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.

Going back to the confirmation process for William Barr as attorney general of the United States, I found two irksome developments in what occurred a few weeks ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Both relate, no doubt, to my own background as an Oregon state agency manager and, while I am in no way comparing my service to that of Barr, Democrat senators in Congress went out of their way to be irksome.

Here are the two developments:

MAKING THE MUELLER REPORT PUBLIC: The special counsel regulations call for investigator Robert Mueller to provide the attorney general with a “confidential report,” explaining who he did and did not decide to prosecute, and for the attorney general (who, after the Senate votes today, will be Barr) to notify Congress of the investigation’s end and of any steps Mueller wanted to take that were vetoed.

Further, according to the Washington Post, the regulations give Barr some latitude to release information publicly, though did note at his confirmation hearing that, under normal circumstances, prosecutors would not reveal information about those they chose not to charge.

Irking some lawmakers, he declined to guarantee he would release Mueller’s findings in full, though he has vowed to be as transparent as possible.

That solid answer prompted Democrats to rail against Barr, suggesting that he would try to keep the Mueller report confidential.

But, all Barr said was that he would adhere to the regulations governing the Mueller report, including the specification that parts of it would be confidential.

THE MERITS OF STAFF ADVICE: The second irksome incident also involved Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who came across, to me, as holier-than-thou.

They asked Barr whether he would automatically follow advice from the Department of Justice Ethics Office if staff there said it would be best for Barr as AG to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller probe.

In clear terms, Barr said no. He said he would consider the advice, then make his own decision – which is exactly what he should do as attorney general.

Staff members don’t run the agency; the AG does.

In these two irksome developments, it struck me that Democrats were trying to find any excuse to oppose Barr who, based on his long record of public and private service, is imminently qualified to be AG.

The Senate Democrat questions and positions also indicate that most of them know next to nothing about managing large bureaucracies.  They want to score political points, not allow Executive Branch managers to manage.

Fortunately, the Senate is is led by qualified leaders, not “searching for something” Democrats.  That’s why Barr will be confirmed later today.

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 reporter for a daily newspaper in Oregon – not to mention serving as press secretary for an Oregon congressman and an Oregon governor – I have had a huge dose of questions about how the media covers Donald Trump, or, perhaps, should cover him.

Of course, it’s challenge, given Trump’s unpredictable, if not impulsive, behavior. And his continuing diversion to his Twitter account makes it even more difficult for reporters and editors to separate the wheat from the chaff.

At some points along the way of the last two years of Trump, I have advocated that the media just ignore the Trump tweets. Are they really “news?” I don’t think so.

They are just Trump’s attempt to divert the media from covering real news in the Trump Administration and Congress. If he calls Senator Elizabeth Warren a name via tweet, as he did again yesterday, then that becomes a news story.

Sorry. It shouldn’t be.

What would make more sense is for reporters and editors to focus, or example, on the attempt in Congress to broker a way to avoid another government shutdown. Many of the real journalists have done just that as the vote approaches on a compromise to avoid another disaster.

In a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal, journalist and author, Jill Abramson, asked a basic question: “Will the media ever figure out how to cover Trump? “

She adds this paragraph:

“The news media’s collective shock that Donald Trump won in 2016 was evidence of how out of touch most reporters were with the less affluent, less educated, rural parts of the country, where white voter rage galvanized into votes that made him the 45th president. In the days after the election, there was anguished self-examination in many newsrooms and vows to cover the parts of the United States that had been mistakenly overlooked.

“But more than two years later, the same question bedevils journalism: Can our tribe cover their tribe?”

Now, it is true that, shortly after publication of her piece in the Wall Street Journal, Abramson’s reputation was sullied a bit based on a charge that she had plagiarized portions of her book.

No way for me to know whether the charge is true, but true or not, Abramson has what I consider to be good advice for the media.

“There is little evidence,” she writes, “that reporters have fulfilled their pledge to report on and reflect the interests and values of the people who voted for Trump. There have been some good dispatches from the heartland, but too often what is published amounts to the proverbial ‘toe touch in Appalachia.’”

Abramson said was “powerfully moved by a recent article in the New Yorker about journalism by LBJ biographer Robert Caro.” He described how he couldn’t really understand President Lyndon B. Johnson’s native Texas Hill Country until he and his wife actually moved there from New York City for three years. The locals had a derisive name for the reporters who parachuted in and out: “Portable journalists,” they called them.

Quoting Abramson further: “The rhythm of the Internet has made spending a week reporting a story a rare luxury. But our cocooning on the liberal coasts has intensified because of other factors in the past decade. One is the virtual disappearance of local newspapers, their business models irrevocably broken by the disappearance of print advertising.

“With the possible exception of the Wall Street Journal, the most influential national papers reflect the values of the cities where they are headquartered, New York and Washington.

“Reporters who have contracts with MSNBC and CNN sometimes appear on panels, wedged between Democratic partisans and prosecutors who have already judged the president guilty of grave crimes. They blend and create an appearance of bias. It’s hard for viewers to keep them straight. Twitter is just an open invitation for politically inflamed hyperbole.”

One way out of the reactive cycle, Abramson says, is to report the story from the places where the pro-Trump and Trump-curious live, to cover the facts and truths of their lives.

Such real reporting – call it journalism – would help to understand the push and pull of America, not just the horse race in Washington, D.C. On some days, I wish I go back to being a reporter, knowing what I know now, in order to perform “real journalism.”

In the years since I functioned as a reporter, the news business has changed – dramatically. Social media now pervades everything, making the old “news cycle” about seconds long, instead of daily.

To be sure, that reality changes the news reporting business, but I also think it – the pervasive effect of social media – calls even more strongly for real journalists to return to their roots. Make tough decisions about constitutes “news” and cover real stories, not, again, the “horse race.”

We’d all be better for such an effort.

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 question in the headline is one I often ask as we watch the federal government continue to flounder in the Nation’s Capitol. And the floundering is due to immature juveniles on both sides, led by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who want to win for their base, the public be damned.

I also continue to wonder whether there is any real political space between the left wing nutcases and right wing fanatics. For examples of both, look no farther than Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the left and TV commentator Sean Hannity on the right — though I hate to use because, (a) he is not elected, and (b) all he wants is personal fame and controversy.

All the types of Cortez and Hannity want to do is advocate extreme positions and flog anyone else who advocates for meaningful compromise.

I continue to look for politicians who will avoid either left or right extremes and endeavor to find the middle for the benefit of all Americans.

Part of this requires new perspectives on the part of Americans who vote. They should not support either high-sounding phrases from the left or low-sounding diatribes from the right. They should support reasonable efforts to find the smart middle.

At the moment, campaigning on the middle doesn’t work. Voters appears to want candidates to veer left or right, not advocate for compromise, so that’s one reason why I am looking for a centrist, even an independent who will work to capture and hearts and minds of Americans who want better for their country.

Here’s an example of what the left thinks and says, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal:

“Senator Kamala Harris of California reiterated at a nationally televised town hall last month that her co-sponsorship of Senator Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-For-All legislation would mean the abolition of private insurance. Five leading candidates also endorsed a Green New Deal that imposes a top-down revolution of American society to mitigate the impact of climate change.

“But, when you look at polls breaking down the actual Democratic electorate, you’ll find limited support for such socialist-minded schemes. Broaden out to the overall electorate, and it’s easy to see how Democrats could be giving President Donald Trump a lifeline to a second term despite his widespread unpopularity.

“’We are on an out-of-control roller-coaster going 100 miles per hour, and we have no functioning brake,’ said one liberal Democratic strategist who is alarmed by the rising tide of socialism within the party. ‘No one is leading, and that void could not be more clear.’”

So, when centrist Democrat Howard Schultz says he might run for president in 2020, many Democrats head the other way and suggest that all a centrist candidate like Schultz would do is shift votes to the right for Trump.

Meanwhile, the far right is no better than the far left.

The right, perhaps motivated by the so-called “alt-right” popularized by former Trump staff member, Steve Bannon, calls for “rights of individuals vs. the power of the government.”

People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.

If not taken to an extreme, the notion of limited government is attractive to me, especially given the left’s predilection for more and more government.

But, when less government becomes a calling card for those advocating against anything from the middle, it becomes only far right fanaticism.

I say a pox on both sides. Neither the far left or the far right has the public interest at heart. All each wants to do is appeal to their bases so they can either remain in charge or vault from minority to majority.

Who suffers?

All of us do, at least those of us who hope politics where the goal is good decisions, not just popular decisions to extremists.

In other words, what about the centrists who operate just a bit right or left? They often see perspectives from both sides and are comfortable finding the middle.

And this footnote:  As I post this blog, the question circulating around Washington, D.C. is whether a compromise to avoid another government shutdown has a chance to get Trump’s vote.  Without knowing all the exact details, I salute the compromise.  It is exactly what compromise should be about.  No one wins everything.  No one loses everything.  You give and you get.  We’ll see in a few days whether Trump agrees.

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 United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal and Ancient (R & A) have developed new golf rules effective with the start of the 2019 year.

Good news. But the two golf-ruling bodies missed a bit on the new bunker rule (Rule #12).

Perhaps I am showing a bit of immodesty by deigning to critique the new rules, but, still, the language in the bunker rule perplexes me.

As the summary below indicates, the new rule is not all bad. But, including this statement – you are now allowed “to strike the sand in frustration and anger” – is weird.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the two excellent golf associations – they govern the game of golf around the world – would allow such a phrase to be included.

My friends at the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) told me that, if a player in an OGA tournament was seen “striking the sand in frustration and anger,” that player would receive either a two-stroke bad-conduct penalty or be disqualified.

All of this came to mind for me this morning as I read an article in my on-line edition of the Global Golf Post (GGP).

According to the GGP, the following is not allowed in a bunker – and all prohibitions sound familiar for those of us who try to avoid the sand, but sometimes reach it:

• Grounding your club immediately in front of or behind the ball
• Making a practice swing that touches sand
• Touching the sand in making a back swing
• Taking any other action purposely to test the condition of the sand

Also, according to the GGP, the following is now allowed in the sand:

• Putting clubs down in a bunker
• Touching the sand accidentally
• Raking the bunker to take care of the course
• Striking the sand in anger and frustration

And, one other major change has been ruled by the USGA and the R &A. It is that, if you are in the sand and don’t want to hit your next shot from there, you are now allowed to remove your ball from the bunker and drop it outside the bunker on a line between where the ball was and where the hole is.

To do this, you would take a two-stroke penalty, which could strike some amateur golfers as welcome relief from a bunker.

The fact that I am focusing on this will strike some as strange. It indicates two things: (1) I love golf and love focusing on the arcane rules of the sport, which exist in substantial detail if only because the game is played outdoors on large tracts of land, not inside a stadium or pavilion; and (b) I don’t have much else to do in retirement.

So, if you are in bunkers as you play golf, take advantage of the new rules and, as pro golfer Sergio Garcia did a week ago in a tournament in Saudi Arabia, feel free to “strike the sand in anger and frustration.”

Seriously, learn to play out of the sand so you are not tempted to take the two-stroke penalty to get out.

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.

Many of us in Oregon – elected officials, appointed officials and lobbyists alike – have been down the health care policy road many times.

We took that road to do what many other states did not do, which was to reform health care, not by a major re-write, but by incremental steps that improved the landscape. Many of the steps of progress occurred under the leadership of former Oregon governor John Kitzhaber, an emergency room physician by training.

Kitzhaber was good at the policy development process, though he tended to sully many of his solid achievements by the way he left office under a cloud a few years ago.

Well, health care policy – or at least a new proposal – made headlines in Salem last week.

Nearly 40 members of the Oregon Legislature introduced legislation, Senate Bill 770, which, they said, “would set the stage for universal health care in Oregon.”

There is little doubt but that the claim is overstated. As always, the devil will be in the details.

SB 770 would create a board and set up other components the proponents contend are necessary to establish the so-called “Health Care for Oregon Plan” to provide universal coverage throughout the state.
“Health care is a basic human necessity and it should be a right,” said Senator James Manning, D-Eugene, a chief co-sponsor of the bill. His definition of health care as a right has been proposed many times in the past, but never passed at the Capitol because, for one reason, the cost would be out of sight.

“We all need health care, and you can’t survive without it, “Manning added as he stated the obvious. “We’ve got to make sure that we get universal health care set up in Oregon so that none of us go bankrupt or die just because we get sick and don’t have health insurance.”

High-sounding and attractive words. I don’t know Senator Manning – he arrived in Salem after I retired – but I suspect he is genuine in his interests.

Among other provisions, SB 770 sets eligibility requirements for “Health Care for Oregon Plan.” According to a news release from the proponents, “those include being an Oregon resident, but those living outside the state who are employed full-time in Oregon also can use the program, if they pay into it. Immediate family members and dependents of qualifying individuals also will qualify, as the bill is written.”

During my 25 years as a state lobbyist, I focused on health care as a representative of various health care interests, especially Providence Health & Services, one of Oregon’s leading health care providers (which also has platforms in five other states).

One of my conclusions: Developing solid health care policy is VERY difficult.

Here are some of the important features of any new health care policy drive – features that would mark the difference between just words like “health care for all” and the fact of real improvements in providing increased health care services.

1. The first requirement is leadership from legislators with the chops to bring competing interests together to find middle ground. Though I have been gone from my lobby gig for a couple years, leadership does not strike as a frequent skill at the Capitol these days.
2. The second requirement is that right people need to be “in the room” to hammer out thoughtful proposals. For me back in the day, the best legislator at this was Neil Bryant, a centrist Republican from Bend who had the wherewithal to ask – read, demand – the right people to be in the room, plus tell those who did not want to compromise to stay away. Of course, whatever emerged from what was called “a work group” would have to pass public muster in public on the floors of the Senate and the House, as well as in the Governor’s Office.
3. The third requirement is implied above. Those in the room had to be willing to compromise – to give on some points, and to get on some other points. That’s the definition of compromise. No one side wins. Many today believe that compromise involves one capitulating to the other. No. It’s middle ground.
4. The fourth requirement is that there should be a focus on cost. Often, those on the left avoid considering costs believing that government should pay the bill, even though that means all of as taxpayers will be hit in our wallets.
5. The fifth requirement is that there should be a focus on methods by which citizens gain access to health care. And that means going back to cost issues, as well as assuring that there are enough qualified providers to do the job.

Instead of just uttering high-sounding phrases designed to make headlines, I wish legislators at the Capitol would focus on making new law that works, or, if they are not able to do so, avoid passing something based on just words and not meaningful action.

Too much to expect? Probably.

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 have told this story before, forgive me.

But, for me, the following account says volumes.

The issue occurred back in the late 1980s when I worked as press secretary for Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh. At the time, the Atiyeh Administration was interested in doing what it could to help Oregon businesses save or create jobs.

Perhaps the help would involve aiding businesses travel through complex government permit programs.

Or, in major cases, it might involve deciding whether to offer businesses – such as, for example, Intel Corporation – tax abatement programs that would enable the job creation. Of course, though some question such offers, the good news is that, once created, new job-holders would begin paying taxes to support important public services.

The Atiyeh Administration commitment led to an interest in publishing annual job retention or creation totals. So, as press secretary, I got a report from the Oregon Economic Development Department and prepared to release the information to the public and the media.

As I contemplated the task, I lost sleep over whether the report was accurate and would stand up under scrutiny from the media. I double-checked it, then released the information. There were no questions about the accuracy of the numbers we provided.

Now, for the second part of the story, which relates to the Trump Administration and how he or it releases information. Accuracy does not appear to part of the decision about what to release or how to frame the administration’s vaunted success.

All of this made its way heavily through the recent State of the Union address, or, as I have called it, the “State of Disunion” address.

As reported by the Washington Post’s “Fact-Checker” column, here are just a few of the cases when Trump inflated numbers, reported them out of context, or told downright lies:

“We have created 5.3 million new jobs and importantly added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs.”

Trump often inflates the number of jobs created under his presidency by counting Election Day, rather than when he took the oath of office. There have been almost 4.9 million jobs created since January 2017, of which 436,000 are manufacturing jobs.

“Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades.”

Wages rose 3.1 per cent from December 2017 to December 2018, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account. That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in December 2008.

But adjusted for inflation, wages for all workers grew 1.3 percent from December 2017 to December 2018, making the increase only the largest since August 2016, according to the Labor Department.

“Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps.”

About 3.6 million people (not nearly 5 million) have stopped receiving food stamps since February 2017. But experts say the improvement in the economy may not be the only reason for the decline.

Several states have rolled back recession-era waivers that allowed some adults to keep their benefits for longer periods of time without employment. Reports have also suggested immigrant families with citizen children have dropped out of the program, fearing the administration’s immigration policies. Moreover, the number of people collecting benefits has been declining since fiscal 2014.

“Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in half a century. African American, Hispanic American and Asian American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.”

This is all in the past. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rate had increased to 4 per cent in January. The unemployment rate in December had no longer been at a 49-year low, but an 18-year low. Now it was merely the best since the beginning of 2018.

“More people are working now than at any time in our history — 157 million.”

This is a pretty meaningless statistic. The U.S. population is growing, so of course more people would be employed.

“We virtually ended the estate, or death, tax on small businesses, ranchers and family farms.”

This is an enormous stretch. Trump often claims he saved family farms and small businesses by gradually reducing the federal estate tax. Reducing the estate tax primarily benefits the wealthy. The estate tax rarely falls on farms or small businesses, since only those leaving behind more than $5 million pay it. According to the Tax Policy Center, nearly 5,500 estates in 2017 — out of nearly 3 million — were subject to the tax. Of those, only 80 taxable estates would be farms and small businesses.

“We have unleashed a revolution in American energy — the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world.”

The notion that “a revolution” in energy began under the Trump administration is wrong. The United States has led the world in natural gas production since 2009. Crude oil production has been increasing rapidly since 2010, reaching record levels in August 2018.

“And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy.”

The United States has exported more energy than it has imported since 2015. Trump overstates the impact of his energy policy.

“Tens of thousands of innocent Americans are killed by lethal drugs that cross our border and flood into our cities, including meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl.”

Most drugs come into the United States across the southern border with Mexico. But a wall would not necessarily stanch the flow, as much of these drugs are smuggled through legal ports of entry or underground tunnels. Trump mentioned meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl, but leaves out that the death toll from drug abuse is mostly attributable to prescription and illicit drug overdoses, which claim more lives than cocaine and heroin overdoses combined.

“All Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before.”

As a raw number, this was correct in December (it dropped slightly in January), but it mainly reflects the increasing size of the U.S. population. The number of overall workers is also at a high. The more relevant figure — the labor participation rate of women — is not at a record high. It stands at 57.5 per cent, well below the 60.3 per cent reached in April 2000.

I’ll stop there, though the Post carried a number of additional examples of Trump fact-checking lapses.

I know the parallel to my situation in the Oregon Governor’s Office is a stretch, given the huge differences between a state policy on job retention or creation and federal policies governing international relations or the state of the country’s economy.

Still, if you listen to Trump, then check the accuracy of his statements, you end up believing he inflates, tells partial truths, or tells no truths. The reality appears to be that many politicians inflate or lie to be able to tell a better story. Not just Trump.

So, as always, I advocate for better leaders who tell stories straight and appeal to Americans on the basis of what they have done and the solid character traits underlining their actions.

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.

At first blush the phrase sounds great. Medicare for All. Who wouldn’t want more health care coverage?

But, upon reflection, the phrase is just that – a phrase without much detail about what it really means.

To many Democrats using the phrase, it means a fully government-run health care system that, among other things, would do away with private health insurance. Senator Kamala Harris, as she announced her campaign for president in 2020, relied heavily on Medicare for All because, like most on the left, she apparently believes the phrase will appeal to voters.

Disregard the price tag. In fact, don’t even mention the word price.

Several letters to the editor in the Wall Street Journal appear to understand that much more needs to be known before confirming support or opposition to Medicare for All. They were writing in response to piece the other day by Karl Rove that questioned the underpinnings of the new, proposed government program.

Here is a collection of points from the letters to the editor that appeared under the following headline and tag-line – and note that the letters are not just from opponents; they are from real citizens who want more information:

Let’s Think Through ‘Medicare for All’ First

It would be grossly unfair to the tens of millions of employees who have supported Medicare over decades to suddenly give it to those who have not paid anything into it.

Letter #1: Karl Rove (in the op-ed that ran in the Wall Street Journal January 31) doesn’t note that a very high percentage of those now receiving Medicare have paid for it up to 53 years through their FICA payroll deductions The payroll deduction is now a combined 2.9 per cent for employees and employers with an additional 0.9 per cent (for employees only) on wages above $200,000. Retirees continue to pay for it through a deduction from their Social Security benefits. It would be grossly unfair to the tens of millions of employees and tens of thousands of employers who have supported Medicare over decades to suddenly give it to those who have not paid anything into it.

Voters would be irate as well as terrified of the new sky-high taxes to cover the cost.

Charles Larson, Naples, Florida

Letter #2: Would you be in favor of a “Medicare for all” plan if it increased your taxes by 5 per cent? What if it also increased your wages by 15 per cent because your employer would no longer need to pay for your health insurance?

Pollsters can obtain any result they want by manipulating the survey questions. The fact is no one can accurately analyze the costs and benefits of a Medicare-For-All plan because the details of such a plan haven’t been worked out.

Would it, for example, replace Tricare, the current government health plan for military members and their families?

How would Veterans Affairs services fit in?

Would such a plan result in the extinction of private insurance companies or would they be allowed to participate, as they do now, by offering Medicare Advantage plans and managed-care Medicaid plans?

The proposal must first be described in detail so that its elements can be included in the analysis.

Robert Sommers, Ph.D., Jacksonville, Florida

Letter #3: Medicare is an 80/20 system, with the patient responsible for 20 per cent of the costs, which could be thousands of dollars for major surgery. Further, Medicare pays 80 per cent of what it considers reasonable and appropriate fees for medical services.

If the approved Medicare rate is less than what the provider charges, providers can refuse Medicare patients.

Medicare pays the doctor’s charge for your physical exams, but not the hundreds of dollars for diagnostic tests that determine if you have diabetes or high cholesterol. To protect yourself from some of those uncovered costs, you can buy a Medicare supplement insurance plan for hundreds of dollars a month, assuming such plans are still permitted under the Democrats’ proposals. Highlighting the individual costs of government-rationed health care, which it will be, will give voters a more realistic sense of the personal costs of these proposals before they vote.

Peter Coffey, Madison, Connecticut

Letter #4: Rove doesn’t explain why a single-payer equivalent of Medicare For All in Canada, Britain and other countries is affordable. He concludes by suggesting the 2020 election is a choice between “democratic socialism and free enterprise.” Democratic socialism exists happily side by side with free enterprise in countries such as Denmark. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Carl Eriksen, Indio, California

Letter #5: Rove claims that 10 years of Medicare for all could cost $32 trillion but neglects to mention current health-care outlays are $3.5 trillion annually now. In 2017, only 56 per cent of Americans had employer-provided health insurance—$19,600 is the national average for family plans and $6,800 for individuals.

Want to pay $20,000 a year with a $7,500 deductible for a family plan on a $65,000 salary or do you want an all-in plan where the costs are actually shared by all Americans? Give me the latter.

Richard Mertens, West Lafayette, Indiana

What these letters illustrate is that not much is really known about the catch-phrase, Medicare for All.

How would the new government program work? Could private insurance exist in any form? How much would the new program cost?

And, to borrow a phrase from former president Barack Obama as he advocated for his, “Affordable Health Care Act,” could you keep your doctor if you wanted to do so?

Who knows the answers to any of these questions? Before moving ahead on such a big-government programs, we ought to have the best possible answers. Then, with the answers, let the chips fall where they may, though I would hope that reasonable officials would work together to get the answers and make the final decisions on bases other than the sound of catch-phrases and perceptions from pollsters.

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 those who chose to watch the State of the Union address by President Donald Trump (I did, I admit), it could properly have been called “the State of Disunion.”

We saw a vivid display of what I call “the two Trumps.”

One reaches out to Democrats and Republicans, asking for joint work on major public policy issues facing this country.

The other Trump is one who practices what he said he decries, which is “revenge, resistance and retribution.” Those are just what he does nearly every day.

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat in the accustomed seat behind Trump, she was on camera as much as Trump was. It appeared she conducted herself with appropriate decorum most of the time, though she must have thought Trump was talking out of both sides of his mouth as he called for cooperation and conciliation, two traits he rarely, if ever, illustrates from day to day.

While I thought Pelosi conducted herself well in a hot seat, the Washington Post said “she smirked or shook her head, making her disagreement plain.” And, at one point, the way she clapped for a Trump line became an Internet sensation, for many observers believed she was ridiculing Trump, not applauding him.

And, as for the definition of the word compromise, it is not one side giving in totally to the other side. It is two sides working together to find the smart middle. Both sides give and get so that, often, the resulting compromise is not liked totally by all who produced it.

Trump, Pelosi and their crowds would do well to understand the real definition of compromise.

The clearest partisan moment of Trump’s 82-minute speech came when he warned the only thing that can stop the country from flourishing would be “foolish wars, politics or ridiculous partisan investigations.”

Putting aside the irony of Trump — who wanted to hire a private investigator to unearth Barack Obama’s birth certificate and encouraged chants of “Lock Her Up” referring to Hillary Clinton at his campaign rallies — making such a critique, it was also heard by many Democrats as a not-so-veiled threat for them to back off.

Guess what happened the next day in response? House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-California.) announced that he was pursuing a wide-ranging congressional probe into Trump’s ties with Russia, ranging from “Russia’s election interference to the question of whether foreign governments have leverage over Trump, his relatives or associates.” Schiff told reporters that he and other Democrats “were not going to be intimidated or threatened” by Trump.

So, how did Trump respond when hearing about Schiff’s plans? By reverting to his normal style of name-calling, referring to the nine-term congressman “a political hack who’s trying to build a name for himself” and calling it “presidential harassment.”

While some Republican elected officials and commentators lauded the State of the Union as being “presidential,” for Trump it appeared to be just another short episode in his day. One day he says one thing. The next day he says another thing that completely contradicts the first.

It’s the way he is and anyone who watched the State of the Union address this week saw the two Trumps.

It is impossible to rely on what he says. What he says could be true, I suppose, but usually he engages on one of three tactics – inflating statistics to make them reflect well on his performance, taking statistics out of context, or just downright lying.

Here’s are just two examples as pointed out after the speech by the Washington Post Fact-Checker column:

Trump said, “Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in half a century. African American, Hispanic American and Asian American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.”

Fact-Checker reports that this is all in the past. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that the unemployment rate had increased to 4 per cent in January. The unemployment rate in December had no longer been at a 49-year low, but an 18-year low. Now it was merely the best since the beginning of 2018.

The African American unemployment statistic has been in existence for less than 50 years. It reached a low of 5.9 per cent in May 2018, but had risen to 6.8 per cent in January. The Hispanic American unemployment statistic has been in existence for less than 50 years. It reached a low of 4.4 per cent in 2018, but had risen to 4.9 percent in January. The Asian American statistic has been around for less than 20 years. And while it reached a low of 2.1 percent in May 2018, it rose to 3.2 percent rate in January.

Trump also said, “More people are working now than at any time in our history — 157 million.”

This is an essentially meaningless statistic. The U.S. population is growing, so of course more people would be employed.

Overall, the Washington Post called Trump’s State of the Union a “dissonant” speech, suggesting that he appeared “to seek unity while depicting ruin.”

Here’s how the Post story began:

“President Trump confronted a split Congress for the first time Tuesday night by delivering a dissonant State of the Union address, interspersing uplifting paeans to bi-partisan compromise with chilling depictions of murder and ruin.

“Calling the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border ‘an urgent national crisis,’ Trump again called on Congress to approve construction of his long-promised wall — and argued that without the physical barrier, working-class Americans would lose their jobs and grapple with dangerous crime and overcrowded schools and hospitals.”

I suspect we are going to be stuck with two more years of Trump, unless the investigations he derides put him out of office first.

For me, there have been some policy gains during the Trump Administration, if only because, with a Republican in the Oval Office, there is less emphasis on big government to solve every perceived problem.

One commentator I read this morning called the State of the Union address “a masterpiece—for Trump’s purposes.” “Two chaotic years into his term,” the writer said, “Trump appeared presidential for seemingly the first time and dramatically advanced his chances for re-election in 2020.”

“On Tuesday Mr. Trump enlarged the public’s idea of himself and his presidency, and in proportion diminished his enemies. That was his most effective stroke on Tuesday night: To make the left seem to be lost in irrelevant obsessions and guilty of misinterpreting—falsifying—America and its values.”

Right? Not sure. But does Trump get at least some credit for some of the perceived gains that have occurred in the first two years of his term? A reasonable answer is yes, but he often obscures even the gains by his own over-the-top rhetoric and the ridicule he piles on top of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

More to come.

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.

Last weekend, separated by half a world away, there were two fascinating developments on the golf course.

At least fascinating, if you love golf as I do.

And, as I write this, I am still reflecting on last night’s State of the Union address, which, of course, to me, is of lesser importance than golf. So I won’t write about it yet.

In one case of a fascinating development, pro golfer Rickie Fowler defeated his demons on a course in Scottsdale, Arizona, that had his number in the past. Plus, he was able to surmount incredible obstacles and win the tournament after a golf rules fiasco that would have thrown most of us – though we, obviously, are not pro golfers – into a funk.

In the other case, Spanish golfer Sergio Garcia displayed his passion in a very abnormal, over-the-top way. He wreaked havoc on a number of greens in a tournament in Saudi Arabia, so much so that tournament officials had no choice but to disqualify him, a very severe penalty in the world of professional golf.

There was no video of the damage Garcia did to an estimated five greens, but players behind him noted that he scuffed up greens with his shoes and his putter. They complained, which resulted in the DQ.

The only video available was of Garcia in a bunker. After he hit a bad shot out of the bunker, he was shown taking it out on the sand by swinging angrily several times sending sand flying. He was irritated at a lie he had in the bunker, the character of the sand in the bunker, or both.

But guess what?

Under the revised golf rules, which were effective as of January 1, 2019, Garcia’s action in the bunker was entirely within the rules.

Here is what is stated in golf rule 12:

“The following actions are allowed in a bunker…striking the sand in frustration and anger.”

Well, it’s stupid to have this phrase in the official golf rules, but that’s exactly what Garcia did on camera.

So, that was not the reason for his penalty. His petulant attitude on several greens did the deed.

In the rules case involving Fowler, he hit a bad shot over a green and into water. He then took a drop on a hilly area heading into the water and the ball came to rest. But, as he and his caddy headed up to the green to get a look at what the ball might do when he would hit a chip shot, the ball started moving on its own and plopped back into the water.

Fowler looked surprised, but re-dropped and hit his next shot. It went 30 feet past the pin and, then, to his credit, hemade the putt for a three-over seven.

Most of us probably would have walked in after such a situation. And, to me, as one who follows golf rules – know that, in retirement, I have nothing else to do – the best approach would be to change the rules so that a dropped ball that comes to rest, but then heads into a hazard, would not incite an additional penalty. Just re-drop.

These two developments – Fowler in Arizona and Garcia in Saudia Arabia – speak volumes about the attitude of both golfers. Fowler doesn’t over-react to unfairness on the golf course. He surmounts it. Garcia shows the bad side of his passion.

So, kudos to Fowler who remains good for the game, including as young people follow him on the golf course and might even grow to love the same as he does.

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.

Based on what I have read in several major newspapers and what I have heard from friends, I think I am part of a national consensus that:

Believes the Super Bowl was a major yawner and that the Super Bowl ads weren’t much better.

As I watched the game Sunday, my first thought was that it was not up to the excitement of the PGA Tour golf tournament where one of my favorite golfers, Rickie Fowler, surmounted various demons to emerge on top.

Then, the Super Bowl started.

I could hardly stay awake. It’s not much fun to watch a defensive football game, no matter how good those defenses were in the eyes of a football expert. Not me. I was waiting for just a bit of offense.

So, if the game left something to be desired, perhaps the ads – the cost was $5 million per minute – would provide a bit of solace, as is often the case as companies make the investment to reach a huge audiene.

No.

From Pepsi, to Bud Light, to Audi, I thought all of the ads were yawners.

The best, I thought, came from Microsoft. The ad was called “We All Win,” and chronicled the company’s commitment to make its Xbox product available to persons with physical disabilities, especially children. It achieved that through something called an “Adaptive Controller.”

In the ad, Microsoft focuses on kids talking about their gaming experiences.

Kathleen Hall, corporate vice president of brand, advertising and research, said “the Xbox Adaptive Controller helps the children enhance their gaming experience and compete in new ways. What better message for a premiere sporting event?”

The Adaptive Controller was announced in July and came out in September. It costs $100, and, thanks to ports on the back, can be customized for specific uses. In the ad, for example, you see one kid using it with foot pedals to operate the buttons or triggers he might need to use.

“No matter how your body is or how fast you are, you can play,” another kid says.

Kudos to Microsoft for investing in the ad and for providing at least highlight in an otherwise “snooze Super Bowl.”