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” was a small event. “It” didn’t generate many headlines. Many people didn’t even know “it” occurred. But, “it” did underline a failure of the Oregon Legislature two years ago.

The “it” was a small earthquake. In earthquake measurements, it was only a magnitude 3. It hit last week about two miles west of Interstate 5 In the Woodburn area. Still, despite it’s small size, the quake went about 14.8 miles deep.

Now, about the mistake. After moving for several years to safeguard the State Capitol – the “People’s Building” — from an earthquake, legislators failed to reach agreement on doing the deed in 2015.

The result? If a major quake hits, the State Capitol could be in ruins.

That may sound like an overstatement, but, in a quake about 15 years ago, the “gold man” at the top of the building, a major landmark in Salem, came within seconds of toppling down. The quake did damage to the murals on the walls, requiring more than a year of restoration. Plus, the internal infrastructure at the Capitol suffered damage, in part because it is so old in the first place.

Due to the major quake, legislators created a task force to look at what to do if there was another major event. The group worked for a couple years and came up with a plan and even went to the extent of working with legislative leaders to take bids from contractors that could do the work, including architecture, design and construction.

The company that won the construction contract, JE Dunn, did so after a stiff and fair competition. JE Dunn was then and is now a CFM Strategic Communications client. It is a national company with a base in Oregon and substantial experience in retrofitting state capitol buildings in various parts of the country.

[It is appropriate to note this CFM involvement because I am a partner emeritus in the company and played a role in representing JE Dunn until my retirement at the end of 2014. So, I have a bias.]

In the 2015 legislative session, lawmakers couldn’t reach agreement on bond allocations to finance Capitol restoration, plus another important priority — retrofits for a number of K-12 schools in the state. Bond funding would have been entirely appropriate as a way to finance the project, just as borrowing money is a way to buy or remodel your house.

Failing to do the deed stands as a major mistake, one that turned its back on years of work, plus commitments from companies willing to take on the job of helping to re-build the “People’s Building” for the benefit of all Oregonians – and to retain an important historical landmark in the state’s capitol city.

Every time there is an earthquake in the region, even a small one, “it” underlines the legislature’s failure.

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.

Despite the best efforts of certain legislative leaders — Senator Mark Hass, D-Beaverton, for example — lawmakers in Salem have not found the key to new tax policy.

Time is short.

By language in Oregon’s Constitution, legislators must adjourn their regular session by July 10 at the latest, a deadline which does not leave much room to craft the political compromise to allow new taxes – presumably with some spending cuts – to be adopted.

The Oregon Education Association (OEA) added to the difficulty last week when it filed an initiative that, if approved, would ask voters to raise corporate taxes.

Never mind that legislators are at work in Salem trying to craft a compromise.

Never mind that, last fall, voters turned down what the Oregonian newspaper called “the mammoth Measure 97” – and it fell by a huge margin.

I have no idea what political calculus drove the OEA to head to the ballot at this time. It would have been smarter for the union to have waited until the end of the legislative session and, if an agreement was not reached, then head to the ballot.

But, no surprise here. The OEA does not consult with me to frame its political agenda.

The OEA’s proposed initiative could raise as much as $1.75 billion annually for K-12 and higher education through a corporate tax that would be assessed based on companies’ sales.

The teachers union is also filing a second initiative that would make it easier for the Legislature to raise corporate taxes to pay for education. To pay for education in some circumstances, the OEA proposes to remove the current requirement for a three-fifths super-majority in the Legislature to increase taxes.

“Parents and students are fed up with having the third largest class sizes in the nation,” Hanna Vandering, president of the Oregon Education Association said in a press release that was quoted in the Oregonian. “Having strong public schools is an Oregon value, but you would never know by looking at the Oregon legislature. These ballot measures seek to put the power back in the hands of the people, not the powerful business lobbyists that control Salem.”

Also, according to the Oregonian: “The union is among the financial supporters of Our Oregon, the political nonprofit behind Measure 97. That initiative would have raised more than $3 billion annually, but it went down to defeat in November after a bruising campaign that was the costliest ballot battle in Oregon history.”

Meanwhile, the Joint Ways and Means Committee (it writes the overall State of Oregon budget) approved and sent to the floors of both houses an $8.2 billion K-12 budget proposal for 2017-19. That sparked the usual “it’s not enough” howls from the OEA and other self-styled advocates for K-12 education.

“We’re at a crossroads,” Senator Hass said last week. “We have a choice to do nothing because it is too hard. We have a choice to do some tried and true short-term changes, tax increases. And third, we have a choice to reform our system that will add a measure of stability and reform I think is the key.”

Hass is right about the crossroads. There are only a few weeks left in this regular legislative session, which has prompted some to speculate that a special session in late summer or early is in the offing.

What’s happening here is what has been happening in the last few years in Oregon – a deadlock over state spending and taxes, which illustrates that legislators cannot find middle ground.

Too bad, because middle ground is where the best policy solutions lie.

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 two I run with complete authority. What this department does – in other words, which quotes are included – is entirely my responsibility.

In this case, the quotes I have included this time, with my comments, were just too good to pass up.

So, here goes.

From the Wall Street Journal:  “The White House also wants to reform programs that have ballooned during the Obama years and effectively become a guaranteed national income. The budget cuts $193 billion over 10 years from food stamps, mainly by letting states impose a work requirement; $72 billion from the Social Security Disability Insurance program; and $12.5 billion by requiring a Social Security number to receive the earned-income tax credit or child tax credits.

“The left says this ‘guts the safety net,’ as if the measure of success is how many more people government can make dependent on government. Some 44 million Americans now receive food stamps, 16 million more than in 2008—despite eight years of economic growth and a 4.4% jobless rate. One reason the Obama economy grew so slowly is that millions of workers left the labor market, and getting them back and working would lift GDP.”

Comment: This points out a key problem with reforming ObamaCare. Once an entitlement is in place, it is almost impossible to change it. Someone will always point to anecdotes about how certain individuals are adversely affected.

From The Atlantic magazine: “News organizations should consider the kind and amount of coverage devoted to terrorist acts: Unfortunately, the very act of publicizing an act of terrorism cannot help but advance the ends of terrorists, who try to generate as much media attention as possible to stoke fear.”

Comment: Great point. The same holds true for demonstrations on the Capitol steps in Salem. Those who participate want media coverage and reporters, some with cameras, usually oblige. Would be interesting if such demonstrations – or, in the quote above, incredible acts of terror – did not generate so much media coverage. Too much to hope for? Yes.

From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Nonetheless CBO says 14 million fewer people on net would be insured in 2018 relative to the ObamaCare status quo, rising to 23 million in 2026. The political left has defined this as ‘losing coverage.’ But 14 million would roll off Medicaid as the program shifted to block grants, which is a mere 17 per cent drop in enrollment after the ObamaCare expansion. The safety net would work better if it prioritized the poor and disabled with a somewhat lower number of able-bodied, working-age adults.

“The balance of beneficiaries ‘losing coverage’ would not enroll in insurance, CBO says, ‘because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.’ In other words, without the threat of government to buy insurance or else pay a penalty, some people will conclude that ObamaCare coverage isn’t worth the price even with subsidies. CBO adds that ‘a few million’ people would use the new tax credits to buy insurance that the CBO doesn’t consider adequate.

“The problem with this educated guess about enrollment is that CBO’s models put too much confidence in the effectiveness of central planning. The nearby table shows CBO’s projections about ObamaCare enrollment, which were consistently too high and discredited by reality year after year. CBO is also generally wrong in the opposite direction about market-based reforms, such as the 2003 Medicare drug benefit whose costs the CBO badly overestimated.”

Comment: The CBO estimates are important, at least from a media perspective, even though the Wall Street Journal editorial indicates that the analysts at the CBO are often wrong and usually underestimate the affect of free market forces. The office is inclined to support more government regulation, which is not what is needed if health care is to be reformed effectively – unless, of course, you are a believer in a government-run, single-payer system.

From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal: “One thing Mr. Trump did right while overseas was to stay on message. During his trip the president had one powerful theme a day. He stuck to prepared remarks and generally did not create controversies or send tweets that would overshadow his agenda. Take his stop in Saudi Arabia. There the president called on leaders of Muslim nations to ‘drive out’ Islamist terrorists in their midst.

“Mr. Trump’s tone abroad was often ‘presidential,’ a quality that’s difficult to describe but that you know when you see it. The first lady’s dignified presence helped as well.

Comment: The chances that Trump will stay on message are nearly nil. He will say – or tweet – the first thing that comes to his mind, no matter how much damage it does to his agenda or his standing as president.

Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal: “The Trump presidency is on three parallel tracks: the Trump tweet track, the Trump-Russia track and the Trump policy track. What lies beyond the horizon is either a successful presidency or a train wreck. As always, the choice of which track is in the hands of Engineer Trump.

“The cauldron of new media—which operates now on about a 10-minute news cycle—has boiled down Washington into pure political extract. The details of public policy, Mr. Trump’s or anyone else’s, disappear into the vapors. What’s left has become a kind of political crack, and the Trump tweets only feed the habit. Every ‘fake news’ tweet does nothing but take the media’s delirium higher.

“In the new world of synthesized politics, policy substance exists only as a walk-on character in the melodrama. Would anyone notice if they reversed the White House reporters sitting in front of Sean Spicer and the White House reporters in front of Melissa McCarthy on “Saturday Night Live?”

Comment: As usual, Henninger is right…on two counts: (1) Noting that the chance for a successful presidential administration lies mostly in Trump’s hands, and (2) Slamming the media for its focus on controversy and drama, not policy.

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 two I run with complete authority. What this department does – in other words, which quotes are included – is entirely my responsibility.

In this case, the quotes I have included this time, with my comments, were just too good to pass up.

So, here goes.

From the Wall Street Journal:  “The White House also wants to reform programs that have ballooned during the Obama years and effectively become a guaranteed national income. The budget cuts $193 billion over 10 years from food stamps, mainly by letting states impose a work requirement; $72 billion from the Social Security Disability Insurance program; and $12.5 billion by requiring a Social Security number to receive the earned-income tax credit or child tax credits.

“The left says this ‘guts the safety net,’ as if the measure of success is how many more people government can make dependent on government. Some 44 million Americans now receive food stamps, 16 million more than in 2008—despite eight years of economic growth and a 4.4% jobless rate. One reason the Obama economy grew so slowly is that millions of workers left the labor market, and getting them back and working would lift GDP.”

Comment: This points out a key problem with reforming ObamaCare. Once an entitlement is in place, it is almost impossible to change it. Someone will always point to anecdotes about how certain individuals are adversely affected.

From The Atlantic magazine: “News organizations should consider the kind of amount of coverage devoted to terrorist acts: Unfortunately, the very act of publicizing an act of terrorism cannot help but advance the ends of terrorists, who try to generate as much media attention as possible to stoke fear.”

Comment: Great point. The same holds true for demonstrations on the Capitol steps in Salem. Those who participate want media coverage and reporters, some with cameras, usually oblige. Would be interesting if such demonstrations – or, in the quote above, incredible acts of terror – did not generate so much media coverage. Too much to hope for? Yes.

From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Nonetheless CBO says 14 million fewer people on net would be insured in 2018 relative to the ObamaCare status quo, rising to 23 million in 2026. The political left has defined this as ‘losing coverage.’ But 14 million would roll off Medicaid as the program shifted to block grants, which is a mere 17% drop in enrollment after the ObamaCare expansion. The safety net would work better if it prioritized the poor and disabled with a somewhat lower number of able-bodied, working-age adults.

“The balance of beneficiaries ‘losing coverage’ would not enroll in insurance, CBO says, ‘because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.’ In other words, without the threat of government to buy insurance or else pay a penalty, some people will conclude that ObamaCare coverage isn’t worth the price even with subsidies. CBO adds that ‘a few million’ people would use the new tax credits to buy insurance that the CBO doesn’t consider adequate.

“The problem with this educated guess about enrollment is that CBO’s models put too much confidence in the effectiveness of central planning. The nearby table shows CBO’s projections about ObamaCare enrollment, which were consistently too high and discredited by reality year after year. CBO is also generally wrong in the opposite direction about market-based reforms, such as the 2003 Medicare drug benefit whose costs the CBO badly overestimated.”

Comment: The CBO estimates are critical, even though the Wall Street Journal editorial indicates that the analysts at the CBO are often wrong and usually underestimate the affect of free market forces. The office is inclined to support more government regulation, which is not what is needed if health care is to be reformed effectively – unless, of course, you are a believer in a government-run, single-payer system.

From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal: “One thing Mr. Trump did right while overseas was to stay on message. During his trip the president had one powerful theme a day. He stuck to prepared remarks and generally did not create controversies or send tweets that would overshadow his agenda. Take his stop in Saudi Arabia. There the president called on leaders of Muslim nations to ‘drive out’ Islamist terrorists in their midst.

“Mr. Trump’s tone abroad was often ‘presidential,’ a quality that’s difficult to describe but that you know when you see it. The first lady’s dignified presence helped as well.

Comment: The chances that Trump will stay on message are nil. He will say – or tweet – the first thing that comes to his mind, no matter how much damage it does to his agenda or his standing as president.

Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal: “The Trump presidency is on three parallel tracks: the Trump tweet track, the Trump-Russia track and the Trump policy track. What lies beyond the horizon is either a successful presidency or a train wreck. As always, the choice of which track is in the hands of Engineer Trump.

“The cauldron of new media—which operates now on about a 10-minute news cycle—has boiled down Washington into pure political extract. The details of public policy, Mr. Trump’s or anyone else’s, disappear into the vapors. What’s left has become a kind of political crack, and the Trump tweets only feed the habit. Every ‘fake news’ tweet does nothing but take the media’s delirium higher.

“In the new world of synthesized politics, policy substance exists only as a walk-on character in the melodrama. Would anyone notice if they reversed the White House reporters sitting in front of Sean Spicer and the White House reporters in front of Melissa McCarthy on “Saturday Night Live?”

Comment: As usual, Henninger is right…on two counts: (1) Noting that the chance for a successful presidential administration lies mostly in Trump’s hands, and (2) Indicting the media for its focus on controversy and drama, not policy.