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.

It has been almost 30 years ago that U.S. President Ronald Reagan, while in Berlin, uttered his now famous line:

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Today, we are contending with the reverse. Someone, no less than President-Elect Donald Trump, wants to build a wall. The purposes, I suppose, are similar in some ways to the Berlin Wall.

According to the History Channel, back in 1961, the official purpose of the Berlin Wall “was to keep Western fascists from entering East Germany and undermining the socialist state.”

This time, with Trump, the purpose is to bar Mexicans from entering the U.S, where, beyond being, in some cases, illegal, they could undermine our economic state.

And many Americans seem to be saying, “please, build this wall.”

Retired Marine General John Kelly, who supervised U.S. operations in Latin America and is now the director-designate of the Homeland Security Department, says he has long shared Mr. Trump’s concerns about border security.

But, in his confirmation hearings this week, he told Congress that, if the U.S. built “a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf Mexico,” it would still need to be backed up by border patrols and technology. He said border security hinges on building stronger partnerships in Latin America.

“A physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job,” General Kelly told the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “It has to be really a layered defense.”

So, in the tale of two walls, one was torn down about 30 years ago and another is poised to be built.

My view is that General Kelly was dead-on when he made the point that effective border security hinges, not on building barriers, but on building stronger personal relationships with other countries, especially in this hemisphere, but also around the world.

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.

Even as members of the House and Senate, not to mention the incoming Trump Administration, debate health care reform, it strikes me as a logical time to suggest my own framework for reform.

I do so, not because I will have any role in the effort, but because I want to have a response when those who support ObamaCare suggest that ObamaCare opponents have nothing to say about replacing that government-dominated system.

I also believe that a country such as ours, with all of its various political viewpoints, should be able to solve a challenge such as health care. A solution can emerge if, in contrast to the Obama Administration, the goal is to produce a program somewhere in the middle, not one adopted by only one side or the other.

As columnist Kimberley Strassel wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week, “Republicans already agree on the general contours of a free-market proposal—one based on tax credits, entitlement reform, freer insurance markets, portable policies and fewer mandates. The internal debates are over scope and details, not approach.”

What might undo Republicans isn’t policy so much as politics. This is where they’d do well to reflect on all that President Obama did wrong. Long before ObamaCare cratered on the merits, it had failed in the court of public opinion—because of both the manner and the means by which it became law. The first test for Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration is whether they prove foolish enough to repeat those obvious mistakes.

Senior Democrats crafted ObamaCare in backrooms, foregoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues—much less Republicans. It was an exercise in secrecy and control.

It’s time for something different, a middle-of-the-road plan that takes into account perspectives from reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

So, borrowing, in part, ideas from the American Enterprise Institute, not just my own notions, here are what could be called “four legs of the health care stool.”

1. It won’t be popular in some quarters, especially with some Republicans, but, first, a critical component of reform is to require all citizens to have health insurance, either by buying it if they can afford it, or by having it provided by government if they cannot.

Without everyone in the to-be-insured pool, any system will collapse, much as occurred with ObamaCare. The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk.

Think of this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. The same policy should exist for health insurance.

2. Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan.

As the American Enterprise Institute has written: “Health insurance is also important for financial security. The ObamaCare replacement should make it possible for all people to get health insurance that provides coverage for basic prevention, like vaccines, and expensive medical care that exceeds, perhaps, $5,000 for individuals.

“Those Americans who don’t get health insurance through employers, or Medicare and Medicaid, should be eligible for a refundable tax credit that can be used to enroll in a health-insurance plan. The credit would be set at a level comparable to the tax benefits available to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance plans. The subsidy would be enough to make a basic level of catastrophic coverage easily affordable for all Americans.”

3. Third, any new middle-of-the-road health coverage approach should accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

I have mixed emotions about this because, inevitably, the price of insurance will go up with the added risk of covering pre-existing conditions. Yet, there is a reasonable social consensus that people should not be penalized financially for health problems largely outside of their control.

4. Fourth, any new plan should allow broad access to health-savings accounts (HSA). ObamaCare pushed millions of Americans into high-deductible insurance without giving them the opportunity to save and pay for care before insurance kicks in. There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs, combined with high-deductible insurance, could be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As millions of consumers begin using HSAs, the medical-care market will begin to transform and deliver services that are convenient and affordable for patients.

While I am not advocating this specifically as part of my proposal, I believe consideration also should be given to deregulating the market for medical services.

As I wrote above, HSAs will empower the demand side of the market, but suppliers need freedom from overly-aggressive regulation to provide packages of services better tailored to individual needs.

Hospitals and physicians should also be allowed to sell access to their networks of clinics, oncology services, and inpatient facilities as an option to be used in the event a patient is diagnosed with an expensive illness.

American health care is teetering because it relies too much on governmental mandates and funding. A functioning marketplace can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

As Congress and the Trump Administration move to do something different than a government, top-down ObamaCare approach, now is the time to develop a system that empowers consumers to take more responsibility for their own health care and that of their families. A political approach from the middle is the only way to achieve acceptable reform.

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 question posed by this headline has crossed my mind lately as we have watched a variety of developments in national public policy. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to know whether what you read or see is real or whether it’s all contrived to make a certain point, to sow confusion or to breed discord>

A few examples:

FAKE NEWS: With the proliferation of social media sites – not to mention the millions of Americans who appear to rely on such sites — all of us have been affected by a relatively new phenomenon – fake news. What can you believe these days? Who knows?

TWEETING: Incoming President Donald Trump is a master at the so-called art of saying something in 140 characters or less – and, frankly 140 characters is not enough to convey the very real complexity of the issues on which Trump feels a need to comment. Further, are his tweets “news?” Journalists disagree on the answer.

SPINNING: Depending on how you define the term, there may be nothing wrong with spinning. If it’s an attempt to put the best face on an issue, no problem – it’s what all of us do in everyday life to explain the situations or issues we face. But, if it’s more these days – putting a knowingly fake spin on public policy developments – then it is done for reasons other than accuracy or context.

CREATING NEWS: A cousin of spinning, this is the attempt by various politicians to create events in an effort, not necessarily to move a proposed policy forward, but to get their names in various media – the general circulation media or, more likely, social media.

PUNDITRY: This is a class of commentators that always has existed, but has emerged to a greater degree lately, especially with the rise of social media platforms which don’t exercise the same degree of editing than would, say, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal (to name two publications that are, respectively, left and right of center).

BLOGGING: I don’t mean to criticize this form because, this very piece, my piece, is an example of blogging. I don’t have an editor or even, most of the time, a reviewer. So, like other bloggers what I write and how I write is up to one person – me.

Of course, my stuff is imminently accurate and in context, but the same cannot necessarily be said of all bloggers. They say what they want to say often without regard to accuracy or context.

So, in the face of these and other questions about news accuracy, how do all of us behave so as not to react to untruths or just read what supports our own point of view?

My view is several-fold:

1. All of us should read enough material from various sources so as not to believe any one is the epitome of accuracy and context in and of itself. For me, this means that every morning, besides the local, in-Oregon media outlets, I read at least portions of three newspapers –- the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

2. All of us should set out to talk with family, friends, colleagues and neighbors who might not share our particular point of view. That way, we consider other perspectives. The risk is that, without various viewpoints, where we happen to sit dictates how we happen to think.

3. All of us should be appropriately skeptical of various social media outlets where writers are only trying to steer us to their point of view rather than to provide accuracy and context. Their bias drives what they write and say.

4. All of us should believe that we, as individuals, do not have a corner on truth. We should be open to other perspectives even if we hew to a basic set of personal convictions.

So, read and view on, but, I say, do so with disciplined eyes, ears and minds.

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

Seems many news organizations are making lists of top stories for 2016 as that momentous year turns to 2017

So, to join the fray, in the spirit of David Letterman, I have composed my own Top 10 List of pubic policy stories in 2016. Here goes.

1. MAJOR TAX MEASURE GOES DOWN

For me, the top story had to be the selfish effort by public employee unions to propose a major tax on sales – not profits – that would go to polls in November as Ballot Measure 97. Fortunately for Oregon, the over-the-top tax went down to a major defeat. But that has not stopped the unions; they are proposing an even larger tax hike in the 2017 Oregon Legislature.

2. POLITICAL LEADERS FAIL TO FIND MIDDLE GROUND ON TAXES

In a related development, Oregon’s political leaders – Governor Kate Brown, House Speaker Tina Kotek and Senate President Peter Courtney – failed to bring unions and business to a negotiating table to avoid the tax measure. In fact, both Brown and Kotek endorsed Measure 97. For me, this failure to display political leadership struck me as almost as important as the tax itself.

3. DEMOCRATS HOLD POWER IN SALEM

Governor Brown won her own two-year term in the Governor’s Office and Democrats retained majorities in both the House and Senate, though with one vote short of a super-majority in the House, which means it will be tougher for Ds to pass tax increases on their own motion. A good question is how the Ds will use their power in the 2017 legislative session and early signals are there may be continuing tensions with Rs who believe the Ds have shut them out of important committee slots.

4. REPUBLICAN WINS STATEWIDE OFFICE

This doesn’t happen often in Oregon, so it is important to note that Central Point Republican Dennis Richardson, a former legislator, pulled off the feat by winning the Secretary of State’s Office against a well-funded Democrat. Richardson says he hopes to use the Secretary of State’s audit powers to improve state government, but his first two staff appointments raised eyebrows because the individuals had been involved in previous, high-profile state government controversies. Other than Jack Roberts, a Eugene Republican who won the State Labor Commissioner job, Richardson is the first statewide constitutional office holder since Governor Vic Atiyeh some 35 years ago.

5. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PLAN FAILS

Another deficit to lay at the feet of Oregon’s political leaders is the failure to find middle ground on what nearly everyone agrees is necessary – an approach to fund improvements in Oregon’s roads and bridges. Attaching other stuff to the road-bridge funds was its downfall.

6. HEALTH CARE POLICY RECEDES

Perhaps it should not be a surprise given the fall from power of Oregon’s “health care governor,” Dr. John Kitzhaber, but health care policy issues have remained in the background for almost the entire year.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS ON THE RISE

As Oregon health care policy formulations receded, the opposite was true of heath insurance premiums – they went up as ObamaCare came home to roost in Oregon and other states. Every Oregon health insurance company but one is proposing double-digit rate increases for the individual market in 2017, with two of the biggest players — Moda Health Plans and Providence Health Plans — both seeking to raise rates by nearly a third. Seven of the 12 insurers in the small-group market are also seeking increases, albeit smaller than those in the individual market.

8. STATE AGENCY MISMANAGEMENT

Many governors would have had difficulty surviving a list of state agency management blunders – chief among them huge foster care problems in the Department of Human Services (DHS). However, Governor Brown survived them and even won re-election. [A footnote: Governor Brown’s appointment of veteran state agency manager Clyde Saiki as head of DHS is a solid step, one that is likely to put the agency in a far better position.]

9. REPUBLICAN LEADERS REMAIN IN PLACE

Even though Republicans were not able to cut much into Democrat control of the Legislature, they kept their two leaders in place – Representative Mike McLane and Senator Ted Ferrioli who both hail from Eastern Oregon.

10. EARTHQUAKE RETROFITTING: A FAD, NOT A COMMITMENT

Even as residents in Salem and elsewhere were asked to focus on taking steps to survive earthquakes, policymakers retreated on steps to prepare the State Capitol and school districts for the problems. Even Senate President Peter Courtney, who had been an advocate for retrofitting the “People’s Building,” the State Capitol, retreated in the face of opposition from House Speaker Tina Kotek. So, zero progress on this major public policy issue.

FOOTNOTE: And, in a result that almost made my Top 10 List, Beaverton legislator Tobias Read won a hard-fought State Treasurer race, thus setting up what could be a later run for governor. Back in college, he said being governor would interest him. Of course, several years hence is an eternity in politics, especially if, on the D side, Governor Brown runs again as she could do for a regular four-year term and new Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler continues to perform well in public office. And, who knows which Rs will emerge for the state’s top political job.