[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

I have always said there are three kinds of people when it comes to receiving information in today’s society…

• Those who like words

• Those who like pictures and other graphics

• Those who like numbers and charts

Of course, there are variations on the themes, as well as combinations of all three.

Those who know me know that I like words better than the other “stuff.” For this blog, I’ll focus on the power of using certain words in certain circumstances – or, given the first example, ignoring the simple meaning of words on their face.

That example is the U.S. Supreme Court. In its recent decision upholding the federal ObamaCare health care law, justices on the prevailing side appeared to ignore four key words in the Affordable Health Care Act: “Established by the state.”

The words were contained in the long and complicated health are act that cleared both the U.S. House and Senate without one Republican vote on the “yes” side. The four words were meant to indicate that federal tax credits would be available only to citizens who received their health care through STATE health insurance changes.

Of course, since enactment of the law, most states have passed on creating exchanges – or, in the case of Oregon, failed to do so successfully.

If it was a drafting error for the four words to be included in the Health Care Act, well the fact is that the words were there and they were there several times. In theory at least, they mean what they say. But, the Supreme Court ruled differently and, in the process, some critics said it was legislating, not opining on the meaning of a law.

The Court vote allowed the federal act to remain in place without leaving those who had applied for and/or received tax credits to continue on down the tax credit road. Was it a political move? I would say yes.

Was it the right move on the simple meaning of the words? I would say no and, while I am not attorney, I have focused on the meaning of words in all of my professional live and believe the decision ignored the direct meaning of the statute.

Let’s move on to a more mundane example, but one that illustrates an important point, at least for me. If, in writing a piece, you say that someone admitted something, you convey an impression, upon close reading, that someone did something wrong and admitted the wrongdoing.

However, if you use a more neutral word – the word said, for instance – you don’t leave the impression of guilt. I first learned this valuable lesson when I was a reporter for a daily newspaper, The Daily Astorian. In covering city and county government in that coastal community, I tried to use the neutral word in attributing quotes or paraphrases.

Words also matter when it comes to euphemisms, which exist throughout society, both in writing and speaking. On occasion, there are good reasons for euphemisms – better sometimes to pull the punch than deliver the news, sometimes bad news, more directly.

But, in politics, where I spent 40 years of my professional career, euphemisms are often used to blur the reality of an action. Look no farther than the phrase “revenue enhancement” instead of the phrase “tax increase.” The former blurs the reality, often I suggest, intentionally.

Or, the word government “investment” rather than the word government “spending.” The former makes sense if the expenditure actually produces a return on the expense – then it truly is an investment. But, more often than not, the word investment is used to blur the reality that some in government want to spend more money without regard to a return.

In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal early this month, a writer made a few more points, some of which are worth noting:

• “Investment” means spending

• “Access to” means free

• “All of the e-mails” means all of the e-mails I want you to see

• “Refundable tax credit” means a handout

• “Fairness” means theft

Thus, the writer adds, going back to my first example, why should anyone expect the U.S. Supreme Court to read “state” as state or “legislators” as legislature?

So, in a number of ways, words matter, especially to those of us who focus first on them rather than on charts, graphs or pictures.

The message is: Try to use the right words, understand what the words mean and be careful about the impressions you convey when using them.

I wrote recently in this space about my aspiration that political leaders from Salem to Washington, D.C. would find what I call the “smart middle” to solve pressing public policy problems.

That goal seems ever more remote as elected leaders continually run for office in what has been called a permanent campaign. They appear to be focused on putting their opponents or members of another political party on the defensive by name calling and offensive mailers or social media messages.

And, frankly, the loss of real politics is one reason why I hung up my shingle as a lobbyist after more than 40 years in the business – not the only reason and not the major reason (my age factors into the equation), but still one reason.

But this different thought has been coursing through my brain lately: One of the reasons that politicians have so much trouble finding the smart middle is that they are lot like us. We have the same trouble.

In our everyday work or social life, rather than working with others, many of us seek to work our will. We want what we want when we want it without working to understand another’s point of view.

We want to advance our own cause – our own point of view and, to those who may disagree with us, we say, in effect, forget, I want my own way.

As I write this, my own goal is to be open to middle ground in all of my relationships. If, on occasion, I hold a view on the basis of some moral or strongly held principle, then I won’t compromise. But, if I hold a view just because I hold a view, then there is ample reason to find the smart middle.

If we did this more in our everyday lives, then it would be more logical for us to expect our politicians to do the same – to find the smart middle, which, after all, is supposed to be the definition of politics, the art of compromise.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

Given all of the controversy over health care reform, one key fact has tended to escape much attention lately.

It is this: Health care reform is working in Oregon, at least in terms of the state’s participation in the Medicaid program, the joint state-federal program that serves low income Oregonians.

There may be continuing tension over the operation of a health insurance exchange in Oregon, with the legislature’s decision, in the aftermath of the controversy over former Governor John Kitzhaber, to scrap Cover Oregon and turn responsibility for the exchange over to the Department of Consumer and Business Services.

Of course, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision only adds to the tension as the Court, in a ruling that caught many observers by surprise, decided that four words in the national health care law (“established by the state,” as in health insurance exchanges established by states that would yield approval for federal tax credits) didn’t mean much.

So be it, I guess.

But should be no controversy over the Medicaid program here.

To verify this, I give you a piece written by Oregon’s Health Authority (OHA) Director Lynne Saxton in a message to all OHA employees. It should be added that Lynne is a great friend of mine as we forged a friendship as I represented her former employer, Youth Villages-Oregon, over a number of years.

**********