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 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.

Albatross often is a positive word for golfers. For those of you who don’t know, an albatross is a score of 2 on a par 5 hole, a very unusual feat, more unusual than a hole-in-one.

This time, albatross, as used in the headline above, conveys the negative. Credit must go to national columnist George Will for using it in the negative to describe Donald Trump. In a very well-written piece for the Washington Post, Will put it this way:

“Donald Trump’s distinctive rhetorical style — think of a drunk with a bullhorn reading aloud James Joyce’s “Finnegans Wake” under water — poses an almost insuperable challenge to people whose painful duty is to try to extract clarity from his effusions. For example, on Friday, during a long stream of semi-consciousness in Fort Worth, this man who as president would nominate members of the federal judiciary vowed to open up libel laws to make it easier to sue — to intimidate and punish — people who write “negative” things. Well.”

It is not news, Will continues that that Trump has neither respect for nor knowledge of the Constitution. “…and he probably is unaware that he would have to ‘open up’ many Supreme Court First Amendment rulings in order to achieve his aim. His obvious aim is to chill free speech, for the comfort of the political class, of which he is now a gaudy ornament.”

More from Will.

“The night before his promise to make America great again through censorship, Trump, his sister, a federal judge, ‘[signed] a certain bill’ and that Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. also ‘signed that bill. So, the leading Republican candidate, the breadth of whose ignorance is the eighth wonder of the world, actually thinks that judges ‘sign’ bills. Trump is a presidential aspirant who would flunk an eighth-grade civics exam.

“Unfortunately, Marco Rubio recognized reality and found his voice 254 days after Trump’s scabrous announcement of his candidacy to rescue the United States from Mexican rapists. And 222 days after Trump disparaged John McCain’s war service (“I like people that weren’t captured”). And 95 days after Trump said that maybe a protester at his rally ‘should have been roughed up.’ And 95 days after Trump re-tweeted that 81 percent of white murder victims are killed by blacks. (Eighty-two percent are killed by whites.) And 94 days after Trump said he supports torture even “if it doesn’t work.” And 79 days after Trump said he might have approved the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. And 72 days after Trump proved that he does not know the nuclear triad from the “Nutcracker” ballet. And 70 days after Trump, having been praised by Vladimir Putin, reciprocated by praising the Russian murderer and dictator. And so on.”

Trump is a con man and a clown act. If he wins the Republican nomination as appears more likely every day, his ascension will almost assure Hillary Clinton’s victory for “a third Obama term.” It also might enable Democrats to re-take Congress.

There is a lot at stake. Of course, one thing is the presidency itself. The other is control of Congress. But probably the most important stake is the ability to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice which, as a lifetime appointment, could mean more than any Executive or Legislative Branch position.

Here’s hoping that Republicans will come to their senses, disavow the blowhard Trump and turn to someone with the ability to find the smart middle ground on a wide range of public policy issues facing this country, including the Supreme Court.

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 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.

DOES TRUMP WANT TO BE POPE, TOO?

Alexandra Petri, writes the ComPost blog for the Washington Post, a lighter take on news and opinions of the day. One of her recent columns asked a probing question: Does Donald Trump want to be Pope, too?

Petri’s full column is reprinted at the end of this blog, but, in one of her best paragraphs, she writes:

“It is not such a far-fetched idea to suggest that he should be gunning for the Chair of St. Peter instead of the puny, tiny, not-at-all classy chair in the Oval Office. Which is more Trump to you, a small chair where losers like Jimmy Carter have sat in their time, or a huge, beautiful chair where you are always right? Please. This man was born to be pope.”

DOES TRUMP UNDERSTAND THE FEDERAL BUDGET?

The answer would be no. And a recent piece by national columnist Ruth Marcus adds excellent detail to the answer. Here is just one excerpt:

“In Trump world, the solution to controlling entitlement spending is that refuge of lazy and dishonest politicians everywhere: waste, fraud and abuse. ‘It’s tremendous,’ Trump said at the recent CBS News debate, citing “thousands and thousands of people that are over 106 years old” and collecting Social Security.

“Reality check: A 2013 audit found 1,546 people who had received Social Security benefits, despite being dead. Total cost? $31 million. Cost of Social Security that year? $823 billion.

“Another Trump favorite — empowering Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices — produces claimed savings, $300 billion annually, that are mathematically impossible. “Medicare spending on prescription drugs was $78 billion in 2014. Total national spending on prescription drugs, not just by the federal government, was $300 billion in 2014, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Stick with Trump! He’ll get the drug companies to pay us to take their meds!”

HOW CAN TRUMP INSULT EVERYONE AND PREVAIL?

Trump has turned conventional political wisdom on its head. He insults everyone and remains ahead in most polls.

He calls women names. He denigrates physically disabled persons. He criticizes Vietnam War veteran and Senator John McCain because he was caught and served time as a prisoner-of-war.

Still, contrary to most prognosticators, Trump continues to move ahead and may actually take the Republican nomination for president.

If he does, my sense is that Trump’s elevation means Hillary Clinton will be president.

HOW DOES TRUMP KEEP HIS HAIR IN PLACE?

I ask this question as a person who, according to some of my family members, used to favor a comb-over.

Trump may or may not use a comb-over, but his hair defies description. Why don’t means reporters ask about this, just as they focus on the hairstyles and dress codes of members of the distaff side who dare to run for president?

Trump must use the most hair spray of any person in history. Perhaps he has a hair-stylist apply the spray for him.

Can you imagine what would happen if the wind blew in gusts? Trump might be bald.

I ask this probing question in retaliation for the fact that Trump himself deals with irrelevancies along the campaign trail.

*************************************************************************

Here is the column by Petri.

By Alexandra Petri

Hear me out.

Our present pope, popular as he is, can surely not expect to be pope forever. Whereas Donald Trump is immortal, and knows it. Why else would he behave as he does?

It is not such a far-fetched idea to suggest that he should be gunning for the Chair of St. Peter instead of the puny, tiny, not-at-all classy chair in the Oval Office. Which is more Trump to you, a small chair where losers like Jimmy Carter have sat in their time, or a huge, beautiful chair where you are always right?

Please.

This man was born to be pope.

Now the papacy doesn’t win any more. Masses in English, giving to the poor — just giving things away to them, not even trying to make deals of any kind. Handouts, charity. Pssh! Just throwing away blessings and absolutions when you could be making billions from the sale of indulgences. Letting the little children come unto you — children of all faiths! — before those children have been properly vetted.

Give me a break.

Not only would Trump fix it, but also he’d fit right in. They nominate the next pope by blowing smoke of a particular color out through the chimney of the college of cardinals. Trump is accustomed to blowing smoke.

St. Peter’s Basilica is Huge and Great and Classy — a bit of a downgrade from the Trump Taj Mahal, but still respectable, in its way, considering how few surfaces are brass.

Trump is what is needed to Make the Papacy Great Again, the way it was in the days when popes were popes, like the Borgias. This is either our Vatican or it isn’t. Where’s the temporal power that used to make things tick? The Vatican should be run like a business. And speak Latin, if you’re going to set foot here, within the huge, beautiful wall.

Look, Trump has the qualities of a spiritual leader. Trump is better at not judging than anyone. At least, he is this week: “No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith.” He was not last week: “How can Ted Cruz be an Evangelical Christian when he lies so much and is dishonest?” But hey, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Besides, he is on the record, as my colleague Catherine Rampell points out, as being the Most Humble of anyone out there. “I do have actually much more humility than a lot of people would think,” he told John Dickerson on “Face the Nation.” The pope only has as much humility as you would expect.

Trump has made the case already, in his retort to the pope, that the pope is doing a bad job. Why not take the next step and claim the Holy See for himself?

Trump could do this so much better. And we should encourage him to do so.

The pope, like Aladdin’s genie, possesses Phenomenal Cosmic Power coupled with itty-bitty living space (there are postage stamps larger than the Vatican, I believe). If we can just convince Donald Trump that this is what he wants, instead of the presidency — we may be able to dodge this yet.

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 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.

If you had a chance to sit back and write down your thoughts about what we, the candidates and the voters, should be talking about in this election cycle, what would be on the list?

Well, Thomas Friedman, in a piece for the New York Times on February 17, put it this way:

“I find this election bizarre for many reasons but none more than this: If I were given a blank sheet of paper and told to write down America’s three greatest sources of strength, they would be ‘a culture of entrepreneurship,’ ‘an ethic of pluralism’ and the ‘quality of our governing institutions.’ And yet I look at the campaign so far and I hear leading candidates trashing all of them.”

Good points, all.

The qualities Friedman lists are ones that set America apart from many other countries in the world. Yet, they are seldom even discussed by the candidates running for president or, as Friedman points out, are trashed by the leading ones.

Instead, some of the candidates talk about building walls around America to keep all immigrants out. Others talk about how to strain the budget by creating new government mandates. And  still others talk about what they will do either to trash the Obama Administration or George Bush Administration priorities rather than set out a new, positive agenda for America.

I, for one, wish for a more constructive, middle-of-the-road dialogue that would point out the virtues of the leading candidates for the nation’s highest political office.  Then, we, as Americans, could vote our conscience, not just respond to the latest criticism or insult.

Let’s get back, as Friedman advocates, to a discussion of what sets America apart – a culture of entrepreneurship, an ethic of pluralism and the quality of governing institutions.

The phrase – that was then and now is now – comes to mind as we watch the debate in Washington, D.C over a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Republicans say, no, the replacement should be named by the next president, which, they contend, would give Americans a chance to weigh on the selection.

Democrats, led by President Barack Obama, say, wait, a president is required to nominate persons for vacancies on the top court and, therefore, Obama should make the nomination.

The debate plays out, of course, against the backdrop of the one of the most contentious presidential primary seasons in memory – or even, perhaps, in the history of this country. In that context, the battle over Scalia’s replacement could take center stage in the campaign for months.

And, it will be even more critical because the court, without Scalia, tends to be split 4 to 4 between those labeled conservative and those labeled liberal. Thus, the new appointee, whomever he or she is, could be expected to break the tie and play a leading role in momentous court decisions.

Back to the phrase – that was then and now is now.

The best example of this is a recent Wall Street Journal editorial which pointed out the absolute duplicity of Senator Chuck Schumer, who is favored to become Senate Minority Leader in the next Congress (that is, if Republicans retain control of the Senate).

Here is the editorial.

***************

The New Schumer Precedent

Chuck tries to hoist himself off his own petard on Supreme Court nominees.

Supreme Court vacancies tend to showcase political consistency—or lack thereof. So it is amusing to watch how thoroughly New York Senator Chuck Schumer has been reduced to self-parody as he tries to excuse his 2007 demand that Democrats reject, sight unseen, any of George W. Bush’s nominees “if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this President” during the last 18 months of his Administration.

In a post on Medium, the Majority-Leader-in-waiting now claims that his 2007 speech was little more than a suggestion that “Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up. There was no hint anywhere in the speech that there shouldn’t be hearings or a vote.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Schumer, his own words were on the record and are online. Consider this somewhat less than subtle hint: “I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.” The emphasis is Mr. Schumer’s in his prepared remarks.

Mr. Schumer never said that nominees were entitled to a hearing much less an up-or-down vote, and along with then-Senator Barack Obama he joined a filibuster of now-Justice Samuel Alito in 2005. Among the Senator’s major themes at the time was that the confirmation hearings process is of “limited usefulness” and “often meaningless.”

Mr. Schumer’s anything-goes approach also included a call to “reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” If he were consistent, Mr. Schumer would now be demanding that Mr. Obama nominate, in the name of “balance,” a like-minded conservative jurist to replace Antonin Scalia. At least Mr. Schumer is entertaining.

****************

Like many others, Schumer views things one way at one point and then, without apparent difficulty, goes exactly the opposite way at another point. Such is the life of politics when principle doesn’t prevail.

You could no doubt point out duplicity on the part of Republicans, as well.

So, I say a pox on both parties. Let’s find leaders like the late Senator Mark Hatfield who put principle before expediency. That way we’d have a genuine battle over a Supreme Court justice, one that would benefit the country in the lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

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 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.

I recently posted a brief blog asking why creating jobs wasn’t a more central issue in political campaigns these days.

I continue to ask the question and have been abetted lately by a piece by Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn.  He provides much more detail and provides fodder for the answer better than I could.  Therefore, I repeat his column here, with appropriate credit to him for a thoughtful set of comments.

*********

Grow, Baby, Grow!

Republicans have a great message about economic growth for middle America. Why make it so boring?

By William McGurn

Feb. 15, 2016 6:28 p.m. ET

Why can’t Republicans talk about economic growth the way Bernie Sanders talks about his potted socialism or Donald Trump about making America great again: with an enthusiasm that connects with ordinary Americans?

Take Mitt Romney. In his 2012 run for president, Mr. Romney’s days as a partner at Bain Capital led to his being caricatured as a real-life Gordon “Greed Is Good” Gekko. Mr. Romney responded by playing his opponent’s game, emphasizing, for example, how his plan would ensure that the top 1% income earners would pay no less and possibly even more than they were paying.

By going on defense, Mr. Romney allowed Democrats to define his Bain years as a time when he destroyed lives rather than rescued companies. His greatest strength became his greatest weakness. And amid the wreckage of the election results, we learned that he lost to Barack Obama 81% to 18% on the question “cares about people like me.”

It’s not looking much better today, at least judging from the way the Republican candidates spoke about economic growth during Saturday night’s debate in South Carolina. Almost all checked the right boxes—lower taxes, smaller government, and so on. But they sound as dry and distant as Ben Stein’s high school Econ teacher in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” boring his students out of their skulls as he drones on about the Smoot-Hawley tariff and the Laffer curve.

The tragedy is that the GOP’s rhetorical flatness comes at a moment when economic growth ought to be the heart of the Republican attack. After all, since 2000 the economy has been limping along at a tepid average annual growth rate of 2%. By contrast, in the half-century before that, the economy averaged 3.5% annual growth.

Hint: It’s not about numbers. The issue is the damage that low growth inflicts on possibility and aspirations and a ladder up. And the huge improvement in life for the Ordinary Joe if we could bump up that growth just one percentage point.

John Cochrane, an economist at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, highlights what’s at stake in an essay that can be found on his blog, the Grumpy Economist. The most striking fact from that essay? From 1952 to 2000, real income per person in the U.S. rose from $16,000 to $50,000.

Think about that. That’s more than doubling the standard of living for the average American. Here’s the kicker: If over that same period of time the U.S. economy had been growing at our present 2% rate, real income per person in 2000 would have been only $23,000, not $50,000.

In other words, a growing economy means a growing standard of living. In human terms, that 3.5% growth from 1950 to 2000 translated into more dreams fulfilled for more Americans, whether that meant a college degree, a home in a decent neighborhood, or just the certainty that your children would do even better than you did. Not to mention the national wherewithal to do everything from tackling disease to providing for a military strong enough to meet America’s many challenges around the globe.

Now consider the future. In a back-of-the-envelope calculation that assumes a modest 1% boost in population, Mr. Cochrane worked out the difference between a U.S. economy whose GDP grows at 2% (the “new normal”) over the next eight years or one that grows at 3% (better than what we have, but by no means pie in the sky). For a guy earning $50,000 a year, with 2% average GDP growth, his income would rise to $54,400 in eight years. With 3% GDP growth, it’s $58,675.

The point is, small marginal gains in economic growth translate into huge gains for the American people. Better yet, this growth is compounded—like getting a raise year after year.

“Next to this increase in the standard of living, nothing the candidates are talking about—monetary policy, Fed, fiscal stimulus, minimum wage hikes, pay equity, and so on—even comes close to what growth can bring ordinary Americans,” says Mr. Cochrane.

This is the Republican answer to all those Democratic promises of new goodies, whether it’s Bernie Sanders saying college will be free or Hillary Clinton promising paid family leave. Most Republicans understand that jacking up taxes to expand social spending is a sucker’s bet. But most Republicans are not yet fluent in a language of growth and opportunity that goes far beyond vows of “creating jobs.”

The dominant narrative today holds that economic growth is something that benefits only hedge-fund managers and Wall Street. In fact, a booming economy is the Ordinary Joe’s only real hope for a better future for himself and his family, and this future withers when growth is anemic. This presidential campaign still awaits the Republican with the wit and vision to make that case effectively to the American people.

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 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.

In a piece that ran in the Oregonian this week, the Republican candidate for governor, Salem physician Bud Pierce, tries to make a case that he would do better than the Democrat incumbent, Kate Brown.

He makes a few good points about Brown’s first year in office, but Pierce stands little chance of unseating Brown.

If he somehow managed to do so, he would be the first Republican governor since the late Vic Atiyeh more than 30 years ago.

For her part, Brown appears to like the governor’s job, as well as meeting citizens. Both are direct contracts to her predecessor, John Kitzhaber, who gave up the office in response to ethical challenges and remains under federal investigation. During his long tenure, he did not appear to like the trappings of the office, including the “task” of meeting Oregonians, preferring, instead, to focus on the details of policies.

To be sure, Brown, if she wins a full term on her own, will face numerous public policy challenges, including:

• Implementing higher minimum wage standards, which promises to be especially difficult for businesses in rural Oregon. [Today, Governor Brown endorsed the Senate-passed version of the minimum wage increase, saying in blunt terms that the priority should be pulling people out of poverty rather than worrying about small businesses.]

• Deciding how to deal with transportation funding issues as congestion, even gridlock, continues to vex urban residents.

• Dealing with the reality of unfunded obligations in the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), which will demand new money from local and state governments, perhaps at the risk of political priorities, such as money for K-12 education, higher education and health care.

• Fixing problems in Oregon’s public records system, which, while rooted in the precept that all government records are public, fails to live up to that standard.

• Finding a balance, if there is one, in a pending business tax increase heading to the polls next November – an increase that holds the potential for a huge fight pitting businesses against unions. And be sure of this – no one will emerge unscathed.

• Finding a way to prod innovation in Oregon’s higher education system beyond just, as Brown has already done, hire a new position, an “education innovation officer” on the theory, it would appear, that a new state government position is the answer to the challenge.

In his Oregonian piece, Pierce names all these challenges and others, then says he will be better able to handle them than Brown. Beyond naming them? Nothing.

He enunciates no plan to deal with any of them, perhaps hewing to conventional wisdom which says that voters want summary statements, not position papers. Still, there will be a long distance between advocating a position and achieving it.

Pierce’s political experience is limited. He was one of two physicians in Salem that the Oregon Medical Association (OMA) often summoned to the Capitol to testify on OMA bills. Beyond that, he has operated what appears to be a successful oncology practice (if the word “successful” can be applied to any cancer treatment center, which, of course is not Pierce’s fault).

He plans to spend a lot of his own money to run and, if money is the grease in politics, he will come up far short of Brown, who will be able to count on huge contributions from public employee unions and other typical Democrat interests.

So, expect Brown to win and to move on to her first full term in office. Then, she can be measured more fully on her tenure, instead of her assignment to fill out a portion of Kitzhaber’s term.

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 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.

Why is it that, when there is a job to be done or an assignment to take, Democrats usually advocate adding a new government position?

The option would be to assign current government managers new priorities.

There have been two examples of this recently.

One was when Governor Kate Brown, D-Oregon, announced that she would create an “education innovation officer” to inject innovation into the higher education realm.

What?

Why not specify a definition for innovation, then EXPECT it of current higher education managers?

Leaders of the Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) in Oregon were surprised by Governor Brown’s new position. At least it would have been logical for the HECC to have been consulted so its members wouldn’t have had to read about the plans in the media.

The second example involves President Barack Obama who is in his last year in office as a two-term Democrat president.

He says he’s creating a new federal position — “chief information security officer” — to inject additional security into federal technology enterprises.

Again, wouldn’t it have been better simply to assign current managers to increase security precautions?

To these two examples, I say this: Leaders should show leadership by assigning current government managers to emphasize supposedly new areas of involvement – innovation in Oregon’s higher education policy and security in the federal government’s technology policy.

Of course, it also would be possible to suggest that those goals – innovation and security – should be undertaken by the appropriate government managers without having to create new positions.  This could produce better government.

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 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.

Why is that, when there is a job to be done or an assignment to take, Democrats usually advocate adding a new government position?

The option would be to direct current government managers new to take on new assignments.

There have been two examples of this recently.

One was when Governor Kate Brown, D-Oregon, announced that she would create an “education innovation officer” presumably to inject innovation into the higher education realm.

What?

Why not specify what was innovation was to be, then EXPECT it of current higher education managers?

Leaders of the Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) in Oregon were even surprised by Governor Brown’s new position. At least it would have been logical for the HECC to have been consulted so its members wouldn’t have had to read about the plans in the media.

The second example involves President Barack Obama who is in his last year in office as a two-term Democrat president.

He says he’s creating a new federal position — “chief information security officer” — to inject additional security into federal technology enterprises.

Again, wouldn’t it have been better simply to assign current managers to increase security precautions?

To these two examples, I say this: Leaders should show leadership by assigning current government managers to emphasize supposedly new areas of involvement – innovation in Oregon’s higher education policy and security in the federal government’s technology policy.

Better that than financing new government.

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 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.

That question has troubled me as I look at the political landscape in Oregon, especially as public employee unions push forward with a job-killing initiative to impose a huge increase in business taxes.

Creating jobs – or, better put, creating an environment favorable to job creation — also does not appear to be a top tier issue for those running for president, at least on the Democrat side.

Political leaders in Oregon – and, at the moment, all of them are Democrats – rarely talk about producing more jobs (or even saving them in Oregon) as a way to gain more revenue for important priorities, including K-12 education, higher education, cops, prisons and health care.

Instead, leading Democrats seem always to talk about how to impose more taxes on business, which, as Oregon proved in several years ago, will come at the expense of new jobs.

Further, the current emphasis to increase minimum wages also, according to various experts, will come at the expense of entry-level jobs.

The question: Why?

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 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 question in the headline is on the minds of those following the 2016 short legislative session as lawmakers are gathered at the Capitol for a month.

There are at least two answers to the question, plus variations on the theme.

To Democrats, who are in charge in the Governor’s Office and in both the House and Senate, the answer seems to be that the short session is a time to consider big issues – an increase in the minimum wage, freedom to let voters decide on a major, public-employee-union backed corporate tax increase, and new environmental regulations.

They would call these “emergencies.”

To Republicans, in the minority everywhere, the short session should be a time to consider legislative fixes – read, housekeeping measures – and variations in the state government budget that have emerged since legislators were last at the Capitol. In other words, short session-small issues, which Republicans contend is what voters were led to believe would happen as they passed a constitutional change allowing every-year legislative sessions.

They would call these “emergencies” – small fixes that cannot wait.

At the start of the short session on February 1, Republicans surprised everyone by demanding that all individual pieces of legislation be read on the floors of both houses in their entirety, word-for-word, not just by title. They said that was a way to stall major issues, which should wait for the long session in 2017.

House and Senate administrators responded by looking for a computer program that would read all bills aloud faster than any human could.

If you were to talk with Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, the main architect of the annual session idea, and Senator Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, the Senate Republican Leader, you would hear two markedly different descriptions of annual sessions.

To Courtney, annual sessions are a way to put the Legislative Branch on more equal fitting with the Executive Branch and that often means considering major issues.

To Ferrioli, Democrats are using annual sessions to try to achieve major changes, such as the minimum wage increase that he says will harm rural Oregon.   Such issues should wait for a longer time in Salem.

Here is the way he put it in a news release issued on February 4:

“Yesterday’s assertion by Linn County Commissioner Roger Nyquist that the Oregon Constitution allows counties to not comply with a proposed minimum wage mandate shocked policymakers convinced Oregon needs a higher minimum wage. This major hitch in the minimum wage plan left supporters stunned and scrambling to determine if their plan is enforceable, and if not, how they can compensate local governments for the unfunded mandate.

“This sudden hiccup in the majority party’s plans is a symptom of a pervasive disease in the Oregon legislature: Democrat leaders have ambitious goals to pass major new policies in just 35 short days. 35 days is not enough time to consider sweeping changes to the way Oregonians live and do business, from a $5 billion gross receipts tax to a cap and trade model for energy policy.”

That so-called “hiccup” – either a two-thirds vote or an allocation of state resources to help local government respond to a minimum wage increase – struck many observers are more than a hiccup. The fact is that it stood a very chance of derailing the increase, which Governor Kate Brown hoped to usher through the session, in part to avoid a battle at the polls next November.

Taxes in general also are on the minds of those in Salem. A huge tax increase on business, proposed by public-employee unions, will make for a major fight at the polls next fall, one that will feature millions of dollars in advertising on both sides. It will be a bruising battle, with some businesses saying they will pull up stakes in Oregon if the increase passes.

Union leaders and others say the threat is overstated.

Early in the short session, Senator Mark Hass, D-Beaverton, made a courageous proposal for a middle ground solution, one that gained weight because of his position as the chair of the Senate Revenue Committee. But, at first blush, the Hass proposal did not appear to have any chance to derail unions from their appointed rounds leading up to next November.

In the spirit of full disclosure, as the intro says to this blog, I served as a private sector lobbyist for about 25 years and, thus, I have a number of biases built up over those years.

One is the annual sessions is a mistake. To use a lobby term, it is “the first step down a slippery slope” toward a professional legislature that would function much like – perish the thought – the U.S. Congress.

A better alternative would have been to develop a variety of legislative proposals to hold state agencies accountable for performance and results, and then use those proposals in the every-other-year legislative session to assert a legislative prerogative to make government work better.