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.

Every other year, when governors propose another two-year budget for the State of Oregon, I reflect on the process, which often arouses troubling thoughts about what is occurring.

I have these thoughts based on more that 40 years of dealing with such budgets, the first 15 as a state government manager and another 25 as a state lobbyist.

I report those credentials, not to indicate that I am some kind of a budget whiz. I am not. But, over the years, I learned that a state government budget was and is more than just a set of numbers. It was a way for governors to propose a set of policy formulations —formulations that would the under consideration in a legislative session for as many as six months.

So, regarding state budgets – and if I were king for day — I would:

• Require that governors propose a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” for the next biennium within current taxes.

In this way, all of us would know exactly how much it would cost to operate state government for another two years, not how much it would cost if various folks paid higher taxes.

According to Oregon statutes, the deadline for producing such a Governor’s Recommended Budget” is December 1. I suppose proposing a budget with new taxes is one way to meet the deadline. But I don’t think such an approach is within the spirit of the law.

• Require the same governors, if they want to propose increased taxes, to do so in a separate budget document.

In this way, we would know exactly what new, higher taxes are being proposed and what the desired new money would support. As it is, the new taxes, short of being analyzed by a few solid news reporters (one of whom is Jeff Mapes, who left the Oregonian a couple years ago and joined Oregon Public Broadcasting, which means his skills have beefed up the already strong OPB reporting staff) remain buried within budgets.

The effect is that no one really knows the rationale for the new taxes.

• Require governors and legislators to be “transparent” (I hesitate to use that word because the frequency of its use in government these days often means that the word has no real meaning) about their efforts to cut state budgets. Still, if real transparency exists, we’d have more useful information about how state government intends to remain within its means.

As it is, budgets for state agencies normally continue from one biennium to the next without much intent to assess whether the spending is achieving desired results. Or, if there is a results measure at all for government programs.

As I said, I would impose these requirements if I were king for a day. But I’m not, so I suspect the current approach will continue on into the future.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

If I was still a hospital and health insurance lobbyist, “this” debacle would make more than a little irritated.

What the “this?” As reported by KGW-TV, a story chronicles an unbelievable screw up on the part of all parts of the health care establishment.

Here are excerpts of the story.

“LA CENTER, Wash. — Ryan Hansen knew something was wrong. The 15-year old felt dizzy, his heart raced and his hip hurt when he walked. So his mother took Ryan to an urgent care in Vancouver. An advice nurse agreed that something was very wrong. Ryan needed to get to the emergency room immediately.

“Ryan’s mother, Jamie Hansen, rushed her son to PeaceHealth Southwest Medical Center. After a battery of tests, emergency room physicians surmised Ryan had some type of infection attacking his heart.

“The doctors at PeaceHealth warned they couldn’t provide the specialty pediatric care Ryan needed so they immediately ordered an ambulance to take him across the river to Randall Children’s Hospital at Legacy Emanuel in Portland.

“Before loading into the ambulance, Ryan’s mother asked the hospital staff about insurance. She knew PeaceHealth in Vancouver was in-network, but worried Randall in Portland was not covered by her health insurer.

“After a week at Randall, including four days in the pediatric intensive care unit, Ryan made a full recovery. He was sent home.

“A few weeks later the first hospital bill arrived: $112,387.

“Hansen’s insurer, LifeWise Health Plan of Washington, provided little relief. After processing the claims, Hansen said LifeWise offered to pay $15,396 – just a small portion of the total hospital bill.”

This looks like what it is – all health care establishment entities pointing figures at others, not taking responsibility for various mis-communication, or worse, outright lies.

Hansen’s case is a telling example of how powerless patients can be in the complex world of medical billing. Hospitals don’t tell patients how much they charge. Patients don’t know how much insurers will pay until they get their bills.

LifeWise and Legacy blame one another for the hefty bill, leaving the Hansen family caught in financial crosshairs.

Washington Insurance Commission Mike Kreidler has now gotten into the act. No susprise there.

“What angers me most about this case,” Kreider told KGW, “is that Ms. Hansen — who knows how the health care insurance system works – still got stuck with huge surprise bills for her son after an emergency.

Kreidler called the practice “balance billing,” which occurs when a healthcare provider bills a patient for the difference between what the patient’s health insurance chooses to reimburse and what the provider chooses to charge.

Kreidler is proposing legislation in Washington that would help protect patients from this type of surprise medical bill.

The issue – and prospective legislation – also could take hold in Oregon as the 2019 legislative session convenes after the first of the year.

As a hospital/health insurance lobbyist, I would prepare for the tough questions, which are more than warranted in response to such situations. I might even try to talk my clients into proposing legislation so as not to be caught in the lee of other proposals.

To me, as a now-retired health care lobbyist in Oregon, I would contend that hospitals and health insurers aren’t all bad, as often is contended by their opponents at the Capitol in Salem. But stories like the one KGW-TV uncovered often resonate for awhile and make it difficult to contend that one’s clients are trying to do the right thing.

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.

Recent stories about corporate behemoth Amazon and its search for a second headquarters location beyond Seattle got me to thinking about the “economic development” business.

I was heavily involved in that enterprise for the State of Oregon in the late 1980s when I served as deputy director of the Economic Development Department, now called “Business Oregon.”

Of course, we never had as a big a quarry as Amazon, with its pledge to invest about $5 billion, and to create about 50,000 new jobs in a second headquarters, jobs that would pay in the range of $100,000 each.

In Oregon, we had far smaller targets.

Should a government be involved in business recruitment? It’s an often-controversial subject.

Some believe the private sector should fend for itself without any support from government, except, perhaps, in the permit-issuing business – at least considering whether to issue one, not whether to help a business wade through the quagmire of many permitting processes.

Others believe government has an important role to play in enticing businesses to consider locating in a state, county or a city, or, in the case of existing business, encouraging expansion in the same areas.

For us in the Oregon Economic Development Department, encouraging economic development was an important government function.

We felt it was entirely appropriate to be involved in business recruitment, as long as we also emphasized helping existing businesses remain in Oregon and cope with often-intense government regulations.

The matter of government providing incentives – including tax incentives to spur location or expansion — is even more controversial.

I remember a time in Oregon when economic development officials –it was after I left the department and became a lobbyist – went to the Legislature to gain approval for a list of incentives that would, among other things, have the potential to entice Intel to expand in Oregon.

Consider what happened.

Intel took advantage of the incentives and, as a result, is now one of the largest employers in the state. Its huge investments here also ripple out to suppliers and other economic resources in and around Washington County.

Without the incentives, Intel would have gone elsewhere.

Plus, one fact often lost as critics raise their voices about economic development is the incredible benefit of the income taxes all of the employees pay – income taxes that help to finance needed services, including K-12 schools, higher education, and public safety.

In my day, when we were recruiting businesses to Oregon and aiding existing companies with expansion prospects, one of the major questions revolved around the character and quality of school systems.

Not taxes.

Of course, we helped companies analyze taxes, but it was usually more important for company executives and employees to understand schools, including perceptions of their quality – schools that would be attended by the children of employees.

Back for a moment to Amazon.

Critics of decisions by East Coast cities – New York and Northern Virginia — to attract Amazon say some officials involved in development proposals expanded non-disclosure agreements beyond what a company even requested.

Companies seeking tax breaks and other incentives often require local officials to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of economic-development deals to protect confidential, proprietary information. The secrecy is intended to avoid alerting employees, competitors and would-be land speculators of potential development, as well as to protect private company information.

If you think about it only for a moment, protecting confidential company information makes eminent sense.

One of the risks now is that legislators who know nothing about economic development other than their opposition to it will press requirements to avoid incentives.

Too bad for those jurisdictions taken out of the game.

Cities, counties and states will lose if they don’t play in the game. And they will not be able to count on the new jobs and the taxes those job-holders pay.

To economic development opponents, I say, “Look at the jobs and the taxes that flow from those jobs.” That will provide a more complete picture of the worth of the supporting economic development.

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 we reflect on just having come through another Thanksgiving Day, I hope that every day would be a day for giving thanks.

Tough aspiration, especially given the difficult conditions many citizens face these days, not to mention various plights in our country.

But, from a simple perspective, I have two thoughts to help make every day special.

1. Say thanks to someone every day

I learned this from one my mentors in state government, Fred Miller, then director of the Executive Department. He practiced the art of expressing personal appreciation to someone every day for work they had done from which he benefitted.

It was a good practice, one I have tried to mimic. If you think about it, there are lots of people you could thank because they helped you achieve an objective, or just expressed words of appreciation and hope to you in every day life.

2. Do something nice for someone every day

In addition to expressing thanks, a second act would be for you to do something nice for someone every day. There are a lot of simple tasks that would boost someone’s day.

Just two simple tasks. Neither requires much deep thought or time-consuming action. But both can be important statements for how you live your d

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, remember, is one of three departments I run with a totally free hand to do what I want to do, which reminds me of “our” president, Donald Trump.

Like me, he considers himself to be a dictator, except that his assumed dictatorship applies to the entire country and perhaps even the world.

And I put quote marks around the word “our” as in “our president” because I don’t want to claim him even if, to put a point on it, “I respect the office of the president.” I don’t respect him.

So, here goes with Bits and Pieces.

From the Wall Street Journal: The vote recount, now over in Florida, has focused scrutiny again on election processes on the Democrat stronghold of Broward County.

Republicans said the delays plaguing several steps in the counting constitute wrongdoing and suggest the county elections office was guilty of fraud. The election officials said they were guilty of nothing.

The closeness of the election, lengthy recount and legal disputes have come to serve as a national reminder of Florida’s last election debacle—the 2000 presidential recount, which came to an end through intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court and left George W. Bush with a 537-vote victory, and the presidency.

Comment: My view is that, until elections are run properly, all votes from Broward County should be thrown out. That would mean that some innocent citizens would lose their franchise, but better that than to allow tainted results. Plus, the predictable and warranted outcry from the disenfranchised would help to speed needed reform.

From the Wall Street Journal: Consider this headline…”Tech Firms Should Face Thoughtful Regulation.”

Say what?

No, I am in favor of “unthoughtful” regulation. Why one of the best newspapers in the country, the Wall Street Journal, would write such a headline defies explanation.

Oh well, the Journal is on target most of the time.

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post: Both newspapers have been all over the dust-up between President Trump and CNN reporter Jim Acosta.

Comment: I wrote about this in a separate blog the other day, so I’ll just repeat briefly what I said then. Both Trump and Acosta deserve each other. Both like to preen before the cameras, seeking the high ground, if there is high ground to be sought.

Since I believe the First Amendment is not up for grabs on this set-to, I say let the two of them go at each other. No one will win and that includes all of us who depend, to some degree, on a vigilant and insightful media. To me, Acosta is not part of that, so forget him in all his preening and posturing.

The Wall Street Journal: Columnist Andy Kessler wrote the other day that, for many businesses, meetings are a means to an end. He posited that, if a result could not be achieved in five meetings, then it was not worth proceeding.

That sparked a retort from a letter to the editor writer who said this:

“We and our clients refer to most meetings as “group grope,” and our research indicates clearly that over 80 per cent of meetings involving more than three people produce nothing for improved business results. Coincidentally, when you look around the room at most such meetings this failed approach to business is revealed by catatonic stares, late arrivals, early departures, silent participants and individual grandstanding, all of which increase dramatically beginning with the second meeting on any given subject that would have been nicely solved during the first meeting with the right two to three individuals present.”

Comment: In business – or in government, for that matter — it’s easy to criticize a tendency to book more and more meetings. Meetings without clear agendas are, in fact, a waste of time.

But, if you have clear agendas, plus other disciplines such as starting and ending on time, there is a purpose to meetings. If nothing else, they spark needed, first-hand communications with staff members who will be assigned to implement any decision, so better they have context provided through meetings, not just off-the-cuff assignments.

Speaking of timeliness, one of my mentors in state government, Fred Miller, then the director of the Executive Department, held “Cabinet Meetings,” because the governor was often out-of-town or too busy with political activity to do so. I was in charge of developing the agendas for the meetings, which, given the number of state agencies – more than 100 – occurred three times a week.

A key point: Miller started every meeting on time, no matter if no one was there – or, more accurately, if compulsive late-comers were not in the room. When those late-comers arrived, it was up to them to get up to speed.

So, for me, meetings are not all bad and it is artificial to suggest that there is any magic with one meeting or five meetings. If managed well, including with clear start and end times, meetings are a means to a desirable end.

From the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post: Both newspapers gave a lot of space to the Twitter tensions between President Trump and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Trump accused some judges of being “Obama” judges when they turned thumbs down on some of his attempts to control the Mexico and California borders confronted by an “immigrant caravan.”

Roberts pushed back, saying judges had been appointed by a number of presidents, so should not be described by presidential labels.

Comment: In this coverage, I was struck by this quote.

“Despite the endless decades of rhetoric about ‘judicial activism,’ judges at the district court level are generally a timid lot when it comes to confronting presidents. Historically, they are inclined to do what former federal judge Nancy Gertner calls ‘duck, avoid and evade.’”

Why did this strike me? Well, it called to mind one of my previous blogs, which pointed out that many lobbyists like me practiced the arts of “dodging, bobbing, and weaving” – all different skills, if you think about it for a moment. All were used to stay out of useless tensions.

So, I how have another way to describe these often useful tactics: “Duck, avoid and evade.” I like my list better, but both will suffice to help avoid “friendly fire.”

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 that headline strikes you as a bit presumptuous, good. It is.

I have no business thinking I will ever be in charge of government, either at the state or federal levels and either by appointment or election. Plus, I am retired. But I do have a few prescriptions for what should constitute good government.

So, here goes.

1. Good government should be marked by asking one important question: Is there a role for government in regard to this problem and, if there is, how should a government response be designed to achieve the desired result?

Too often, this question is not asked, much less answered. Thus, we have to pay for government solutions to every problem. Does government have a role in some cases? By all means, yes. But not all cases.

Asking this hard question and providing a fact-based answer is first step toward good government.

2. Good government should be about promises kept, not just promises made.

Making promises is easy. Keeping them is hard. But if promises are just talk, then why listen? Make promises, then keep them.

Let me add one clarification here. If a candidate makes a promise on the campaign trail or an agency head makes a promise in running a program, then finds out he or she cannot fulfill that promise, tell the public the truth. In straightforward facts, describe why a promise cannot be kept. That clarity builds credibility.

3. Good government should be about achieving results, not just proposing them.

The “promises kept” and “results” items may seem similar. And, I suppose they are. But they also are different, which warrants me, the Bits and Pieces Department director, to give them both standing.

In his Wonder Land column, Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger (also deputy editor of the Journal’s editorial page) put it this way in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election two years ago:

“…..Democrats disconsolate since the election about the loss of hope in American politics leave the impression they believe that giving people the rhetoric of hope, lifting them with words, is more important than delivering results, which some might call change.”

Results matter. Measure those who serve in elected or appointed office by the results they achieve, not the results they promise and don’t achieve.

Or, if by some chance, if results don’t materialize, elected or major appointed officials could add to their credibility by “admitting” the failure and explain why it occurred.

4. Good government should be about the search for middle ground, not extremes in public policy.

Too often, government these days is about the ability to win at all costs. Call the other side stupid. Impose your will.

Consider the Affordable Health Care Act, which came to be called ObamaCare, in many ways an opt moniker because the new federal entitlement did not produce affordability.   The program was imposed by Obama and his Democrat supporters in Congress without one Republican vote – and this was not because Republicans were just opposed to Obama. It was because the Act was an over-the-top, one-size-fits-all, government-run prescription for health care in America.

Was it all bad? Of course not. Millions of Americas got health coverage as part of new government spending, but at what cost? A huge spike upward in health premiums, both for those newly on a government program, as well as those in the private sector. After all, some one had to pay for all the new health care coverage.

The better answer on health care and any other pressing public policy challenge is to legislate from the middle. Work with reasonable elected officials on both sides of the political aisle – yes, there are some — to develop real health care reform for ALL Americans.

5. Good government should be about ethical and honest behavior, not bending the truth.

This seems far from the case today. A government by and for the people should be honest in its approach to the “people” – us.

Conclusion: These prescriptions might not always make good sound bites. But they do make good government.

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 words in this blog headline capture my views, ones I never thought I would render — turning my back on a member of the media, given my own background as a newspaper reporter.

But that’s just what CNN’s Jim Acosta deserves – a turned back.

He and President Donald Trump are, to use an image, birds of a feather. Both like to preen before the camera as they try to gain what they consider to be the high ground, no matter its depth.

Make no mistake, a free press is not at stake in the back and forth between Trump and Acosta. Smart journalists will act like grown-ups as they assertively cover the news or opine on its effects. They won’t be affected by scurrilous public officials like Trump who try to make it difficult for them to do their jobs.

Acosta made news recently because the White House took away his White House media access card because of his over-the-top conduct in a presidential press conference. He refused to stick with one question, then would not give up the microphone in order to pass it on to other questioners.

After a few days, the White House had to restore the pass when a court issued a preliminary ruling saying that President Trump had no authority to revoke it.

There will be those who contend that Acosta got cross-wise with Trump’s White House because he, Acosta, disagreed with Trump. And perhaps there may be a germ of truth there because we all know Trump cannot tolerate dissent because he thinks he always is the smartest person in the room, even, in this case, smarter than Acosta.

Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn went on record this week, with this headline, “A CNN suit claiming a constitutional right to a press pass will inevitably backfire.”

McGurn continued.

“Nobody contests Jim Acosta’s right to be a jerk in front of a TV camera.”

“In the federal courts, however, Acosta and his employer, CNN, are now arguing that Donald Trump owes him a White House stage, as well. Taking away his hard pass, the claim goes, violates both First Amendment speech rights and Fifth Amendment guarantees of due process. What Acosta’s cheerleaders don’t seem to appreciate is that elevating a government pass into a constitutional fight will prove a loser in the long run, especially for television outlets such as CNN.

“Even the judge who issued a temporary restraining order Friday that restored Acosta’s pass said he was ruling narrowly and wasn’t pretending to adjudicate the First Amendment claims. David Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer who has served in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office, calls Acosta’s legal case ‘patently absurd’ and notes that, while valuable, a White House pass is not a matter of constitutional right but of a sensible accommodation.

“To believe otherwise would mean that he (Acosta) is entitled to his White House pass, to travel with the president, to be able to participate in White House press conferences and to be able to pose questions to White House officials and that none of these policies, including being able to pose questions, can be changed without some form of due process,” McGurn wrote, quoting Rivkin.

Based on my background – including as a journalist and as a lobbyist – I have mixed emotions about press conferences.

If they are handled with honesty and aplomb on all sides – including those who ask questions and those who answer them — then they provide useful access to top government officials. But, as in the case of Acosta, those asking the questions may pose too many in a row, seemingly opting for the limelight instead of displaying decorum. At that point, usefulness goes away.

Back many years ago, when I worked for many years for the late Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh, press conferences were a means to an end – the end being the Atiyeh’s “availability” to be questioned.

Victor, as we called the governor when we were not in public, didn’t much like “pressers,” but he handled the task with skill. He knew he was “making himself available to the media.” He much preferred one-on-one interviews, but there was not enough time for that to be the only access to Atiyeh, who, by the way, 35 years ago or so, was the last Republican governor in Oregon.

Back to the White House and Acosta.

In this case, we have two people competing for the upper hand, with neither appearing to give an inch.

It helps to remember that the press corps works at the White House out of mutual convenience. The physical presence is particularly crucial for television news. The illusion of intimacy and authority conveyed by filming inside the White House grounds is why each network has a camera stationed on the little strip on the driveway leading to the West Wing.

Imagine what it would mean if TV reporters had to broadcast from outside the fence. This would be what McGurn called “the nuclear option.” And if it were to go down this path, the Trump White House would certainly make itself look besieged and as if it had something to hide, which, of course, may actually be true.

McGurn posits that there are a number of responses that would render Acosta’s restored pass a hollow victory for the White House press. Trump, for example, could simply stop calling on Acosta and others from major media outlets. Or, he could exercise his own speech rights and not hold any press conferences at all.

Or, he could do something he raised Sunday in an interview with Fox News, which is to turn off the cameras that show the reporters. This echoes an idea floated by the former press secretaries for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

This wouldn’t do anything to stop the hot-dogging at pressers featuring the president. It would, however, kill the incentive for showboating at the daily briefings. Again, it is the television press that stands to lose most, especially if Trump were to couple moving daily briefings off camera with holding few or no press conferences himself.

As for the White House, McGurn says it too has incentives to reconsider how best to handle the Acosta situation. “It might start by recognizing Acosta’s arrogance and narcissism as a gift. However much President Trump may accuse the ‘fake news media’ of bias and rail against its unfairness, this pales next to the public preening spectacle of Acosta himself, a living, breathing example of why so many Americans don’t trust reporters to tell the truth.

“In this sense, the White House might be wiser to keep Acosta exactly where he is. Why not, for example, have the president tell Acosta, ‘Jim, you can ask as many questions as you like’ and allow him to turn the press conferences into “The Jim Acosta Hour”? Then, see how much support Acosta enjoys among other White House reporters who have good questions they don’t get to ask because CNN’s correspondent hogged the mike.”

So, in the end, I’d say let Acosta be himself, let nobody contest his right to be a jerk in front of a TV camera.

Or, to, to put it another way, let two jerks – Trump and Acosta — be themselves. They deserve each other.

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 many of us, every day should be a day of thanksgiving as we remember all we have and enjoy in this rich country, including, most importantly, the benefits of family and faith.

The country also faces a variety of discords, nowhere more evident than in politics where I plied my trade as a lobbyist for nearly 40 years before retirement.

It’s easy these days for me to focus on these discords because, if for no other reason, they are so evident as all sides compete for time and attention, often with no apparent respect for others. It’s always win at all costs.

So, on this Thanksgiving Day, I choose to go beyond politics and list some facts for which I very thankful, one of which is that I live in this country.

I am thankful for:

• My wife who agreed to marry me some 45 years ago and is the light of my life every day.
• Our children – son Eric and daughter Lissy – who have made our lives rich.
• Our extended family, Eric’s wife, Holly, and three grandchildren, Drew, Mason and Kate, who give us pleasure every day.
• My friends – many of whom I met on a golf course – who give me a solid base of friendship beyond “just” golf by nurturing relationships.
• My personal relationship with God, through his son, Jesus Christ, which gives me hope for today and for the future.
• The fact that I have lived – for more than 70 years now – in a country that, for all its faults and fissures, provides freedom and ability “to profit” from real work.

On this Thanksgiving Day, the Wall Street Journal is running again an editorial that has appeared every year since 1961. It is an excellent recitation of the virtues of this country, America.

Its key paragraph is a follows:

“For all our social discord, we yet remain the longest enduring society of free men governing themselves without benefit of kings or dictators.”

Here are more excerpts from a solid editorial.

“Any one whose labors take him into the far reaches of the country, as ours lately have done, is bound to mark how the years have made the land grow fruitful.

“This is indeed a big country, a rich country, in a way no array of figures can measure and so, in a way, past belief of those who have not seen it. Even those who journey through its Northeastern complex, into the Southern lands, across the central plains and to its Western slopes can only glimpse a measure of the bounty of America.

“And a traveler cannot but be struck on his journey by the thought that this country, one day, can be even greater. America, though many know it not, is one of the great underdeveloped countries of the world; what it reaches for exceeds by far what it has grasped.

“So the visitor returns thankful for much of what he has seen, and, in spite of everything, an optimist about what his country might be. Yet the visitor, if he is to make an honest report, must also note the air of unease that hangs everywhere.

“For the traveler, as travelers have been always, is as much questioned as questioning. And for all the abundance he sees, he finds the questions put to him ask where men may repair for succor from the troubles that beset them.

“His countrymen cannot forget the savage face of war. Too often, they have been asked to fight in strange and distant places, for no clear purpose they could see and for no accomplishment they can measure. Their spirits are not quieted by the thought that the good and pleasant bounty that surrounds them can be destroyed in an instant by a single bomb. Yet, they find no escape, for their survival and comfort now depend on unpredictable strangers in far-off corners of the globe.

“How can they turn from melancholy when at home they see young arrayed against old, black against white, neighbor against neighbor, so that they stand in peril of social discord. Or, not despair when they see that the cities and countryside are in need of repair, yet find themselves threatened by scarcities of the resources that sustain their way of life. Or, when, in the face of these challenges, they turn for leadership to men in high places—only to find those men as frail as any others.

“So, sometimes the traveler is asked what will preserve their abundance, or even their civility? How can they pass on to their children a nation as strong and free as the one they inherited from their forefathers? How is their country to endure these cruel storms that beset it from without and from within?

“Of course the stranger cannot quiet their spirits. For it is true that everywhere men turn their eyes today much of the world has a truly wild and savage hue. No man, if he be truthful, can say that the specter of war is banished. Nor can he say that when men or communities are put upon their own resources they are sure of solace; nor be sure that men of diverse kinds and diverse views can live peaceably together in a time of troubles.

“But we can all remind ourselves that the richness of this country was not born in the resources of the earth, though they be plentiful, but in the men that took its measure. For that reminder is everywhere—in the cities, towns, farms, roads, factories, homes, hospitals, schools that spread everywhere over that wilderness.

“We can remind ourselves that for all our social discord we yet remain the longest enduring society of free men governing themselves without benefit of kings or dictators. Being so, we are the marvel and the mystery of the world, for that enduring liberty is no less a blessing than the abundance of the earth.”

Good, optimistic words. So, I read them, plus reflect on my own reasons for being thankful – better pursuits than focusing on the failures and fissures of politics.

The bottom line: Be thankful for all we have. Focus on that on this Thanksgiving Day.

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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 lawmakers in Oregon head for Salem soon for the 2019 “long legislative session,” it is a good time to repeat advice I have given earlier – a list of questions elected officials should ask before they move ahead on any individual piece of legislation.

The four questions listed below are ones frequently ignored as legislators consider the thousands of bills introduced every session in Salem.

While not magic answers, asking and answering these questions would produce better government.

So, here they are:

What is the specific problem for which a proposed policy or action is deemed to be the solution?

This question is seldom raised or even discussed. Yet, it should be. Too often, the introduction of a bill is done for just that reason and none other – getting it printed. Legislators then tell constituents they have acted on their behalf. Action, in this case, is just getting a bill printed and that process alone, when you add up totals for thousands of individual bills, costs thousands of dollars of staff time for the attorneys who draft all bills.

Is there an appropriate role for government to play?

This is an even more basic question that tests another often-ignored issue: Whether there is the role of government? Government should not insert itself into every issue. So, the best answer to this question could be “no,” though, of course, “yes” is a justifiable answer, as well. But, the question is rarely asked or answered.

If there is a role for government, what does the state expect to get for the money it is spending? In other words, what is the expected return on investment?

Return on investment often is a foreign concept in the halls of the legislature. But the concept should be considered in the sense of subjecting government programs – old ones and new ones – to a key test: What results do they achieve? If they don’t produce results, they should be discontinued.

In fact, in social services law in Oregon, the first instance of the use of the return on investment notion in private contracting law occurred in the 2011 legislative session when lawmakers passed and the governor signed Senate Bill 964, now ORS 418.190-195.

It requires programs that contract with state government on foster care issues to produce results or lose the contracts.

In terms of full disclosure, I was the prime advocate for the bill on behalf of my firm’s client, Youth Villages, which said on the record that it would be happy to compete for government contracts under the new policy if it were to be enacted.

At the time, I would have hoped that the officials at the Department of Human Services would support the proposition because, if nothing else, it would help end contracts that were not performing effectively. But, no, we were able to pass the proposition only over the objections of the agency.

How will government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state depends to fund government?

This, too, is seldom discussed, at least at the initiative of legislators. Lobbyists for some consumer groups raise the question. So do lobbyists for business. But both often fall on deaf ears. Yet, legislators rely on taxpayers to help keep government afloat.

I like what Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, wrote in a Wall Street Journal piece several years ago.

“We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise.  We have to let them compete.  We need to let people fight for business.  We need to let people take risks.  We need to let people fail.  We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions.  And, we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

         “That is what economic freedom looks like.  Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or to do nothing.  People understand this.  Freedom of speech, for example, means that we have to put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular.  We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.       

         “But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles or growth and loss, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

         “Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedom through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations.  We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it.  We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws.  We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved.  Each time, we demand, “Do something…anything.”

Using good words, Bush was advocating a posture that said government always should assess the effect of its actions on private citizens, often allowing those citizens to rise, not be confined by excessive government regulation.

Asking and answering the questions I have outlined above, with the spirit of the Bush quote as a backdrop, would go a long way toward creating appropriate limitations on the role of government, both in Oregon and nationally.

It also would make government better. So, I say to legislators as they arrive in Salem after the first of the year, ask the right questions and don’t be afraid to answer logically and honestly! Doing so will benefit all of those who depend on government “to get it right.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

One reality I have never understood and will never understand is the disdain with which President Donald Trump treats military service personnel, including genuine American heroes.

It appears he thinks they are the enemy.

Hard on the heels of Veterans’ Day, Trump has gone nuclear again.

This time, he lofted substantial criticism of former Seal Team Six commander, retired Admiral Bill McRaven, suggesting that McRaven should have caught Osama Bin Laden sooner.

Of course, the fact that it was not McRaven’s job to find Bin Laden didn’t matter to Trump who, as usual, avoid facts and context. It was McRaven’s job, once Bin Laden was located by the Central Intelligence Agency, to do what he did, which was lead the effort to rid the world of this terrorist.

Leon Panetta who was CIA director during the bin Laden raid and later served as secretary of defense, said Trump owed an apology to McRaven and to all of those in the military and intelligence agencies who played a role in tracking down bin Laden and carrying out the risky raid into Pakistan. He called Trump’s remark “patently ridiculous.”

On top of that, McRaven also led Seal Team Six to capture former Iraq leader Saddam Hussein.

For these and other demonstrations of true, expert and sacrificial leadership, McRaven deserves the country’s thanks, not derision from the president.

Trump didn’t care about his sleights of McRaven. They only came on top of other slams against the military, which Trump, at least on paper, leads as commander in chief.

Other examples:

• Incredibly, Trump criticized the late Senator Jon McCain because he, Trump, said he respects military service personnel “who don’t get captured.”
• Incredibly, on the most recent Veterans’ Day, Trump failed to participate in ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery to mark the service of those who died defending the country. What did he say? That he was “too busy.”
• Incredibly, Trump has sent thousands of active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out those participating in what he calls a “caravan.” The fact that Trump’s initial action came shortly before the November 6 mid-term election struck a number of observers as nothing more than a political stunt.

All of this makes even less because Trump never served a minute in the military. Selfless service to his country was not in his makeup. Never was. Never will be.

As a narcissist, it’s all about aggrandizing himself at the expense of others.

My views are that, (a) Trump owes the late Senator McCain an apology, even though McCain will never hear it in person…his family will: (b) Trump owes McRaven an apology, though he, Trump, will never offer it; and (c) Trump should visit Arlington National Cemetery if only to reflect on the sacrifice and service of so many which, irony of ironies, have benefited Trump and others who live and work in a free society.