No, it's not a typo. As the health care debate quickly becomes a core schism between tweaking the current private insurance scheme and establishing a robust public option to compete against it, not only are the President and Oregon's senior Senator currently holding opposite ground on the matter, both are beginning to harden their rhetoric and dig in their heels. What's even more surprising is that Senator Wyden is slowly emerging as the standard bearer of REPUBLICAN opposition to a public option, gathering supporters for (or allowing them to hide behind) his significant but ultimately nontransformational proposal for reform.
Think I'm making that up? Read what The Hill wrote three weeks ago on the subject, in an article I missed at the time but which retroactively adds a lot of weight to the current analysis:
And while Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Max Baucus (Mont.) may chair the committees charged with shepherding the bill through the Senate, Wyden, a 6-foot-4 former college basketball player, has his own advantage: a standing invitation to play hoops with the president at the White House, which may come in handy when hashing out the final details behind the scenes.
For Wyden, the key to passing lasting healthcare reform is finding a legislative solution that can win at least 70 votes in the Senate — and he’s not shy about letting Democrats know that means dropping thoughts of a government-run public plan for the entire nation.
OK, let's back up a moment and establish the fault lines in the discussion, below the fold... {come on down!}
A few weeks ago I posted a piece on state Sen. Rod Monroe (D)'s Joint Resolution #7, which proposed to place the question of reviving so-called "sobriety checkpoints" before the voters as a revision of the OR Constitution, which was understood to ban the practice after a 1987 OSC ruling against it.
I argued pretty strenuously against passing this bill, on the same seemingly obvious grounds that the court did: it's an intrusive, random, suspicionless search that makes a mockery of the guiding principle of the US 4th Amendment against unlawful search and seizure. Simply put, if the police don't have a specific reason to suspect that you, personally, have committed a crime, they have no right to search you or your effects.
The federal court argued the other way in 1990, citing compelling state interest, but I submitted in my article both that the perceived interest was neither borne out by data nor only achieveable through checkpoints ("saturation patrolling" near known alcohol-serving spots or events, stopping cars only on suspicion, has been shown to work better); and that regardless of state interests, it is one of our uppermost core freedoms to be safe from suspicionless search. The logical extension of such power--a "papers, please" society--makes it clear why such controls are necessary.
Happily, having just checked with the Senate Judiciary office, I can report that after receiving a hearing in early April the bill has died the proverbial committee death. The clerk reported to me that it was not on any schedules for a work session, and that the deadline for any such scheduling has past--in other words, it's done for the session.
I was worried about this bill, because it's a serious feel-gooder. Opposing it makes you sound like you're on the side of drunk drivers, which is exactly how the campaign would have gone had the bill passed and the question reached the ballot. When the Oregon State Police and MADD are behind it, as they are, opposing it also makes you seem anti-OSP and anti-MADD, two of the more popular special interest groups out there.
This doesn't really impact me so much; I barely drive at all, much less drunk. But I'm always on the lookout for bills that quietly encroach on our civil liberties, while trumpeting how much they keep us safe, happy and blinkered. (Another good example? Sit-lie, which got extended AGAIN this week from the increasingly tiresome Commissioner Fritz).
The demise of SJR 7, if only until next session, is good news for people who like those crazy old freedoms we used to have and cherish. Ben Franklin sleeps a little better tonight.
I got the same emailed press release from state Senator Rod Monroe as did Carla at Blue Oregon, and I'll link to her piece so that you can read the meat of the release. The upshot is pretty simple: in order to reverse, get around and/or otherwise weasel past the existing state Constitution, Monroe has proposed Senate Joint Resolution 7, which would put the question of reinstating police DWI roadblocks on next May's ballot. I will reprint that text; it's pretty short (I believe to its detriment; more on that in a minute):
Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon: PARAGRAPH 1. Section 9, Article I of the Constitution of the State of Oregon, is amended to read:
{ + Sec. 9. + } { + (1) + } No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized. { - - - } { + (2) This section does not prohibit the use of sobriety checkpoints by law enforcement officials. + }
PARAGRAPH 2. { + The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special election held throughout this state on the same date as the next primary election. + }
Begging the question of whether Oregonians support changing the OC to allow a return to random, suspicionless sobriety checkpoints, is one that's been bothering me since I read about it: why? What's the reason for it? Why now? Since the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling in 1987 in Oregon v Boyanovsky, which rather flatly banned the practice in these terms:
Defendant was seized when his vehicle was stopped. His vehicle is, like other possessions, an "effect" in which he is entitled to be "secure * * * against unreasonable search, or seizure." Or Const, Art I, § 9. His person and documents were searched and the evidence obtained was used to convict him of a crime. These acts occurred in the absence of any belief that he had committed an offense. The officers did not comply with the constitutional standards for searches and seizures. Or Const, Art I, §9. The evidence must be suppressed.
Lots of court rulings have obfuscatory language and are hard to read for their specific intent, but this one is pretty clear: if you're going to search a person or his effects, you'd better have a pre-existing reason for making the stop--otherwise your evidence is useless.
So why make a specific exemption for suspicionless searches, in order to catch some drunk drivers (an admittedly compelling goal?) In the federal case (Michigan v Sitz, 1990), the majority ruled that while there was no getting around the fact that searches were being conducted without probable cause, the goal of reducing drunk driving was a compelling state interest that overrode the presumption of freedom from unreasonable search.
Oregon's Constitution, along with that of 11 other states including Washington and Idaho, is stricter than the federal version as you can see above "no warrant shall issue but on probable cause." So surely, Sen. Monroe must have some indication of the compelling need to reinstate the process...right? Like say, some kind of increase in alcohol-related fatalities in Oregon since the ban was placed?
The bill has passed! Yay! So has the Ensign Amendment, which basically repeals DC's tough gun control laws. Boooo. The Democrats basically sold out DC on that one in order to get them a House Member. One imagines they will try to have it removed in conference when it passes the House, but that's the GOP's one lever left before any court challenges...and with so many Dems on board, it may take the new House Member him/herself to get it fixed in 2011...
The call has gone out for contacting Senators regarding a particularly virulent poison pill by archconservative John Ensign, regarding gun control in DC, always a rallying topic for Republicans. Note that both our Senators are likely to vote down the amendment, but a call couldn't hurt--and if you'd like to try advocating to other Senators, not a bad idea either:
Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has added a gun amendment to the DC House Voting Rights Act (S.160). The amendment is flawed, dangerous and unnecessary. One minute of your time could make the critical difference between a "yes" and "no" vote on the Senate floor!
Call toll-free 1.888.999.6775 TODAY, Thursday, February 26
You will be transferred to your senators' offices. Tell them you are a constituent who wants the senator to vote NO on the gun amendment DC House Voting Rights Act (S. 160).
----
About a year or so ago, the young and energetic folks at DC Vote dropped me an email and asked to meet with me. "Huh?" I thought. First, why is DC Vote coming to Oregon, and secondly why are they calling me? Sure I lived in the shadow of DC for over 20 years and the whole taxation-without-representation thing has been a burr in my saddle of political morality for a long time...but what did LO and Oregon have to do with it?
The answer: Gordon Smith. Along with 40+ of his Republican Senate friends, he had consistently blocked passage of any bill to give DC residents Congressional representation. The current effort plans to give DC one House Member, balanced with one extra seat in Utah--which strongly believed it got jobbed out of an extra electoral vote (and thus House seat) in the 2000 apportionment. Note that this clever balancing act got the powerful Orrin Hatch on board, but it wasn't enough--and even if it had passed, would President Bush have signed it?
So DC Vote was coming to me to highlight yet another issue where Smith was not exactly supporting the efforts of greater democracy and fairness. They were pretty close, just a few votes away--and defeating people like Smith was the best path to victory. I liked their approach, definitely agreed with their thesis--so I did them the solid and wrote it up as one more reason to get rid of Gordon.
Fast forward to the 111th Congress, now newly decorated with additional Democrats--including Jeff Merkley, replacement for the aforementioned obstructionist Smith. And the results for the District? The bill is on the floor this week, working its way through various poison-pill amendments, and appears scheduled for a cloture vote today. It's already passed one such vote with 62 Senators, so prospects look optimistic.
One of those 62 votes, you may correctly guess, was cast by Junior Senator Merkley (one of the others was cast by Wyden, a consistent supporter of the bill). As his office told me:
For far too long, the residents of the District of Columbia have not had full representation in our government. The Senate took a huge step today towards rectifying that situation and I’m honored to have played a small part in bringing equal treatment to DC.
The DC Vote people had their own thanks and kudos:
We really appreciate SenatorMerkley’s support for the DC House Voting Rights Act. He and his colleagues in the new 111th Congress have really stepped up to the plate on this issue. Thanks to their “yes” votes on cloture, we’re a huge step closer towards full democracy for DC residents. Sen. Merkley voiced his support for the issue when DC Vote staffers were out in Oregon last spring and we’re thankful to him for his continued support now that he’s a member of the Senate.
Elections matter. No really, they do. Congratulations to both Oregon Senators for championing representation for ALL American citizens.
A column that hasn't gotten a whole lot of attention in the Oregon blogosphere so far is one by the terrific Glenn Greenwald, now publishing at Salon.com. In it, Greenwald takes Senators Feinstein and our own Ron Wyden to task, for what he called backtracking on standards both had touted strongly over the last year regarding torture. Both had separately championed the Army Field Manual as a strong guide of accepted non-coercive techniques, and urged a unified American standard for all agencies following one guideline--which they said they hoped the AFM would fulfill.
I want to try to leave Feinstein out of it; so far it doesn't seem her office has tried to respond to his allegations in any case. But Wyden's people did make a response, so above the fold are what Greenwald surmises, and how Wyden's office responded. First Glenn:
Wyden's comments were even worse:
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.
What makes this so notable is that, for the last year, Feinstein and Wyden were both insistent that the only way to end torture and restore America's standing in the world was to require CIA compliance with the Army Field Manual -- period. But as long as George Bush was President, it was cheap and easy for Feinstein and Wyden to argue that, because they knew there was no chance it would ever happen.
Senator Wyden could not feel more strongly that Congress and the Administration need to establish clear-cut interrogation rules that apply to all agencies and that ensure that the United States never again uses interrogation techniques that are anything but legal, humane and noncoercive. In fact “legal, humane and noncoercive” are the only words directly attributable to him in the New York Times story. As I mentioned in our conversation, I believe that your article unfairly ascribes positions to Senator Wyden that he did not express in his interview with the New York Times or anyone else.
Glenn's rebuttal was that he thinks her later acknowledgement that perhaps the AFM isn't the best repository of the unified standard, is a backtrack from a unified standard or one that would allow the CIA or other intel agencies to use their own rules. With a lot of respect for Glenn, after talking with top Wyden aide Josh Kardon, asking a series of written questions I think he's gotten a little worried about a backtrack where it doesn't necessarily seem one has taken place.
Here's something I didn't notice until today: according to Wally Edge at PolitickerOR (and admittedly no one else that I've found so far), Toby Forsberg is a leading contender to take over Kurt Schrader's state Senate seat in the wake of Schrader's elevation to OR-5 in the Big Boy Congress. In today's winners/losers writeup, both candidates from HD39 manage to make the good side:
In an infamous year of Democratic takeovers, the popular Republican Clackamas County Commissioner narrowly edges out Dem Toby Forsberg in the battle for Oregon City’s state representative seat.
Even when he loses he still wins. After losing to Bill Kennemer for state representative it looks like Forsberg will be appointed to state Senator Kurt Schrader’s vacant seat.
Should Schrader make it to congress the looming question is who will fill his vacant spot in the Oregon Senate? Oregon law mandates someone from the incumbent member's party be chosen, so we know it will be a Democrat. Names currently being thrown around include House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, County Commissioners Lynn Peterson and Martha Schrader (wife of the congressional candidate), and Democratic House candidate Toby Forsberg.
Since Clackamas county commissioners will make the initial decision which is then passed on to the governor's office, the idea of either Peterson or Schrader nominating themselves brings its own conflict of interest issues. Hunt is likely not going anywhere unless a revolt in his Democratic caucus surfaces and he loses his bid for the Speaker's gavel. Finally, Forsberg's name being mentioned suggests his House race against Commissioner Bill Kennemer is more of an uphill challenge than expected.
All of the discussion about sticky interest conflicts appears true--but it still seems odd that a first-time candidate who LOST his race would be rewarded with a Senate seat.
What do you think? Is Forsberg a likely choice? Is he a good choice? Who else in Clackamas should be considered, beyond the names above? I really think Peterson deserves a shot, conflict or not--but surely there are others. What about folks from Johnson City or Milwaukie, perhaps the forgotten side of District 20?
I'm going to step out on a limb and suggest that Senate District 14's Mark Hass probably will not sweat his Election Night until the TV camera lights start to glare upon him after victory is declared. (Our resident expert on such things, skywaker9, agrees.) So truth be told, there may be other races you want to focus on, other candidates to get your scarce contribution dollar.
But you won't find a legislative candidate who tugs at the particular heart strings of Oregonians in his re-election ads as effectively as Hass does in this cycle. I say that a little dramatically, because let's pinch ourselves and remember it is in fact a political ad--but I'm a sucker for discussion about more substantive, groundbreaking and morally courageous times in Oregon, and there were no tougher and greater times than during the period of the late 60s and early 70s when Republican Tom McCall was governor.
Having set the scene, I'll let you watch the ad and talk about it below the fold. Oh, and it's an Adam Klugman ad, one of the premier video producers in town. So here:
Central Point police were called to Atkinson's home in the 500 block of Blue Heron Street at 8:13 p.m. Tuesday to investigate a report of an accidental gunshot wound, police said today.
Officers found Atkinson in his garage with a gunshot wound to his right knee. They learned that Atkinson was working on a friend's bicycle and had to remove a small bag attached to the bike. He dropped the bag and a .38-caliber derringer inside the bag fired. The bullet hit his knee.
I certainly would never, ever want Atkinson to be Oregon's governor, as all indications suggest he will run in 2010. But he's been a dedicated servant to his constituents and has a repuation for personability. Even if that weren't true of course, we'd still be concerned for his health, and so best wishes to Sen. Atkinson and his family. Hopefully the damage will not be permanent or yield unfortunate circumstances.
As an aside, assuming the story Atkinson tells holds up, what a coincidental commentary on issues of "bike rage," a story that's gotten as far as Newsweek recently, and focuses on Portland. Not sure what issues they're having in Central Point, but you may want to think twice if you're going to engage a cyclist in Southern Oregon!
It's Election Day in Oregon, and whether you're a regular reader or a newcomer linking in to follow the state's primary, this is Christmas--real voting! The Presidential race is certainly exciting, but Gordon Smith and the Senate race to replace him have been a primary editorial focus since our founding in 2006, and now here we are ready to pick the person to take him on.
This is definitely the year to do it, so it's been a hugely important decision who that person should be, and in spring of 2007 we formally endorsed Steve Novick for Senate. We haven't diverged from that one bit since, despite the entry of House Speaker Jeff Merkley and subsequent staffing changes. The "Election Pregame" series today is designed to give you a few of the most recent things related to the Senate election--the four most recent polls, the newest videos, turnout statistics and what they imply...so: thanks for coming by! Take a free account if you think you might be round again.
For so long in this race, we had to suffer without decent polling, or use way-too-early general election heats as a stand in for comparing the two major Dem candidates for Senate, Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley. Then when polling finally got going earnestly in January, we discovered why no one was wasting their money all that time before--huge numbers of undecideds, starting at about 70%.. Not only had almost no one heard of the activist with the hook, they didn't know who the Speaker of the House was, either.
Of course, now that we're finally at Election Day there has been more interest and thus more polling--although to a large degree true polling results are STILL hampered by undecided figures approaching 20%.. However, in the last eight days four polls have been done by three different outfits, with two final looks coming yesterday. Let's dive in and see what they tell us, shall we?
{ah, but not before I make you jump below the fold!}
It's Election Day in Oregon, and whether you're a regular reader or a newcomer linking in to follow the state's primary, this is Christmas--real voting! The Presidential race is certainly exciting, but Gordon Smith and the Senate race to replace him have been a primary editorial focus since our founding in 2006, and now here we are ready to pick the person to take him on.
This is definitely the year to do it, so it's been a hugely important decision who that person should be, and in spring of 2007 we formally endorsed Steve Novick for Senate. We haven't diverged from that one bit since, despite the entry of House Speaker Jeff Merkley and subsequent staffing changes. The "Election Pregame" series today is designed to give you a few of the most recent things related to the Senate election--the four most recent polls, the newest videos, turnout statistics and what they imply...so: thanks for coming by! Take a free account if you think you might be round again.
Two pretty great little videos came over yesterday, for different reasons. The best quick take on yesterday's SUSA/KATU poll that showed Novick with a strong surge of +10 in a week is the news report for it done by the station. Forthwith!
Two of the largest newspapers in the state, the Register-Guard (Eugene/Springfield) and the Bend Bulletin have endorsed Jeff Merkley as the Democratic candidate for the US Senate.
(interesting question of dynamics here... - promoted by torridjoe)
According to the Oregonian, Steve Novick, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, has stated in his interview with the Willamette Week that he would prefer independent John Frohnmayer over all other candidates for the U.S. Senate.
When pressed to pick a Democrat, he then stated that he would prefer Candy Neville, a Eugene realtor.
Both of his leading opponents, Jeff Merkley and Candy Neville, said they would choose him as their first choice to win the nomination (aside from themselves).
Interestingly, Steve stated that he believes Frohnmayer would have little chance to win the race as an independent.
I don't have anything original to add to this article, but I thought this would be a good forum to discuss the obvious implications, such as the possibility of the Democrats having difficulty unifying around Merkley were he to become the nominee, and of Frohnmayer playing spoiler in the race to make it easier for Gordon Smith to win.
(very helpful info for the truly curious... - promoted by torridjoe)
Oregon voters have many new tools with which to evaluate candidates for public office in this election cycle, and one of the most important is ORESTAR.
To gain information about where, when, how and from whom a candidate receives cash and in-kind support, all you need is their committee ID number, as registered with the Secretary of State.
To examine the books of the candidates for Senate District 23, for example, you enter either of the candidate committee ID numbers and “search transactions.”
The numbers also indicate how long one candidate has been at it, compared to the other (my opponent has about a six-year advantage in campaigning and working the PACs, but scores a minus-five year disadvantage in actually working in the Oregon State Senate).
12548 Sean Cruz
4090 Jackie Dingfelder
The ORESTAR data doesn’t give you the “why” of the contribution, but if you look, you can learn some amazing things, all in the interest of getting a good look at the wizard(s) behind the curtain(s) (to borrow a metaphor), and broadening public access to the political process.
Some of this will take a little explaining. I’ve extracted data from ORESTAR to illustrate several points: 1. Transaction date: This is the date recorded with ORESTAR. The date the contribution was received by the candidate could have been 30 days prior to the entry, and the deal could have been struck at any time before that.
2. Source of the contribution
3. Type of contribution, cash or in-kind
4. Amount or value of the contribution.
I have learned many amazing facts with just a few hours of scrutiny (which is why this post is titled “4a”).
With three key Portland-area legislative contested primaries looming on the May 20 ballot, opportunities for the candidates to appear in public forums and debates have been strangely absent.
This week alone, both Elders in Action and the Oregon League of Minority Voters will hold candidate forums, and neither will include legislative races.
It is easy to explain the lack of interest regarding the many uncontested legislative races, as those “contests” were decided back at the filing deadline in March.
But House District 42, House District 45 and Senate District 23 feature well-qualified contenders for these three open seats, and how all three races have slipped below the radar is hard to understand.
The several candidates offer competing views on the state’s policies and priorities, and yet no opportunity has emerged for a public discussion.
The Urban League and its partners will be the first to offer a platform featuring the race to succeed Senator Avel Gordly in Senate District 23, on May 2 at Highland Christian Center, an event that will also feature the contest for Oregon Attorney General.
It is the lone scheduled event for this key race that will determine the policy direction for Oregon’s underserved populations for years to come.
Recently, the Oregonian ran an editorial stating that the most important races on the May 20 ballot might be the legislative contests, and they are correct.
Each of these races are worth far more than the superficial look they have received to date, simple measures of money raised, special-interest and insider endorsements gained, lawn signs staked and paper promises printed.
Behind the scenes, political payback, petty jealousies and kneecapping are in full Spring bloom, the role of endorsement nepotism lies unexamined.
Who will take the intitiative and put these vital contests on the front burner where they belong?
I leave the question open, as open as the opportunity to bring real change to the Oregon legislature, but the door is closing fast.
By the attendance and buzz in the audience, this was a debate people were waiting for. They were engaged, they were attentive and they gave a pretty damned loud standing ovation to both men when it was over--a reflection of an artifically stacked house for the two participants, or just genuine applause for an entertaining hour?
It certainly did have plenty of entertainment, at least for me, because the hour went by in a flash. The time passes quickly when you are trying to type out nearly every word that's being said, I suppose--but it was a fast paced debate, kept AMAZINGLY on time by the moderator, a poli sci professor from Reed. He apologized in advance for cutting them off when their time was over, and then was merciless in shutting down overtime blather.
Merkley was seemingly intimidated by the specter of shutdown, stopping immediately whenever bluntly told to halt. Novick tried to finish his sentence a couple of times, but gave up after a while when he saw the utter futility of it. Maybe that's what the crowd was so happy about--no filibusters!
To give you a flair of my conclusions before the jump, let me say that I thought Merkley performed about as well as I've ever seen him. Which was pretty crucial for him, IMO, given both his loss of momentum recently and the presumption that Novick would take him apart as he appeared to do in Eugene. He was animated and forceful, and didn't find himself lost in the weeds of hoary anecdotes and laundry list recitations as had been true in appearances prior.
Novick wasn't off his game by any means, and gave as good as he got, but Merkley's full press for much of the debate on things Novick had said about other people forced his answers to be a little more repetitive. If there was a weakness Novick had, it was an attempt to both discount the seriousness and contextual truth Merkley was trying to assign to the issue, while ALSO not backing down from having made the statements, and the reason for being "undiplomatic" at the time.
{but how did that affect the final analysis? Jump below}
I explain in the first paragraph why this wasn't being updated as it was happening, but I did manage to snag a press seat for the big Novick-Merkley debate, and I clicked away furiously while it was going on.
A little later today I'll clean this up some and offer editorial thoughts on the debate, but for now here is the gist of it, not even proofread for spelling and whatnot, just as I wrote it down...
12:10--Damn wi-fi issues! I really, REALLY don’t want to tie myself to another $40 a month or whatever for mobile wireless service on my laptop, but without it connection is always a complete crapshoot—even if wifi is claimed to be available. Here at the Governor Hotel there is free wifi offered, and I’m actually connected to it right now, but the internet access is futzed. So while I’m actually liveblogging, you probably won’t be reading this until after it’s over. Hrmph.
It’s a packed house in the ballroom today, as might have been expected. All of the tables are filled, and there’s a couple of rows of folks along the back wall as well. The press row is two deep as well, so coverage should be broad around the state.
12:15—and we’re off! Introductions are underway. Dr Peter Steinberger, a poli sci professor at Reed, will moderate the debate, starting with the rules. 3-minute openers, questions suggested in advance from the panel from members and City Club committee members. No public questions. Arbiters will decide whether the question has been adequately answered, and ask for a re-do if necessary. Each candidate will then get 3 questions of the other, and then a 3-minute closer. Strictly enforced time limits. Introduction of candidate bios.
Well, it's been a truly painful couple of weeks watching Jeff Merkley try to get Oregonians to care about whether Steve Novick likes Ralph Nader, or doesn't reflexively begin to rub himself and hum when someone says "Obama" as all good Democrats now must. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for the first SUBSTANTIVE attack against Steve in eight months...which may be why, his coronation now thoroughly interruped, Merkley is left a little flat-footed for material. But hey, look who likes Jeff today! That list is big enough to prevent a foreclosure or bring down the price of gas, I'm sure of it!
Meanwhile, over at Novick HQ, they appear to have insulated well against the ugly winds of silly season, and are pressing on as usual with more of those useless policy positions, talking about THIS issue important to Oregonians or THAT policy that hurts America. Boooo-ring! Wouldn't it really be more productive to talk about hilariously botched Merkley espionage attempts? I know that's what gets ME better access to health care.
Oh all right--I support the guy, so I guess I should tell you about his latest harebrained schemes to protect homeowners and future retirees, even though I'd much rather he focus on whether Merkley buys fair trade coffee or disposable water bottles instead of Nalgene. To the Merkley family trash! (Ah, no wait--we're NOT doing that. Sorry.)
The [Social Security and Medicare] Trustees' report says that Social Security benefit payments will start exceeding Social Security tax revenues in 2017, while the Medicare hospital program expenses will begin to exceed Medicare tax and other dedicated revenues this year. If, and only if, the Federal government repays the money it has borrowed from the Medicare and Social Security trust funds on time, with interest, the Medicare hospital trust fund will be solvent until 2019, but then unable to pay full benefits under current projections. The Social Security trust fund would be solvent until 2041, but then unable to pay full promised benefits.
"Can we really expect the Federal government to repay on time, and with interest, what it has borrowed from Social Security and Medicare? Not under current policies without savage cuts to other essential services," said Novick. "It would help if we got out of Iraq< and rolled back the Bush tax cuts for people who make over $200,000, but those measures are far from enough to escape fiscal disaster."
I am the only major candidate for Senate that is proposing the type of measures necessary to put the United States on a sound financial footing. We're running huge deficits now in the combined Federal budget – and that's with Social Security in surplus," said Novick. "Right now, people who make $1 million a year only pay Social Security tax on the first $100,000. Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley think that's just fine. I think it's an unfair policy that we can't afford. Right now, wealthy people who make their money buying and selling stock pay a lower tax rate than if they had regular jobs. Warren Buffett thinks that's wrong. I agree with him. We need to tax income from wealth at the same rate as income from wages." [emphs mine]
I've never met the Kossack known as skywaker9, but he/she has been active during Oregon election time and provides one of the most thorough looks at state and local races, easily as good as what The O pumps out close to the election (or like they did today, after filing for candidacy closed yesterday).
While skywaker9 is a Merkley and Macpherson fan, they do an excellent job of keeping the analysis mostly devoid of biased concepts (although I have to disagree that Merkley's run a good campaign or is a fine candidate anymore). They call the Senate primary a "tossup" with a Republican lean for the general, and that's exactly where I'd put it. Some other excerpts:
Attorney General (D-Open) Major Democratic Candidates: Former Prosecutor and Current Law Professor John Kroger, State Representative Greg Macpherson. No R candidate filed. My vote: Macpherson. Summary: Kroger and Macpherson are neck and neck at this point. The conventional wisdom has suggested for a while that Macpherson has an edge but with the Oreogn Education Association's substantial endorsement of Kroger last weekend it is clear that this one could be close. Since there will be no Republcian candidate, except this primary to be close fought and both sides to leave nothing in the tank. Primary Rating: Tossup. General Election Rating: Uncontested D.
Secretary of State (D-Open) Major Democratic Candidates: State Senators Kate Brown, Brad Avakian, Vicki Walker and Rick Metsger. Major Republican Candidates: Former Eugene TV anchor Rick Dancer. My vote: Undecided. Summary: What a collection of talent on the democratic side! Oregon would be well served with any of our candidates. My best guess is that it will come down to Avakian and Brown with perhaps a very slight edge to Brown for now, but don't count either Walker or Metsger out. Both have proven that they can win tough elections, especically Walker. I'm not that worried about Rick Dancer this fall. Primary Rating: Lean Brown. General Election Rating: Likely D.
State Treasurer (D-Open) The Matchup: State Senator Ben Westlund (D) vs. Pixelworks CEO and former Kulongoski aide Allen Alley (R). My vote: Westlund. Summary: Westlund is proof that it is possible for a Republican to recognize that they are wrong and to beomce a true progressive. He shouldn't have any problem winning here. Alley was a last minute candidate recruited largely as a stand-in. Rating: Likely Westlund.
Hey, I've gotten the word from the Novick campaign that he'll have an announcement of some interest Monday--a fitting one for his candidacy, I think. We'll have it as soon as we get it, which should be sometime during the morning.
In the meantime, enjoy this little video from the Novick canvass last week, which features an original song by Darryl Icard especially for the Novick campaign. How many Senate primary candidates inspire their own theme song? We need someone a little different to win!
Add another item to the stack of issues where Steve Novick appears to be moving left of Jeff Merkley (and Gordon Smith, natch):
According to a Dec. 14, 2007, letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne from 39 Republicans and eight Democrats, a movement is again afoot to repeal a ban on firearms on all lands belonging to the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
In liberal Portland and the Willamette Valley, Smith’s endorsement of the ban’s repeal is making him an easy target for most of his wanna-be challengers in the 2008 election, including Independent John Frohnmayer and two Democrats running in the May primary: activist Steve Novick and Eugene real-estate broker Candy Neville.
“This isn’t the Wild West, this is the 21st century,” Neville says. “We need responsible gun control.”
A third Democratic candidate, House Speaker Jeff Merkley, isn’t so ready to take aim at the letter.
I...wazzat? Come again?
Merkley spokesman Matt Canter points out an exception exists that allows hunting on some federal fish and wildlife land in Oregon,.Canter also points to Democratic support for the proposal from the likes of Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who endorsed Merkely.
Merkley “would have to discuss the issue further with these Democrats before he would move to make weapons more accessible,” Canter says.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
