@Mertens2010.com

Joe Lieberman is Wrong

2009-11-01T11:47:00.004-05:00

Joe Lieberman's opinion piece in the Hartford Courant today is misleading and wrong:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-commentarylieberman1101.artnov01,0,5275431.story

He has oversimplified the problem. See my posting on healthcare for a detailed explanation:
http://mertens2010.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare.html

The bottom line: we must reduce the cost of health care per person, and confront the $36 trillion shortfall that we face in Medicare over the next 75 years. The public option is a component of comprehensive health care reform that will help us do that.

Gerrymandering

2009-10-31T19:55:00.004-04:00

Gerrymandering is one way that career politicians make sure that they stay in office. It harms democracy, and eliminates accountability. For example, a super-majority of seats in the House of Representatives are in districts that are not competitive. Take a look at the two links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/2009/01/20-ridiculously-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/

I support the "Workable Compactness Standard" for drawing district boundaries that is discussed here:

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/83/Partisan_Gerrymandering_Harms_and_a_New_Solution.html

Complications of Corn-Based Ethanol

2009-10-27T18:40:00.003-04:00

Here are two stories that illustrate complications of using corn-based ethanol:

http://www.courant.com/news/nation-world/sns-ap-as-australia-world-food-crisis,0,7053026.story/

http://www.courant.com/features/green-living/sns-green-corn-supplyjun20,0,6183882.story/

Dr. John Mertens Proposes Major Change to $80 Billion Ethanol Law

2009-10-27T00:04:00.003-04:00

U.S. Senate Candidate Dr. John Mertens has proposed major changes to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The proposal includes a freeze of the federal mandate of corn-based ethanol production, a gradual elimination of the federal corn-ethanol subsidy over a five year period, and an elimination of the ethanol import tariff. The proposal will reduce federal deficits by almost $70 billion, significantly reduce demands on the water resources of the United States, prevent increases in food prices, and prevent a significant increase in environmental degradation of American farmlands and waterways. It will also maintain incentives to develop cellulosic-based ethanol production.

Details:
1. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 essentially mandates that corn-based ethanol production in the U.S. be increased to 15 billion gallons per year by 2022 (up from 9 billion gallons in 2009). This proposal freezes the federal mandate at 10 billion gallons per year.

2. The federal government currently provides 45 cents per gallon tax subsidy for ethanol. This proposal reduces the subsidy for corn-based ethanol to 35 cents per gallon at the end of 2010, 25 cents per gallon at the end of 2011, 15 cents per gallon at the end of 2012, and eliminates the subsidy at the end of 2013. The reduction in tax subsidy does not apply to non-cornstarch derived fuels (i.e. cellulosic ethanol). This will reduce federal deficits by almost $70 billion over the next 13 years.

3. The federal government currently maintains a 54 cent per gallon import tariff on ethanol. You can read here why eliminating this tariff would be good for American consumers, the environment, and our energy security:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/03/18/18greenwire-bipartisan-senate-bill-seeks-lower-import-tari-10211.html/

4. A recent article by Robert F. Service in the October 23, 2009 issue of Science magazine entitled “Another Drawback for Biofuels: Irrigation” shows that ethanol from corn uses 1,000 to 10,000 times as much water per unit of energy than more traditional energy sources. It also illustrates that the land usage required to produce billions of gallons of ethanol is causing significant environmental damage to waterways, the Gulf coast, and farmlands. In addition, using food to make fuel drives up the price of food for consumers. (These points are also detailed in the book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan.)

It’s time to slow down the use of taxpayers’ dollars to fund an environmentally and fiscally unwise policy.

What everyone should hear about Afghanistan: Rory Stewart on the News Hour

2009-10-25T23:11:00.003-04:00

I urge everyone to watch the discussion of Afghanistan that was on the News Hour (PBS) two days ago (October 23, 2009). If you go to the link below, start watching at a time of 29:40. It's about an 8 minute segment.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1305916333/

Well written editorial about the public option, by Sam Berger

2009-10-21T12:30:00.000-04:00

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-freshberger1021.artoct21,0,7992277.story

CNN article about John Mertens and the CFL

2009-10-19T14:13:00.004-04:00

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/17/connecticut-for-lieberman-not-so-fast

Here is the same response that I posted to other similar articles (Hartford Courant, Hartford Advocate, New Haven Advocate, Fairfield Weekly).

It would be nice if one reporter would go to the Connecticut Secretary of the State office and look at the CFL file. They would discover that many of the claims by other people in these articles are false.

First, some factual information:
I began working closely with John Orman and the CFL in the summer of 2007. I contacted him in July 2007 because the Secretary of the State (SOS) refused to issue a petition to collect signatures to allow the Independent Party ballot access in 2006. (While, of course, they issued Joe Lieberman a petition. We later defeated the SOS on this issue in 2008.) I explained to John that I had been the Independent Party candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006, and that we had been refused ballot access, and that he should take control of the CFL more seriously. “John, the CFL has real value. It has a ballot line for U.S. Senate. You need to file real party rules.” The party rules that John had filed with the SOS had no procedures for electing officers or nominating candidates. John supported the use of the CFL to run for office and fight for good government, and John said “I want you to become chair.” I reluctantly agreed, worrying about how much work it would be. I wrote real party rules, created the CFL website, and held a statewide party caucus in March 2008. (An invitation was mailed to every registered member of the party, and more than 50% attended. Note: the members voted to endorse Barack Obama for President, NOT Sen. Dodd, as claimed by Sue Henshaw in a recent Hartford Courant article.) At that meeting I gave a short speech, in which I spoke about “turning this party into something real.” I was humbly surprised by the spontaneous applause that it elicited. (Sue Henshaw and Ed Anderson were present, and heard this speech.) I was elected unanimously as chair, and we ran five people for state rep. in 2008. We had another statewide caucus in early 2009. John Orman again voted to elect me chair. (Ed and Sue were no longer members of the party.)

A few months before John Orman passed away, he called me and said that he wanted to run for U.S. Senate against Chris Dodd in 2010, and/or Joe Lieberman in 2012. I explained that I had been working to get third parties to work together in 2010, and that I was going to seek the CFL nomination for U.S. Senate in 2010. He said “OK, you run against Chris Dodd in 2010, and I’ll run against Lieberman in 2012.” My friend John Orman knew exactly what was going on, and supported it. I wish he was here today to participate in what we are doing. He is sorely missed, and was one of the real good guys.

My motivation is not selfish. I have been an educator for a long time, teaching engineering, public policy, and environmental science, and volunteering in Hartford and West Hartford schools for 18 years. I want to educate voters, especially young voters, to not be “Good Democrats” or “Good Republicans”, and instead insist on Good Government. It’s time for us to stop supporting any career politician just because they wear the label “Democrat” or “Republican”. I will tell the unadulterated truth about the huge, long term problems that we face, the real issues that career politicians refuse to address because they care more about getting re-elected in two, or four, or six years, than they care about doing what’s right for us, the people.

I am running a serious campaign to bring real problem-solving to government. I urge all of you read the 30 detailed position statements and solutions to long term problems that I present on this website. Until you do so, I would argue that you should not criticize me or suggest that I should not exercise my democratic right to run for office. I would wager a great deal of money that you will agree with my positions more than those of any other candidate in the race. And I ask that you elect me to U.S. Senate in 2010.

Sincerely,
John Mertens

Dr. John Mertens to be Third U.S. Senate Candidate to Attend The Buttonwood Tree Salon, Middletown, CT

2009-10-17T12:24:00.002-04:00

Dr. John Mertens, candidate for U.S. Senate, will be a guest of The Buttonwood Tree Salon, 605 Main St., Middletown, CT, on Friday, October 30th from 6:00-7:00 PM. Dr. Mertens is seeking the nominations of four political parties: the Independent Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. Dr. Mertens, a West Hartford resident, was the Independent Party candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006, and has been the chair of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party since March, 2008.

Dr. Fred Carroll and John Kilian are co-hosting a candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut at The Buttonwood Tree Salon for the third time. Prior guests are Merrick Alpert (D) and Rob Simmons (R). Video of previous guests may be viewed at http://undecidedalliance.blogspot.com

The event will be one hour of open questions and answers, and will be videotaped. It is free and open to the public.

Results of U.S. Senate Poll, October 10, 2009

2009-10-10T15:37:00.005-04:00

Volunteers conducted a non-scientific poll at Bushnell Park in Hartford today (October 10, 2009) during the Hartford Marathon. 457 self-identified registered Connecticut voters responded.

This is the exact wording the pollsters used:

Excuse me. I'm conducting a non-partisan Connecticut political poll. Can I ask you four questions?
1. Are you registered to vote in CT?
2. On a scale of 1-10, how much attention have you been paying to the U.S. Senate race in CT?
3. If the election was held tomorrow, and the following candidates were the nominees of their parties, who would you vote for? (the order of these three names were different on each sheet)
Rob Simmons, Republican Party
Chris Dodd, Democratic Party
Dr. John Mertens, Independent Party
4. What town do you live in?
Thank you.

Here are the results:
Dodd 40%
Simmons 33%
Mertens 13%
Don't know yet 14%

13% is a strong showing for a one-month-old campaign 13 months before the election. Dr. John Mertens should be included in all polls for the November 2010 U.S. Senate election; after all, he is one of three candidates that will be on the ballot: 1 Republican, 1 Democrat, and 1 Independent.

Excellent article about the need for, and lack of, long term planning and strategies by our government

2009-10-06T11:42:00.002-04:00

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_45/b4107038217112.htm

Nice article in the Trinity College student newspaper:

2009-10-03T13:59:00.001-04:00

http://media.www.trinitytripod.com/media/storage/paper520/news/2009/09/22/News/Prof-Mertens.To.Run.For.U.s.Senate-3782423.shtml

John responds to today's Advocate/Fairfield Weekly article

2009-09-30T19:49:00.007-04:00

First, some factual information:
I began working closely with John Orman and the CFL in the summer of 2007. I contacted him in July 2007 because the Secretary of the State (SOS) refused to issue a petition to collect signatures to allow the Independent Party ballot access in 2006. (While, of course, they issued Joe Lieberman a petition. We later defeated the SOS on this issue in 2008.) I explained to John that I had been the Independent Party candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006, and that we had been refused ballot access, and that he should take control of the CFL more seriously. “John, the CFL has real value. It has a ballot line for U.S. Senate. You need to file real party rules.” The party rules that John had filed with the SOS had no procedures for electing officers or nominating candidates. John supported the use of the CFL to run for office and fight for good government, and John said “I want you to become chair.” I reluctantly agreed, worrying about how much work it would be. I wrote real party rules, created the CFL website, and held a statewide party caucus in March 2008. (An invitation was mailed to every registered member of the party, and more than 50% attended. Note: the members voted to endorse Barack Obama for President, NOT Sen. Dodd, as claimed by Sue Henshaw in a recent Hartford Courant article.) At that meeting I gave a short speech, in which I spoke about “turning this party into something real.” I was humbly surprised by the spontaneous applause that it elicited. (Sue Henshaw and Ed Anderson were present, and heard this speech.) I was elected unanimously as chair, and we ran five people for state rep. in 2008. We had another statewide caucus in early 2009. John Orman again voted to elect me chair. (Ed and Sue were no longer members of the party.)

A few months before John Orman passed away, he called me and said that he wanted to run for U.S. Senate against Chris Dodd in 2010, and/or Joe Lieberman in 2012. I explained that I had been working to get third parties to work together in 2010, and that I was going to seek the CFL nomination for U.S. Senate in 2010. He said “OK, you run against Chris Dodd in 2010, and I’ll run against Lieberman in 2012.” My friend John Orman knew exactly what was going on, and supported it. I wish he was here today to participate in what we are doing. He is sorely missed, and was one of the real good guys.

My motivation is not selfish. I have been an educator for a long time, teaching engineering, public policy, and environmental science, and volunteering in Hartford and West Hartford schools for 18 years. I want to educate voters, especially young voters, to not be “Good Democrats” or “Good Republicans”, and instead insist on Good Government. It’s time for us to stop supporting any career politician just because they wear the label “Democrat” or “Republican”. I will tell the unadulterated truth about the huge, long term problems that we face, the real issues that career politicians refuse to address because they care more about getting re-elected in two, or four, or six years, than they care about doing what’s right for us, the people.

I am running a serious campaign to bring real problem-solving to government. I urge all of you read the 30 detailed position statements and solutions to long term problems that I present on this website. Until you do so, I would argue that you should not criticize me or suggest that I should not exercise my democratic right to run for office. I would wager a great deal of money that you will agree with my positions more than those of any other candidate in the race. And I ask that you elect me to U.S. Senate in 2010.

Sincerely,
John Mertens

John Mertens hosting booth at WPLR Event in Waterbury this Friday

2009-09-30T09:01:00.001-04:00

Come meet U.S. Senate Candidate John Mertens on Friday, October 2nd, at the WPLR radio station “Wigout” at the Riders Café, 2627 Thomaston Ave., Waterbury, CT. He will staff the Independent Party booth from 4-6 PM, and circulate afterwards.

John to speak at Statewide Green Party Meeting, Tuesday Sept. 29th

2009-09-24T15:32:00.002-04:00

John Mertens will speak at the Statewide Connecticut Green Party Meeting on Tuesday, September 29th, 7 PM, at the Portland Senior Center, located at 7 Waverly Ave., Portland, CT. This meeting is free and open to the public.

Dr. Mertens will discuss 3rd party politics in Connecticut, and specific solutions to long-term problems to protect our economy, social security, medicare, the environment, and our quality of life. There will be a question and answer period following his remarks.

John Mertens, Rob Simmons, and Sam Caligiuri to speak on Sept. 26

2009-09-14T18:34:00.003-04:00

Candidates for U. S. Senate John Mertens, Rob Simmons, and Sam Caligiuri will speak at the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayers Organizations breakfast meeting, on Saturday, September 26, from 8 AM to 12 Noon, at 1 Chatfield Dr., West Hartford. (Just off New Britain Ave., a little bit east of West Farms Mall.) To reserve a seat call (860) 841-8032 or (860) 528-0323 or email fctopresident@aol.com

There is a continental breakfast, and a suggested (optional) $10 donation.

John Mertens will host a table at the Hope Out Loud Festival, this Sunday, Sept. 20, 12-5 PM, Bushnell Park

2009-09-14T18:28:00.003-04:00

Dr. Mertens will be hosting a table at the Hope Out Loud Festival this coming Sunday, 12-5 PM, Bushnell Park. Dahr Jamail will be speaking, and there will be a lot of live music. It's a free event. It's a concert, a day of remembrance, a day of inspiration, a day for renewal with many organizations dedicated to peace and the arts. Come say hi!

http://hopeoutloud.org/

It's will be on the northeast side of the park, between the pond and the Pump House Gallery. Rain location is the Great Hall at Union Station, right across the street from Bushnell Park.

Watch John's Campaign Kickoff Speech here:

2009-09-12T19:27:00.000-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh3Tsl2V1_w

President Obama's Health Care Speech

2009-09-10T01:29:00.003-04:00

I support these principles:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32766830#32766830

However, we must also address the $36 trillion of shortfalls we face in Medicare in the rest of this century. See my posting on Healthcare.

Apropos column from Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman

2009-09-09T16:14:00.001-04:00

This excerpt from his column explains why I'm running:

"....our political system’s ability to deal with real problems has been degraded to such an extent that I sometimes wonder whether the country is still governable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html

Press Release

2009-08-21T18:50:00.004-04:00

West Hartford Resident John Mertens Announces Candidacy for 2010 U.S. Senate Race

Press Conference/Campaign Kick-Off Event:
Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 6:30 PM, 2071 Park St., Hartford

West Hartford Resident John Mertens will publicly announce his candidacy for the 2010 U.S. Senate Race during a campaign kick-off event & press conference scheduled for September 9, 2009, 6:30 PM, at 2071 Park Road, Hartford (the outdoor stage at Lena’s Pizzeria). The event will be followed by music and food.

Dr. Mertens is seeking the nominations of four political parties: the Independent Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. Dr. Mertens was the Independent Party candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006. Dr. Mertens has been the chair of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party since March, 2008. (http://www.ctforlieberman.org/)

Accompanying Dr. Mertens at the event will be Mike Telesca, State Agent of the Independent Party, Stephen Fournier, State Co-Chair of the Green Party, and Richard Lion, State Chair of the Libertarian Party.

A tenured Professor of Engineering at Trinity College in Hartford, Dr. Mertens also teaches environmental science and public policy, and conducts research in combustion and air pollution. He earned a B.S. in mechanical engineering from California State University, Chico, graduating summa cum laude, and earned a Masters and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Stanford University. He began teaching at Trinity College in 1990. He has done volunteer work with Hartford public schools for over eighteen years, and is well informed about public school and urban issues. He has lived in West Hartford since 1996, where he has raised four children. They will join him on the stage on September 9th.

Dr. Mertens’ campaign will focus on solutions to long-term problems, using non-partisan, analysis-based public policies. According to Dr. Mertens, “The country is facing huge long-term problems: an $11 trillion national debt, a giant budget deficit, a $12 trillion social security shortfall this century, prisons that are bursting at the seams, urban schools that are struggling, a wounded economy with rising unemployment, a health care system that needs major reform, the lack of a coherent national energy policy that will protect our economy and the environment, and a government that has been encroaching on our civil liberties. The solutions exist. But we need to elect non-partisan problem-solvers who will fight for them. For decades we have lived with irresponsible public policies from career politicians in Congress who care more about increasing their party’s power and getting re-elected than they care about solving long-term problems. They haven’t been honest with us, and they have been lousy public servants.”

The Sept. 9th Press Conference/Campaign Kick-Off event at Lena’s Outdoor Stage in Hartford is free and open to the public. Dr. Mertens is holding the event in Connecticut’s capital city and New England’s ‘Rising Star’ to emphasize the need for coordination of federal and state policies to address issues such as education, health care, urban revitalization, and economic recovery.

Press photos and campaign materials can be requested in advance: john@mertens2010.com

Email us at:

2009-08-21T18:49:00.001-04:00

John@Mertens2010.com

Eminent Domain Abuse

2009-08-20T14:08:00.002-04:00

Eminent Domain Abuse should be prevented. No government entity should be able to force someone to give up their home for private development. A number of states have passed laws that prevent this abuse as a result of what has happened in New London (see below). Connecticut has failed to do so. I strongly believe that we need to pass a federal law that prevents eminent domain abuse.

From Wikipedia:
The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed New London’s authority to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then sell the property to a private developer. This 5-4 decision received heavy press because the Court sided with the city in recognizing the public benefit of the new development. It also inspired a public outcry that eminent domain powers were too broad. This resulted in several states enacting or considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the state's own power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock(2004)), and Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney(2006)) have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

Corruption in Congress

2009-08-20T02:47:00.004-04:00

There are 35,000 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. Members of Congress take huge donations from companies the lobbyists represent. This is a conflict of interest, plain and simple. For example, Senator Dodd has received over $13 million dollars of donations from financial, industry, and real-estate related firms since 2000, during which time he was a member of the Senate banking committee, and chair of the committee since January 2007 (Hartford Courant, 9/29/08). This is legal, but it shouldn't be. (See my entry "Campaign Finance Reform".)

Look at these numbers:

-In 1991, 546 pork barrel projects passed in Congress, costing us taxpayers $3 billion.
-In 2005, 14,000(!) pork barrel projects passed in Congress, costing us taxpayers $27 billion!

This explosion of waste and corruption helped Democrats take Congress in 2006. They pledged to rein in pork barrel spending.

-In 2007 there were 11,000 pork barrel projects, costing us taxpayers $15 billion.

Those are pretty slack reins.

This explosion of waste and greed in the last 15 years is a result of Congress giving lobbyists the keys to the bank. Pork barrel riders have been attached to bills at 2:00 AM the night before votes, and passed without anyone but the lobbyist and the member of Congress knowing what had happened. This is corruption, pure and simple, and it must be stopped. The current rules of Congress must be strengthened and enforced.

How can any member of Congress acknowledge these facts and not hang their head in shame? Why haven’t some members of Congress spoken out loudly about this? I will.

Supporting Small Businesses

2009-08-20T02:35:00.008-04:00

I know many people who own a small business. They complain to me about how much paperwork they need to complete for the government.

One of the results of the irresponsible behavior of corporations that were "too big to fail" is an increase in regulations governing their fiscal behavior. We need to make sure that this does not increase the onerous, time-consuming, and sometimes expensive paperwork requirements for "small enough to fail" companies.

I support creating a task force to examine if current regulatory requirements are reasonable for small and medium size companies, and to see if there are ways that bureaucratic paperwork can be streamlined and unnecessary licenses and fees eliminated.

I also propose a job creation plan that will benefit small businesses tremendously. Please read about it here:
http://mertens2010.blogspot.com/2010/05/jobs.html

Privacy

2009-08-20T02:19:00.003-04:00

I strongly opposed violations of our right to privacy that were contained in the Patriot Act. Fortunately, many of them have been struck down by the courts, or modified in the 2005 reauthorizations. However, we need to continue to be vigilant.

I am strongly opposed to the use of RFID chips in government issued I.D. cards. In addition, we need legislation that requires manufacturers to post clear notices to consumers when RFID chips are contained in products or their packaging.

My general philosophy is that government (and corporations) should stay out of our personal lives.

Wall Street Compensation

2009-08-20T01:40:00.008-04:00

In 2007, CEOs of major corporations were paid on average 344 times the average worker's pay. In the 1970's the ratio was only 40. This is outrageous. Some of this results from the fact that many CEOs sit on each other's corporate boards. A classic case of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your's." This huge increase in compensation relative to the average worker's pay has occured for all other officers in corporations as well. See Table 6 in the following research paper:
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/workshops/AppliedEcon/archive/pdf/FrydmanSecondPaper.pdf
I strongly support regulations that require corporate boards to allow their stockholders to vote on whether or not they support the proposed compensation packages before they go into effect. The stockholders' vote would simply be a recommendation, but if the board goes against the wishes of the stockholders, the stockholders can remove the board members if they wish. Congress has been considering just such a bill:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/more-regulation-for-wall-street-execs/fat-cats/
Unfortunately, from what I've read most recently in the press, it seems that Congress is going to make it optional for corporations to allow stockholders this privilege! What kind of regulation is that? It sounds to me like the 35,000 lobbyists in Washington have been busy. If I were in Congress, I would publicize this attempt to turn this legislation into something nearly worthless, in the hopes that legislators would stand firm if their consitutuents were aware of what they were doing.

Shame on Congress if they allow this change in the Executive Compensation Bill.

Stimulus Package

2009-08-20T01:07:00.004-04:00

To be honest, I was very disappointed in the $787 billion stimulus package passed in February 2009 (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009). Here is a good description of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Provisions_of_the_Act
It was too large, and most of it was giveaways that had little to do with reducing unemployment.

I supported the State and Local Fiscal Relief ($144B), Core Infrastructure ($51B), and Smart Electricity Grid components ($11B).

State and Local Fiscal Relief: This was necessary to prevent massive layoffs and cuts in education and basic services. States have a requirement to balance their budgets (unlike the federal government). During the worst economic downturn since the great depression, it was appropriate for the federal government to prevent disastrous cuts in basic services provided by the states.

Core Infrastructure: There is an estimated $2 trillion(!) of deferred infrastructure maintenance in the United States. Bridges, overpasses, highways, harbors, etc. This was an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone! Solve a huge long-term infrastructure problem, and create jobs. The Core Infrastructure allocation should have been significantly higher.

Smart Electricity Grid: This is an extremely important part of our future energy security and economy (read my "Energy Policy and the Environment" posting on this website). To be honest, it won't provide significant stimulus in the short term, but in the long term it will provide a huge payback.

In conclusion, the Stimulus Package hasn't had much of an effect on unemployment, and it won't. We didn't get very much bang for the buck.

TARP

2009-08-20T00:11:00.006-04:00

The following wikipedia entry does a good job of describing the Troubled Asset Relief Program. I especially encourage you to read the "Controversies" section in particular, as it relates directly to what I write below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

I do not question the motives of most of the major players involved in creating TARP. Then Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, and essentially every member of Congress genuinely believed that we were facing a catastrophic economic meltdown that required massive federal intervention. I especially commend Mr. Bernanke for working extremely hard to do what he thought was best for us. I believe he is a patriotic, smart, honest, hard-working gentleman.

Having said this, I was very disappointed in the TARP legislation when I read what was finally passed in 2008. In late 2008 I publicly identified three failings:

1. The goal was to prevent a frozen economy that would spiral downward by providing hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations and banks to free up lending. However, TARP had no safeguards to ensure that the money would be used as intended! And if you read the "Controversies" section of the above wikipedia entry, we have since learned that very little of the money was actually used to increase lending:

"A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen US-based banks by the New York Times found that 'few [banks] cited lending as a priority. An overwhelming majority saw the program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future.' The article cited several bank chairmen as stating that they had no intention of changing their lending practices to 'accommodate the needs of the public sector' and that they viewed the money as available for strategic acquisitions in the future. Moreover, while TARP funds have been provided to bank holding companies, those holding companies have only used a fraction of such funds to recapitalize their bank subsidiaries. The Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the TARP concluded on January 9, 2009: 'In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures'. The panel also concluded that 'Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending.'"

2. There was essentially no oversight of companies that received the money. While a "Congressional Oversight Panel" was created to oversee TARP, it had no power or influence on what the bailed-out companies could do with the money once they received it.

3. I was also upset that there were no provisions for preventing large compensation packages for executives of the bailed out companies who were largely responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place. Ironically, it was Chris Dodd who failed to stand firm and maintain the needed protection in the bill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIG_bonus_payments_controversy

"Initially, Senator Chris Dodd was identified by Treasury Department spokesmen as being responsible for the inclusion of the provision exempting such bonuses from the executive pay limits clause of the TARP. However, on February 14, 2009, the Wall Street Journal published an article, Bankers Face Strict New Pay Cap, discussing a retroactive limit to bonus compensation inserted by Chris Dodd into the TARP bill that passed in the Senate. The same article went on to mention that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers 'had called Sen. Dodd and asked him to reconsider'. When the bill left conference, Dodd's provison had been removed and replaced with the explicit exemptions lobbied for by Geithner and Summers. As Dodd explained in his March 18 interview on CNN, at Geithner and the Obama Administration's 'insistence' he removed the language he had himself inserted and replaced it with Geithner and Summers' loophole, which thus allowed the bonuses which formed the basis for the AIG scandal. Dodd retreated from his original statement that he did not know how the bill was changed. Dodd was criticised by many in the Connecticut media for the apparent flip-flop. In a March 20, 2009 editorial the New Haven Register called Dodd 'a lying weasel'. The same day, Hartford Courant columnist Rick Green called on Dodd not to seek re-election in 2010."

So, despite the best of intentions, this is a long, sad story of incompetence in crafting important legislation that we see far too often in Congress. It lead to the giveaway of billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to greedy people who got us into this mess in the first place.

We need to elect people who define the problems, state clear goals, and implement responsible solutions for the people. I will fight tooth-and-nail to make Congress do this for all of us.

Water and the Environment

2009-08-19T22:48:00.003-04:00

We need to reform federal policies on water usage in the United States. I urge you to read the book "Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water" by Marc Reisner. It is a very complex issue; the bottom line is that we need to prepare for a water crisis in the Western United States, from South Dakota to Texas to California and most of the states in between. We shouldn't wait until the crisis hits to do something about it. Gross over-use of ground and surface water, and over-population of desert areas are the largest problems; we need to reduce frivolous use of water in desert areas, employ technologies that will enable our communities to recycle and reuse their water, and rely on efficient and sensible use of surface water in an environmentally friendly way. Western states will be forced to do much of this within a few decades through market forces, but current federal subsidies and policies are retarding progress.

Drug Law Reform

2009-08-19T22:04:00.011-04:00

Our drug policies are not working. Remember, prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's didn't work either, and it caused great harm by creating organized crime in the United States. We need to adopt "harm reduction" policies that will reduce drug use, save a lot of money, greatly reduce urban violence, and improve our national security.

You can view the episode of my monthly television show that examined U.S. Drug Policy, in three installments:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tuFjpQR4Z4
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBhb8JZkdjQ
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HExcNLoUyos&feature=related

Our current drug laws hurt us in many ways:
-Socially. The United States has many more people behind bars than any other country in the world. More than 1% of our population is in prison, and more than 3% of our population is either behind bars, on parole, or on probation. A disproportionate percentage are black or hispanic.
-Economically. We spend billions of dollars a year on ineffective interdiction, and more billions for the aforementioned prisons. And, if intelligent drug law reform is instituted, we can generate a great deal of tax revenue that can pay for much needed treatment and education.
-National Security. Users spend between $50 and $100 billion(!) dollars a year on illegal drugs in the U.S., and that money goes to terrorists (including the Taliban and Al-Qaeda) and international criminals.
-Crime and Violence. The criminalization of drugs is responsible for tremendous violence in our cities. And drug users who are put into prison learn how to be hardened criminals from their fellow inmates.

This website is a great source of information:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/
I would especially like you to look at this table:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/30
Here is a list of incarceration rates of countries around the world:
http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/prison_incarceration_rates_of_countries_2007.html
Here is a very good discussion of the problems and solutions with Cliff Thornton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd_3HowvKlA

Many people across the political spectrum agree that criminilization of substance abuse has been a terrible failure. I try to talk to every police officer I meet about this issue, and I've yet to meet one who thinks that drug users should be put in prison. I urge you to visit the website of "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" (LEAP):
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

I recommend an excellent book, "Ending the War on Drugs", written by Dirk Chase Eldredge, a conservative Republican who worked with Ronald Reagan. He dispels myths, provides a lot of facts, and presents excellent solutions. From his preface:

"My solution for America offers help to all: first, the creation of a state government-sponsored and -enforced policy of distribution and sale of drugs; thus re-directing the profits from the pockets of the cartels into state governments, where, by law, they would be used to combat drug use and abuse. The crime and violence currently accompanying illegal drug use and sales would cease. With more funds for professional treatment of the addicted, and most of all, a unified American effort to expand drug education and research, our country could concentrate on prevention instead of prohibition. I am not the first, nor will I be the last, to point out the counterproductiveness of America's present drug policies, but the truth and logic of my position encourage me that my proposal will eventually prevail."

I also recommend "Legalize This! The case for decriminalizing drugs" by Douglas Husak.

I also urge you to read this by the late William F. Buckley:
http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

I welcome the opportunity to speak with you about this issue on the campaign trail.

You can also watch the below youtube video of a speech I delivered at the state capital building. I address the drug policy issue in the second half of the speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKHvQWPzaDM
(Note: I was invited to speak at this event. While I am not a "Tea Party person", I will speak to any and every group, find common ground where possible, and challenge people with facts on issues when we do not agree. Watch the speech to the end and you will see what I'm talking about. If we are going to succeed in solving the long-term problems that we face, all Americans need to be able to discuss things in a civil and respectful way with people that we disagree with. We all love the United States, and we need to work together.)

National Debt/Budget Deficit

2009-08-19T15:17:00.004-04:00

Please watch this video of a speech I delivered on fiscal issues, in two installments:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=dY7pQrVfXdQ&v=AZrIEIwWw0s
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=xAEmOUbw_YE&v=Qwrj4A_uC5U

We are in big trouble. Our elected officials have been irresponsible for decades, running up $11 trillion(!) dollars of national debt. It has doubled since 2000, and is projected to double again in the next five to ten years. This is insane, and must be dealt with, the sooner the better. It will require significant sacrifices, but if we don't get our debt under control, we will eventually be faced with hyper-inflation and extremely high interest rates, resulting in an economic disaster worse than anything we've seen. We need to cut spending, and increase revenue. Please watch the below youtube video of a speech I delivered at the state capital building. I address this issue in the first half of the speech, and I talk about loopholes in specific legislation that need to be closed. However, that will only begin to address the problem. We need to change the mind-set of our elected officials, and get them to think about long-term ramifications of programs and legislation. I will be relentless in demanding that members of Congress confront these kinds of huge problems, every day, until they are addressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKHvQWPzaDM

Note: I was invited to speak at this event. While I am not a "Tea Party person", I will speak to any and every group, find common ground where possible, and challenge people with facts on issues when we do not agree. Watch the speech to the end and you will see what I'm talking about. If we are going to succeed in solving the long-term problems that we face, all Americans need to be able to discuss things in a civil and respectful way with people that we disagree with. We all love the United States, and we need to work together.

Campaign Finance Reform

2009-08-19T00:51:00.007-04:00

The below is what I wrote in August, 2009. Things have changed a lot in Connecticut since then! (The law has been declared unconstitutional twice, for different reasons each time.) The recent "fix" passed by the CT legislature, vetoed by Gov. Rell, then overriden by the legislature, is not a "fix". It does allow Gov. candidate Dannel Malloy to continue to participate in the program as it was originally devised. But it does not fix the Catch-22 in the law that literally makes it impossible for third-party and unaffiliated candidates to participate in the program for statewide offices. We need to pressure the CT legislature to really fix this law! And, we need to work to implement a well written federal version of Campaign Finance Reform.

Written August 19, 2009:
Members of Congress spend way too much time raising money for their campaigns. And under the current system, there is no question that money buys access (see my entry "Corruption in Congress" on this website).

Connecticut has instituted a cutting-edge campaign finance system that removes a great deal of the influence that lobbyists have with state legislators. Take a look:

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/connecticut_legislature_passes_sweeping_campaign_finance_reform_bill/

Congress should adopt the same kind of Campaign Finance Reform. I will fight for it.

Term Limits

2009-08-19T00:44:00.005-04:00

We need term limits for members of Congress. Career politicians who worry about getting re-elected every two or six years simply do not address long-term problems whose solutions require sacrifice. As a result, we are facing huge long-term problems (see the top of this page) that threaten the future quality of life of our children and their children.

A government run by short-sighted people is by nature irrational, selfish, and cowardly. Our founding fathers never envisioned serving in Congress to be a career.

If we institute term limits of eight years for the House of Representatives, and twelve years for the Senate, we might get elected officials who are true public servants, and who are willing to address long-term problems with courage and sanity.

Mortgage Defaults

2009-08-19T00:38:00.004-04:00

Here is something I posted April 2, 2008. It's unfortunate that Senator Dodd did not include this in the Housing Bill, as I recommended. It would have significantly reduced the number of mortgage defaults that resulted from sub-prime mortgages.

http://ctforlieberman.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html

"At this moment (April 2, 2008) Senator Dodd is working on a compromise with Republicans on a plan to deal with the housing crisis that has resulted from the sub-prime debacle. Republicans oppose a portion of the bill that would enable bankruptcy judges to cut interest rates on troubled subprime mortgages written in recent years. Judges are currently prohibited from doing so for a person's principal residence. President Bush and other Republicans argue that giving judges this power would prompt lenders to tighten their standards and raise interest rates. (The above is paraphrased from a Washington Post article by Lori Montgomery.)

The CFL would like to urge Senator Dodd to work towards a compromise that would grant judges this power on a temporary basis, perhaps for one year. This would accomplish the goal of allowing judges to help alleviate the current foreclosure crisis, and should remove the fears of the long term effects the GOP are using to argue against it."

Immigration

2009-08-18T10:15:00.002-04:00

I would have supported the compromise bill on immigration proposed by President Bush and Senator Kennedy that was defeated in 2007. I think it’s the best we can do in the current political climate, and I will work hard to get Congress to address this. Read the article below for more information:

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706291319321xeneerg0.4296839.html

Contact us:

2009-08-18T10:11:00.002-04:00

Please send us an email at
john@mertens2010.com

Torture

2009-08-18T09:56:00.002-04:00

I support a ban on the mistreating of prisoners in U.S. custody. This was originally proposed by Senator John McCain. As he put it: “I don't see how you could possibly agree to legitimizing an agent of the government engaging in torture.” Unfortunately, Senator McCain did not follow through, allowing loopholes to be inserted into his bill. I am outraged that our policies have given the impression around the world that the United States of America engages in torture, and does not respect the Geneva Convention. We must hold ourselves to the highest of standards! The United States of America should be the example that all other countries try to emulate. We need to pass real legislation that bans torture.

Outsourcing

2009-08-17T17:10:00.002-04:00

We need legislation that removes all tax breaks from any company that outsources U.S. jobs overseas. This legislation needs to be carefully crafted so that it does not penalize companies for selling their goods and services in overseas markets. In other words, the removal of tax breaks would not be triggered by economic activity in another country that is directly related to sales in that country.

Health Care

2009-08-17T16:11:00.028-04:00

Please view the episode of my monthly television show that examines Health Care, in three installments:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=81_KSR-xAyM&v=848lvRy7ipM
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=zr5r-j3SWtE&v=uS6aJYI0sTw
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=hvoFFlf9h1U&v=BJ27rx6J2FE

Social Security

2009-08-17T14:46:00.016-04:00

Please view the episode of my monthly television show that discusses how to solve the huge problems we face with Social Security, in two installments:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=YKnM4au8OSM&v=5PSyU_Uy2Uw
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=z0prF-n-E0I&v=hkuwgVvbONY

Social Security is a huge fiscal issue that Congress should have addressed a long time ago. The longer we wait, the more painful the solution will be. Members of Congress haven’t addressed it because they care more about the power struggle between the two parties and getting re-elected than they care about doing what is right for the American people. They’re afraid that if they talk about the hard choices that must be made to keep Social Security solvent in the long term, they may lose votes in the next election. The end result: they ignore the problem, and they don’t develop solutions.

Here are the facts about Social Security:
69% of benefits go to retirement payments
17% of benefits go to disability payments
14% of benefits go to survivor payments (mostly widows)

Social Security provides 100% of the income of 20% of all retirees.
Social Security provides 90%+ of the income of 33% of all retirees.
Social Security provides 50%+ of the income of 65% of all retirees.
These numbers show that social security is critical to the well-being of our elderly.

In 1960, there were 5 workers for each social security beneficiary. At present, there are 3.3 workers for each social security beneficiary. This number will drop to 2.1 workers per social security beneficiary by the year 2031. After 2031 it will remain around 2.1 for the rest of this century. This is the crux of the problem, and is a result of the "baby boomers" entering retirement age, and increases in life expectancy. As a result, somewhere between the years 2017 and 2019 social security will begin running an annual deficit, and if no changes are made, we will have a TWELVE TRILLION DOLLAR debt in the social security fund in this century. (These numbers were calculated by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2005.)

Many young people I talk to during the campaign say “I don’t care about social security. I’m not going to get it anyway.” But ignoring the problem does not solve a $12 trillion debt that will occur if we don’t make some changes.

What is the SOLUTION?
We can keep social security in the black FOREVER with the least amount of pain if we make changes NOW. This requires increases in revenue, and decreases in expenditures. There's no question it's going to be very painful, but the sooner we make changes that will save social security, the less painful it will be.

Here are two articles that discuss different combinations of options that will solve the problem:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/20/news/economy/social_security_election/index.htm?postversion=2008082011

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020429/simon

Note that the latter was written by the late Senator from Illinois, Paul Simon, in 2002. That was seven years ago, and Congress still hasn't made a serious attempt to address this issue. I favor the solution that Paul Simon suggested then: removing the cap on the amount of income subject to the payroll tax that funds Social Security. Currently, social security tax is paid only on the first $106,800 of annual income. Why should someone who makes $1,000,000 a year pay the same social security tax as someone who makes $106,800? This would close a large portion of the $12 trillion gap. However, the increased revenue must be saved, not spent on other things, by the federal government.

I also agree that a reform package should include changes on the expenditures side:
-a small change in the formula by which growth in benefits is calculated for current workers, and how the annual cost-of-living adjustments are made to benefits (as discussed in the first article above).
-reduce benefits for some new eligible beneficiaries through a 30 year, phased-in, progressive system. The reductions would be means-tested: this means retirees with high annual incomes would experience the cuts in social security benefits.
These two changes would result in a reduction in social security expenditures of about 10% by the end of this century, and in combination with removing the cap on the amount of income subject to the payroll tax, would solve the problem.

More details of these options can be viewed here:
http://www.concordcoalition.org/files/uploaded-pdfs/chart3-132.pdf

None of these components are particularly attractive, but hard choices have to be made. If this combination of sacrifices were implemented, Social Security would remain in the black forever, and the security of our loved ones would be guaranteed for their retirement years.

One note: A few years ago, President Bush discussed a privatization plan for social security. It would have done nothing to solve the $12 trillion dollar problem. It would only have allowed younger people to opt out of a significant amount of their participation in social security without changing the revenue/outlay balance. We still would have ended up with a $12 trillion dollar problem. And, the terrible losses of the stock market in the last year illustrate the pitfalls of allowing people to opt out of social security and rely on their own investments for their retirement. I do not support a privatization plan.

Iraq/Afghanistan

2009-08-17T14:25:00.007-04:00

Please view my most recent statement on Afghanistan, from my monthly television show, taped in January 2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=dGKUNjk1QKQ&v=ZIrZ1UpdZDI

Here's what I wrote in August 2009:
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, as long as we also commited the resources necessary to build the infrastructure that a new government would need to be successful, and to win the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately, we did not do so. Please read what I posted in 2006 for more details:

http://mertens2006.com/jm2006/afghanistan.aspx

I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. Please read what I posted in 2006 for more details:

http://mertens2006.com/jm2006/iraq.aspx

What about the present? Given the situation now in Iraq, I think our military commandeers are following a prudent course of action. We should continue to withdraw troops and allow the Iraq military and police to take over security in the country, with a goal of extracting a large majority of our troops from Iraq as soon as we can. I believe the military has done an excellent job in an extremely difficult situation that was created by incompetent politicians and appointees.

It is extremely important that we work with Pakistan to have an effective regional strategy for fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We also need to provide an economic alternative for Afghanistan's population. Many enemy combatants are fighting only because they are being paid (we learned this lesson in Iraq). It is important to help develop an economy in Afghanistan that provides a way to make a living without fighting for a terrorist organization. One way we can do this is by purchasing the poppy crops that Afghanis grow. (The U.S. currently purchases poppies from China to manufacture medication.) This would also remove a source of income from the Taliban.

The recent NATO counterinsurgency (COIN) report to the Pentagon makes it clear to me that military action in the remote parts of Afghanistan is not the answer. We should change to a strategy of economic development, training Afghani security forces, and providing security for major population centers, while beginning to reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

No Child Left Behind/Education

2009-08-17T14:14:00.007-04:00

The No Child Left Behind program needs to be changed significantly, with appropriate input from teachers. There is too much standardized testing going on in schools.

I also feel strongly that we need to change the way we teach science to our children. Over the past eighteen years I have been teaching math, science, and general life skills in volunteer programs in Hartford, and for the last twelve years I have also visited my children’s classes in West Hartford to teach science. I have spent time in classrooms at grade levels 1-11. I’ve concluded that we need to change the science curriculum in grades 4 and 5; kids need to be taught about the basic nature of the universe. They need to understand the big picture, in qualitative terms, starting with the fundamental building blocks of matter, up to galaxies. They also need to be taught HOW to solve problems, and the scientific method. Kids are smart! They can understand fundamental things on a general, qualitative level, before they have the math skills necessary to do real analysis. In order to do this, we need teachers that are trained as science generalists, and do nothing but teach science to kids in grades 4 and 5. If No Child Left Behind is correctly modified and funded, resources for this kind of teaching could be available for schools that opt for it.

On a separate note, I am a big fan of Charter Schools in urban areas. The federal government doesn't have much to do with this kind of policy-making (states and towns rightfully decide school issues). However, the federal government does provide 8.3% of all K-12 funding. I would support increasing funding in federal education bills for Charter Schools.

Here are some statistics on where our K-12 funding comes from:
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

Abortion

2009-08-17T14:00:00.003-04:00

Abortion is a deeply personal and important issue. My position on abortion is complex, and requires significant explanation.

I support education and aid programs that would reduce teen pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. It is very important to help women avoid the difficult and sad situations that result in abortions, and to help them if they choose adoption.

I support Roe vs. Wade, and I support federal legislation that would make it the law of the land regardless of who is on the Supreme Court.

I support a federal ban of abortion of fetuses that could survive outside the womb.

These are not contradictory positions. It is important to understand that the ruling of Roe vs. Wade was to balance the right to privacy of a woman with the rights of a fetus. Women should have the right to choose, but at some point a fetus has the right to life. Does this make me “pro-choice” or “pro-life”? The answer is: Labels are dangerous. As Americans, we have to be able to talk about issues on which we disagree.