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.