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.

I read a story recently in the Wall Street Journal which reported that a Member of Congress was considering holding his vote on President Trump’s administrative nominees until the president relents on his intentional trade conflicts, especially with China.

The issue in question involved Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake who said, “I think myself and a number of senators, at least a few of us, will stand up and say, let’s not move any more judges until we get a vote, for example, on tariffs.”

According to multiple media reports Flake might just be successful as he contemplates “retiring” from the Senate and running against Trump in 2020.

A key question is this: Is it appropriate to mix issues, holding a vote on one hostage until you get what you want on another?

As vexing as the answer may be to some, the answer is yes. And I say that after my career as a state lobbyist in the public and private sectors for about 40 years.

I know some will say, the answer should be no. Let each issue be decided on its own merits.

I understand the contention, but let me provide an example of how combining issues worked when I was a state lobbyist.

I represented Providence Health & Services, one of the state’s largest employers and a major provider of health care services to Oregonians around the state. [It was a pleasure for our firm to represent Providence because of its credibility in providing health care services, including to Oregonians who could not do so on their own. High values always underscored Providence actions.]

Starting in 2003, the State of Oregon proposed what became a controversial issue then and now – taxing hospitals, taking the payments into state coffers, then using the larger supply of state general fund dollars to generate increased federal matching dollars under the joint state-federal Medicaid program.

On one hand, the deal made sense – increase the amount of money to fund health care services, good for all Oregonians. On another hand, the deal has fallen apart over time because there was no way to assure that the “new money” which came to Oregon could be devoted to health care programs. It often was siphoned off to fund other state programs.

But back to 2003 when hospital representatives – I was included in the group – negotiated terms of the deal with the Governor’s Office and the Department of Human Services.

We insisted on this aspect of the deal: In return for allowing hospitals to be taxed – we could have imposed the tax increase, which required a three-fifths vote to pass in both the House and the Senate – we contended that several other troubling and expensive hospital regulatory bills would have to die.  Our contention was that, if we had to accept higher taxes, we should not be subject to new, expensive regulations.

Regulators didn’t like our advocacy, but it clearly was in the best interest of hospitals which would have to agree to new, higher taxes, not to mention the likelihood that, once on the books, few taxes are removed.

I could point to a number of other case histories where merging issues occurred at the Capitol in Salem, just as they do in the Nation’s Capitol. On one hand, a purist could say, no, don’t let that happen. On the other hand, in the real world of considering legislation, merging issues is entirely appropriate.

If I was king for a day, I would place some kind of limit on the hostage-taking to avoid what appears to be under way in Congress, which is that hostage-taking rules the day apparently for ever, which means action is not likely to occur.

So, I say to Flake, just as I would say to others involved in merging issues in Salem or Washington, D.C., do your best, but find a way to take action, not just stalemate.