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.

This department is one of three where I serve as director. No one tells me what to do and I have full and complete authority for actions.

So, here are more good quotes worth remembering, along with my cogent comments.

Michael Gerson in the Washington Post:  “A constitutional convention held in 2017 would likely fail. It is sobering to think that the American political system, at this point in history, would probably be too divided to reproduce itself. Who would want to face primary voters after being identified with a “great compromise”?

As most of the founders envisioned it, the constitutional order flies with two wings. The first is the system of separated and balanced powers. The second is a set of public virtues — such as civility, compromise and moderation — that turn the mob (which they feared) into citizens.

“Civility is not weakness. It is the native tongue of a successful democracy. What Stephen Carter calls “civil listening” allows people who are opponents to avoid becoming enemies. Civility prevents dehumanization.

“Compromise is not surrender. It is the lubricant of a successful democracy. What Jonathan Rauch calls “a cardinal virtue” allows for incremental progress on difficult issues such as health care. It is a moral principle that elevates progress on the common good above ideological purity.

“Moderation is not indecision or centrism (as important as political centrism may be). It is the mode or mood of a successful democracy. What Aurelian Craiutu calls a “difficult virtue for courageous minds” puts an emphasis on reasonableness, prudence and balance. It is a principle rooted in epistemological modesty — a recognition that no one possesses the whole truth.

“These values are crucial to self-government, and it would be nice if those who govern would speak up for them once in a while, without embarrassment or apology. And oh, yes, us too.”

Comment: Mr. Gerson is one of the best columnists writing today. He doesn’t just take the latest gaffe from some politician and write his column for the day. No. He reflects on the art of politics, often injecting a spiritual tone into his writing.

This time, his quotes on civility, compromise and moderation are worth remembering. They are the bedrock for what is missing today – good government.

From Wall Street Journal editorial writers:  “Well, sure, but how? (regarding health care decisions in the Nation’s Capitol). Reaching these goals requires hard policy choices on which the parties are philosophically divided. Democrats want to stabilize markets with more taxpayer money and federal rules. Republicans want to deregulate markets and let insurers offer more plans that better suit the variety of insurance consumers. Democrats want to expand Medicaid to cover ever-more Americans. Republicans, or at least most of them, want to put Medicaid on a budget to provide better coverage to the neediest.”

Comment: The editorial underlines a point which is becoming more obvious every day. Elected officials in Washington, D.C cannot reach agreement on such a fundamental issue as health care. The disagreement started with ObamaCare and has continued through various failed Republican attempts to repeal and replace what has been described, irritatingly so, as “the signal Obama achievement.”

For my part, I say a pox on both houses. Let’s just move to a single payer system and get it over with, which is what many liberals want anyway.

From Daniel Henninger in the WSJ:  “Barack Obama rendered Congress moribund with little outcry from voters. The Obama error was his predictable left-wing overreach with extralegal decrees like the Clean Power Plan, which failed a court challenge before the D.C. Circuit.  To succeed as president, Mr. Trump has to show he can govern, and it looks like that may require separating himself from a Republican Party disabled by a permanent blocking minority with no interest in governing.  At the level of domestic politics, successful presidential governing means not much more than enabling and attaching oneself to an improving economy, as the impeached but popular Bill Clinton proved possible.”

Comment: Former President Obama took office saying he would promote a new era of cooperation and compromise in Washington, D.C. He did just the reverse. When he couldn’t get his way with Congress, he used the Executive Branch to do what it was not intended to do, which is to make laws. 

Now, President Trump appears to be creating the same problems as Obama, governing – not to mention tweeting – by himself, so much so that the Wall Street Journal’s Henninger says he may just, in effect, end up divorcing himself from the Republican Party. 

From Karl Rove in the WSJ:  “Mr. Obama sold the Affordable Care Act with well-formulated falsehoods. ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,’ he said repeatedly, and ‘if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’ The law would ‘cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.’ It would ‘bend the cost curve’ for health care, he said, without adding ‘one dime to the deficit.’ None of this was true, and Mr. Obama must have known that.

“So did he address these failings in his Facebook post? Of course not. The former president changed his talking points for ObamaCare. “Women can’t be charged more for their insurance,” he bragged—but the GOP proposal doesn’t alter that policy. “Young people can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26,” he said—but Republicans would leave that in place, too. “Contraceptive care and preventive care are now free,” Mr. Obama added—except taxpayers actually pay for them with levies on, among other things, hospital stays, medical devices and insurance policies. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama shoved his broken promises down the memory hole.

“The danger for Republicans lies in not acting, which would allow Democrats to brag about all the imaginary terrible things they prevented from happening. The danger for Democrats comes if Republicans act and then voters see that the dreadful outcomes liberals predicted never come to pass (as happened with welfare reform). Victory will go to the active, not the timid. Your move, Senate Republicans. Don’t blow it.”

Comment: Many will discount Mr. Rove’s commentary because of his allegiance to the Republican Party, but, if nothing else, he is right on this point – Obama promised more than ObamaCare ever delivered – and his quotes early on where just simply not true.

WSJ news story on health care reform:  “Supporters of Mr. Cruz’s plan say people who don’t need a specific benefit shouldn’t have to buy it—for example, men should not be required to buy policies that include maternity services.  Others dismissed such arguments, saying men are involved in pregnancy also. ‘Women don’t get pregnant without sperm,’ Sen. Bill Cassidy (R., La.) said drily.”

Comment: All I can say is point made.

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.

For me, this week provided a solid and favorable glimpse at Salem’s medical services arrangements.

The occasion was a procedure – labeled “heart surgery” – to extract a combination pacemaker/defibrillator that I had in place for about five years. For some reason, the device malfunctioned, causing no specific problems other than that it didn’t work. So, it was turned off externally.

That sparked a new question. Should it be removed to avoid infection in and around the heart?

The consensus from three cardiologists was yes, remove it.

So, I scheduled the procedure and the story from there is nothing but successful.

Here is a quick summary, which I provide in order to indicate that medical services are alive and well in Salem, even as health care public policy issues nationally create nothing but confusing headlines.

• My regular cardiologist, Dr. Kevin Thompson from Oregon Heart Center in Salem, referred me on to a specialist to consult about the extraction procedure.
• That specialist was Dr. Ashit Patel from Cascade Cardiology, also in Salem. [In a very credible move, all cardiologist service offices in Salem collaborate to refer all device extraction procedures to Dr. Patel. That approach avoids unnecessary duplication.]
• The procedure was set for Tuesday, June 27, and, in a bit of surprise to me, I was treated at Salem Health as, specifically and totally, a “heart surgery patient” with all that implies relative to surgery preparation. Not just a routine extraction. Full preparation. Enough said.

But the point, a good one, is that, in this type of procedure, something could go wrong, so that meant full preparations, plus a heart surgeon standing by in the operating suite in case his services were necessary. They weren’t!

Everything went well and I have nothing but plaudits for all of those involved – Dr. Tompson’s office; Dr. Patel’s office; the anesthesiologist’s offce (Dr. Christopher Aldrich); the surgery reception folks at Salem Health; the surgery preparation nurses at Salem Health; the operating team led by Dr. Patel; and the surgery recovery nurses at Salem Health.

Each individual operated with total professionalism and courtesy.

For those who question whether our state’s or country’s medical services work, my answer is yes. And, to say that, I draw on my recent experience, with great gratitude to all of those involved.

And that includes my wife, daughter, son who were on hand and supportive through the entire process (not to their mention spouses and three grandchildren).

Now, the remaining challenge for me is to get through a two-week recovery period so I can get back on the golf course!

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.

As a reminder, this department is one where I serve as director and where I have full and complete authority to manage it as I see fit.

That said, there are more good quotes to note, along with my response.

From Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker:  “We tend to forget, too, that Trump is a professional bluffer. We keep thinking he’s the president of the United States. That’s his title, but his identity is Donald J. Trump, television star, celebrity wheeler-dealer, a man who grabs what he wants. Everything he says or does should first be considered in this context.  Poor Comey. Burdened with seriousness, he wore a black tie to a circus.”

Comment: Parker is right to call Trump a “professional bluffer.” One never knows whether Trump is telling a lie or making up stuff. It’s tough for those of us who care about good government to watch him make a mockery of the process.

From a Wall Street Journal Editorial:  “The left’s reflex is that, if something is good, then the government ought to provide it, and some conservatives are falling into the left’s political trap. As we’re learning the hard way this year with ObamaCare and Medicaid, once an entitlement is in place it is nearly impossible to repeal. Middle-class taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay higher taxes to finance family leave for the employees of Wall Street giants.”

Comment: The language on a new entitlement is on target. When one exists, even one as flawed as ObamaCare, every effort to improve it recedes to the background as nearly everyone focuses on who will lose government benefits. Anecdotes prevail over policy.

To be sure, there is a lot wrong with the new effort by Republicans in Congress to follow-up on their campaign promises to repeal ObamaCare. Chief among the debits is a backroom process that rivals what originally happened when Democrats were in charge, and with Barack Obama, put the entitlement in place. Still, the bottom line is that it is almost impossible to change an entitlement.

From another Wall Street Journal editorial:  “The Senate bill is imperfect, but it includes many conservative policy victories that have long been Republican goals. It’s not too much to say this is a defining moment for whether the GOP can ever reform runaway entitlements. If Republicans fail, the next stop is single payer.”

Comment: Agreed. The move to repeal and replace ObamaCare is a test of Republican leadership ability in Congress. I wish it were possible for Republicans to work with Democrats to do the deed, but collaboration is not possible and everyone on both sides shares the blame.

From the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger: “’Cultural appropriation’ is the sort of thing someone like me gets paid to absorb so other people can keep their heads clear. Among the phrase’s various uses, it means that the representative of one culture isn’t allowed to use the images or traditions of another culture unless the second culture gives its permission. Got it?

“The art world has recently had several cultural-appropriation controversies, which get covered with eye-opening theoretical nuance by New York Times culture writers. Minneapolis’s Walker Art Center agreed to dismantle and ultimately burn a sculpture by a white artist after some members of the Dakota Nation objected.

“People like Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred think they are making a reasonable accommodation (when they ask the Washington Redskins to remove the nickname). But you can’t. The exterminating left will pocket any concession and roll forward toward the next target. Agree to delete Chief Wahoo or burn one uncomprehending artist’s sculpture as cultural misappropriation, and centuries of Western art will be heading to the furnaces or basements, with complicit museum directors holding the door open.

Comment: There is a rationale for political correctness in society today if the motive is to underline the need to avoid unintentional or even unknowing racism. Call it sensitivity. But, if the motive goes beyond that – if, as Henninger writes, “the left will pocket any concession and roll forward toward the next target” – then things are out of whack.

From professional golfer Jim Furyk:  “I forget what famous pro said this:  You never really have it.  You just borrow it for while.  Just when things are going well and you’re hitting it great — it’s almost like you get this feeling of invincibility— that’s when it bites you in the ass.”

Comment: I end with this dealing with something far less serious than government action – or inaction. All of us who are golfers are always trying to “find it” – which means a good swing that can repeat, even under pressure – but, even if we have it for a time, we lose it. Furyk, who appears to be heading to the golf hall of fame, with one of the strangest swings in golf history, has it right. Playing good golf is a transient affair.

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 you read this blog, you know that I am advocate for finding middle ground in political debates, not just trying to get your way at all costs.

Call it the “art of compromise.”

But compromise is, as the word implies, difficult. It requires both sides – or all sides – to give up something to get something. It’s tough stuff and no one necessarily likes the outcome. Plus, the lack of purity makes it easier for anyone to criticize the result.

Consider two recent examples, both in the area of health care policy.

In Oregon, legislators and the governor, driving toward the finish line in the current legislative session (which occurs, by law, on July 10), found a compromise on health care. It was not a new compromise; in a way, it had been in effect since 2003, but it had to be re-enacted.

The “it” was to impose taxes on hospitals and commercial health insurers, get the revenue into state coffers, and use the money to garner increased federal matching funds under Medicaid, the program which used to be targeted toward low income single women and children, but now has been expanded to include “the working poor.”

The taxes suffer from several public policy deficits, the main one of which is that, once all of the money (both special taxes and federal matching funds) arrives in state coffers, there is no way to assure that it ends up funding health care programs. Some of it is diverted to other programs, especially K-12 education.

Could I prove that? No. But no one can prove the reverse either.

What was passed in Salem is actually the definition of compromise. It is the best that could be done under the circumstances and, thus, I would have tempered my concern about bad policy and voted for it anyway — if, perish the thought, I had been elected to the legislature.

As for the second example, consider the ObamaCare health care replacement proposal set for a vote soon in the U.S. Senate.

Here’s an excerpt of what Wall Journal editorial writers published:

“The bill is an imperfect compromise between moderate and conservative Republicans, and it makes pains to accommodate different interests and the Americans, states and businesses that have adapted to ObamaCare over the years. The center-right nature of the details means the Senate won’t be ushering in some free-market utopia. But the reform is a major improvement over the U.S. health-care status quo that will worsen if the bill fails.

“Republicans have campaigned across four elections against ObamaCare, and now Americans will see if they have the courage of their professed convictions. Conservatives must determine if progress that is politically feasible is preferable to impossible ideological purity, and moderates must defend policy substance from the distortions of critics.

“The Senate bill is imperfect, but it includes many conservative policy victories that have long been Republican goals. It’s not too much to say this is a defining moment for whether the GOP can ever reform runaway entitlements. If Republicans fail, the next stop is single payer.”

Note the question: “Is progress that is politically feasible preferable to impossible ideological purity?”

I answer yes.

If elected officials in Salem and Washington, D.C. would adopt this approach to political decisions – settle for the imperfect instead of bidding against all odds for the pure — we’d all be better for it.

This would require that we, as voters, credit those who represent us for finding middle ground. That’s tough because, these days, many Americans prefer purity and then take it on elected officials when they don’t get what they want.

Plus, the fact is policy decisions from the middle would be better than extremes on either the conservative or liberal ends of the spectrum.

And this footnote: As I have argued with a colleague about health care issues, I have focused on the legislative process that produced both ObamaCare several years ago and the Republican replacements. Both occurred behind closed doors and the drafts were circulated only days before a voting deadline. Neither was – or is – a testament to solid public policy ma

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.

Now that the 2017 legislature has passed and sent to Governor Kate Brown legislation to continuing imposing taxes on hospitals and commercial health insurance premium payers, it is a good time to raise questions about these tax policies.

In fact, they are not so much tax policies as an expedient means to an end.

Before I go on, let me offer this caveat. I represented Providence Health System (including its health insurance arm) when the taxes started in 2003 and I was involved in various extensions of them over the years. Though I am now retired (as noted in the introduction to this blog), I am surely not a dispassionate observer.

There are several substantial problems with these taxes. Let me enumerate them from my admittedly biased viewpoint.

1. The health care taxes constitute questionable tax policy

On the theory that solid tax policy would be based on taxing the widest range of payers, not singling out a single group and imposing a patently unfair penalty, these taxes do not pass that test. To me, the income, property and sales taxes represent fair policy, though, of course, there always will be tussles over the balance among the taxes and the size of each.

2. The health care taxes are designed to garner federal matching funds

The rationale for these taxes is not straightforward. Rather, it is to accumulate cash in order to use that state cash to garner Medicaid matching funds from the federal government. Most states are engaging in this approach, which sounds like a scam, but is legal, even as it increases federal spending.

3. There is no way to guarantee that the health care tax proceeds will go to fund health care programs

This is one of my major contentions about the taxes. From two combined sources, hospital/health insurance taxes and federal matching funds, the money comes to state coffers and is considered just that – money.

The way this works is that legislative leaders, with staff, retire to a backroom where there is a white board. Then, they write revenue sources on that board – (1) “general funds” (personal and corporate income taxes), (2) lottery funds, (3)special tax funds (such as the hospital and health insurance taxes), and (4) federal funds. And, then, they simply allocate the money to the various spending priorities, which tend to break down in this order – K-12 education, higher education, cops and prisons, and social services.

When all that is said and done, legislators then consider what they should have considered first, which is where money is supposed to go based on the reasons why payers have sent it along to government.

Thus, there is no way to assure that the health care money actually goes, in total, to health care programs; some of it is diverted to other programs.

4. It doesn’t make sense to turn private health insurance companies into tax collectors

Under this tax scheme, commercial health insurers have to become tax collectors. They bill their policyholders for a tax surcharge, then have no assurance that the money goes where they tell their policyholders it goes.

5. There is no way to cut a deal with the governor and the legislature and count on that deal to hold

I have dealt with this issue since 2003. Those of us who have sat at the table or helped those who did have reached an unfortunate conclusion: Any deal with the governor and the legislature lasts only until the next emergency, real or imagined. Then, the public officials are very willing to go back on the deal and, in only one case, has a public official owned up to the change. That was Senator Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, who expressed regret about the reversal.

Let me add that there are real emergencies – forest fires, floods, higher-than-expected welfare caseloads, etc. – which must be dealt by the legislature and might even require fund diversions. It’s just that, if health care funds are diverted to new purposes, there ought to be a way to announce that new deal publicly.

That’s enough for now. I suspect the new taxes will become law – again. There may be a short-term rationale for the taxes. Without them, given other legislative priorities, thousands of low income Oregonians would lose health care coverage under Medicaid.

So, if I was a legislator voting in Salem this session, I would take two actions: First, I would express misgivings about this tax increase expedient, and, then second, I would most likely surmount those misgivings and vote in favor of the taxes on the strength of this axiom: In legislative law or “sausage-making,” as it sometimes called, you seldom have your way in an imperfect setting.

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 is hard to keep the department closed given all the good quotes lately.

So, without apology – which is something I never have to do as the supreme director – here is another list of good quotes worth remembering.

From political comedian Bill Maher:  “Trump is not becoming more hinged.”

Comment: It is hard for me to agree with Maher as he repeatedly skewers everybody who has the temerity, like me, to espouse conservative views from time to time — albeit centrist conservative views for me. Still, Maher sometimes says something worth remembering, as he did this time.

From one of my favorite Wall Street Journal columnists, Daniel Henninger:  “Whatever once fastened the doors of people’s minds to something secure and stable has become unhinged.”

Comment: There’s that word again – hinged or, in this case, unhinged. Henninger has it right that, in today’s political environment, it is becoming more and more difficult to attach your mind to something secure and stable. My only retort is that it is possible to attach yourself to personal religious convictions. For me, that is being a Christian which sustains me every day.

From law professor Kenneth Starr as new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch prepared for a ceremony officially to take his seat on the Court:  “At his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch called Scalia (Antonin Scalia, whom he replaced) a mentor who reminded us that words matter — a judge’s job is to follow the words that ARE the law, not replace them with those that aren’t.”

From letters to the editor columns in the Wall Street Journal, under this headline…Civil Politicians Are a Lot Less Attractive to the Media; the lack of civility described in politics is fed by the media, and leadership from the media is needed as much as from the politicians:

In the letters from Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, and Stamford, Connecticut, these words:

“The lack of civility described in “Civil Discourse in Decline: Where Does It End?” (Capital Journal, May 30) is fed by the media, and leadership from the media is needed as much as from the politicians, who merely see what the media wants and play to it. This is hardly something new. Since the years of William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce, media attract the demagogues they need for sensationalism and sales. If a leader actually tried to push civility, what media outlet would report such boring news?

“Once a measure of acceptable behavior was how one would feel if it was printed in the headlines in the local newspaper. We seem to be well beyond that.”

Comment: The letter writers have it right. The media often foments more controversy as it focuses on that – and not on substance. Ever wonder why those who demonstrate or protest get their faces and signs on television? It’s because editors believe that draws audiences. I say enough. Just as we need reasoned and reasonable people in public office, we need editors who act in reasoned and reasonable ways in what they choose to cover.

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.

You may know that I currently serve as director of two departments – the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

I have just appointed myself to direct, with complete and unfettered authority, a third department.

It is the Department of Too-Strange-To-Believe Developments.

So, as the Department opens for the first time, here are two strange developments.

MERKLEY FOR PRESIDENT: CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?

The lead item – one that, for me, would be the lead in every opening of the department – is that Senator Jeff Merkley is thinking of running for U.S. President. Yes, U.S. President!

Now, I think I’ve heard everything, even after having to exist with all sorts of strange goings-on with current President Donald Trump.

CNN actually is reporting that Merkley, the junior senator from Oregon – emphasis on junior — is harboring thoughts of running for the nation’s highest political office.

That this appalls me is based on several years of lobbying Merkley while he served in the Oregon Legislature. I never lobbied a legislator who illustrated more of a “holier-than-thou” approach than Merkley did.

Just as one example, he would never let any of us lobbyists buy him a drink or lunch to talk about the state’s business. He feared we would want something in return.

No. What we wanted – let me say, what “I wanted” — was just consideration for a point-of-view other than his own.

Frankly, it offended me that he thought I – and others like me – would be so low as to expect favors in return for a simple lunch or a drink. All we wanted, in the press of legislative business, was time to talk and share perspectives.

The result was that Merkley didn’t know as much as otherwise could have known about what others thought. His loss.

In Congress, where he serves because he unseated Republican Gordon Smith when he was not favored to do so (a sad result for Oregon), Merkley has continued the “I know more than you do” persona.

Perhaps that is why it apparently crossed his mind that a presidential run is not beyond his reach.

For my part, I hope it is.

WHAT BILL MAHER SAYS

It’s difficult for me to cite this political comedian as a source for anything – given that he is, In fact, a comedian working for laughs — but, down here in Palm Springs where I am writing this, I had nothing better to do than to watch his TV program last night.

And, he said something that strikes me as very true – a strange development in itself as he works, mostly, to skewer folks who have the will to function as conservatives, thus differing with his liberal persona,

What he said was this.

Rather than focusing on the “he said/she said” type of issue in the current scandal over Russia’s alleged involvement in the U.S. election, we should focus instead on the basic question: What did Russia do and how did the country do it?

Better to focus on the issue and ask the question, “Are We Safe?”, than to focus on intrigue and innuendo in a set of developments that continue to capture time and attention in Washington, D.C.

For once, I agree with Maher.

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.

As a former Executive Branch official in Oregon, it may seem strange for me to raise questions about whether administrative officials go too far.

Still, I do, if only because of actions, especially during the Obama Administration, when the former president specifically and intentionally went around Congress to work his will.

Defenders of Obama no doubt will say he circumvented Congress because it would not work with him and, to a degree, they are right. But, for a person such as Obama who came into office saying he would lead a new era of cooperation with the Legislative Branch, his conduct was over-the-top.

It also would be possible to contend that, before long, so will President Donald Trump’s conduct be beyond the pale of executive-legislative cooperation. It probably is already there.

I was reminded of all of this by a Wall Street Journal piece last weekend by editorial writer John Tierney who reviewed a book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful, by constitutional scholar Phillip Hamburger.

Here is an excerpt of what Tierney wrote:

“Sometimes called the regulatory state or the deep state, it is a government within the government, run by the president and the dozens of federal agencies that assume powers once claimed only by kings. In place of royal decrees, they issue rules and send out ‘guidance’ letters like the one from an Education Department official in 2011 that stripped college students of due process when accused of sexual misconduct.

“Unelected bureaucrats not only write their own laws, they also interpret these laws and enforce them in their own courts with their own judges. All this is in blatant violation of the Constitution, says Hamburger, 60, the constitutional scholar.

I add that what happens in the Nation’s Capitol happens in Oregon, as well.

President Obama was perhaps the offender. He openly boasted of his intention to bypass Congress:

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” he said.

Unable to persuade a Congress controlled by his own party to regulate carbon dioxide, Obama did it himself in 2009 by having the Environmental Protection Agency declare it a pollutant covered by a decades-old law.

Similarly, the Title IX legislation passed in 1972 was intended mainly to protect women in higher education from employment discrimination. Under Obama, Education Department bureaucrats used it to issue orders about bathrooms for transgender students at public schools and to mandate campus tribunals to adjudicate sexual misconduct—including “verbal misconduct,” or speech.

Going back to my own experience in the Executive Branch in Oregon, now more than 25 years ago, I remember that, at the then-Department of Human Resources, we set about to propose administrative rules that would, admittedly, go beyond specific legislative authority.

We did so because we wanted to avoid the hassle of dealing with legislators who would not have the time or inclination to get into the details of complicated public policy.

Was that right? No, I answer today.

By contrast, in the Governor’s Office where I served as press secretary to Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh, we respected the legislative process, perhaps, at least in part, because the governor had come out of that process to win the state’s highest political office.

In a more recent example, Republican members of the Oregon Senate Rules Committee raised questions about Governor Kate Brown’s appointment of three new members to the Environmental Quality Commission.

The Rs said that, while they appreciated the qualifications of the three nominees, they understood the governor was intending to go around the legislature to enact new air pollution regulations. They wanted legislative action first to set the parameters of administrative action.

In all of this, are there ways to curb administrative usurpation of legislative prerogatives?

Yes, according to the Wall Street Journal writer, Mr. Tierney.

One would be to make government officials financially accountable for their excesses, as they were in the 18th and 19th centuries, when they could be sued individually for damages. Today, they’re protected thanks to “qualified immunity,” a doctrine Mr. Hamburger, the university scholar, thinks should be narrowed, even though there is almost no chance administrative officials, in Washington, D.C. or Oregon, will be held to such an account.

“One does have to worry about frivolous lawsuits against government officers who have to make quick decisions in the field, like police officers,” Hamburger admits. “But someone sitting behind a desk at the EPA or the Securities and Exchange Commission has plenty of time to consult lawyers before acting. There’s no reason to give them qualified immunity. They’ll be more careful not to exceed their constitutional authority if they have to weigh the risk of losing their own money.”

Another way to restrain agencies would be to require them to submit new rules to Congress for approval instead of imposing them by fiat. The president of the governor here could also order at least some agencies to resolve disputes in regular courts instead of using administrative judges, who are agency employees. Meanwhile, Congress could reclaim its legislative power by going through regulations, agency by agency, and deciding which ones to enact into law.

Finally, being able to recognize administrative over-reach is an inexact science. Often, most of us are too occupied with our every day issues to pay enough attention, unless, as in the Obama era, the excesses were so, well, excessive.

“Administrative power is like off-road driving,” Hamburger says. “It’s exhilarating to operate off-road when you’re in the driver’s seat, but it’s a little unnerving for everyone else.”

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.

Why, you may ask, do I feel compelled to comment on this, given that there has so much coverage of the tension between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey, not to mention that I live 3,000 miles away from the fray?

Well, I don’t.

Feel compelled, that is. I just want to participate in my usual way – by writing something, which helps me to think more clearly. About a national issue that, no doubt, will continue to dominate the political debate for weeks.

So, here goes – and I will do so in the way of proposing answers to questions, not producing a narrative.

• Did Trump Commit Obstruction of Justice?

Probably not, though smarter legal minds than me will be rendering their verdicts.

Writing in the Washington Post, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and a contributing editor at National Review, put it this way:

“James B. Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee will no doubt embolden those who believe we already know enough to conclude that President Trump obstructed justice by leaning on the then-FBI director to halt a criminal investigation of Michael Flynn. But nothing Comey said alters the fact that this claim remains fatally flawed in two critical respects: It overlooks both a requirement for corrupt intent and the principle of executive discretion.

“The arguments for presidential obstruction here tend to omit the statute’s most important word: ‘Corruptly.’ Not every form of interfering with an investigation, or even the closing down of an investigation, is felony obstruction. Only corrupt ones. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused not only acted intentionally but also with an awareness that actions violated the law.

“This is important because the president is the chief executive. We like to think of law enforcement as insulated from politics, and we certainly aspire to politics that does not undermine the rule of law. In our system, however, it is simply not the case that law enforcement is independent of political leadership. The FBI and Justice Department are not a separate branch of government. They are subordinate to the president. In fact, they do not exercise their own power; the Constitution vests all executive power in the president. Prosecutors and FBI agents are delegates.

“That means that when they exercise prosecutorial discretion, they are exercising the president’s power. Obviously, the president cannot have less authority to exercise his power than his subordinates do.”

• If not obstruction, then what?

Good question. My answer is that President Trump has acted stupidly. This is either because he is a newcomer to national politics or because he doesn’t care, so he avoids, in a ham-handed way, the normal protocols of handling power in the Nation’s Capitol.

In the Wall Street Journal, columnist Gerald Seib wrote this:

“A basic set of rules for surviving and thriving in the nation’s capital—well understood by Washington veterans—would include: Don’t make an enemy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, keep potential enemies inside the tent and, above all, remember that it usually isn’t the action but the appearance of a cover-up that brings real trouble.”

Trump understands none of this. He ran and won as an outsider. Now he tries to continue the outsider façade, but cannot in the ways of Washington, D.C. He ends up compromising his own agenda. His ego rules. He is always the most important person in the room. He tweets off the top of his head. He behaves like what he is, which is a narcissist.

• Who is the hero here, Trump or Comey?

To that, I answer neither.

Here is the way Kimberly Strassel put it in a Wall Street Journal column:

“Mostly he (Comey) pronounced on what is—and is not—proper in any given situation: When handling investigations, interacting with the president, or releasing information. By the end, something had become clear. Mr. Comey was not merely a player in the past year’s palaver. He was the player.

The Wall Street Journal goes on: “Comey describes an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. The police powers of government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director musty resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover.”

I add that, if I had been president – perish that thought, by the way — I would have fired Comey, too. Even as FBI director, he should not have conducted himself as an independent actor on his own stage. He fouled up matters involving the private e-mail investigation of Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, as well as relationships with the new president.

The fact is that the FBI director reports to the attorney general first, and then to the president.

• Who benefits from all of this over the last days?

My answer is no one. Some will say that Comey came off looking like a hero, which, I suppose, is what he intended by his appearance. Others will say that Trump escaped, at least so far, any notion of criminal conduct.

To me, both looked like what they are, in very different ways – consumed by their own egos to the detriment of the country. We face huge issues these days – reforming health care, reforming national tax policy, re-building roads and bridges, and many others. They fall into the abyss of interpersonal conflicts that benefit no one.

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.

Kudos to legislative leaders here in Oregon for holding a “Legislative Prayer Breakfast,” the first in six years.

Here’s hoping the Prayer Breakfast becomes a tradition.

I say that because, whatever your religious convictions, it makes good sense to stop the hustle and bustle of politics and pause to express the need for guidance from a higher power.

For me, that higher power is Jesus Christ, with whom you can have a personal relationship, as I do. For others, it may be different. And, to be sure, the Prayer Breakfast had an ecumenical touch of sorts with prayers from a Muslim and a Rabbi.

I say good.

I had the privilege of being asked, albeit in my retirement, to co-host a table at the event. It was an honor to be asked and to comply.

The legislative leaders who deserve praise for resurrecting the Prayer Breakfast are:

• House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland
• House Minority Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte
• Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson, D-Gresham
• Senator Tim Knopp, R-Bend

Notice the bi-partisan character of the leaders, a fact which sent a solid message that this was not just another political event, but something more solemn and sacred.

On May 25, these legislators and many of their colleagues gathered at the Salem Convention Center for the breakfast event. More than 250 guests were there to support the need for divine guidance.

The keynote speaker for the event was Paul Young, an author who self-published a book in 2007, The Shack, which became a best-seller and was turned into a movie.

The title of the book is a metaphor for “the house you build out of your own pain,” according to Young who appeared at the Prayer Breakfast at the invitation of Representative McLane, a personal friend. Young has told a radio talk show host that The Shack “is a metaphor for the places you get stuck, you get hurt, you get damaged…the thing where shame or hurt is centered.”

He wrote the book especially for his children, though it obviously has reached many more than just his own family.

In that sense and apart from the spiritual message Young intended, his remarks were especially appropriate for a crowd aware that, only a few blocks east of the Convention Center, legislators were locked in a place “where they were stuck and could get hurt.”

One hopes that, by spending a few minutes in contemplation and prayer, legislators will find a way to stand on their principles, bridge gaps and reach agreement on tough issues without denigrating each other. That would be a sweet taste in today’s politics, which often are based on antagonism and acrimony.

Admittedly, the Prayer Breakfast was an event. But, if the spirit lives on, it could become something more.