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.

FROM HILL.COM: “Joe Biden is proud he can get along with Republicans — and that could be a problem if he enters the 2020 race.

“The former vice president seems to see comity and decency as the antidotes to the fractious Trump era. But his approach can look too timorous to a swathe of the Democratic primary electorate — especially those who have come to view the GOP as the enemy, not just the opposition.

“Biden, who was first elected to the Senate in 1972 and served six terms, often hearkens back to an era of greater civility among lawmakers, even if they represented diametrically opposed viewpoints.”

Comment: I have not been much of a Biden fan in the past, though I have a lot of respect for how he has handled huge life difficulties, such as the deaths of members of his family. There is very little question but that Biden would be far better than the current clown in the White House.

Note the phrase above: “The former vice president seems to see comity and decency as the antidotes to the fractious Trump era.”

A number of Democrats, including some of those running for president, as well as a bloc of left-wing voters, ridicule “comity and decency,” as, of course, does Trump.

My view is that our political system needs to find a way to go back to the era when compromise was not a dirty word – to a time when those who might disagree with each other did so agreeably, with “comity and decency.”

Fat chance, you say. Probably. But that’s why I am preparing to support either Biden or a centrist third-party candidate in 2020.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “Dick Cheney: “We’re getting into a situation when our friends and allies around the world that we depend upon are going to lack confidence in us… I worry that the bottom line of that kind of an approach is we have an administration that looks a lot more like Barack Obama than Ronald Reagan.”

“The former vice president uncorked one of the most searing conservative critiques to date of Trump’s foreign policy while conducting a Q&A with Vice President Mike Pence at a recent donor retreat.

“Cheney respectfully but repeatedly and firmly pressed Pence on a number of the president’s foreign policy moves. He expressed concerns that such actions are taking a harder line toward U.S. allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deciding to withdraw troops from Syria during in what he fretted was ‘the middle of a phone call.’ Cheney expressed alarm over news reports that Trump ‘supposedly doesn’t spend that much time with the intel people, or doesn’t agree with them, frequently,’ as well as the high staff turnover rate at the intelligence agencies.

“He worried aloud, again and again, that, for Trump, foreign policy boils down to a crude dollars-and-cents transaction… He worried about Trump’s decision to cancel the decades-long U.S. military exercises with South Korea and referenced a recent Bloomberg News Report about the president’s directive ‘to pursue a policy that would insist that the Germans, the Japanese, and the South Koreans pay total cost for our deployments there, plus 50 percent on top of that.’ … ‘I don’t know, that sounded like a New York state real estate deal to me,’ Cheney quipped.”

Comment: Many voters dislike Cheney, despite his long record of public service, which, clearly, has been marked by various controversies, some of his own making. Without commenting on that either way, Cheney has a good point this time around. Allies around the world won’t have confidence in the U.S. if the country continues to operate with off-the-top-of-his head views by Trump, which, as Cheney averred, seem more attuned to a real estate deal than international relations.

Time to move Trump out of the Oval Office so, perhaps, he can spend time in prison for his crimes once he exits the nation’s top political office. It remains a mystery why he holds that office when he treated his campaign for it as an infomercial in favor of the so-called “Trump brand.”

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST: “…Biden also continued his running argument with the Democrat Party’s ‘new left,’ returning several times to the idea that politics had been broken by people who refuse to seek consensus. He referred to Delaware’s election tradition of ‘returns day,’ where victorious and defeated candidates literally bury a hatchet together and ride in a parade, as an example of the way politics should be.

“’We don’t demonize our opponents,’” he said. ‘We don’t belittle them. We don’t treat the opposition as the enemy. We might even say a nice word about a Republican if they do something good.’”

Comment: As hugely different as they are and have been, we need more Bidens and Cheneys in politics these days. As Biden well said, “our politics has been broken by people who refuse to seek consensus.”

We need to elect leaders who will seek just that – consensus motivated by compromise and a zeal for middle ground, which is where most good solutions like anyway.

******

And this footnote: I almost included quotes relating to Representative Alexandra Oacasio-Cortex, but couldn’t bring myself to do so. She is so far left that she doesn’t show up on any political spectrum. Yet, she still appears to reflect a growing tendency in this country – let’s have socialism. Enough said!

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 is one of the first departments where I ascended to the throne – er, the directorship of the agency.

It is open today.

PEEVE #1: My first pet peeve revolves around Democrats who use the term “democratic” to describe themselves when, much of the time, they are not democratic at all.

So, in response to my pet peeve, I always use the word Democrat, dropping the final two letters – i and c.

PEEVE #2: My second pet peeve revolves around the use of the word “progressive” to describe those who operate from the left of center. For me, the word “progressive” means to move forward and that’s usually not what those on the left are doing.

So, in response to my pet peeve, I decline to use the word progressive to describe my friends on the left.

PEEVE #3: My third pet peeve revolves around the substantial fall-off of skills and experience among the reporters and editors covering politics at the Capitol.

There used to be a group of reporters who worked out of the basement Press Room at the Capitol, close to the action where they literally could head upstairs to any committee meeting room, as well as roam the halls to talk with those who represent us.

No longer.

Some reporters “cover” developments at the Capitol or other government buildings in Salem without even being on hand to witness results in person. They figure out a way to talk with folks after the fact, which makes it seem like they, the reporters, are on top of events. They aren’t.

The failure to employ formerly distinctive journalism codes of conduct means that reporters and editors often fail to focus on FACTS and almost never provide CONTEXT. Now, my friends in the media might say that there is not enough print room, on-line room or video room to focus on context.

Thus, my peeve. If readers or viewers don’t get at least a bit of context, then they don’t get the full story.

PEEVE #4: My fourth pet peeve revolves the failure of reporters – and, for that matter, the public – to understand the role political contributions play in our process.

Of course, the process of making contributions gets tarnished – understandably – by crimes those in Washington, D.C. (read, Manafort, Gates, etc.) – have perpetrated against the country.

But, most lobbyists participate in the process honestly and ethically. In my case, my clients and I expected only one thing when we made political contributions: Consideration.

If elected officials considered our viewpoint, great. If they considered our viewpoint and decided they needed to go another way, so be it.

Our decisions on political contributions were made on the basis of what I call “relationship records,” not “voting records.”

PEEVE #5: My fifth pet peeve resolves around situations where elected officials want Executive Branch administrators to violate the law in order to achieve the political ends elected officials want.

This is what is happening in Washington, D.C. over release of the Mueller report. When Attorney General William Barr was up for Senate confirmation, many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee – all Democrats – demanded that Barr agree to release the full text of the Mueller report as soon as he received it.

Properly, he declined to do so.

The official orders that started the Mueller investigation in the first place directed that the full report not be released, including if, as is likely, it contains information, in some cases, about allegations of criminal charge, but no charges. The report could include names of persons who were on a list of those who might be charged, but weren’t. .

In addition to the text of the order convening the investigation, standard Justice Department practice is not to release such documents for fear of impugning the integrity of those no charged.

Did Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats care about these issues? No.

They demanded that Barr violate the law and Justice Department tradition. Those D are still making the demands as release of the Mueller report draws closer. Kudos to Barr for upholding law and precedent.

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.

The Oregon Legislature has gone down a familiar path again to fund health care in Oregon.

By passing House Bill 2010 and sending it on to Governor Kate Brown for her signature, the Legislature is using the approach to tax major Oregon hospitals and health insurers as a way, first and foremost, to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid.

Is it a good idea to do so?

If I was in the Legislature – perish the thought, you may add – I probably would vote for the approach, too. Money for health care is as important today as it always has been and, if not for the legal funding gambit to increase Medicaid, health care – including for low-income Oregonians – would tend to fall behind K-12 and other general fund users.

But, I would vote for the funding deal only with several provisos, all of which were ingrained in me when I represented hospitals and insurers in Salem during the times when the funding approach first existed. It started in 2003 and has continued to this day.

The provisos are these:

1. AVOID SUPPLANTING: I would make sure, insofar as it is possible to do so, that the “new money” – including hospital and insurer taxes and federal matching funds – actually would be directed to health care programs.

I write “insofar as possible” because it is easy for the new money to become just that – “new money” without restrictions. At the decision of members of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, the money can be treated simply as more “general fund” money available to be used for anything.

Even if, for example, there is a clause in the funding approach that money be reserved for health care, budget managers can honor that agreement, but take other general fund money out from behind and re-direct that money elsewhere, often to K-12 education.

In budget lingo, it’s called “supplanting.”

I first saw this used when, a number of years ago, the State of Oregon received “tobacco settlement” money – millions of dollars in cash from tobacco companies under a court order.

The money was supposed to help fund efforts to limit tobacco use on the basis of health concerns. That occurred, but so did supplanting – taking general funds away that had been used for anti-tobacco programs in the past.

Based on my sources at the Capitol, my understanding this time around, in the case of House Bill 2010, there is no specific language that assures new money goes to health care programs, but one of the key Ways and Means members, one who has credibility on this issue in the past, has provided oral assurances that the “new money will fund new health care.”

The key member is Senator Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, who has a solid track record of integrity and being above-board in any state budget negotiations. She has always been good to her word.

2. ASSURE RESULTS: When the new money arrives to fund expanded health care programs, steps should be taken to require results.

What do I mean by this? Often new government programs are started without adequate expectations for what the programs will be expected to achieve. I believe new government programs should exist only if they produce results for those they are expected to serve – consumers, customers or taxpayers, pick your word.

When programs don’t produce results, the best result would be to get rid of them.

3. MAKE A LOGICAL TRADE-OFF: If hospitals and insurers agree to be taxed – at the current time, most of them do – then a price for the agreement should be that bills negative to hospitals and health insurers should either not be considered or go down to defeat.

Some critics might label this an inappropriate trade-off. They might say, “Let individual issues be decided on their individual merits.” Often, I might agree, but in this case – taxing health care providers – there should be what you could call “a quid pro quo.” In return for agreeing to be taxed, providers should escape bad legislation.

When we first negotiated these new taxes in 2003, that was a price we advocated and it happened.

So, with passage of House Bill 2010, legislators and the governor have one issue – health care funding – off the table.

I hope the new deal works.

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 free and to do as I please as the director – read, dictator.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of “Just Saying.”

Here is a set of new good quotes worth remembering.

FROM PRESIDENT DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, REMEMBER HIM?: I was only about eight years old when former president Dwight D. Eisenhower included this quote in a March 6, 1956 speech:

“If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is moral and right, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.”

Comment: I wish I would remember hearing that quote in person. At eight years old? Probably would not have recognized what the good words meant.

But, as applied to today, it resonates.

And, I think both major political parties – the Republicans and the Democrats – are more interested in seizing power and, then, if they have such power, finding ways, good or bad, to keep it.

If that means good public policy suffers, so be it.

A SO-CALLED GREEN NEW DEAL: “Today’s Democrat presidential candidates sound like late-night infomercials: ‘A Green New Deal! Medicare-for-all! Reparations for some! Free college for the young! Increased Social Security for the elderly! BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! At no additional cost, you get Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).’

MMT, which supposedly banishes nitpicking worries about how to pay for things, is the Democrats’ intellectual breakthrough du jour. Although the theory remains somewhat hazy (or, as Democrats say about their un-empirical flights of fancy, MMT is beautifully ‘aspirational’), it is this:

The nation has fiat money — currency whose issuer will not convert it into something valuable (e.g., gold) but that the public accepts is a reliable store of value. A government that controls its currency need never run short of it. Therefore (non sequitur alert), the government can borrow and expand the money supply sufficiently to allow spending to proceed without reference to government revenue, as long as interest rates are, and are apt to remain, low. In the words of three MMT believers (Stephanie Kelton, economics professor and former Bernie Sanders campaign adviser; Andres Bernal, doctoral student and adviser to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.); Greg Carlock, a climate researcher): “Anything that is technically feasible is financially affordable.”

Comment: Sounds like Bernie Sanders and other far left-wing wackos run wild. Spending other people’s money is great fun!

HOW DEMOCRATS COULD WIN IN 2020: Two Democrat consultants, James Carville and Jim Messina, told this to the Wall Street Journal: “If Democrats run our numbers up—which we’re sure to do in what will likely be the largest presidential turnout in history—we only need to peel off some of these voters to put us over the top in the states that will decide the election.

“This president is no Barack Obama, no Bill Clinton. Trump didn’t bring about the largest increase of college opportunity since the GI bill, get an unprecedented number of Americans health coverage, or dig us out of a great recession. His daily circus of corruption has failed the working class. That is a vital message we need to get to these voters and we need to start now. The longer we wait, the more daunting our prospects become.

“There’s a great saying: “When your opponent is drowning, throw ’em an anvil.” Trump is already underwater. So as a party, while Democratic candidates are out trying to make a name in the primary, we need to get to Waukesha, Wisconsin, Scranton, Pennsylvania., and Macomb, Michigan, look voters in the eye, and throw Trump that damn anvil.”

Comment: Readers of this blog – both of you – will know that I am no Trump fan. I think character counts for something in the nation’s highest political office and Trump has none.

But, I also think Carville and Messina have out-lived their usefulness as they have advocated for years for left wing candidates who are no better than Trump.

I say, “through Carville and Messina an anvil, too.”

SOMETHING GOOD IS GOING ON: The deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger, scores again with his “Wonderland” column. He writes this:

“The great political challenge of our time is sorting out what matters from what’s just chatter. The din of distracting statistical noise is overwhelming. A Democrat governor named Inslee announces he’s going to run for the U.S. presidency on one issue—climate change. Days later, the real president delivers a speech of immeasurable length to a conference of conservatives about pretty much everything rattling around in his head. The new week dawns with a Democrat House committee chairman named Nadler demanding that 81 of the president’s “associates” provide him with a document dump.

“Serious people would like to believe something real in politics is going on. The good news is . . . something is.

“This past weekend, The Wall Street Journal published a series of stories titled “Inside the Hottest Job Market in Half a Century.” As far as I’m concerned, this jobs record is the story of the year. The Journal’s articles transformed a year of economic data into the new daily reality of getting paid to work in America.

“All sorts of people who have previously had trouble landing a job are now finding work,” the Journal reported. “Racial minorities, those with less education and people working in the lowest-paying jobs are getting bigger pay raises and, in many cases, experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for their groups. They are joining manufacturing workers, women in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities and those with criminal records, among others, in finding improved job prospects after years of disappointment.”

Comment: A solid economy matters to all of us. And, for me, as I have written before, I cannot believe that most political figures these days ignore “the jobs issue.” Having one – a job – solves many problems. Therefore, creating a system where the private sector can create more jobs – as well as save the ones they have – strikes me as political proposal worth selling.

**********

And this footnote: In blogs such as this when I write the word Democrat, I refuse to use the word “Democratic.” That’s because most of those who call themselves Democrats are definitely not “democratic.” So, I avoid the use that word just as an expression of personal preference.

**********

As is my unfortunate tendency, my first post of this blog contained a few typos.  So, rather than let the first post sit, I am posting this again, without the typos.  The subject — golf in Scotland — is too important to allow typos to remain.

**********

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.

After reading the other day about an “Affordable Golf Course” idea from golf writer George Peper, I went back this week to read another golf tome from Peper – his book, Two Years in St. Andrews, At Home on the 18^th Hole.

A great and fun read.

Makes me want to go back to St. Andrews, the so-called “home of golf” to do what I have had the privilege of doing three times – playing some of the seven courses in the St. Andrews Links Trust, including, and especially, the iconic Old Course.

I won’t be proposing to live at St. Andrews as Peper and his wife did for several years, though, if I was going to live in Scotland for a time, I might choose the small town of Dornoch where sits my favorite course in the world, Royal Dornoch.

In St. Andrews, Peper and his wife found a new way of life – for life generally, as well as for golf.

Here are a couple of telling excerpts from his book, with my comments:

THE PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND: “I’d come to learn that St. Andrews was full of kind, thoughtful, caring folk. People who dropped by your home with flowers for no apparent reason, who invited you for drinks on the spur of the moment, who offered to pick up your cleaning or walk your dog or water your plants. And I also realized that these people lacked nothing in the way of intelligence; rather it was I who lacked a few things – things like patience, an active interest in others, and a willingness to make sacrifices. St. Andrews had begun to teach me lessons I would never have learned in New York.”

My wife’s parents, when they were in their youth, emigrated from Scotland. They met in the U.S. and were married here, producing three children, one of whom is my wife – a great, good fortune for me.

We have had the distinct privilege of traveling together to Scotland on five occasions and, yes, golf was involved – including at St. Andrews where, beyond golf, the Old Course is closed on Sundays and becomes a park for anyone who wants to go for a walk hard by the North Sea.

Speaking of the Scottish people, one of my distinct memories occurred when my wife and I were walking around a small Scottish town looking for the bed-and-breakfast where we would stay. We came upon a Scot gentlemen out for his own walk.

As we passed, he did not acknowledge us, but we decided to stop and ask directions.

He responded – sure, he said, this is where you want to go.  But, then, in what illustrated the selflessness of the Scottish people, he went on. Follow me, he said, and he led us three blocks to our destination.

My wife told me that the Scottish people often come across as distant and aloof, but, if you need help, she told me, they’ll go out of their way to provide it.

In this case, I saw this sacrifice personally, just as Peper often did at St. Andrews.

THE MEANING OF GOLF IN SCOTLAND: “Someday I hope to bring my grandchildren to Scotland – not to show them what golf is, but to show them what golf isn’t – that it isn’t $200 million resorts and $200,000 membership fees, that it isn’t six-hour rounds and three-day member-guests, that it isn’t motorized buggies, Cuban cigars, and cashmere head covers. It’s a game you play simply and honorably, without delay or complaint – where you respect your companions, respect the rules, and respect the ground you walk on. Where, on the 18^th green, you remove your cap and shake hands, maybe just little humbler and little wiser than when you began.”

I reflect on this Peper paragraph and know that I have experienced the same incredible camaraderie of golf, both in this country and in Scotland.

The issue isn’t always what you scored in a round, though, as Americans, we (including me) pay more attention to that than do the Scots. The issue is the friendships you make and cement through golf.

Like Peper wrote, “remove your cap and shake hands, maybe just a little humbler and a little wiser than when you began.”

I get to experience this kind of golf here in the U.S., which means I have learned lessons by having the privilege of traveling to the “homeland of my wife” and translating Scot memories to the U.S.

I want to go back.

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.

After reading the other day about an “Affordable Golf Course” idea from golf writer George Peper fI went back this week to read another golf tome from Peper – his book, Two Years in St. Andrews, At Home on the 18^th Hole.

A great and fun read.

Makes me want to go back to St. Andrews, the so-called “home of golf” to do what I have had the privilege of doing three times – playing some of the seven courses in the St. Andrews Links Trust, including, and especially, the iconic Old Course.

I won’t be proposing to live at St. Andrews as Peper and his wife did for several years, though, if I was going to live in Scotland for a time, I might choose the small town of Dornoch where sits my favorite course in the world, Royal Dornoch.

In St. Andrews, Peper and his wife found a new way of life – for life generally, as well as for golf.

Here are a couple of telling excerpts from his book, with my comments:

THE PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND: “I’d come to learn that St. Andrews was full of kind, thoughtful, caring folk. People who dropped by your home with flowers for no apparent reason, who invited you for drinks on the spur of the moment, who offered to pick up your cleaning or walk your dog or water your plants. And I also realized that these people lacked nothing in the way of intelligence; rather it was I who lacked a few things – things like patience, an active interest in others, and a willingness to make sacrifices. St. Andrews had begun to teach me lessons I would never have learned in New York.”

My wife parents, when they were in their youth, emigrated from Scotland. They met in the U.S. and were married here, producing three children, one of whom is my wife – and great, good fortune for me.

We have had the distinct privilege of traveling together to Scotland on five occasions and, yes, golf was involved – including at St. Andrews where, beyond golf, the Old Course is closed on Sundays and becomes a park for anyone who wants to go for a walk hard by the North Sea.

Speaking of the Scottish people, one of my distinct memories occurred when my wife and I were walking around a small Scottish town looking for the bed-and-breakfast where we would stay. We came upon a Scottish gentlemen out for his own walk.

As we passed, he did not acknowledge us, but we decided to stop and ask directions.

He responded – sure this is where you want to go, he said. But, then in what illustrated the selflessness of the Scottish people, he went on. Follow me, he said, and he led us three blocks away to our destination.

My wife told me that the Scottish people often come across as distant and aloof, but, if you need help, she told me, they’ll go out of their way to provide it.

In this case, I saw this kind of sacrifice personally, just as Peper often did at St. Andrews.

THE MEANING OF GOLF IN SCOTLAND: “Someday I hope to bring my grandchildren to Scotland – not to show them what golf is, but to show them what golf isn’t – that it isn’t $200 million resorts and $200,000 membership fees, that it isn’t six-hour rounds and three-day member-guests, that it isn’t motorized buggies, Cuban cigars, and cashmere head covers. It’s a game you play simply and honorably, without delay or complaint – where you respect your companions, respect the rules, and respect the ground you walk on. Where, on the 18^th green, you remove your cap and shake hands, maybe just little humbler and little wiser than when you began.”

I reflect on this Peper paragraph and know that I have experienced the sane incredible camaraderie of golf, both in this country and in Scotland.

The issue isn’t always what you scored in a round, though, as Americans, we (including me) pay more attention to that than do the Scots. The issue is the friendships you make and cement through golf.

Like Peper wrote, “remove your cap and shake hands, maybe just a little humbler and a little wiser than when you began.”

I get to experience this kind of golf here in the U.S., which means I have learned lessons by having the privilege of traveling to the “homeland of my wife.”

I want to go back.

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.

**********

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am writing again on a topic I lobbied for nearly 25 years at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon – health care. That does not disqualify from writing, but it is appropriate to emphasize what, for me, is a credential.  Second, my blog this time is based, at least in part, on reporting by the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and Gallup polling organization, all closer to the action in Washington, D.C. than I am.  So credit where credit is due.

**********

So, what does a socialist do when more than $32 trillion for free health care for all is not enough?

He – in this case, Bernie Sanders — decides to make his plan for a government-run health system bigger and more expensive.

In the Wall Street Journal, columnist James Freeman writes, “Sanders is the kind of socialist who demands $32.6 trillion from taxpayers to alter their medical care and then misleads them about the imagined benefits. But that description now seems unfair since the 2020 presidential candidate has decided to shove the price tag significantly further north.”

The Associated Press continued:

“Sanders is raising the stakes of the ‘Medicare for All’ debate by expanding his proposal to include long-term care, a move that is forcing other Democrat presidential candidates to take a stand on addressing one of the biggest gaps in the U.S. health care system.”

The original Sanders “Medicare for All” plan would end all private health insurance, as well as government programs like Medicare, and replace them with a new government medical system.

People of any age could qualify if illness, injury or age limit their ability to perform at least one “activity of daily living,” such as bathing or dressing, or one or more “instrumental activities of daily living,” such as managing money or taking prescribed medications. There would be no income or assets tests to qualify, and no co-pays or deductibles.

Of course, by going so far left, Sanders is drawing other Democrat 2020 presidential contenders along with him. All of them want to create the government-run health care system that would break the federal bank in two ways.

First, it would squeeze other spending priorities, including various national security programs. Second, it would just to be too expensive on its own.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Sanders also has decided that packaging his government-run health care with an abolition of traditional energy production at a cost that may run about $90 trillion over ten years is not enough.

The new long-term care plan, plus the energy plan, could make Sanders the $100 trillion man in terms of the amount of other people’s money he’s willing to commit to his agenda.

Notice the phrase: “Other people’s money.” Sanders has no limits on how much of that money he wants to spend.

So, how will Sanders’ health care for all for free fare among voters, especially those who don’t spend time attending Sanders’ political rallies?

The Wall Street Journal reports that a Morning Consult poll last month showed declining support for government-run health care.

When Gallup asked people in 2018 to rate the quality of the health care they received, most said it was excellent or good. Many people are consistently satisfied with the access they have and with their doctors.

Further Gallup poll results showed that 54 per cent prefer a health care system based on private insurance, while 40 per cent prefer a government-run system. When the Kaiser Family Foundation asked people about some arguments made for a Medicare for All plan, 60 per cent said they would oppose it if it required most Americans to pay more in taxes.

Finally, WSJ writer Freeman adds that “Some voters may find it endearing that, like other Marxist revolutionaries, Sanders doesn’t seem to particularly care whether a broad democrat consensus favors his policy agenda. But they should understand that he is promising to tax and spend tens of billions of dollars to expand the quantity of government services.

“Whether or not they call themselves capitalists, Democrats at every income level now have a chance to consider what the Sanders agenda will do to the quality of patient care.”

True. For my part, I continue to wish that elected officials interested in public policy, not perceived political advantage, would get around a table – yes, make it a round table – and craft health care policy from the middle.

What we don’t need is more ObamaCare when only Democrats voted for the then-president’s health care plan.

We also don’t need the Republican plan, which is essentially no plan at all, but just an attempt to oppose ObamaCare.

Where is the smart middle in a country that should be able to find a better way to mix government programs and private sector efforts to develop improved health care. We deserve that kind of approach to improve what already is a decent system.

So, by preparing to decide how to vote next year, I advocate telling Sanders and other big government proposers to take a hike.

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 night, I watched part of the movie, All the President’s Men, as it appeared on the television for who knows, the hundredth time.

What I watched caught my attention, for I was re-living a huge part of my past – and probably yours – the Watergate scandal.

To persons many these days, Watergate is just a name from the past. Not a reality. No problem, for time passes. But, for me, Watergate is a bit like the Vietnam War, a reality of my past that conjures up a huge dose of memories, both good and bad.

Without the Washington Post’s huge journalistic to uncover the Watergate scandal and the cover-up, who knows – we might never have known the extent of the poison in our political system, a poison that engulfed the White House and brought down President Richard Nixon (for good reason, I add). It also meant a number of his cronies spent time in jail.

For me, the movie conjured up these images:

• First, to put a positive spin on the movie, it chronicled solid journalism by the Washington Post. It’s something we don’t see today as many newspapers are dying, as some media outlets gravitate toward entertainment and controversy for their own sakes, and as the rise of social media often doesn’t even equate to solid journalism, if to journalism at all. Too bad. The Washington Post’s enterprise is worth noting, if not repeating.
• Second, Watergate captured our attention because we had no particular experience, at that time, with a government run amok. Guess what is happening today? The crimes of Watergate appear tame in comparison to what we see routinely out of the Trump Administration, as well as some unholy members of Congress. Scandal is part of our daily ritual of watching “news,” or what passes for news these days.
• Third, can we, as Americans, help to produce an honest, no-crimes-allowed political system in this country? I don’t know, but it is worth the effort in order to save this country’s political system from ruin.

And, based on what we see every day, that’s actually what is at stake – the future of our political system.

On the right, if that is where he actually is, President Trump violates political norms and conventions every day, perhaps even every Twitter-laden moment. Some of his actions constitute alleged crimes. Can we survive his indiscretions and his crimes?

On the left, can we tolerate far left radicals, including several who are running for president in 2020, who want to turn America into a socialist country?   Free health care for all. Free college for all. Re-build all buildings in this country according to some kind of “green new deal.” Bar businesses from being involved in politics.

Both right and left extremes portend ruin for this country.

All of this suggests that, when I notice that All the President’s Men is on TV again, I’ll watch the whole thing. It’s worth reflecting on our history to avoid simply repeating it again.

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.

There was big news this week regarding the 2020 presidential race when, presumably, Donald Trump will seek re-election and as many as 20 Democrats will run against him.

One of the possible D contenders, former New York mayor Michael Blumberg decided to pass on the race. He could have been a formidable candidate, if only because of his own money. But he said he couldn’t run based on the left-wing Democrat platform.

His decision could result in an increased chance that retired Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz will decide to run as a third-party candidate.

Here’s the way the Washington Post put it yesterday in its “Daily 202” column:

“In Dallas last night, Howard Schultz seized on fellow billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s decision not to run for president as a fresh rationale for his own likely bid.

“The retired Starbucks CEO cited the former New York mayor’s announcement as validation for his theory that the ideological gulf between the two major parties will be so wide in 2020 that an independent candidate like him just might be able to prevail.

“’The Democrats are pushing an agenda that is extremely so far left that, in my mind, it’s very close to a socialistic agenda,’” Schultz said at Southern Methodist University. ‘You saw today that one of the great mayors in modern history … decided not to run for president.’”

It appears that Blumberg looked at the Democrat platform and realized that, as a centrist, he probably could not convince enough Democrats that he could live by the wacko left wing proposals.

He was reported to be close to jumping in, but he concluded his path to the Democrat nomination was too narrow to be worthwhile.

“I believe I would defeat Donald Trump in a general election,” Blumberg said. “But I am clear-eyed about the difficulty of winning the Democrat nomination in such a crowded field.”

His pro-business centrism – including opposition to stricter regulations of Wall Street and support for a stop-and-frisk approach to criminal justice – would certainly have caused him countless headaches in his quest to become the party’s standard-bearer.

“Some have told me that to win the Democratic nomination, I would need to change my views to match the polls,” Bloomberg wrote.

“It’s not who I am, nor do I think it’s what voters want in a leader.”

So, back to Schultz.

Promoting his new book, “From the Ground Up,” on the college campus that houses George W. Bush’s presidential library, Schultz was asked, according to the Washington Post, whether he worries about being a spoiler.

“I think,” he was reported to have said, “that same question could be asked of the Democrat Party if they put up a candidate that is emblematic of a level of socialism. I think it’s better than 50-50 odds that President Trump would get re-elected. I don’t think the American people want to embrace an economic environment in which socialism is going to rule the day.”

The Post said the crowd of about 1,000 people, including many students, applauded. “However, however, however,” he continued, “the other side of that is I do not believe that President Trump should be re-elected.

“In fact, I believe he should be fired. My view is that there are millions of lifelong Republicans – based on the president’s character and leadership qualities, or lack thereof – who would not go into the voting booth and vote for a Democrat resembling a socialist but might, just might, have an interest in a person who is independent and who is not beholden to either party.”

Count me in that number.

I have grown very weary of Trump’s character flaws – flaws he emphasizes with every passing moment.  He has no shame.  He doesn’t tell the truth, so there is no way to judge his performance in office other than to cringe at what he does and says. He criticizes in very harsh terms anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

At the same time, the Democrats are not much better. The 2020 standard bearers are so left of center that they cannot even be found on a political spectrum. The same is true for the D who gets most of the ink these, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

Free health care for all? Yes. Free college for all? Yes. Re-build every structure in the United States according to some kind of new “green standard?” Yes.

Give me a candidate with solid character who will lead this country with distinction and verve. That could be Howard Schultz.

One of my friends accused me the other day of promising in the last presidential election of pledging to vote for neither candidate on the basis that neither inspired trust and confidence. If I voted for a third party, would that mean I was throwing away my vote?

Perhaps. But in the spirit of wanting something better for my country, I am prepared to do so again.  Conscience matters more than party affiliation.

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.

Remember the acronym ACA?

In federal government parlance, it stood for the Affordable Care Act, which was the label put on the so-called “health care reform” proposal from President Barack Obama – which weren’t affordable at all.

But that’s a story for another time.

Today, I use the ACA to stand for the “Affordable Course Act,” a proposal from my friend, George Peper, the editor of Links Magazine.

Is George Peper really a friend of mine? Well, perhaps not in any personal sense.

But I have followed Peper’s writings on golf from his days as editor of Gold Magazine, to his move to Scotland to become a member of St. Andrews Links Trust, which enabled him to play the seven courses there, including the Old Course, to his move back to the U.S. to edit Links.

In Scotland, the flat he and his wife bought and remodeled sat right near the 18^th hole on the Old Course.

Peper chronicled all this in a book, Two Years in St. Andrews, At Home on the 18^th Hole, which captured my imagination as I read it more than once. One of the my pipe dreams is to do what Peper did, which was to live on the Old Course, or, perhaps more possibly to do what another golf writer, Lorne Rubenstein, did when he stayed for four months near my favorite golf course in the world, Royal Dornoch, to the far north in Scotland.

Golf in Scotland? Yes. Many times yes. Setting foot on the Old Course, Royal Dornoch or many other courses in Scotland is a pure privilege to tread where golfers of old invented the game we love to play.

In a column in this month’s issue of Links Magazine, Peper advocates for his “Affordable Course Act” with this paragraph: “When I am appointed Golf Czar, my first order of business will be to address the games three big weaknesses – its glacial pace, extortionate expense, and damnable difficulty – and I will do so with my signature decree: The Affordable Course Act.”

Peper than goes on to outline three planks in his ACA platform:

• Each ACA course will have a USGA Pace Rating of no more than 240 minutes. [This means the course will be navigable by a group of four players, whether in carts or on foot, in four hours or less.]

As an aside, I sent an e-mail note to Peper last evening suggesting that he take a look at The Palms where I have the privilege of playing in La Quinta, California. The guideline there is to play in three and one-half hours and no one has a problem doing so.

• Each ACA course will have an average of green fee of $100 or less. [Peper would allow a bit higher fee on weekends and in peak season, but such fees will be balanced, he contends, by lower charges during the week and off-season.]
• Each ACA course will have a maximum USGA Slope Rating of 135. [And, be aware, that’s from the very back markers. The regular tees should check in at closer to 130 or less.]

Peper closes his piece with this:

“Thanks goodness once czardom is conferred on me, I’ll get this done for the good of golfkind. I recognize, however, that my coronation may not be imminent, so I hereby magnanimously offer my ACA formula and specs to all course owners, developers, and architects in the fervent hope that they’ll step up and do the right thing.”

Again, Peper scores well in what he writes — even of under par, to use a golf analogy. For the good of the game of golf, the proposals are worth considering, especially if we want to see the game grow.

For me, beyond The Palms in California, I have the privilege of playing at Illahe Hills Golf Club in Salem, Oregon. Over my 30-plus years at Illahe, it always has been easy to play in four hours or less.

So, it may be true that Illahe already meets the three ACA planks advocated by Peper.