Talk to This Year's Quirkiest Senatorial Candidate

Not many candidates for the U.S. Senate are 4'9" tall and only have one hand. But Oregon Democrat Steve Novick qualifies on both counts -- and uses them as pluses in his TV ads. Like this one, where he shows why he's the best beer-drinking partner among all the candidates. Or this one, where it's obvious why he's for "the little guy." Also, as far as we know, he's the only candidate this year for any major office who has his own brand of beer. And his online campaign manager is a major Slashdot junkie, too, which is certainly in his favor. But will humor and oddness get Steve into the Senate? We don't know. So ask him. In fact, ask him anything else you'd like about campaigning and politics. He's promised to respond, and seems like the kind of guy who will give interesting answers, at that. (Please follow Slashdot interview rules, as always.)

Comments

Slashdot's Hive's Net Neutrality View

[eldavojohn]

From your website on issues, you say:

I would join many other U.S. senators, and the rest of what we might call Google Nation, in supporting "net neutrality." We need to prevent broadband providers from creating a two-tiered system of access to information, in which content providers with money would have an advantage over those without it, and Internet users would often find it harder to Google their way to the information they really need. Your net neutrality rhetoric rings true with this readership, for the most part. How exactly do you propose you would enforce this?

I mean, you say yourself that the companies with money are going to want this, how do you plan to fight the opposition? If your opponent Gordon Smith opposes net neutrality, you're going to face a lot more of that in the senate. Voting to ensure it in bills is one thing but what makes you unique to any other Senator trying to keep the net neutral? What are the best things we can do to help this? I tried explaining it to my friends and family but often find I've at best confused them.

Allow me to play the devil's advocate, argue against this point:

The government controls too much of our lives right now, why let them control the internet with a facade of "net neutrality?" It's just another form of restricting the market to evolve naturally, why would we want that?

Environment & Fiscal Responsibility

[eldavojohn]

If elected as Senator for Oregon, how hard would you push for environmental action? You seem to promote fiscal responsibility and I find these two topics to have interesting relationships to each other. Hypothetically (and I know this wouldn't be your responsibility) if Oregon had the chance to switch to a garbage disposal system that resulted in twice as much materials being salvaged from waste but also cost the citizens twice as much to fund, would you make the switch?

On Slashdot, we often get stories where great new ideas come but require extra cash to go green. They are under heavy fire from fiscally responsible people. Where do you stand on this? I can think of many things if you'd care to address them. Like the investment to move to a wind powered infrastructure, compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb usage being enforced by the government, tighter emissions on all transportation, electronic circuitry recycling costs, etc.

If you care to further elaborate, I'm also interested in how fiscal responsibility can be maintained in addition to your pledge to reform healthcare.

Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility

[SteveNovick]

Thanks for the question. Environmental action has been one of the centerpieces of my record of public service. I spent over eight years at the U.S. Justice Department, suing polluters for violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act and I was a board member of the Oregon Environmental Council for the past decade.

Your question does raise a challenge of transitioning to sustainable practices. In some instances, like Superfund cleanup, there are steps we could take right now to reduce the burden on average taxpayers by restoring the polluter pays principles that originally paid for toxic waste cleanup.

But in other instances, like making the investment in renewable energy or expanding mass transit and other conservation initiatives, it will cost some money. That is why in this campaign I have been advocating several moves towards better fairness in our tax code like requiring people who make their money buying and selling stock to pay the same rate as what people pay on regular income. Or that people making a million dollars pay Social Security tax on all of their income, not just the first $100,000. In the long run, reducing our energy consumption, using it more efficiently and reducing the massive cost of global warming and pollution to our economy, health care system and communities will save money. But you are absolutely right that it will take some money up front. I'm committed to telling folks the truth about that and how we are going to pay for it.

Pork...

[Notquitecajun]

How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?

Re:Pork...

[explosivejared]

Adding to that, would you be in favor of tougher sunset clauses on appropriations? What about the much maligned practice of earmarking?

Re:Pork...

[eln]

Defense is a "relatively small" part of the budget? Are you sure we're talking about the same country here?

The 2008 budget calls for total spending of $2.9 trillion (on tax revenues of $2.66 trillion). Of that, $481.4 billion goes to the Department of Defense. That's 16.6% of the entire budget. If you count other defense related areas, such as the "Global War on Terror" ($145.2 billion) and the Department of Homeland Security ($34.3 billion), we're up to $660.9 billion, which is 22.79% of the total budget.

All of this, of course, doesn't even include the cost of the Iraq war, which is financed through separate appropriations. Bush has requested an additional $105 billion for 2008 war costs, which would bring total defense-related spending in 2008 to $765.9 billion, or 26.4% of the total budget.

That's right, more than one quarter of the entire national budget is dedicated to defense spending, including the war in Iraq. By comparison, the next largest budget item, Social Security, comes in at $608 billion, or 20.97% of the total budget. And I'm not even including any military-related spending that may be assigned to other Cabinet departments or other programs.

Sure, people like to throw around meaningless numbers like defense spending is only around 4 or 5% of total GDP. But guess what: we don't pay for it with total GDP, we pay for it with tax dollars. It's absurd to compare budget items to the total GDP, because it implies that spending a giant percentage of our total production on the federal government (around 20.27% assuming a projected $14.31 trillion total GDP in 2008) is somehow okay.

Sources:

GDP Estimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_estimates_(nominal)
2008 Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008
2008 Iraq war appropriations: http://middleeast.about.com/od/iraq/f/me080225b.htm

Re:Pork...

[paitre]

When you speak of social program expenditures, please also include that for Medicare/Medicaid, SCHIP, and HUD.

The combined total of which results in closer to 45% of the total budget.

The last time I checked, SSA, Medicare/Medicaid and HUD were not explicitly mentioned as a role of our government in the Constitution, while Defense most certainly is. Unlike so many wrong-headed individuals, I believe that unless the Constitution actually grants a power to the Federal government, then it DOES NOT have it, regardless of what others may wish to be the case.

Re:Pork...

[SteveNovick]

The first step on the path to fiscal responsibility is help the American public understand where their tax dollars go. In terms of federal spending, roughly 20 percent goes to defense, 20 percent to Medicare & Medicaid, 20 percent to Social Security, 8 percent to interest on the debt, and everything else is a relatively small portion for things like transportation, education and the environment. Even the earmarks that have been recently decried are only about 1 percent of the budget. Of course those earmarks include obvious pork like the "Bridge to Nowhere," but getting our fiscal house in order is going to take more than cracking down on appropriations.

Part of what I would propose are moves towards tax fairness, like repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, or the capital gains and Social Security tax reforms I mentioned in a previous reply. But we also need to spend our taxes more wisely. I do think there are some programs - like the V-22 Osprey or the International Space Station - that are not a great investment of our tax dollars. I also think we can give federal agencies more of an incentive to save by rewarding them if they come in under budget.

You can read a bunch more about this and my record of working to educate the public on budget and tax policy, as well as fighting waste in the Oregon State Lottery.

Why Democrat?

[eldavojohn]

After reading your views, I see a few things that put you at odds with the current Democrat party. What causes you to align yourself with the Democrat party? What differences do you personally see in yourself that by and large the Democrats adhere to? If elected, would you promise to remain Democrat or would you entertain the idea of going third party/independent?

Re:Why Democrat?

[SteveNovick]

I have been willing to buck the establishment in this campaign and I think voters will appreciate that. But let me make clear that I am a Democrat through and through and will stay in the party no matter what. As Paul Wellstone said about himself, "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

I will continue to stand up for my principles, even when I disagree with my fellow Democrats. But I truly believe that by expressing the progressive values, we will strengthen the Democratic Party. It is that willingness to tell the truth, regardless the consequences that I see as my biggest contrast with the D.C. Democratic establishment.

Nucular...

[Notquitecajun]

Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?

Universal Health Care

[pudge]

Steve, your state already tried, and aborted, an attempt at universal health care. Do you want federal universal health care because Oregon needs to take money from other states to make it work? Would you raise federal income taxes to make it work? How much?

Re:Universal Health Care

[imag0]

Please remember that, when using inflammatory rhetoric like that, the largest receivers of government welfare money happens to be large, multinational companies and not the "fat, lazy, and stupid" that you are probably thinking of.

Re:Universal Health Care

[bzipitidoo]

An abuse? Oh really? Are you aware that city water supplies are an example of universal health care? Fluorine is added to reduce tooth decay. It works, and it's pretty cost effective. Benefits everyone except possibly dentists. Lots of other things are done to the water supply. So we dodge the thrills of cholera epidemics that happen all too often in places that don't have good water supplies. But maybe you'd prefer to dig your own wells and buy your own filters and softeners, giving up the cost savings to be had from doing this on a massive scale, and do all the maintenance and monitoring yourself and worry about whether your neighbors' wells will dry out yours, stuff like that? And wonder when your young one will end up in a class seated next to the child of someone too poor to afford such niceties? That's why we have very low cost vaccinations, and will even give them away to the desperately poor. They're so worth it.

Likewise there's a lot of savings to be had if we'd just put up a little money up front for checkups and preventative care. Sadly, you can't just get a blood test, no you've got to fill out a ton of paperwork about all the details of your health insurance, questions about your health history, and read and sign many pages worth of disclaimers, permissions to disclose info, permissions to substitute generic drugs, acknowledgments that you owe what your health provider fails to pay, and maybe an arbitration agreement, and, always, always pay some kind of fee. Often, poor people are poor because they have no financial sense. They find it very difficult to budget such things. The fee alone is enough to keep them away. Even if it's free of fees, it's not really free if you have to spend an hour or more on paperwork, sit on your butt in a doctor's waiting room for more hours (don't you just love being told that you can put your wait to good use by filling out forms?), and perhaps drive 20 plus miles just to reach the place. Our health care system is full of those kinds of inefficiencies. So if one such poor person works as a janitor at a school, and comes down with tuberculosis or the flu perhaps and feels very ill but does not see a doctor and instead keeps on working because he needs the money, and consequently gets half the student body infected, that's going to cost a whole lot of money. A few free tests and doctor visits for everyone once every 2 years or upon reaching certain ages, or some such, could save us all money. You may have noticed that often employers will spend a day or two to host some kind of health checkup for all their employees. Once had my cholesterol levels checked that way. Pretty haphazard and spotty checking, doing it like that. If you're away on a business trip or sick that day, guess you just miss out.

Forcing people to pay for basic health care is like forcing people to pay to use toilets. Some airports used to do that. If you make it cheaper to crap on the floor, then some will. Those persons might care that it's unhealthy, and understand that it will cost society more in the long run, but feel they need that quarter more right now, and find their act to be the most pungently appropriate way of expressing their displeasure over such a system.

Beer

[esocid]

What will you do to get more Oregon beer east of the Mississippi river?

But seriously, you state that The manipulation of scientific data and government reports by political appointees must end. And we must stop the revolving door that has put industry lobbyists in charge of protecting our natural resources. How would attempt to improve the reliability of the EPA's research and encourage transparency within its ranks as to thwart its recent politicization and "bullying" of its scientists who don't produce data to support a political agenda?

Are you going to interview on Comedy Central?

[davidwr]

America's finest and most accurate television news and opinion programs, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report respectively, would be honored to interview a candidate of your stature.

Have you considered gracing their shows with your presence? If not, why not?

Internet's Effect on Campaign Finances

[roadkill_cr]

Does the advent of the Internet mean that a politician can win elections without requiring as much financial support? Or is it simply another media out of the many already used (radio, televsion, etc.) that one must now campaign on, making campaigning more expensive than before?

Left hook

[Lucas123]

I like the name of your beer: Left Hook Lager, but why choose a lager to represent yourself versus, say, a stout?

Building the team?

[D3]

When you decided to get into politics and/or make this run, how did you build your team? How did you choose your advisers? Were they all people you already knew or just knew one or two and they made recommendations? Basically, how does one go from "I think I could be a good Senator" to having the political machinery to make a run at it?

Medical Marijuana

[phobos13013]

Where do you stand on the issue of medical marijuana in your state? For ten years, use of marijuana has and created a legal vacuum for the public interest versus the private use issue. Would you protect growers of medical marijuana in your state from federal prosecution when such situations occur? Do you support the free and open use of a chemical that has no known addictive qualities, no known adverse health effects and broad, diverse public support for its decriminalization?

Flat Tax, Fair Tax

[penguin_dance]

Where do you stand on having a Flat Tax? What about the Fair (or Consumption) Tax? And why.

Have you considered hook alternatives?

[jollyreaper]

Hooks are so 17th century. Which of the following would you consider adopting if you win your election?

1. Fighting claws as seen in Enter the Dragon
2. Hydraulically actuated pincer
3. Chainsaw
4. Rocket fist

Not like other politicians?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

In your television ads, you state that you are not like other politicians. How do your political actions differ from those normally held by politicians: namely, increasing budget sizes - whether for the war, healthcare, public schools, or other state-run programs - through taxation or deficit spending; and advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

Also, how do your political motivations differ from those that have become the norm in politics? Politicians, acting as the "supply", have increasingly manipulated the economy to service the demand of corrupt companies offering to fund their campaigns - such as by contrived monopolies or selective tax breaks. How do your influences differ from the standard fare?

Will you uphold the Law?

[Locke2005]

Dear Mr. Novick:

The Forest Grove School District is currently attempting to intercept conversations between students on it's school buses, in flagrant violation of ORS 165.540(1)(c) and Federal Statute 2511(1)(b). What will you do make sure all governmental entities comply with existing law?