OK, yes I know I'm excerpting a diary that appears only a few slots below this one on the front page. But Portlandia's account of the conversation with Merkley, if accurate, raises some notable distinctions between Merkley's answers and Novick's previously stated positions. And in the absence of many opportunities to hear Merkley do standup on policy questions, this will have to be how we learn about some of the more attuned nuances of his positions. So for those who didn't read the diary or want the give and take to review with me, here it is: I said, well, I think it's outrageous and unfair that I can be "married" because my spouse is a man, but some of my friends can never be "married" just because of the gender of the person they love. He said [and I apologize for the stream-of-consciousness nature of this synopsis -- I was focusing really hard, trying to engage him and at the same time to remember everything important that he said] that maybe the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all - that marriage should just be a sacrament, "a covenant with God" - let everyone have a civil union - each state's CUs and domestic partnerships should be recognized nationwide - he does advocate repeal of DOMA [5 points for THAT!] - due to M36 we can't have marriage equality in Oregon anyway, so we should just focus on getting our DPs recognized nationally. I reminded him that there are all kinds of federal benefits, property rights, etc. that flow only from Federally recognized "marriage." But he wouldn't (or couldn't) go there.
Now, as a principle of good government and the state's licensing of free association, Merkley's position has merits. I certainly have considered the same thing--wouldn't it just be cleaner to have government offer the benefits to all pairs as civil unions, and let God sort out the rest? But that's really an abstraction in political theory. It's all well and good to to break down the articles of marriage into theological and governmental realms, and try to assign them their proper duties, but this is meaningless to the social institution of marriage--one which outlasts both state and sacred associations. Marriage is not departing the scene as a term for coupled cohabitation anytime soon, regardles of the spin we put on it. It is essentially political correctness to do otherwise; we determine that calling it marriage is offensive because we don't let the gays do it, so we call it something else lest anyone think we caved on letting them hook up in the first place. It's bureaucratically parsimonious, but disruptive and frankly insulting on a human level. As I have said elsewhere, I'm pretty happy with the institution of marriage. People from Henry VIII to Britney Spears and Liz Taylor have tried to mess with it but it's outlasting all of them. I don't see the need to get rid of it, and I bet almost everyone who votes against gay marriage wants to see it last forever as well. I just want the county registrar to start saying Yes to my gay friends, instead of No. That's the human goal. Even better, as policy it is only the will of the majority away. While it was stopped by judicial fiat, Multnomah's commissioners proved that the right to same-sex marriage can flow like water if only the tap is properly opened. And the only thing that's been disrupted in Massachusetts was the sidewalk traffic and parking around the county courthouses for a few weeks. So not only is it the better moral policy, it's also by far more easily implemented than a national de-certification of marriage. (And if not that then what, grandfathered marriages? Talk about two-class systems!) The bottom line here is that Merkley was given an opportunity to declare--as a number of politicians and certainly millions of Americans have done--that he supports same-sex marriage licenses, and demurred. Steve Novick supports same-sex marriage: The right of two people who are committed to each other to marry. I realize that I disagree with many Oregon voters on this issue, and that taking this position just might cost me the election. But I cannot accept the state tell a loving, committed same-sex couple, “you have no right to get married.” The Declaration of Independence says that we all have the right to “the pursuit of happiness.” I believe that to be true to that principle, we need marriage equality.
That's my favorite one on the issues page. Pure Steve. Of course, all that said, gay marriage is not likely to be high on the primary agenda, much less the general. Rights groups get that if the election simply is free of hate amendments on the ballot, it's a good election, so I don't see them complaining too loudly (although I bet they'll notice who's showing courage and who is hedging his bets like a...a politician.) What SHOULD be high on the agenda, and which is a top issue for my favorite candidate John Edwards, is income inequality. Portlandia again: On tax rate reform, he was a little more specific (but only a little) and somewhat crisper. He told me he is comfortable with "a reasonable difference" between the tax rates for wages and the rates for capital gains, because it is important for investors to buy and sell and keep investing. I told him that my understanding is that when President Kennedy was elected the marginal tax rate on the highest incomes was an astonishing 91%, and even then people still invested and tried to make money, so it seems to me that there is little risk that equalizing the wage and investment tax rates (in the 25%-35% range, most likely) would create a drag on investment now. He brought up the hedge fund managers' accounting trick (repackaging fees as "capital gains") for a moment but I said that wasn't what I was getting at. Back on wages vs. authentic capital gains, he reiterated that he is OK with "a reasonable difference" in the applicable marginal tax rates. I asked him if he thought the current difference was reasonable. He didn't want to say.
On this one Merkley hedges on his details, but he does manage to take a definable position on income tax equality: he's for some level of inequality on principle, without saying how much is too much, or whether it's too much right now. That again puts him at fairly clear odds with Novick, and with the label of "progressive" on the issue. Let's review the NovickforSenate issues page again: Today, rich people who make their money buying and selling stock pay a lower tax rate than people who have actual jobs. If Warren Buffett makes an extra $5,000 on a stock deal, he pays a lower tax rate than a firefighter / nurse couple would pay if one of them got a $5,000 raise. Buffett himself thinks that's crazy. So do I. When Senator Wyden asked me for ideas on how to reform the tax system, I told him: "Stop discriminating against income from work in favor of income from wealth." He has introduced a bill to do exactly that. Congressman DeFazio also supports that principle. In the Senate, I'd work with them both to pass that idea into law. The simple step of taxing income from wealth at the same rate as income from wages would both help balance the budget and fight inequality. Most regular people make little or no money buying and selling stock - but for the richest people in America, most of their money comes from stock sales and other so-called "capital gains."
What? It's not just that hook-waving irritant who thinks income equality is a good idea? Radicals like Wyden and DeFazio are actually on board as well? Wait a minute--if we send Jeff Merkley to the Senate, is he going to cancel out Wyden on tax fairness? Oh, the rueful irony! I wonder if you've been on the fence so far because you believed Novick and Merkley to be virtually identical on the issues. Reading this, maybe you've had the same kind of epiphany as Portlandia, who we'll let close this epic (but I think important) review of the issues: Everyone says that Merkley and Novick are almost indistinguishable on the issues. I've said things like that in the past myself. Well, maybe I was wrong. Maybe they're not. Maybe I was giving Jeff Merkley a little too much credit for his reputation as a "strong progressive." Because at least on two issues that matter a lot to me, I see significant daylight between them, and in both instances, Steve Novick's position is the crisper and more progressive of the two. [emph orig]
|
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
