OR-SEN: Jeff Merkley: NO on tax fairness to wage earners (you heard it here first)

(cross-posted from Loaded Orygun, Oregon's progressive community)

The Oregonian's Jeff Mapes reportsfrom yesterday's joint appearance in Lake Oswego by Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick:

Novick, who appears to face the toughest path to the nomination, was more willing to toss out ideas that could be a more difficult sell in a general election, such as getting rid of the lower tax rate for capital gains and raising the cap on wages subject to Social Security. Merkley said after their appearance before the Willamette Women Democrats that he thinks there should be a "modest" differential for capital gains rate and that he sees raising the Social Security cap as one option that he isn't ready to endorse.

Well, like the title says, you heard it here first, and no one ever disputed the accuracy of my report, but Mapes has confirmed Merkley's position on tax fairness for wage earners: he's against it.

I didn't think to quiz Merkley about raising the Social Security earnings cap, but I wish I had, and I'm glad that Mapes asked that very important question. Having said that, Merkley's answer doesn't surprise me. Once again, offered a choice between a truly progressive position and a more conservative one, he chose the latter.

[Earlier today I was told that the phrase "more conservative" is considered "fighting words" by some of Merkley's supporters, so we can go with "less progressive" if that makes them happier. Neither of those makes me happier.]

Merkley's supporters had better be prepared to rationalize all this. I'm sure they will be. They've had a lot of practice (and they especially enjoy practicing in their echo chambers). My favorite part was when they rationalized his lack of support for marriage equality by claiming that it was really because he sorta kinda wanted to smash the patriarchy.  Well, pardon my skepticism, but Jeff Merkley does not seem to me to be the kind of guy who has ever uttered the phrase "[placeholder] the patriarchy" in his life. It's just not who he is.

As I said a month ago: Jeff Merkley's a very nice guy, and his heart may mostly be in the right place. But by his own words, we see that he is at peace with certain elements of the status quo that are profoundly disadvantageous to millions of working Americans who need an advocate. I want my new Senator to be AT WAR with those elements of the status quo. I'm looking for someone with a passionate commitment to economic and social justice.

This is especially disappointing because Speaker Merkley is on the record as a supporter of John Edwards for President, as I am (and as Steve Novick is, also). I had previously interpreted that support to mean that he shared Senator Edwards' own passionate commitment to progressive principles. Instead, we learn from Mapes that Merkley now considers his support for Edwards to have been a strategic mistake. True to form, though, Steve Novick maintains the pride and courage of his convictions:

"But what you should know," added Novick, "is that both Jeff and I support the rich white guy in the race," saying that he thought John Edwards had the most detailed, progressive platform. Merkley said he endorsed Edwards long before he got into the Senate race, making it clear that he wouldn't have been taking up sides in the presidential primary if he had known he'd be in his own tough race this year.

EXCUSE ME?!

Maybe all those DSCC strategists are telling Merkley that that's the way to win. Maybe he doesn't even really know what he believes or who he supports anymore. All I can say is, I've stopped buying all those bromides about what a "strong progressive" he is, because the more I learn about him, the more he reveals that it just isn't so. In short, he's NOT the passionate advocate of economic and social justice I was looking for.

But luckily, the advocate I was looking for is in this race, and it's Steve Novick.
 
 

•  tips for true progressive principles?

  by vard on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:36:58 PM PDT

  •  tips for indepth blogging

    thanks.

    by Nulwee on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:00:21 PM PDT

•  Clearly "true progressives" i.e. people who

  consistently hold progressive policy positions without hoisting a finger into the prevailing political wind are no longer, assuming they ever were, in the majority on this site.  

  In the same principaled way Sen. Edwards has advocated throughout this campaign on progressive values, so has Steve Novick.  Sadly that doesn't seem to translate into a real world effect.  Inspiring rhetoric (much like a moving sermon that ends with everybody going out to eat followed by plopping down in front of the tv afterwards) and safety first centrism seems to whet a lot of appetites.  The appearance of change seems to be a real winner.  Actual change, not so much.

  by rrheard on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:48:00 PM PDT

  •  It's definetly an uphill struggle for progressive

    values. The sheeple want change but are, at the same time, afraid of it. Seven years of fear mongering from all quarters has resulted in a type of Stockholm syndrome. You're right, many will come out to cheer at the parade, but few will leave the safety of the curb to actually join in.

    by geez53 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:33:41 PM PDT

•  On this point, raising the cap on income to

  be taxed concerning social security.....

  It sounds good and looks even better.

  Now then, the truth.

  Social security has assets of apx. $2 trillion dollars thanks to the 1983 correction and the subsequent surplus funds.

  If the cap was removed entirely on all wage income, the annual surplus would be staggering.

  What would that mean? We would have ever more assets invested in special issue bonds known as Government Account Securities (GAS).

  GAS earn interest which is paid in additional GAS.

  Translation: IOUs that earn interest paid in additional IOUs.

  There is no money in the social security trust fund. Never was, never will be.

  From what you've written in this diary it would appear that neither Jeff Merkley, Steve Novick, The Oregonian, Jeff Mapes, and the diarist know very little about social security.

  Research is your friend, it will lead you to knowledge.

  by 0hio on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:46:18 PM PDT

  •  No money in the Social Security trust fund?

    Tell that to the people who cash their checks every month.

    by loggersbrat on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:11:42 PM PDT

    •  You tell them. Tell me. Where is it? If

      you are going to imply that there is money in the social security trust fund, share your knowledge with us.

      I'm retired. I draw a check each month. Why does it state in BIG letters, US Treasury? Why doesn't it state social security trust fund?

      When I owned my own construction business, I paid quartly taxes which includes social security taxes withheld and my matching contribution to the US Treasury.

      I paid NOTHING to the social security trust fund.

      So, where do they keep the social security trust fund money?

      by 0hio on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:53:07 PM PDT

•  Out-of-context spin

  Instead, we learn from Mapes that Merkley now considers his support for Edwards to have been a strategic mistake. True to form, though, Steve Novick maintains the pride and courage of his convictions:

  Except he not only endorsed Edwards but is a co-chair for his campaign here in Oregon. Which is the context about Merkley's statement about  he would not have become co-chair if he had known for sure if he was going to run. You take on Mapes ambiguous wording doesn't hold up to your negative take and spin on it.

  Mitch Gore

  Wanna win in '08...?

  Put your money where your mouth is.

  by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:33:20 AM PDT

  •  Exactly...

    Stephanie Vard forgot the context, unfortunately.

    I was standing there when Jeff Merkley was talking with Jeff Mapes at the event.  Merkley signed on as a chair for Edwards in hopes of helping Edwards' campaign.  Merkley's own U.S. Senate race has made that help virtually impossible.

    Jeff Merkley doesn't sign on to be a state chair of a presidential campaign with the idea that he's there in name only. He genuinely wanted to be a help to Edwards.

    That's the point he's making to Mapes.

    Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

    by Carla on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:24:37 AM PDT

    •  "taking up sides"

      Of course I wasn't there, but Mapes says Merkley made it clear that he regretted "taking up sides." Didn't say anything about the time commitment. Since the Oregon primary is in MAY, it seems unlikely to me that the time commitment so far has been that huge.

      I'm just sayin'.

      And btw, Carla, if you are going to call me by my whole name, which is fine, please at least get it right. thanks!

      by vard on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:56:47 AM PDT

      •  That's right..you weren't there

        I was standing right there, Stephanie.  Jeff was saying that he would have stayed out of it had he known that he wouldn't be able to do what he'd hoped as Chair of Edwards' campaign.

        That's the entire context of it.  I recognize that has a hardcore Novick supporter, it's your job to put as much negative spin as possible.  But what you're saying is simply not in line with the reality of the situation.  

        Since I was there and can give a firsthand account, it's appropriate for me to reply on this. I'm sure you agree.

        Sorry about not getting your name correct. I'll endeavor to do better in the future.

        Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon.

        by Carla on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:50:55 PM PDT

        •  well

          since you discounted the veracity of Steph's take on her original conversation despite the fact that she was there and you weren't, why is your presence at this conversation important?

          But to be specific, are you saying Mapes came up with the phrase "taking up sides" entirely on his own? He's a pretty professional reporter, and by no means in the tank for Steve based on his coverage so far. That's a lot to get wrong...

          by torridjoe on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:04:15 PM PDT

          •  I'm saying that..

            ..."taking up sides" means that he wouldn't have decided to go out for Edwards or anyone else.  The context being as I've already outlined it above.

            You and Stephanie are choosing to spin it and remove the context of the entirety of Jeff's articulated position on Edwards.

            It has nothing to do with what Mapes wrote and everything to do with how you and Stephanie have decided to spin it.

            Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

            by Carla on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:57:50 PM PDT

  •  I would add

    Reasonable people can differ on the topic of making all capital gains being taxed as the exact same rate as wages. I think it is better to tax lower wage earners a lower rate on any capital gains they may earn than high income bracket capital gains, so it allows incentives lower and middle income earner to invest and save, which is the third leg of the retirement stool which Social Security was to be the newest leg, when it was enacted.

    My personal view is that I think the CG rate for lower and middle income brackets should be less than it is for higher income brackets, to not only encourage lower income and middle income people to invest when they can, but give them a better return on such investments by having a lower tax rate on it since they get dinged harder on flat fees and costs in many other areas in our society than higher income people.

    Hence my personal view that making CGs exactly the same as wage income tax rates is not as desirable since I would rather give low income earners an effective tax cut, and increase the tax rate on the Warren Buffet style brackets by raising them to at least parity with wage brackets.

    This would help accelerate any investments that give a CG return for lower and middle income wage earner towards retirement, than they would otherwise which lower and middle income brackets are at a disadvantage in having capital to invest because of the wage income already. In other words, keep a lower the CG rates for low and middle income brackets but raise them on upper-middle and higher brackets.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:05:07 PM PDT

•  OR-SEN: Jeff Merkley: NO on tax fairness to wage

  From the Mapes article:

  Merkley said he endorsed Edwards long before he got into the Senate race, making it clear that he wouldn't have been taking up sides in the presidential primary if he had known he'd be in his own tough race this year.

  Welp Stephanie, while we each support our candidate as best we can, an impartial reading of the above sentence would surely be pretty danged close to Carla's interpretation. If it's too ambiguous for us, we'd need to talk directly to Mapes, as it is not a Merkley quote, but Mapes summary of what he heard.

  From Stephanie's Post:

  no one ever disputed the accuracy of my report, but Mapes has confirmed Merkley's position on tax fairness for wage earners: he's against it.

  Er, I'd like to.....er......dispute the accuracy of your report. Got the Mapes article right here:

  Merkley said after their appearance before the Willamette Women Democrats that he thinks there should be a "modest" differential for capital gains rate and that he sees raising the Social Security cap as one option that he isn't ready to endorse.

  Your assertion about Merkley's committment to wage earners, based again on a single sentence from the Mapes article looks more like amateur character assasination than analysis.

  Finally:

  All I can say is, I've stopped buying all those bromides about what a "strong progressive" he is...

  Of course those of us in the fight understand that you were recruited early by the Novick Team and that you've never "bought in to......etcetera.

  I'm delighted that you continue to Dance with Them that Brung You, but please hold the disingenuous Change of Heart meme.

  While I applaud your aspiration to Spin Doctorhood, your argumentation leaves a lot to be desired.

  by Pat Ryan on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:29:38 PM PDT

  •  Stop misrepresenting what I said.

    I never said I used to support Merkley.

    I said I used to think he was a strong progressive.

    Yes, I have always supported Novick. BUT --  If I had a half hour to spare right now I could find and pull up my own words from Blue Oregon where I'd remarked that Steve and Jeff were so close on the issues that people would probably choose between them on the basis of style. I used to believe that. But I don't any more. Not just based on Mapes' account, but based on my own firsthand account of what Jeff Merkley said to me.

    by vard on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:12:23 PM PDT

    •  Not misrepresenting anything

      I never said I used to support Merkley.

      I never alleged that you said that either.

      Nice try though.

      you did say:

      I've stopped buying all those bromides

      and I replied:

      please hold the disingenuous Change of Heart meme.

      So just to be clear, the term "stopped buying" implies "used to buy, but now I don't".

      Does it not?

      Words is fun, huh? You can use them as a headline to attack someone for something they didn't do, or you can use them to counter the allegation.

      Actual honest argumentation on the issues is less work but sometimes more fraught with peril, if, for example, your goal is confusion of the issue rather than clarity.

      by Pat Ryan on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:41:05 PM PDT

      •  Believe it

        even if we didn't support Merkley at the beginning,
        I think most of us bought the line that he and Novick were equally progressive. Now that he's being forced to actually state his positions, we know it's not true. That's what vard is talking about.

        by torridjoe on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:47:10 PM PDT

        •  Or Not

          ...he and Novick were equally progressive. Now that he's being forced to actually state his positions, we know it's not true.

          Clever framing there TJ (in italics above) implying that Merkley requires some outside "force", presumable from Team Novick, to be the forthright and honest progressive that I've known him to be for the past several years. Whenever I've had a question as to where he stood on a given issue, all I've had to do is ask.

          As to what you know to be true or untrue, my perceptions of Merkley's positions on the issues  were certainly not changed by any assertions or arguments made in the post above.

          by Pat Ryan on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:20:09 PM PDT

        •  As I showed above TJ

          One can support taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages and be more progressive for doing so (to say nothing of improving both the economy and giving lower and middle income wage earners a leg up) than the simplistic 'bromides' about making capital gains the same.

          Mitch Gore

          Wanna win in '08...?

          Put your money where your mouth is.

          by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:11:32 PM PDT

          •  that's great, Mitch ...

            ... but of course it isn't what he said. And when I spoke with him originally, a month ago, he took a couple of minutes to lay out his point of view on that question, and he didn't advocate anything like the scenario you laid out. But I applaud you for being more progressive than your candidate.

            by vard on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:18:34 PM PDT

            •  You have yet to say anything about what he..

              ...specifically about what he said that supports what we should be up in arms about that justifies the scare headline.

              Here is what you blogged previously:

              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.

              Seems to me you are not describing at all what specifically about his response progressives should be up in arms about. As I pointed out up-thread what I see as a sound policy on tax rates on capital gains could easily be decried "a reasonable difference" between the tax rates for wages and the rates for capital gains and is FAR more progressive than what you and Novick seem to be advocating, which is make capital gains taxed at the same rate as wage.

              So I have to ask, what specifically about his response progressives should be up in arms about about his response?

              Mitch Gore

              Wanna win in '08...?

              Put your money where your mouth is.

              by Lestatdelc on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:12:40 AM PDT

              •  I didn't say "up in arms" and he did not

                propose anything like your proposal. He was expressing comfort with the status quo or something very similar to it. He's that kind of guy, Mitch, and it's OK that you have chosen to support him for whatever reason floats your boat, but it's not OK to make up positions and attribute them to him.

                by vard on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:51:27 AM PDT

                •  Pots and Kettles

                  He was expressing comfort with the status quo or something very similar to it. He's that kind of guy, Mitch, and it's OK that you have chosen to support him for whatever reason floats your boat, but it's not OK to make up positions and attribute them to him.

                  TJ this is a little sad to watch.

                  First you repeat an assertion about Merkley (first italics above)again refusing to address Mtich's request for specifics backing said allegations.

                  Then you have the balls to admonish him against doing what you just did (second italics above), when he actually tries to engage you on an issue with his own POV.

                  Reeks of hypocrisy.

                  Hope that your style is not representative of your candidate's style. I'd never support anyone who's more about winning an argument than they are about addressing real policy differences in an honest and forthright manner.

                  by Pat Ryan on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM PDT

                  •  all the specifics were in my original diary

                    and in Mapes' article, and above.

                    Also, I'm not TJ, not that that matters to you, since it interferes with your narrative of victimization.

                    by vard on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:45:44 PM PDT

  •  it's not based strictly on the Mapes article

    Go read the original diary!

    It's based on Jeff Merkley's own words. Spoken directly to ME. In a conversation witnessed in part by his campaign manager.

    by vard on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:29:39 PM PDT