D Is For Democrat, Differences And Debate
Where Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick disagree in the race for the U.S. Senate
July 2nd, 2008
Cover Story • Manhunter | Almost every state lets bounty hunters chase down its most wanted. Why doesn’t Oregon?63 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Bill Of Fair | Ex-restaurateur puts hopes of returning to Portland in a “widow’s bill.” 0 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Murmurs • Scoundrels seeking a refuge besides patriotism? You’re always welcome here.2 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Rogue of the Week • Legacy Good Samaritan | Please, go by streetcar20 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Broadcast Dues | While Portland Beavers go up to the major leagues, the team’s broadcaster soldiers on.1 comment
July 2nd, 2008
Blog Of War | Online chat about a Georgia weapons manufacturer ends in real-time Oregon court battle.10 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Textual Criticism | MSG FM CMSR SAM: WHR R U GOING? WATCH THE ROAD!!16 comments
July 2nd, 2008
The Reed Guard | A woman sues for alleged sex assault in another case involving the College’s security.16 comments
July 2nd, 2008
The Score • Escapees and exiles edition.0 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Letters to the Editor • Inbox5 comments
[April 2nd, 2008]
Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley and activist Steve Novick will engage in some hand-to-hook combat at the City Club of Portland debate this Friday.
Will real differences between the two frontrunners in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate emerge? Or will they spin themselves into a frenzy of confusing rhetoric? Our Magic 8-Ball says: Reply hazy, try again.
So far, both have fluffed up their progressive bona fides. In a glossy, full-color mailer, Merkley claims he’s “the only candidate to oppose this war from day one.” Not true, says Novick. Meanwhile, Novick writes in his Voters’ Pamphlet statement that he’s the only candidate with a healthcare plan that “includes coverage for all, and strong steps to control costs.” Says who, Novick? Oh yeah…you!
Novick and Merkley agree on much. Both say Congress should take immediate steps to end the Iraq war. They also say federal lawmakers should close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, recognize same-sex marriages, impose a national cap on interest for payday loans and work toward crafting a single-payer healthcare system. Sweet (liberal) Jesus!
What follows is a handy guide to their differences. And because the City Club didn’t invite a third Democrat, we’ve added a few words from candidate Candy Neville.
 Steve Novick |
 Jeff Merkley |
|
| Issue #1: In February, the Oregon Legislature voted to require that would-be drivers prove their citizenship, blocking illegal immigrants from getting drivers licenses in Oregon for the first time. Good or bad? | Bad. “Drivers licenses should be based on whether you can drive and whether you will get car insurance... . ...This will cause more problems than it will solve.” | Good. “A legal document that conveys legal presence should require legal presence.” He voted for the February measure. |
| Issue #2: Death penalty. Yes or no? | Yes. | No. |
| Issue #3: Should we maintain a time limit on welfare benefits? | No. “There should certainly be incentives, which can include negative incentives, to ensure that you’re going to get off welfare. But the idea of a fixed time is not a good idea. It results in people being out on the streets who do not have a rational alternative.” | Yes. “But I really think we need a renewed commitment to tackling poverty that includes community economic development, living-wage jobs, elements of home ownership and health care.” |
| Issue #4: Do you support eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes? People earning more than about $100,000 don’t pay Social Security taxes on earnings over that threshold. | Yes. “Under current law, someone who makes $1 million a year doesn’t pay Social Security taxes on 90 percent of his income.” | No. “The law as it exists means Social Security is solvent. This is a Republican-manufactured attack on Social Security in an effort to privatize it.” |
 Candy Neville calls taking driver’s licenses from undocumented immigrants “pointless,” since the measure does not address the “big picture” of immigration reform. She says reform should entail gradual legalization for undocumented immigrants. She took a different position than Merkley and Novick on same-sex marriages, saying civil unions and benefits should be dealt with at the state level. When it comes to ending the Iraq war and promoting peace, the Eugene real estate broker is spirited. She calls for the creation of a federal department of peace and “supports and insists” on impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, “even if the process does no more than weaken them.”
|
||
Story continues belowadvertisement
Merkley told me in December that he supports federal and interstate recognition of Oregon's domestic partnerships, but he does not support opening up civil marriage to same sex couples. I pressed him on this because of the 1000+ Federal rights, privileges, and benefits that accrue only to the "married" (plus countless private benefits flowing from insurance contracts, etc.) but he held firm. I am not aware that he hs changed his actual position, only his spin. Steve Novick unreservedly supports opening up civil marriage to same sex couples.
So, Merkley says Social Security funding is a Republican-generated issue, and the system is solvent until 2041? Um...what happens in 2042?
Social security is capped both on the taxing end and on the payout end. If we apply a social security tax on a million dollars of income, then we would have to pay half a million a year to that guy when he retires. That's no solution.
My understanding of Steve's position on the death penalty is that it should be available for the most heinous crimes, not as a routine matter. I think Ward Weaver is his usual example.
As for the Social Security caps, well, it seems to me that you can cap benefits at some reasonable number without having to cap the income base. The other thing you could do is raise the income cap very significantly ($300K? $500K?) andf get much of the benefit of abolishing the cap completely. That's not what Steve advocates but I could see a resolution like that emerging as a workable compromise from his position.
Steve seems so sharp and on top of things, but what's his justification that the death penalty solves whatsoever problem? No other major civilized nation uses it and they have far less problems that we do. I'm surprised that he's acting like a cave man on this when he seems so good on everything else. It concerns me to give anyone with this backward thinking my vote.
Steve Novick supports the death penalty?