« Good News For The Working Man | Main | Taxes In Oregon: Someone Did Have To Say This »
June 09, 2009
Interview with Senator Merkley - the short version
I was recently offered the opportunity to interview Senator Jeff Merkley by his Online Media Director, Sarah Lane Pierle. Being far too chatty of a person to believe that a phone or in-person interview would produce anything most substantive, or interesting, than a chat-fest with a guy that I genuinely like and have aimlessly chatted with before, I opted for an email-based Q & A format. And being a consensus-taker at heart I immediately reached out to fellow PK writers Ben DuPree and The Chinuk for suggestions and ideas and to whom I am indebted for their invaluable observations.
As the post title indicates, this is the short version. I'll be posted the entire "full monty" version at Blue Oregon in a few hours.
So without further ado, selected exerpts from the interview (after the fold):
Q:
You recently co-sponsored the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act which, as you put it, "is a step in the right direction to make sure that all Americans are compensated equally under the law." Would this extend to members of the military, or civilian employees of the DoD?
A:
The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act will extend the same employee and health benefits that married couples have to all federal employees regardless of their sexual orientation and that includes employees at the DOD. However, the bill does not extend health and employment benefits to members of the military because it’s in conflict with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I believe it is long past time to get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and allow members of the military to receive the same benefits married couples have as well as be able to serve openly in the military.
Q:
Concealed handguns are prohibited in federal facilities without regard to whether they're allowed in state facilities - in Oregon they are generally allowed under state law. So why should concealed handguns be allowed in federal parks? After all, you can't even put a canoe in Yellowstone without a permit while none is required for Wyoming's state waterways.
A:
Right now, a person could be driving down the highway going from state to federal parkland and be totally unaware they are breaking federal law. The amendment I supported simply puts the matter in the hands of the states and allows them to determine whether or not firearms are allowed on parklands within the state’s borders.
Q:
During the 2008 election season the Insurance Research Organization published a report asserting that "Blue Cross of Massachusetts employs more people to administer coverage to 2.5 million New Englanders than are employed in all of Canada to administer single payer coverage to 27 million Canadians." In light of this claim, what are your thoughts on the various health care plans going through Congress, which do you feel is most effective, and why?
A:
Currently, America spends nearly twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care but we rank 37th in terms of outcome. The issue is not health care spending – it’s wise health care spending. We must take steps to ensure that health care funding is used to actually improve patients’ health and cover more Americans.
For the last several months the Senate HELP Committee, which I am a member of, has been working diligently to design a health care reform bill that will provide health care to every American. I am fighting for the plan to include aggressive strategies to reduce costs including prevention, disease management, evidence-based practices and wellness strategies.
I am also fighting for the plan to include a public option. I believe citizens should have a choice of the type of plan they want, including a Medicare-style option. This would encourage competition and keep the insurance companies’ feet to the fire on policy pricing.
For both cost-saving reforms and a public option, these battles are not yet won. We need all the help we can get from the progressive community to push on these issues.
Q:
In light of President Obama nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, would you speak to your own personal guiding principles on where non-judicial criteria such as gender, ethnicity and religion rank compared to judicial criteria such as legal expertise and temperament?
A:
Strong experience in various legal fields is incredibly important when it comes to being qualified for a judicial appointment. In regards to other criteria, I do believe that a person’s life experiences provide insight on constitutional issues. The job of a Supreme Court justice is in large part about making judgments regarding competing values, and how a person views the world is relevant. It is important, therefore, to build a Supreme Court that reflects the diversity of America in gender, race and life experience.
Here is the full interview.
Posted by Kevin at June 9, 2009 09:00 AM
