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 use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as 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 I were going to run for public office – and let me assure any readers of this blog that I am not – I have given some thought to my personal political platform.

One reason is that, in retirement, I have time for this irrational pursuit. Another is that I have become so irritated by the state of politics today, especially nationally politics, that I wanted to propose, at least for myself, a more positive political future, however unrealistic it may be.

So here goes:

• I’ll work to solve pressing public policy problems.

• I’ll work to find middle ground with the “other side” – which is where the best solutions lie anyway.

• I’ll be skeptical of the contention that government has a solution for every problem, making sure to ask a basic question first – should government be involved, a question that, today, is seldom, if ever, asked.

• But, I’ll be open to government solutions when impartial analysis shows they have the potential to work.

• I’ll avoid using derogatory labels for representatives of the “other side.”

• I’ll be interested in re-election, but not at the expense of “doing the right thing.”

Now, I understand the reality is that none of these planks would resonate with most voters who have become accustomed to sound bites that drip with derision, as well to derogatory comments on Twitter, Facebook or other social media.

The noise has soiled the process of political discourse in this country, none more evidently than in the last year of a debilitating presidential campaign. It’s as if criticizing an opponent stands for something.

Elections are supposed to be a prelude to governing. But, not today. They are mostly a prelude to the next election, which actually starts immediately after “election day.”

If I were to run, would I win? No.

But, if you have a moment, think of your own platform, one that reflects your own commitments, as well as is designed with an eye to putting American politics on a more satisfying plateau.

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 use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as 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 Washington Post performed an excellent service a few days before final voting in this strangest-of-all presidential elections by listing some of the incredible things Trump has said along the campaign trail.

Plus, the editorial writers say that, when Trump is caught in a lie or an overstatement, he doubles down and contends that he and only he can deal with the issue.

I have thought that, along this campaign trail, Trump has showed signs of being mentally ill. He comes across as paranoid and so obviously self-centered that who knows what he would do if he had the nuclear trigger at his disposal.

The editorial writers closed with this paragraph:

“It is mystifying that so many Republicans, after criticizing Mr. Obama for eight years for showing insufficient pride in the United States, would attach themselves to someone who has such contempt for the country, its institutions and its values. U.S. generals have been “reduced to rubble,” the U.S. Army cannot fight, U.S. cities are “hell,” U.S. wealth has been “stripped” away by global interests, the electoral system is “one big, ugly lie.” To each of these disasters, Mr. Trump offers phony solutions (Mexico will pay to build a wall) or none at all. He has neither the interest nor the capacity to suggest actual policies.”

Here, then, is the list of Trump pronouncements.

• “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely.”

Comment: Don’t bet on it. His refusal to release returns, the Post says, is an unprecedented sign of contempt for voters

• “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people who have lots of problems. . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Comment: To Trump, all Mexican immigrants are rapists. Surely, the United States must do a better job of controlling its borders, including to the south, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who is not Trump is a criminal.

• “You’d be in jail.” (a remark to Hillary Clinton)

Comment: Every four years there are winners and losers in national elections. This time, if Trump loses, going against the pattern of history, he says he won’t accept the outcome.

• “I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

Comment: So, Trump, himself proposes that he would be a terrorist.

• “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.”

Comment: Trump’s instinct to fight with anyone who disagrees with him portends nothing but trouble if he sits in the Oval Office.

• “When you’re a star, they let you do it.”

Comment: Consider the incredible, over-the-top egotism of this comment. He’s a star so he can do what he wants to women.

• “Make America great again.”

Comment: For me, this comment always stirs up disquieting memories of what it must have been like in post World War I Germany when Hitler rose to power. Like Hitler in Germany, Trump says he alone can be the savior of America.

Now, some who may read this post will respond that Hillary Clinton has her own problems with ethics and integrity. To that, I answer, “yes, true.” But Trump’s pronouncements are far worse.

If that means, we, as voters, face a choice between the evils of less than honorable candidates, so be it. I’ll choose the one, Clinton, who at least has a semblance of qualifications to serve in the nation’s highest political office.

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 use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as 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.

One of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, wrote the other day about an interesting focus group conducted by reputed national pollster Peter Hart.

He gathered 12 “regular citizens” in a room and asked questions about the current presidential campaign, questions that resonate with many of us who have watched the current depressing run for the nation’s highest political office.

Here is one exchange reported by Noonan:

“Raise your hand, said Mr. Hart, if you like both candidates. No one did. Raise your hand if you like one candidate. No one did. Raise if you don’t like either. All 12 did.

“When asked to describe the America they want, they wrote things like ‘a solid education system, ‘no longer at war,’ ‘people have joy in their work,’ ‘leading the world in everything, including morals, ‘equal opportunity and reward based on work,’ ‘people haven’t lost their homes,’ and ‘a culture that improves us as a people.’”

Agreed.

One of the risks in the current debacle of an election is that it leaves us, as Americans, more dubious about our future.

If Clinton wins, we’ll be subjected to more lies and unscrupulous behavior.

If Trump wins, we’ll be embarrassed by his conduct, his words, his actions and an inability to take other than an “I am great” approach to anything.

Hart’s focus group is interesting for another reason. It did not produce just a slew of negatives from the respondents.

There was some optimism. Hart asked whether there could be a good outcome from this election. Five of those in the room answered “yes,” including this comment. “We’re a hardy bunch,” said a woman. Another: “It’ll stick in our minds. We’ll learn from it.”

Also this week, San Francisco columnist Kathleen Parker worried that there only days remaining before the time comes to vote (unless you have done what I have done in Oregon, which is to vote by mail early). “Wait, no, I’m not ready!” Parkear said. “Where’s the one I want to vote for? Can it be true that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States? For real? Is this really all we’ve got?

Where, Parker wondered, “is the individual who compels us to cheer for the good that unites us, the virtue that defines us, the strength that sustains us and the faith that tomorrow will always be better? Where is the sunny, aspirational leader who understands the frustrations of Trump supporters and the sense of left-behindness of people on both left and right?”

Parker also worries that decent people – more decent than either of the presidential candidates – may decide that getting into public service isn’t worth the total surrender of one’s autonomy and privacy.

“Who can blame them? Thus, our next president will be chosen not with the enthusiasm of a well-informed electorate but with the forelornness that comes of having no better option.”

So, amidst all of the depressing news, how can we not only survive, but thrive? As the focus group and Parker note, there are ways to find optimism. One is to maintain a sense of personal equilibrium, knowing that, this too, will pass and we can learn from the experience.

Another is to remember, as Parker urges, “the good that unites us, the virtue that defines us, the strength that sustains, and the faith that tomorrow will always be better?

Beyond that, I say find your own roots.

For me, roots are family and friends, buttressed by the reality of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which provides a basis for living day-to-day, as well as being optimistic about the future.

…This is the second of several blogs outlining criticism of the State of Oregon budgeting processes, which is important as voters here consider a major new tax increase…

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 use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as 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.

Back in 2003, the Oregon Legislature came up with an idea that sounded questionable, but was based on explicit U.S. government permission.

It was this:  Impose a special tax on 16 major Oregon hospitals, take the money into the hands of state government, then use it to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid, the joint state-federal health care program for low income citizens.

Everyone wins, right?

Well, perhaps not the federal government, which had to shell out more money in matching funds, but the purpose was positive in the eyes of most people — provide more and better health care services for low income citizens.

It didn’t work out as planned, especially not for Oregon hospitals or the citizens they serve.

The transaction illustrated what could have been suspected back then, but wasn’t as clear as it is today:  It is impossible to negotiate a deal with the legislature, then expect that deal to hold up, even for one two-year budget cycle.

Something always intrudes.

Legislators and the governor forget the deal they cut, so they don’t honor it.  Or, a new “emergency,” real or imagined, comes up and the deal is off.  Or, even more perversely, legislators appear to honor the deal and devote the “new money” to health care, then, in a back room and out of public view, they take “general funds” out from behind the deal and allocate it elsewhere, including to the legislature’s top political priority — K-12 education.

So, does the hospital tax make sense?

To some, the answer might be yes if they want government to have more money.  In other words, the lure of the federal match drives the process – and, at the moment, this is the case in 49 states, as well as in the District of Columbia.

To others, the answer also might be yes if the general purpose is served — more health for low-income persons who don’t have access to health care otherwise.

To hospitals, the answer might be yes if, in fact, they would get back money for the tax they pay, which, after all, was the original design of the program.  But, as it is today, not all hospitals get back all of “their” money and the new money for Oregon often goes to other than health care programs.

To taxpayers, the answer also is murky.  Could be yes or could be no, depending on an individual’s political persuasion. If you want more government and believe taxes should be increased, you would be in favor of the transaction. If, on the other hand, you believe government should be more frugal in how it allocates money, you would oppose the tax scheme; after all, it results in more federal and state spending.

Back to hospitals.  They have operated in good faith in this kind of transaction, but have suffered because of the realities outlined above, which underline again the inescapable conclusion:  You can’t negotiate and cut a deal with the legislature and expect it to be honored.

Along the way, hospital lobbyists have insisted on “memoranda of understanding” (MOU) to memorialize the deals over the years and, while not ironclad, the MOUs provided a bit of assurance that the legislators and the governor who signed them would live up to the deals.

No.  There was only one legislator who was at the table during the negotiations who admitted in public that legislators did not live up to what they signed.  That was Senator Betsy Johnson, the Democrat from Scappoose, who is one of the legislature’s chief budget experts, not to mention a public official marked by candor and integrity.

She announced that legislators and the governor had reneged on the deal to her chagrin. Her position was that legislators should honor it.

All of this will matter down the road if legislators and the health insurance industry sit down in a room to negotiate an extension of a health insurance tax, which, again, is designed to garner more federal matching dollars.

As originally designed, proceeds from the insurance tax and matching dollars were supposed to fund health insurance for children who did not have coverage.

It didn’t work out that way.  Legislators said they needed the money elsewhere and they took it. In the vernacular of the Ways and Means process, this is called “sweeping” the money.

And, this time, hospitals were not the ones left out in the cold.  It was citizens who had commercial insurance coverage.  A one per cent tax was added on to their insurance premiums and the insurance companies then sent the money to state government where it performed the magic of gaining federal matching dollars. So, the insurance tax was a tax on general citizens.

It is not clear how long this house of cards will be allowed to stand, either for hospital or insurance taxes.

At some point, observers expect the federal government to say, whoa, we are spending a lot of money on this, given that the 49 states and the D.C. now impose provider and insurance taxes.  We’ve got to stop, they may say.

When the federal government does say no, the question remains — what will states like Oregon do to replace the lost money?  The betting in this corner is that they will leave the hospital and insurance taxes in place, without the federal match.

Once a new tax is on the books, it stays on the books, even if the rationale goes away.

 ********   

[Full disclosure: The author, Dave Fiskum, represented private health care interests in Salem for 25 years. He was at the table in 2003 when the hospital and health insurance taxes were first envisioned and he watched – not to mention opposed – actions to renege on the deals.]