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 phrase in the headline comes to mind as we watch the continuing political squabbles in the Nation’s Capitol.

I call it “phony baloney” and believe it applies to both sides – President Donald Trump as he continues to try to lie his way out of every issue, and congressional Democrats who practice the art of going after Trump while ignoring legislative processes that could put Trump on the defensive.

Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editors, as they often do, contributed to my angst about Washington, D.C. by posting an editorial under this headline:

‘Constitutional Crisis’

Nancy Pelosi stages a phony impeachment war

Call it phony Pelosi.

To give her credit, if that is, in fact, the right word, Pelosi has risen from an object of ridicule by many Republicans, not to mention concerns in her own party, to become a relatively popular Speaker of the House – that is, if popularity resides at MSNBC and other left-of-center outlets.

Does she deserve much credit. I answer no, as does the WSJ.

From Pelosi via WSJ: “America is in a ‘constitutional crisis.’ Trump Administration officials have ‘decided that they’re not going to honor their oath of office.’ President Trump is ‘almost self-impeaching and is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice.’

“These are quotes in the last few days from Pelosi, who will soon have to hire a lexicographer to come up with new ways to say that Trump is committing impeachable offenses. How many synonyms are there for “obstruction?”

“Yet, Pelosi and House Democrats refuse even to begin a formal impeachment inquiry. If Trump is so disrespectful of the Constitution, and so in violation of the separation of powers, what are they waiting for? Trump still has 20 months left in his four-year term, so surely, if the threat is so dire, Democrats should move urgently to fulfill their sacred vow to protect the Republic?

“Unless, that is, all of this is political theater. P elosi’s rhetoric keeps getting more fluorescent precisely because she doesn’t want to impeach Trump. She knows most of the country opposes impeachment following the report by special counsel Robert Mueller that found no evidence of collusion with Russia by the Trump presidential campaign.  But millions of Democratic voters still favor it, so Pelosi needs to feed the beast at MSNBC.”

Now, let me emphasize again that I am not defending Trump. He is easily the worst president in U.S. history and it is a travesty that he remains in office. Forget the policy, for the moment; look at character. He fails on all counts.

From my usual position the cheap seats out West, I hope the Ds will not move to formal impeachment proceedings despite the fact that there are ample reasons to start.

The risk is that impeachment won’t just put Trump on defense. It will infuriate his base and prompt more of them to vote for his re-election.

What Democrats should do is two things.

First, they should do what they are supposed to do in Congress, which is to legislate. Post some achievements that, in and of themselves, could put Trump on defense.

Second – and more importantly – nominate a presidential candidate in the 2020 election who has a genuine chance to win. That cannot be a candidate who espouses left-wing trope. It needs to be a candidate who gives concerned voters a real choice in 2020.

That’s the best way to remove from the office the worst president in the history of this country.

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

One of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) a few days ago advocating for what she called the a new brand of conservatism, which acknowledges a role for government without always adding bigger government.

Call this the philosophy of President Ronald Reagan. At least, that’s how I remember Reagan as he led the country.

However, several writers of letters to the editor of the WSJ took Noonan to task as if she was an advocate of more and bigger government.

She isn’t.  She is an advocate of better government.

Here is a sampling of what the letter writers said, with, at the end, my conclusion:

From Maryland: “Peggy Noonan calls for a new conservatism to reunite the Republican Party, but it appears to me that her new conservatism is driving the party apart and disenfranchising the silent majority of moderate voters.

“These voters simply want to focus on what Noonan refers to in her opening paragraph as ‘old conservatism.’ Many people still agree on limiting government power and entitlements, encouraging free enterprise and reducing our worrisome level of debt. Far fewer subscribe to new conservatism’s social values, many of which should be regarded as personal matters of faith rather than part of a party platform.

“Imposing a conservative social litmus test is quite apparently keeping the most qualified candidates from running on the Republican ticket. Consequently, this is keeping away moderate voters, many of whom, like myself, used to call themselves and vote Republican.”

From Alabama: “It is big government that is tearing the nation apart. When Noonan urges people ‘to spend your energies on a battle not to make government significantly smaller, but to make it significantly more helpful,’ she merely sets the stage for another round of debate on who deserves the most help, who should be forced to pay for it and which new agencies should be created.

“She asks, ‘What would a large government harnessed toward conservative ends look like?’ She should know that, to the other party, it would look like a weapon to be snatched back at all costs. As long as there is big government, we will be at each other’s throats for control of it.”

From Michigan: “It is impossible to conserve an order that is already broken, as Abraham Lincoln concluded about the Whig Party in his day. We are on the verge of a crisis that demands a new party with a vision to steer us through this crisis. That party must be committed to restoring constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government.”

From New York: “Many of the challenges we face aren’t due to an undersized government, but are the result of an increasingly polarized political atmosphere. Rather than a large government being the solution, what we truly need is bi-partisanship. Thomas Jefferson once stated big government’s true effect, ‘The course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases.’”

Now, from me out West.

I share concerns about more and bigger environment, though I readily recognize that there is an appropriate role for government.

I just think elected officials should demand more performance from government these days before supporting more government. Imagine if government programs were given specific performance requirements and, then, if the performance requirements were not met, they would be terminated.

Instead, what we have in Salem, Oregon and Washington, D.C. is support for more taxes and more government without apparent regard to producing, even guaranteeing, results from current programs.

It would be good if government performed more like the private sector. Produce results or fail.

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

I defy you, even if you are a budget expert, to make sense out of the State of Oregon budget.

It is impossible.

Some contend that Oregon runs a transparent system when it comes to developing a biennial spending blueprint. I disagree.

I contend that the budget is opaque.

You cannot tell where money is going, for how long it is going and what it, the money, will fund.   That includes “general funds” (individual and corporate tax revenue), federal funds, “other funds” (money paid to state government through fees and other assessments), and lottery funds.

Still, there is at least one virtue with the budget. It is that expenses must be in balance with income.

Consider that reality for a minute and note how far away balance is in relation to the federal budget where deficit spending always results and is intended.

Let me emphasize that I do not necessarily ascribe ill intent to those who develop the State of Oregon budget, either elected or appointed officials. I just think genuine transparency is not a goal, so, of course, it is not achieved.

Other than the balanced budget requirement in Oregon, consider these budget realities in Oregon (and give me credit, if nothing else, for finding alliteration, even if it is a bit stretched on one occasion below):

Supplanting: This is what occurs when new money comes into state government to fund a specific program, then legislators on the Joint Ways and Means Committee, take “general funds” out from behind the new money, thus neutering the purpose and effect of the new.

I experienced this repeatedly when I represented hospitals and insurers for more than 20 years at the Capitol. I knew supplanting happened; just couldn’t do much about it, though I tried repeatedly.

A new example of supplanting is occurring as I write this at the Capitol. Senate Republicans are concerned that, if the business sales tax passes, providing $2 billion more supposedly for schools, money will be taken out from behind for other purposes, thus reducing the potentially beneficial effect of the new money for K-12. 

Update: In a development yesterday, Monday, Senate Republicans returned to the Capitol after reaching what they called “a deal” with Senate Democrats. It appears that the deal does not include any changes in the sales tax bill since it passed the Senate and was sent on to Governor Kate Brown. So, watch for supplanting.

Sweeping: In some ways, this is more egregious than supplanting because, when it occurs, it violates the will of the taxpayers who provided the money in the first place.

An example will make my point.

What legislators have done in recent years is levy a tax on commercial health insurance premiums to create a repository of “state money” that can be used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid.

To support the premium tax, legislators said the money would go to help put kids on insurance if their families could not afford it on their own.

What happened?

Without much, if any, hesitancy, legislators said they intended to “sweep” the money to fund other programs, thus not keeping faith with assurances made to payers.

Sojourning: I stretch to get to this “S” as a way to indicate that, in many cases, new money “sojourns” in its intended place for only two years, then becomes just general money for use wherever legislators want to deploy it. Thus, the money sojourns in its location only temporarily.

The best current example goes back to the sales tax on Oregon business.

If most of the $2 billion in new tax revenue goes to K-12 for the first biennial budget, the money will just become “fungible” in succeeding biennia.

Pardon the budget word “fungible.” It just means that the money targeted for K-12 schools won’t necessarily all go to K-12 after the first two years.

There are ways to improve this situation.

• Outlaw supplanting so new money improves programs rather than allow diversion by
• Outlaw sweeping because it violates the trust of the people.
• Be very clear about the sojourning issue – if new money becomes “just money” in the future, say that in an attempt to restore trust in government budgeting.

These are just a few of the reforms I would propose at the Capitol in Salem if I were, perish the thought, king for a day.

With such reforms, state budgeting would become, in fact, transparent.

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 a couple years now, I have pondered a perplexing question. It is this:

How can some of my friends, who are smart and “good people,” not to mention women, be so solidly in the Donald Trump camp?

He lies as a matter of course.

He ridicules almost everyone, including, incredibly, the late Senator John McCain.

He gropes women, then congratulates himself for doing so in language that is incredible for anyone, especially a president.

He disdains all of the conventions and norms of being president – without saying, I add, that conventions and norms are an end in themselves; they are not, but they are a way to illustrate the integrity of the nation’s highest political office.

So, the question nags.

As is often the case, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote a piece late this week that helps me come up with an answer.

“I am watching Washington, D.C., “ Noonan wrote, “and thinking this: We have reached a new crisis point in Donald Trump vs. the Democrats. They are speaking of contempt citations, subpoenas, executive privilege, hearings. It’s a daily barrage. The Democrats are inching closer to impeachment, at least rhetorically, perhaps actually. We’ll see how well Speaker Nancy Pelosi can dance right up to the edge to appease some in her caucus, and not over it.

“But there is such a thing as context, and the Democrats seem to be ignoring it. This is a country divided.

“Almost half the country is for Trump—truly, madly, deeply. Half is against him—unequivocally, unchangeably. There is no resolving this. Or, rather to the extent it can be resolved, it will be resolved at the ballot box. The presidential election is 18 months from now, on Nov. 3, 2020.

“Until then, people are where they are and hold the views they hold, and don’t push them too hard.

“Democrats unveil charges and accusations—the president is a liar, he’s a tax dodger, an obstructor of justice. But in a way Trump’s supporters accounted for all this before they elected him. They are not shocked. They didn’t hire him to be a good man. Their politics are post-heroic. They sometimes tell reporters he’s a man of high character but mostly to drive the reporters crazy. I have never talked to a Trump supporter, and my world is thick with them, who thought he had a high personal character. On the other hand, they sincerely believe he has a high political character, in that he pursues the issues he campaigned on. They hired him as an insult to the political class, as a Hail Mary pass—we’ve tried everything else, maybe this will work—and because he agreed with them on the issues.”

“As a generalization, Trump supporters don’t want or value upstanding character. More Noonan: “Instead, they sincerely believe he has a high political character, in that he pursues the issues he campaigned on. They hired him as an insult to the political class, as a Hail Mary pass—we’ve tried everything else, maybe this will work—and because he agreed with them on the issues.”

There, the answer.

Paint me as anti-Trump.

I value high character in political life. When you see it, you admire it.

Of course, policies have to follow character. But, without character, policy withers away into nothingness.

We could argue about policy until you know what froze over. If we did so, while respecting the other side’s viewpoints, we’d be farther ahead.

We’d be practicing politics as it is meant to be practiced. We’d be searching for compromise without goring anyone who disagreed with us.

Too bad we do not appear to be able to return to this kind of politics. Blame Trump. Blame his supporters. Blame the other side, which cannot get about the business of legislating. I do.

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.

Whatever your views of public processes, it is tough to watch the Oregon Legislature disintegrate into chaos as lawmakers grind forward, sort of, in the last third of their session at the Capitol in Salem.

Republicans in the Senate have taken their toys and gone home, meaning the Senate does not have a quorum to act. I guess I can almost understand that, if, as Republicans contend, the super-majority Democrat have shut them out of any part in deciding whether to impose a sales tax on Oregon business – one that will produce $2 billion.

But what really struck me about this was not the to-ing and fro-ing of political clowns, but the fact that the budget shenanigans underlined fact in my 25 years as a lobbyist in Oregon. The state government is so opaque as to be unintelligible even to a practiced eye.

If new money comes into Oregon – via new taxes or from federal sources – there is no way to be sure that the funds go to improve the intended programs.

In this case, Republicans believe that the $2 billion in business taxes might appear to go, as intended, to K-12 education. But, with the new money, two things could happen:

1. Members of the Joint Ways and Means Committee could take the new money, then remove general funds out from behind the new money so the $2 billion has no particular effect. In budget lingo, it’s called “supplanting” and it happens routinely.
2. Or, in new biennia after the tax is imposed, the proceeds just become “new money” with no strings attached.

All of this came to light late this week when the Oregonian newspaper wrote this:

“Legislative Republicans oppose the education funding bill awaiting a vote in the capitol but they’re proposing an amendment to enshrine it in the state constitution anyway.

“Republicans argue that there’s nothing to prevent future legislatures from diverting the new tax money in the bill for purposes other than schools and early childhood programs.”

According to the Oregonian, Senate President Peter Courtney added to Republican concerns when he testified on the tax bill at a hearing.

From the Oregonian, Courtney was quoted as saying this: “Asked at the hearing about underfunded community colleges, which get no additional revenue in the new tax bill, Courtney said the new tax dollars could ‘free up the general fund money so we can have a really strong conversation, not exclusively about the amount of money in community colleges.

“Republicans say his comments suggest Courtney would like to re-allocate money from the general fund’s education budget into other programs – using the new tax money to offset the education cuts rather than create an overall increase in classroom spending.”

In the Oregonian story, Courtney insisted that’s not what he meant.

All of this to-ing and fro-ing reminded me of my years as a health care lobbyist.

The State of Oregon would get new money ticketed for health care programs – from a federal court settlement against tobacco companies or from taxes on Oregon hospitals and health insurers – and then the money would disappear into a vast budget hole never to be seen again.

Intended to improve health care programs, but supplanting would occur. General funds would be removed from the programs after the new money arrived.

This was one more example of a failed state government budgeting process. For all those who favor the hackneyed phrase in government – “more transparency” – they ought to look at the verse: An opaque budget that will never inspire public confidence in government.

Senate Republicans have made that point this week at the Capitol. But here’s betting that’s all they have made – a point. They won’t win this budget battle in Salem.

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 headline in this blog highlights a very unfortunate fact: It appears it will take a super-human effort to rid this country of the worst president in its history.

Such is the reality of politics these days.

No matter that Donald Trump lies as part of his very nature. No matter that he smears immigrants and other poor people at every turn. No matter that he treats women with disdain and as objects.

Still, many in this country continue to support Trump, which is both amazing and confounding.

Democrats in Congress ,who should be aligned perfectly with the goal of defeating Trump, tend to give him comfort every day. One way is by espousing far-left proposals that would tear this country to shreds, making the United States a government-dependent, socialist regime.

Here’s hoping Americans who vote will see through the charade and vote for a Democrat nominee who has the leadership credentials to restore dignity to the Office of the President – and send Trump down the road, perhaps even to jail for his crimes.

What Democrats should be doing is to craft legislative achievements from the middle — achievements that have a chance to get the attention of voters who cannot tolerate more Trump, plus have little use for the “appeal-to-your-left-wing base” that describes most proposals from Democrats.

One Democrat in the U.S. House, Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, appears most days to be competing with his left-wing colleague, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for headlines, not rational policy proposals.

Here is the heading in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial that characterized Nadler’s current shenanigans:

The Pseudo-Impeachment

Democrats hold show trials rather than vote to oust the President

More from the WSJ:

“House Democrats are escalating their campaign against the Trump Administration with complaints that its resistance to Congressional requests for documents is a threat to democracy. It’s more accurate to say that Democrats are performing what amounts to a pseudo-impeachment so they don’t have to undertake a real one.

“Democrats are agonizing over impeachment because while they’re itching to do it, special counsel Robert Mueller’s report blew up their Russian collusion hopes. He also took no position on obstruction of justice while reporting a highly critical “analysis” of President Trump’s actions. Democrats now find themselves caught between a left-wing base that says they’ll abdicate their duty if they don’t impeach and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s cold-blooded calculation that it could cost their majority in 2020.”

The problem with this play-acting, the WSJ writes, “is that it has Democrats fulminating about actions that aren’t even misdemeanors, much less high crimes. Exhibit A is Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s threat (now accomplished) to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for failing to turn over the entire Mueller report to Congress.

“Yet, Barr has been as accommodating as the law allows. He made the entire report public with light redactions though he didn’t have to release any of it under the law. He has offered to allow senior Members of Congress review redacted material in private, though no Democrats have taken him up on the offer.”

If Nadler wants to continue his Mueller fixation, he should announce that he is beginning formal impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a legitimate congressional power, and at least the public would then understand what Congress is up to and could judge the effort. If Democrats really believe Trump is a threat to the Constitution, they should file articles of impeachment and have every Member vote on them.

Of course, the risk of starting impeachment proceedings is two-fold: (1) the process could work in Trump’s favor as he would claim to be an unfair target; and (2) the Senate would never go along to convict.

The better alternative would be to get about the business of legislating, as well as finding the best candidate to run against Trump in 2020 and run him out of office.

The country would be better for both efforts.

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

I hope the answer to the question is the headline is the private sector.

But, increasingly, Democrats who run the U.S. House, as well as those who aspire to be president, appear to believe that the key to economic growth is government – more government.

Now, I emphasize that government is not all bad and, clearly, government plays a role in helping to produce economic gains.

But if you listen to contenders for president on the left, they believe that everything rides on government – Medicare for All, free college tuition, forgiving student loan debts, repatriation for past misdeeds, and a so-called “Green New Deal.”

I have been “biden” my time for Joe to run.

I mean Joe Biden. I have various questions about his long record of public service, but it is at least a “long record” that includes his time as U.S. Senator and vice president. If experience matters when you make a hire – and I believe it does – Biden has an enviable record.

Given other alternatives among Democrats seeking the nation’s highest political office, Biden is a breath of fresh air. He has not veered so far left as to be off any normal political spectrum. He has not adopted the wacko-left policies of Senators Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren and, at least so far, he has not preened for TV cameras as Senator Kamala Harris has done.

So, I hope he stays in the middle and, thus, presents a viable alternative to the worst president in U.S. history, Donald Trump.

That said, the U.S. economy is thriving under Trump, though much of the reason for growth cannot and should not be ascribed to Trump’s credit, especially given his China tariff actions late, which have driven the stock market into a major retreat.

Still, he will take credit for economic gains and it will be up to candidates like Biden to contend they’ll boost the economy, too.

In April, the U.S. added 263,000 jobs, notching a record 103 straight months of job gains and signaling the current economic expansion shows little sign of stalling.

The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.6 per cent, the lowest since 1969. The official unemployment rate has been at or below 4 per cent for more than a year.

Hiring was strong across most sectors with especially large gains in business services (76,000 jobs added), construction (33,000 jobs added) and health care (27,000 jobs added).

Meanwhile, the economic model under President Barack Obama and Biden, effectively shared by all Biden’s current Democrat rivals, is that government primarily should guide the economy.

An emerging story line of the campaign is that against Sanders’s socialism or Warren’s regulatory militancy, Biden offers a moderate, center-left alternative.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Obama’s term was, to borrow a Biden-esque phrase, the most left-wing presidency in our lifetime, with the vice president, unfortunately, happily in tow. It represented the idea of the private economy as a zero-sum abstraction whose only utility is to create revenue that gets extracted by the government and administered as benefits to the public. For modern Democrats, the private economy has become basically a strung-up piñata.

“The Obama administration imposed an unprecedented array of regulations on every sector of the U.S. economy—finance, energy, telecommunications, health care and on and on.

“Across eight years of Obama’s presidency—during which he and Biden gave speech after speech about helping the middle class—the economy grew annually by about 2 per cent.”

The current growth rate is more than 3 per cent.

I hope Biden will hew more to the center as he runs for president. The center is where the private sector produces economic gains and government does its part to make economic gains possible in the spirit of not taxing everything and everyone and not imposing regulation after regulation.

I argue for balance, which is becoming harder and harder to achieve in a political system that is more oriented to appealing to bases than to the public interest.

I hope Biden continues to hew toward the center.

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 three departments I run with a free hand to do as I wish, which means, forgive the thought, that I am a bit like Donald Trump as he “runs” the presidency — no sideboards.

The other departments I run are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

The Department of Just Saying is now open.

Example #1: Just saying that Nancy Pelosi as U. S. House Speaker is not the leader we deserve.

Here’s how the Wall Street Journal put it, with tongue at least partially in cheek:

“Doing her best to raise the level of civility in Washington, Nancy Pelosi called William Barr a liar on Thursday. The House Speaker even accused the Attorney General of committing a ‘crime’ when he testified to Congress about a memo he issued outlining the main conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

“The Speaker says the AG lied last month when he said he didn’t know what members of the special counsel’s team were referencing when they complained his memo didn’t accurately portray their findings. Barr said he didn’t know, but that ‘they probably wanted more put out.’

“At most this is a small evasion. Barr had talked to Mueller, who had told him nothing in the AG’s summary was inaccurate and was unspecific in his objections beyond wanting more of his report released. The AG should have anticipated that Mueller’s March 27 letter to him would leak, but he didn’t lie about its contents.

“The real reason for Mrs. Pelosi’s slander is what else said the last time he was before Congress. He said that spying on a political campaign was a ‘big deal,’ that he thought the FBI did spy on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that he intends to find out what happened and why. Democrats want to intimidate him to drop this or discredit him before he can release his findings.”

Example #2: Just saying that Representative Jerry Nadler, Democrat from New York, should get about the important business of legislating, not trying to hang Attorney General William Barr.

Again, here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it:

“The congressman from New York has been itching to get Donald Trump almost from the day he was elected president. Alas, just as Nadler finds himself in a position to do it—as House Judiciary Committee chairman he has jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings—special counsel Robert Mueller dropped a report that found zero evidence of collusion with Russia. With no crime to cover up, what would the president have been obstructing?

“But like a crooked sheriff in a low-budget Western, Nadler is determined to go on with his hanging—even if it’s not the guy originally planned. Which explains what the committee’s ranking member, Georgia’s Doug Collins, characterizes as a ‘deluge of perverse demands’ Nadler has made on Attorney General William Barr: That he submit to grilling from lawyers instead of Members of Congress; that he release grand-jury testimony; and that he comply with an artificial deadline or be held in contempt of Congress.”

Example #3: Just saying that Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat from California, better get her act together if she intends to compete for the presidency on the D side.

Again, from the Wall Street Journal:

“The reviews are in, and Senator Kamala Harris’s performance during Attorney General William Barr’s testimony last week was a hit! ‘Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck,’ Vanity Fair announced. The only problem with her made-for-TV performance is that Harris’s questions were absurd—so vague or weird that they perplexed the attorney general.

“Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone, yes or no?” she asked. Barr stared at the ceiling and twirled his pen deliberatively. He said he was struggling with the ambiguity of the word ‘suggest,’ but he could just have easily have pointed to the two occurrences of the broad term ‘anyone,’ as well as the vagueness of the topic of the prospective ‘investigation.’ Something related to the Mueller report? Maybe, but her phrasing leaves that open.”

As a person who operates from the center – all right, perhaps just a bit right of center – I think we need better leaders on both sides of the aisle in Washington, D.C.

For one thing, with the Mueller report now open to anyone in a lightly-redacted form – and its conclusion, for better or worse, depending on your point-of-view — it is time to get on with the business of legislating, not trying to create collusion where Mueller could not find any.

With no underlying crime, there would be no obstruction and I say this, not to whitewash Trump, but to contend that he should be held to account for what he has done and said, not for vague obstruction notions.

Kick him out of office by beating him at the polls in 2020. To do that, Democrats will need to find leaders better than Pelosi, Nadler or Harris.

Bring on centrists who will pledge to restore dignity and character to the highest office in the land, the presidency, as well to Congress where many issues lie on the cutting room floor as everyone investigates everyone else.

**********

Because the Department of Pet Peeves is not open, let me add this pet peeve, plus my solution to it based, of course, on my intelligence and creativity.

My pet peeve is that, when you buy a new garden hose, there always is a “this doesn’t kink-up factor.” Of course, the moment you get it home, it kinks up.

Not, I report, with a metal hose. We have bought two and, wonder of wonders, no kink!

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

Every time I read about health care single payer proposals, such as from socialist candidate for president Bernie Sanders, I cannot help but think of this TV advertising line:

“I want it all and I want it now.”

The ad is for some goofy offering – Grubub on-line that will make food deliveries to your house.

Sanders wants to make the same kind of delivery. You can have all the health care you want and you can have it now.

At least that’s true until you look at the details of what Sanders and others are proposing. For one thing, no one want so talk about the cost of the “have it all and have it now” proposition, which goes into the billions, if not trillions, of dollars and would require huge tax increases.

That doesn’t bother Sanders and his ilk because they love spending other people’s money.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) put it this way this week in a headline on an editorial:

The Burdens of BernieCare

Congress’s budget gnomes tip-toe around single-payer’s reality

The editorial went on:

“Bernie Sanders sells Medicare for All as a simple idea: ‘You will have a card which has Medicare on it, you’ll go to any doctor that you want, you’ll go to any hospital that you want.’ So, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided a public service last week by describing, albeit in thick and cautious bureaucratese, what it would really take to float BernieCare.

“Democrats asked CBO to lay out some parameters of how to set up single-payer, hoping to elude analysis of any one bill in Congress. The latter would carry political accountability—and a price tag. Instead CBO walks through ‘key design components and considerations’ in a report that aims to bore and deploys the word ‘could 209 times.

According to the WSJ, the CBO report acknowledges, for example, that a transition that includes moving 160 million people from employer-sponsored coverage to single payer would be “complicated, challenging, and potentially disruptive” to health care and the economy.

“Further,” WSJ continues, “the Sanders Medicare for All bill would ban private coverage that competes with government. CBO notes dryly that single-payer proposals often prohibit private insurance because ‘some high-income people might prefer to purchase substitutive insurance that offered more generous benefits or greater access to providers.’

“And you can’t go to any doctor you want if government isn’t paying providers what services really cost. The point of Medicare for All is to cut reimbursement rates to Medicare levels, which government can now set so low only because private commercial reimbursement rates are so much higher. Cutting reimbursement rates would ‘probably reduce the amount of care supplied and could also reduce the quality of care,’ CBO says.”

The CBO does not wade into the details of what all this would cost, though it admits “government spending on health care would increase substantially.”

Honest private estimates suggest it would take at least a doubling of individual and corporate taxes to fund Medicare for All. Proponents say the country will save money through lower administrative costs, which CBO says may materialize. But the real savings would have to come from where the money is: Cutting payments to doctors and restricting care.

Another way to describe Sanders’ apparent motivation is that he wants voters to believe he is offering a free lunch. You’ll get what you want and you’ll get it now – so, he says, vote for me.

But voters should know Sanders is promising miracles when what he’ll deliver is poorer care for everyone.

My fervent and continuing wish is that people of goodwill and good intent on both sides of the political aisle – yes, there are a few left – would get together, figuratively, around a round table and hammer out health care public policy from the middle.

Is there room for improvement in what is now offered? Absolutely. From the left — spend all you have and more. From the right, throw up roadblocks to any new proposal. Neither will do the trick.

What we need is a commitment to find the smart middle, which is, to be sure, well nigh impossible in the current environment.

Too bad!

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.

A stupid question you may say.

Or, an artificial one.

Or, one not deserving a moment’s thought in a society plagued by serious problems.

Or, who cares?

Well, I do – care that is.

The question was contained in the on-line version of Links Magazine, which I received this morning. It followed another Links column touting the mental gymnastics of remembering all of the golf courses you have played in your life.

That column was based on a total – 750 golf courses – posted by Links editor, George Peper, one never to be reached by others, including me.

But, I took Peper’s challenge and, with help from my wife and daughter, came up with 180 courses.

If was a fun exercise, not because of the number, but because of all the memories that flooded back.

As for the question to name the best course you’ve never played, I have two.

One is Augusta National, the venue in Georgia where The Masters Golf Tournament is played every year. I have been there once – to watch, not play – and I suspect that’s all I’ll ever do again, given the intense difficulty of playing on that historic venue.

So be it.

My second best course not played would be Pebble Beach in California, which I might play if only because it is on the West Coast where I live. Of course, I’d have to stomach the $500+ cost for a round there.

The Links article listed other courses where more famous golf folks than me would like to play. Relating to the list below, I have had the privilege of playing in two of the locations mentioned – Royal Dornoch in Scotland, which remains one of my very favorite golf courses in the entire world, and the four (soon to be five) courses at Bandon Dunes on the South Oregon Coast.

Here are some of the listed courses.

Gil Hanse
Course Architect

“I’m chasing Swinley Forest, the heathland course outside of London. Harry Colt referred to it as his ‘least bad course’ and he built some great stuff so it must be really special.

Jay Monahan
PGA Tour Commissioner

“Lahinch. We took a family trip in 1991 and on the back end of it we were going to play Lahinch and Ballybunion. We were five so I sat out and my mother, father, and two brothers played it.

Mickey Wright
LPGA Hall of Famer

“The only course I wanted to play but didn’t get to was Pine Valley. I was told women were not allowed. Had no problem with that at the time, but heard it was a wonderful and difficult course.

Greg Norman
Two-time Open Champion and course architect

“Believe it or not, I have never played Pine Valley. As Pine Valley has never hosted a major professional event and I have never spent a significant amount of time up north, I simply have not had the opportunity to play.

Suzy Whaley
President, PGA of America

“Olympic Club. I’ve always wanted to play it.

Mike Keiser
Golf course developer

“Royal St. George’s Golf Club in England, with Augusta National running a close second.

Brad Faxon
Champions Tour/Fox Sports

“I get asked some version of this question a lot and what I always say is if I go through any top 100 list the first course I get to that I haven’t played is the one I’m dying to see. Currently on the world list it’s Royal Dornoch in Scotland.

Pete Bevacqua
Former PGA CEO and current NBC Sports President

“I’d love to take a trip out to Bandon Dunes. I’ve heard so many great things from so many people and I’ve had several invites and opportunities to go, but it just has never worked out and it’s something I look forward to doing at some point.”

Jim Nantz
CBS Sports anchor

“The Old Course at St. Andrews. Walked it many times as a fan, including four Open Championships. Seen every inch of the mother ship—but outside the ropes, never inside. I’ve actually played it dozens of times…in my mind.”

Jim Furyk
U.S. Open Champion/Ryder Cup Captain

“Sand Hills. I’m fascinated that they built it for only $1 million, and I’m a fan of anything Coore & Crenshaw does.”

Dottie Pepper
LPGA/CBS Sports

“Muirfield in Scotland. I’ve covered the Open Championship there, but I’ve never played it and it’s my favorite walk in golf.”

Annika Sorenstam
LPGA Hall of Famer and course architect

“My course would be Royal County Down because I’m a big fan of links golf.

So, in the spirit of Links Magazine, where is the best course you’ve never had a chance to play?