PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19TH 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.
The Department of Pet Peeves is now open.
At the behest of the director, me, the department has been closed for several weeks. But, given the character of issues listed below, it was time to open the department again.
The processes and hours for the department are under the absolute control of one person – me. I also am the single authority about what makes it to the pet peeves list and what does not.
So, in the spirit of those dictates, here is a list of new pet peeves, which, you will see range across the landscape:
INSURANCE ADVERTISING
I have one question here: Why do insurance companies – especially car insurance companies – do so much advertising? I suppose the answer is that they want potential buyers to notice.
But I ask this: Why doesn’t some enlightened public official – yes, there are a few left – introduce legislation to ban insurance advertising and direct the companies, instead, to allocate the insurance resources for advertising to premium reductions. That way we would have to listen less to how each company save us so much money, as well as could rid ourselves of that mind-bending Farmers Insurance jingle!
I am not one who normally advocates for simple government solutions to private sector problems. Goodness knows that we have enough of those already. But this time I make an exception.
Require insurance companies to gain new business by relying on the Internet, which is where a lot of business is done anyway, including by sites which prepare costs across the insurance market. Then, mandate premium decreases.
Sound good? I vote yes.
WHY DOESN’T GOVERNMENT ASK THESE QUESTIONS?
If you hear about some kind of problem – not enough health care, how much health care costs, traffic congestion, environmental regulation – one typical response is to say, yes, we need more government.
But I contend that we often need less. If government and those trying to influence would ask and answer a basic question – is government well-suited to deal with this problem – we’d be better off. If the answer was an intentional no, we’d be even better off.
When I worked for Oregon’s last Republican Governor Vic Atiyeh, he asked that question and sometimes came to the “no” answer.
I advocate that government and those trying to influence it answer these questions:
- What is the problem for which a proposed law, policy or action is designed to be the solution? In other words, why are we doing this?
- Is there an appropriate role for government to play?
- If there is, what is government getting for the money it is spending? [Too often, there is no analysis of the return on investment.]
- How will government action affect the private sector – especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom government depends for money to fund its operations?
GOOD WRITING, BUT BAD GRAMMAR
I have cited this issue before, but a pet peeve in writing is when the verb doesn’t agree with the noun.
Consider this recent quote from a piece by often-astute political analyst Fred Barnes, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal:
“A series of Mrs. Clinton’s flip-flops aimed at neutralizing positions taken by Mr. Sanders have played a part in her troubles.”
The verb should have been “has played.” Perhaps Mr. Barnes writing sounds better, but right is right.
The Barnes piece, by the way, is worth reading as is contends that Mrs. Clinton is in deep trouble in the Democrat presidential campaign because she is “stuck in the past” and voters are clamoring for “populist, anti-establishment and future-oriented candidates.” Mrs. Clinton is none of those and, so, she suffers when compared to Bernie Sanders and, beyond that, to Donald Trump.
WHY DOES IT TAKE SO LONG TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED MISDEEDS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
I have two examples here – former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The pace of the investigations is glacial. We hear nothing for months, then on occasion, updates dribble out.
As Oregonians and Americans, we deserve better
In Oregon, there is no reason why an investigation of Kitzhaber has not come to a conclusion. Nationally, my skeptical side – perhaps even cynical side – wonders if the Obama Administration is delaying an investigation of Clinton until after the election.
Just wondering.
Perspective from the 19th Hole 