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 still remember the time when one of my good friends told me that, when Donald Trump won the presidency three years ago, she went out and danced in the middle of the street to express her happiness.

Perhaps she was exaggerating, but I don’t think so.

To preserve our friendship over the last three years, we don’t talk much about Trump. For one thing, there are better topics to share. For another, all Trump-talk would do is spark disagreement.

One of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, who writes for the Wall Street Journal wrote about this subject under this headline:

My Sister, My Uncle and Trump

They loved him and were sure he’d win. I couldn’t share their jolliness, but I respected their rebellion.

Noonan recounted that it was four years ago this week, June 16, 2015, when she encountered her relatives’ love for Trump. She thought of again this week as she watched Trump announce his re-election campaign.

“This guy isn’t going to be president,” she said then three-plus years ago. “We’ve been reading about his tabloid antics for 30 years. But he’ll have some impact, some support. Who? How much?”

Noonan continues (and it is better for me to use much of her words rather than trying to write me own):

“At this point (three years ago or so when Trump announced his first election bid) my phone rang,” Noonan writes. “It was my elder sister Cookie, formerly of Staten Island, New York, now living down South, a person who’s lived a hard life and gotten through it with a spirit she does not fully see or credit. She’s not particularly political, not at all partisan.

“She didn’t even say hello. She just said, ‘I loooooove him.’

“I was startled. Who?

“’Donald Trump. Did you see it?’ She’d watched the announcement live. ‘He’s going to win.’

“Cookie had voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and told me he would win, so I knew I was hearing something.

“Honey, tell me why you love him.”

“’He’s telling the truth!’ He described our political life as she experienced it: Washington doesn’t care about the people, both parties are full of it, they don’t even care enough to control the border. ‘He’s the one who can break through and clean that place up.’

“We hang up and the phone rings again. It’s Uncle Patrick—early 80s, Brooklyn Irish, U.S. Marine, worked at a bank on Long Island.

“He doesn’t introduce himself either.

“’So how do you like my guy!’ He’s pumped.

“Would that be Donald Trump?”

“Yeah! D’ja see it?”

“We talked, the beginning of many such conversations between me and Pat and me and Cookie.

“Their gift was alerting me, honestly and early, that something was happening in America, something big and confounding, something that deserved concentrated attention — and respect.

“They were patriots; they loved America. They weren’t radical; they’d voted for Republicans and Democrats. They had no grudge against any group or class. They knew that, on America’s list of allowable bigotries, they themselves — middle Americans, Christians who believed in the old constitutional rights — were the only ones you were allowed to look down on. It’s no fun looking down on yourself, so looking down wasn’t their habit.

“But they were looking at their country and seeing bad trend lines. In choosing Trump, they were throwing a Hail Mary pass, but they didn’t sound desperate. They always sounded jolly. And I realized they hadn’t sounded jolly about politics in a while.

“Below the jolliness I sense the spirit of the jailbreak. They were finally allowed to be renegades. They were playing the part of the rebel in a country that had long cast them as the boring Americans —stodgy, drone-like, nothing to say. The working and middle class, dependable heartland-type boobs. Everyone else got to act up and complain. They were just there to pay the taxes, love the country, send boys to war.

“Now they were pushing back, and hell it was fun. It was like joining a big, beautiful anti-BS movement. It was like they were telling the entire political class, ‘I’m gonna show a little juice, baby, brace yourself.’”

For her part, Noonan said she thought, then and now, that America should think twice about “putting the American nuclear arsenal in the hands of a TV host.”

She wrote, “It is a weakness of Trump supporters now that they still cannot take seriously the un-readiness of the White House for a sudden, immediate and high-stakes crisis. They do not see the chaos and the lack of professionalism of the unstaffed government as a danger. It is a dreadful one.”

Noonan’s conversations with her relatives convinced her that they were among citizens who felt those who govern America do not really care about, or emotionally affiliate with, the people of their own country.

I believe the fault for all of this lies with both political parties, not just one side.

It would be possible to suggest that Democrats always have a better idea about a government solution for every problem. Just consider the views of the 23 or is it 24 Ds running for president. Most of them want to do away with democracy and cultivate a socialistic state, which means they want to spend other people’s money until there is no more left.

Republicans are different, of course, but no better at appearing to represent the country – all of the country. They just want to say “no” to everything, contending that there is not smart middle on any public policy issue.

Noonan’s relatives — Cookie and Patrick — are going to vote for Trump in the 2020 election. As Cookie texted to Noonan, “He is a marauder, a maverick.”

I suppose it is possible to understand the unrest that motivates many in the country to choose a person unfit to be president or act like a seasoned leader of the free world, with his finger on the nuclear button.

Still, I hope the unrest – not to mention zeal for Trump – means he will not get another four years in the Oval Office.

And, to be frank about my friend, I hope she will not be dancing in the streets again a year or so from now.

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 Oregon lobbyists asked me the question in the headline the other day as she contended with a tough task – representing business interests in an Oregon Capitol dominated by anti-business Democrats.

The fact is that most Democrats have no idea about what it takes to start or stay in business. What’s more, they often don’t care. Or they don’t want to learn anything. Which makes my lobby colleague chafe under the weight of the fog.

So, as someone who represented businesses over more than 25 years at the Capitol, here are a few answers for my lobby colleague, though there are no magic ones.

PHRASE YOUR ASKS IN “PUBLIC INTEREST” LANGUAGE

One of the ways to doom any perspective you advance on the part of business is to accept a “special interest” label. That will almost surely kill your proposition.

Is what you advance a special interest? The answer is yes if you don’t mean the term in a pejorative way. There is nothing wrong with special interests until those who have them advance their cause only be denigrating others.

But it is better to find real perspectives that link with the public interest.

Here is one example from my years as a lobbyist. On behalf of Providence Health & Services, which is a business, as well as collection of hospitals and a major insurance arm, we advocated for increased funding for Medicaid, which serves low-income Oregonians.

While the increased funding would go to Providence’s bottom line, we did not emphasize that fact, though, of course, under questioning, we readily confirmed it.

What we emphasized was how the investment would help Oregon and, in particular, low-income citizens, both adults and children, who would have an easier time receiving health care services. We advocated that improving Medicaid funding was in the “public interest” – and it was.

Our approach was successful.

CREATE LINKAGES TO WHAT I CALL “THE JOBS ISSUE”

It is critical to contend that a piece of pro-business legislation is important to help your business client save and create jobs. I continue to be amazed that more public officials do not embrace the jobs issue as an important public policy platform.

For me, having a job is a major key to success and purpose in life, as well as a critical answer to many of the social ills facing this country.

So, on behalf of your business client, convey accurate and honest information about how a legislative issue will help save or create jobs – or, in the reverse, cost jobs.

It is likely many Democrats won’t buy the argument; they don’t appear to care about jobs as they inflate government and want citizens to pay more taxes. Still, the argument is a sound one that at least may give business opponents just a bit of pause.

FIND A CHAMPION, EITHER A DEMOCRAT OR A CENTRIST REPUBLICAN, WHO KNOWS HOW TO CROSS POLITICAL AISLES

It often is better for your business perspectives to be uttered by a credible legislator who has the ability to work across party lines at the Capitol.

This, in fact, may be the most important of the tactics I have outlined so far.  Finding a champion is critical.

I managed to achieve this on numerous occasions over my 25-year lobby tenure. Champions may be few and far between these days, but they exist.

In a few cases, the champion I cultivated was Senator Neil Bryant, a Republican from Bend, who, today, calls himself a RINO – a “Republican in name only” — who would not fit in today’s far right, often-antagonistic Republican party.

On behalf of Providence, for example, he served as the champion for various health care issues and his status as a centrist leader created more success than I could have achieved on my own.

Another leader I cultivated was Senator Betsy Johnson, a Democrat from Scappoose who still serves in the Legislature. Her status as a centrist Democrat gave my business clients standing they would not have achieved otherwise.

Are champions a magic answer? Like all other strategies to advance the cause of business, no.

But, in a liberal legislature like the one in Oregon, finding the sweet spots of the “public interest,” job saving or creation, and cultivating champions can help any lobbyist post a few wins for business.

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. 

**********

NOTE:  Typos are the bane of any writer’s existence, especially mine.  So, because there were a couple typos in what I posted yesterday on the immigration issue, I post it again here.

**********

Having recently returned from a river cruise down the Danube – including stops at World War II sites that chronicled the atrocities of Adolph Hitler as he tried to incinerate all Jews – I cannot help but think of this country’s issue with immigrants.

To be sure, the immigrants do not constitute a race of people, as was the case with the Jews, but they do represent poor folks who have been identified by “our” president, one Donald Trump, not worthy of a second thought.

I, for one, choose to stand against the Trump doctrine that immigrants do not deserve to come to this country because they, somehow, are second-class potential citizens and, even, criminals.

Here are the two perspectives on immigrants in this country.

Perspective #1: All immigrants, especially those from Mexico, should be bared from entering this country because they are criminals. So says President Donald Trump, along with many of his followers, who support his foolhardy support for building a wall.

Perspective #2: This country was founded on the backs of immigrants and, to this day, the United States benefits from the contributions of those who want to share in the freedom of life in the U.S.

Those perspectives are far apart and, apparently, never the twain shall meet.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post showed up recently with a clear description of the immigration problem in the aftermath of concern about Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Mexico as a way to stem the tide of immigrants (which did not fully work the Trump wanted).

Here is what Post editors wrote:

“The more durable fix (for the immigration problem) would be to allow for the legal flow of immigrants that the economy needs, including legal status for ‘dreamers’ — immigrants generally brought here as small children who are Americans in all but documentation. Such reform would then impose real penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers. Trump could achieve such a reform if he ceased inflaming the issue for electoral advantage, vilifying immigrants as ‘criminals’ and ‘invaders.’”

My basic question is this: Can politics and religion – read, Christianity – ever build bridges, not walls to deal with the immigration issue?

I am not sure, especially if you come from the perspective that politics and religion should never meet, at least in the public square.

I generally believe that to be true, but, in this case, I believe Christianity has something important to say about how this country treats immigrants.

In politics, apart from Trump’s diatribes, it strikes me that there should be a consensus around one basic proposition: This country should provide a way for immigrants to enter legally instead of, under Trump, making it more difficult and accusing all those who try to enter of being criminals.

For Trump and “his wall,” he must believe that he benefits if he leads his followers to be anti-immigrant. For him, the issue is not developing sound policy. The issue is either appealing to his base or fomenting controversy via Twitter, all in the continuing infomercial for his Trump brand, whatever that brand is.

As for religion – or, better put, being a Christian — I believe scripture contains admonitions for us that should capture our attention and compel our action.

Recent sermons at our church here in Salem, Oregon, dealt with our responsibility, as Christians, to help those less fortunate than ourselves; to care for what was called, the “quartet of the vulnerable” – widows, children, strangers, and the poor.

These were not sermons on immigration, per se, nor were they comments on the state of immigration politics in this country, which is a topic, fortunately, not dealt with from the front of our church sanctuary. The sermons were calls for us to function as real Christians.

These sermons emphasized the following to me:

• The importance of recognizing the admonitions in Isaiah 58: 6-7: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: To loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke; to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?

“Is it not to share your food with the hungry, and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter – when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not turn away from your own flesh and blood.

“Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.”

• The importance of recognizing the admonitions in James 2:15-16: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one says to him, go, I wish you well and keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?”

We can go on in this country following Trump when he leads us to take care of only ourselves and not those who need help – to oppose all immigrants who want to enter this country. What he leads us to is division and selfishness, not collaboration and kindness.

Or, despite Trump, we can follow what the Bible says about helping others, no matter their particular station in life.

In his insightful exploration of the “pre-history” of the Holocaust, “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?” (2011), German historian Götz Aly has observed that the Nazis’ racial theories were significant because they fomented anti-Semitism, which was already ingrained among all social strata of Germany and Austria by the time Hitler arrived on the scene, but more because those theories made hatred acceptable to the haters.

The idea was that an objective, scientific theory of racial purity lay behind their antipathy to the Jews. And, Aly wrote, the notion allowed Germans “to conceal their shameful, base resentment of others behind supposedly more sophisticated arguments.”

I fear that the same could be said of what anti-immigrants believe about those who want to seek a better life in this country. They are not like us, so oppose them.

Better, I say, to follow the scripture in Philippians 2:4: “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” – and, for me, the others in this case are immigrants.

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 can write this headline, not just because of who won the U.S. Open yesterday and the way the victory occurred, but because of the winner’s personal pedigree.

The winner was Gary Woodland, an 11-year pro who had a good, but not great, record heading into the 119^th national golf tournament.

He prevailed on the fabled Pebble Beach Golf Links in Northern California, fending off a challenge from his playing partner on the last day Justin Rose, but also the lurking presence of the two-times-in-a-row U.S. Open winner Brooks Koepka.

Good for Woodland.

What draws me to Woodland as a competitor is that, first, he plays golf well, especially under pressure, but, second, is that he comes across as solid human being in doing so.

The best example was at the Waste Management Phoenix Open at the TPC Course in Scottsdale earlier this year.

There, Woodland, in a practice round, “starred” in a viral video of Special Olympics golfer Amy Bockerstette making par on famous 16th hole, the one with so many grandstands that the hole looks like it is being play in an amphitheater.

Woodland was the defending champion who helped shepherd Bockerstette, a college golfer with Down Syndrome, through her incredible tee shot, then an up-and-down out of the sand at one of golf’s most renowned holes.

By every account, including from Woodland, the star of the show was the 20-year-old Bockersette.

It’s also apparent how much Woodland relished being a part of it. “Something I’ll never forget,” Woodland said in January.

As he sat for media interviews after his U.S. Open yesterday, he recalled the moment with fondness. He noted Bockersette’s phrase as she prepared for the bunker shot, “I’ve got this.”

He also reflected on his own journey to golf’s peak, which started after he gave up other sports – basketball and baseball – to focus on golf.

What’s more important than golf to Woodland is his family. He and his wife have one young son who survived physical trials after birth, plus twins are due in a couple months.

Fittingly, on Father’s Day, Woodland said he’ll relish telling his children about his U.S. Open win, even as he does what his father did for him, which is call his children to proceed through life with a positive attitude.

“Positively is infectious,” he said.

“I’ve got this,” he might say.

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.

Having recently returned from a river cruise down the Danube – including stops at World War II sites that chronicled the atrocities of Adolph Hitler as he tried to incinerate all Jews – I cannot help but think of this country’s issue with immigrants.

To be sure, the immigrants do not constitute a race of people, as was the case with the Jews, but they do represent poor folks who have been identified by “our” president, one Donald Trump, not worthy of a second thought.

I, for one, choose to stand against the Trump doctrine that immigrants do not deserve to come to this country because they, somehow, are second-class potential citizens and, even, criminals.

Here are the two perspectives on immigrants in this country.

Perspective #1: All immigrants, especially those from Mexico, should be bared from entering this country because they are criminals. So says President Donald Trump, along with many of his followers, who support his foolhardy support for building a wall.

Perspective #2: This country was founded on the backs of immigrants and, to this day, the United States benefits from the contributions of those who want to share in the freedom of life in the U.S.

Those perspectives are far apart and, apparently, never the twain shall meet.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post showed up recently with a clear description of the immigration problem in the aftermath of concern about Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Mexico as a way to stem the tide of immigrants (which did not fully work the Trump wanted).

Here is what Post editors wrote:

“The more durable fix (for the immigration problem) would be to allow for the legal flow of immigrants that the economy needs, including legal status for ‘dreamers’ — immigrants generally brought here as small children who are Americans in all but documentation. Such reform would then impose real penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers. Trump could achieve such a reform if he ceased inflaming the issue for electoral advantage, vilifying immigrants as ‘criminals’ and ‘invaders.’”

My basic question is this: Can politics and religion – read, Christianity – ever build bridges, not walls to deal with the immigration issue?

I am not sure, especially if you come from the perspective that politics and religion should never meet, at least in the public square.

I generally believe that to be true, but, in this case, I believe Christianity has something important to say about how this country treats immigrants.

In politics, apart from Trump’s diatribes, it strikes me that there should be a consensus around one basic proposition: This country should provide a way for immigrants to enter legally instead of, under Trump, making it more difficult and accusing all those who try to enter of being criminals.

For Trump and “his wall,” he must believe that he benefits if he leads his followers to be anti-immigrant. For him, the issue is not developing sound policy. The issue is either appealing to his base or fomenting controversy via Twitter, all in the continuing infomercial for his Trump brand, whatever that brand is.

As for religion – or, better put, being a Christian — I believe scripture contains admonitions for us that should capture our attention and compel our action.

Recent sermons at our church here in Salem, Oregon, dealt with our responsibility, as Christians, to help those less fortunate than ourselves; to care for what was called, the “quartet of the vulnerable” – widows, children, strangers, and the poor.

These were not sermons on immigration, per se, nor were they comments on the state of immigration politics in this country, which is a topic, fortunately, not dealt with from the front of our church sanctuary. The sermons were calls for us to function as real Christians.

These sermons emphasized the following to me:

• The importance of recognizing the admonitions in Isaiah 58: 6-7: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: To loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke; to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?

“Is it not to share your food with the hungry, and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter – when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not turn away from your own flesh and blood.

“Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.”

• The importance of recognizing the admonitions in James 2:15-16: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one says to him, go, I wish you well and keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?”

We can go on in this country following Trump when he leads us to take care of only ourselves and not those who need help – to oppose all immigrants who want to enter this country. What he leads us to is division and selfishness, not collaboration and kindness.

Or, despite Trump, we can follow what the Bible says about helping others, no matter their particular station in life.

In his insightful exploration of the “pre-history” of the Holocaust, “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?” (2011), German historian Götz Aly has observed that the Nazis’ racial theories were significant because they fomented anti-Semitism, which was already ingrained among all social strata of Germany and Austria by the time Hitler arrived on the scene, but more because those theories made hatred acceptable to the haters.

The idea was that an objective, scientific theory of racial purity lay behind their antipathy to the Jews. And, Aly wrote, the notion allowed Germans “to conceal their shameful, base resentment of others behind supposedly more sophisticated arguments.”

I fear that the same could be said of what anti-immigrants believe about those who want to seek a better life in this country. They are not like us, so oppose them.

Better, I say, to follow the scripture in Philippians 2:4: “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” – and, for me, the others in this case are immigrants.

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.

Given my years as a state government manager and a lobbyist, I know something about government budgeting in Oregon, which I have labeled “opaque.”

The federal government is even more difficult, if only because of its size. If we needed more information about an unreliable congressional budget process, we got some recently in a post by James Freeman in the Wall Street Journal.

Here is part of what he wrote under this headline:

‘We’re Talking About a Couple Billion Dollars’

Did Speaker Pelosi just admit that most infrastructure funding won’t fund infrastructure?

Freeman wrote this:

“A favorite Beltway pastime is to sell voters on the idea of building roads and bridges and then quietly allocate much of the funding to alternative energy start-ups and other economic marginalia. Usually, taxpayers have to wait years after the enactment of an infrastructure plan to learn just how little infrastructure they got for their money.

“But now it appears that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat from California, is doing taxpayers a modest favor by outlining the misspending to come from Washington’s next big deal.” [Which is a reference to an infrastructure that, at one point, appeared to be possible, but appears to have receded from view because Congress and President don’t know how to deal with each other.]

In a recent news conference, the Speaker, along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (the Democrat from New York) and other Democratic colleagues, committed to more “infrastructure” spending.

When Pelosi delved into the types of projects that might receive funding under her plan, she mentioned roads, bridges, mass transit projects and broadband Internet connections, as well as water and sewer systems and “all of the things that have enormous needs.”

Then Pelosi added, “We’re talking about a couple billion dollars.”

This, Freeman avers, “may sound like a refreshingly modest spending request by Beltway standards. The problem is that the Speaker and her Democrat colleagues have already agreed that the overall bill should cost one thousand times that amount.

“If Pelosi means what she says, the next infrastructure bill will be even less efficient at funding roads and bridges than the 2009 stimulus plan she enacted along with by Schumer and President Barack Obama.

A Huffington Post article in 2014 cited a report from the Obama White House as the source for data on how the more than $800 billion in stimulus money was spent:

The author of the Post article said this: “I was curious how much of the stimulus plan went to these transportation infrastructure projects. Toward the back of the report, there’s a chart that gives the number: $30 billion.

“First, how did the headline goal of the stimulus — rebuilding infrastructure — become a small footnote? Because, as Obama subsequently discovered, “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.

“The approval process for any significant project (a new road, or power line, or pipeline) approaches a decade, and often longer. An impenetrable legal swamp stands between America and a modern infrastructure.

“Second, if not infrastructure, where was most of the stimulus money spent?

The author found that, “among other boondoggles, clean energy subsidies received more than twice as much as transportation infrastructure and various benefit payments to individuals and state governments consumed much more.”

By discussing “a couple billion dollars” at her news conference, Pelosi now appears to be promising that far less than one percent of the next infrastructure plan will be funding infrastructure.”

This reminds me of what happens in Oregon government budgeting. I defy anyone to confirm that allocations end up funding the state purpose – no matter what legislative leaders say to the media.

Three things happen, as I have stated before – supplanting, sweeping and sojourning.

In the first case – “supplanting” — assume that “new money” from some source arrives in Oregon to fund a specific program. The money goes to that program, then “original money” that was intended for that purpose, is taken away. It’s “supplanting.”

In the second case – “sweeping” — money specifically targeted for one purpose (and taxpayers are advised of this “commitment”) – is “swept” away for another purpose, one that aligns with legislative leaders’ pet programs.

In the third case, which I label “sojourning” (in order to preserve alliteration), money goes to an intended purpose, but only stays there for a certain period of time, then is re-allocated elsewhere, again in line with the priorities of leaders – and with no confirmation to taxpayers.

What you end up with is an opaque process. No one knows where the money really is, so it becomes almost impossible, as well, to judge the effect of state spending.

Which is one reason why I am toying with voting in favor of referring a new, huge state business tax to voters – because I will have no way to confirm that all the new money goes to the intended purpose, which is to fund K-12 schools.

Government at all levels – local, state and federal – suffers from the same opacity.

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.

It seems like it will be an eternity before we get to the 2020 presidential election.

It is not likely to be a statesman-like process as we select the next president and, at the moment, I fervently hope it will not be Donald Trump.

Here are some perceptions about the process so far.

Democrats continue to practice the art of personal destruction. Former vice president and senator Joe Biden is ahead in the polls, so the rest of the Ds go after him, trying to soften him up for the D primary.

Of course, their action – typical for a disorganized political party – is to give aid and comfort to the one they want to beat in the general, Donald Trump.

Republicans continue to rally around Trump who exhibits none – exactly none – of the attributes we expect in a president.

He builds walls, not bridges.

He demonizes all immigrants.

He separates immigrant children from their parents, with little chance of ever finding restoration.

When I attended my granddaughter’s class a few months ago in Woodinville, Washington, it was her turn to present a report to the call on a president. It turns out that her assignment was Rutherford B. Hayes who was described as the worst president in U.S. history.

Hayes now has a competitor for that title – Trump, whom I say, wins hands down.

One bright spot has emerged in all of the recent to-ing and fro-ing over the next presidential election.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg gave the first major foreign policy speech of the primary season a few days ago.

According to the Washington Post, Buttigieg deserves high praise for his willingness to devote a full speech to the topic, to speak for more than an hour, to cover not simply major themes but to hit issues affecting each continent, and to direct even-handed criticism at both Democrats and Republicans.

While other Ds talk about huge tax increases, establishing a so-called “green economy” (which would bankrupt the country), and moving down a path toward socialism, Buttigieg illustrated his credentials for the nation’s top job – credentials that rely on preserving democracy.

He provided an emphasis on responsible leadership with use of force only as a last resort; a commitment to alliances that make us stronger; a connection between American values and prosperity; and the U.S. role in the world.

He structured his speech around the three key components of his foreign policy thinking — our values, our interests and our alliances.

The Post said, “He is no left-wing isolationist. He said quite plainly that ‘the world needs America more than ever,’ and, while declaring the country in need of a new foreign policy, he showed he has smartly sifted through past experience and extracted lessons both good and bad.

Did Buttigieg’s speech answer all of the questions imbedded in U.S. foreign policy? Of course not.

But, as the Posts concluded in its report: “A candidate who can identify, not to mention analyze, the rise of illiberal regimes as a threat to our interests and can find Sudan and Algeria on the map, let alone speak intelligently about them, deserves praise.

“A candidate willing to explain that immigration is a national security issue because we want and need the talent of those seeking to come here to help innovate and contribute to the economy should get credit.

“A Democrat forcefully defending the good that the United States does in the world deserves encouragement. He set a high bar for other candidates. Let’s see how they match up.”

As we head toward the 2020 elections, I am hoping to find someone – I don’t care about political party – who has a decent chance to unseat Trump. It appears to me that Buttigieg deserves a further look.

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.

Why is this sometimes-esoteric subject an issue for me – the issue of non-compete contracts that make it difficult for high-level professional talent to jump without warning from one employer to another?

Well, my background relates to public policy issues at the Capitol several years ago when I represented the Oregon Association of Broadcasters (OAB). [The assocation is still represented by my old firm, CFM Strategic Communications.]

At that time, a state senator who was a former broadcaster decided, without consultation with the industry, that he should propose doing away with non-competes. He did so at the behest of a union, the American Federal of Television and Radio Artists.

Removing non-compete agreements, he contended, would occur without regard to the fact that broadcast stations often had invested millions of dollars to promote on-air talent.

Better, I contended at the time, for policymakers to recognize the investment and allow broadcast stations to allow non-competes for a limited amount of time, say three years.

We eventually found just a bit of middle ground to preserve the use of non-competes for broadcasters, but with some restrictions.

All of this came to mind recently when I read a column in the Wall Street Journal under this headline:

Your longtime doctor moves. Will you lose that physician because of a non-compete clause?

The piece reported problems for patients when a physician moved from one practice to another without information being provided about the move and patients left to scramble to find a physician with whom they had a relationship.

Here is an excerpt from the piece:

“A physician had decided to change jobs, but her contract included a non-compete clause that prevented her from working for a competitor within 10 miles for a year after she left. A non-solicitation agreement also meant she couldn’t tell patients where she was going. If they asked, she would need to tell them to search online for her.”

The WSJ reports that it’s not clear how often doctors sign covenants, the contract clauses that limit where they can go or what they can say after leaving a job, says David Clark, a partner at Epstein Becker & Green, a law firm in New York.

Laws vary by state — both in what’s allowed in physician contracts and what is enforceable. In some states — including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware and Colorado — health-care systems can’t legally enforce contract provisions that prevent health-care employees from working for competitors.

Other states — including Texas, New Mexico, Connecticut and Tennessee — allow them with various limitations on how restrictive they can be.

As was true for the broadcasters I represented, hospitals and clinics justify non-compete contracts as a way to protect the investments they make in physicians, says David Meltzer, an economist and primary-care physician at the University of Chicago.

He imagined a scenario in which a hospital spent a lot of money to hire a prominent surgeon, supplemented by expenditures in support staff and advertising, only to have the surgeon soon leave the practice for a competitor down the road.

“There is a reason why these exist,” Meltzer says. “It’s not just a ridiculous control mechanism, necessarily.” And, from my point of view, the competitors should be required to make the same type of investment in physicians they hire, not just steal from another provider.

Beyond broadcasters, I encountered this issue in my representation of health care interests, this time a cardiology practice.

The issue arose because the cardiology practice had invested thousands of dollars to entice a group of cardiologists to move from another state to join the practice here in Oregon. As they arrived, the practice invested more money in facilities, services and staff to help the new cardiologists succeed in their new location.

Then, as it happened, the new cardiologists decided summarily to leave for a new location down the street.

My client took the new cardiologists to court in an effort to preserve the non-competes, as well as to preserve the investment they had made in enticing the new physicians to come to Oregon where they could practice successfully.

Well, the judge in the case issued a confounding ruling that I felt went beyond his appropriate jurisdiction. Rather than ruling on the efficacy of the non-compete agreements, he said the community would benefit from expanding health care access by allowing the physicians to move because, inevitably, they would be replaced by the original hiring practice – my client – and, thus, there would be more cardiologists in the region.

A bad ruling, I thought. His jurisdiction was not the spread of health care services in the region. His jurisdiction should have been limited to whether the non-competes were fair and reasonable. But, we were stuck with the decision to the consternation of my client – and me.

The moral of all this is that, in various instances of high-priced and high-value professional positions, non-compete agreements make absolute sense.

I wish policymakers – both in the Legislative and Judicial Branches — would recognize the rationale and the value.

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 Washington Post ran a column this morning that prompted me to think about the question in the headline to this blog: Whether ethical behavior and conduct by public officials matters any longer to voters and whether journalists can contribute to how the public views ethics.

Huge questions as we grapple with rampant unethical conduct from the president and Congress – conduct which seems to matter less and less to those who vote.

Generalizations are inadequate here because “what the public thinks” varies by individual. Some want ethical behavior on the part of those who represent us in local, state and federal governments. Others don’t seem to value ethics, preferring, instead, that officials take actions in accord with their biases ethics be damned.

In addition to Washington Post story, which I recount below, this issue – ethical behavior and conduct — matters to me for at least two reasons in addition to my own support for ethics.

First, I am privileged to serve as one of nine members of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, which started in the Watergate era in Oregon (1974) and continues to hold public officials and lobbyists accountable for abiding by ethics laws and rules.

A second reason is that I am serving on a committee formed at the behest of Oregon Common Cause, which is working to suggest improvements in ethics at the federal level, some of which might be based on what works or could work in Oregon

Walter Schaub, the retired director of the Federal Ethics Committee, made a telling point a couple months ago when he appeared, via Skype, at one of our ethics committee meetings.

He contended that, given all of the years since the Watergate scandal, ethical behavior and conduct has receded from public view in contrast to the mid-1970s when it was top-of-mind for many due to the reporting by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein for the Washington Post. Today, he said other issues dominate so much that public officials bear little responsibility for their ethical behavior or mis-behavior.

In her column, the Post’s media writer, Margaret Sullivan, suggested that, given various cultural changes in the country, journalists are no longer able to monitor federal ethics in the way Woodward and Bernstein did when, for the Washington Post, they reported the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon.

Sullivan attributed the change in the environment to several factors:

• “As the anniversary of the Watergate scandal’s beginning comes around again investigative journalism’s effectiveness is weakened. The reporting may be every bit as skilled, but the results are greatly diluted because so much has changed in the nation, including its media.”
• “During the Watergate era, there were three networks. Now, cable news, talk radio, thousands of websites and social media create a polluted firehose-blast of information mixed with disinformation. The cacophony is very hard to break through.”
• “Back then, what was said on those three networks — often fed by revelations from Woodward and Bernstein — was largely believed. Much more than now, there was a shared set of facts.
• In the Watergate era, “straight news was not relentlessly countered by bad-faith propaganda in the style of Fox News’s Sean Hannity” and, I add, those like him who function more as a cheering section for President Donald Trump than journalists.
• “News came to citizens from sources they trusted — including their local newspapers. While many editorial pages supported Nixon almost to the end, front pages all around the country were telling people what was happening, blow by blow. Those papers are no longer a major news source in many places. Facebook, though, is.”

In Sullivan’s piece, Columbia University Journalism School professor William Grueskin says today’s situation is not only about how the media has changed.

“The press can do only so much,” he said. “Without an independent judiciary, plus a Congress that’s invested in a genuine search for truth, rather than covering for the president, even the most intrepid journalism can slip into the void.”

I am not a big fan of presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren – she is not a centrist, but more a believer in big government– but a comment she made in a media interview the other day is worth repeating. She recounted her three takeaways from reading the Mueller Report (which, I add, is more than many of her colleagues in Congress did who talked on and on about the report, but, media report indicated, did not read it in full):

“Part one, a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 elections for the purpose of getting Donald Trump elected. Part two, then-candidate Donald Trump welcomed that help. And part three, when the federal government tried to investigate part one and part two, Donald Trump as president delayed, deflected, moved, fired, and did everything he could to obstruct justice.”

Warren added: “If he were any other person in the United States, based on what’s documented in that report, he would be carried out in handcuffs.”

I reflect on all this as a former reporter for a daily newspaper in Oregon. That makes me one of those who likes newspapers, especially those these days that have retained, (a) solid writing, (b) labels for distinctions between news and opinion, and (c) a commitment to hold government accountable for performance.

As all of this crossed my mind this morning, the Washington Post Fact Checker column reported that Trump has now passed an incredible total of lies and exaggerations in the last three years – more than 10,800.

If you were to tabulate lies and exaggerations from Members of Congress – both Democrats and Republicans – the total would likely be in the same orbit with Trump as both sides spent more competing for attention from their bases that doing the hard work of good government, with a set of ethical commitments.

From my soapbox out West, I think the solution here is for members of the public – especially those who vote – to return to a time when ethical behavior and conduct mattered. If that happened, there would be no way for public officials to avoid a higher standard of ethics.

I am not holding my breath.

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 blog headline above also was the headline in a piece in the Washington Post by columnist Eugene Robinson.

As good a writer as Robinson – and he does know how to use words well – he is not one of my favorite columnists.

Still, in a Washington Post piece, he succeeds by going after President Donald Trump as a master of ‘ignorance on top of ignorance,’ even if he, Trump, utters only a few words.

He displayed his ignorance on several occaisons as he toured Europe, including the United Kingdom, over the last few days.

I paid a bit of attention to this because, coincidentally, I was in Europe around the same time as Trump was, though never – fortunately for me — in the same place. As the day of D-Day dawned, June 6, my wife and I were on the way home after a 10-day river cruise down the Danube.

So, upon my return home, I reviewed a few of the comments about Trump, including those from Robinson, as news coverage of Trump’s visit to a D-Day site in the area of Normandy dominated newspaper space and air waves.

To be fair, it could be contended that Trump did well, for a change, when he made this comments at a commemoration of the D-Day Invasion of Europe by allied forces in the start of ridding the world of one of its most deadly despots, Adolph Hitler.

According to the New York Times, standing on a sun-drenched bluff in Colleville-Sur-Mer, France, overlooking the Normandy beaches (an estimated 10,000 soldiers sacrificed themselves to a savage fusillade of gunfire thus opening the way for Europe’s liberation in 1944), Trump declared, “We are gathered here on freedom’s altar.”

Seventy-five years after the D-Day invasion, the president, who has called into question America’s alliances around the world — including with countries that fought with the United States in Normandy — pledged fidelity to friendships “forged in the heat of battle, tested in the trials of war, and proven in the blessings of peace.”

It was Trump’s only reference to the importance of the Atlantic alliance, in a speech that dwelled, probably appropriately, on the service of D-Day’s American veterans. Dozens of them were seated behind him overlooking the white grave markers of fallen comrades, and Omaha Beach beyond.

Speaking gravely, with few of the ad-libs that usually pepper his speeches, Trump recounted stories of heroism and suffering, often in graphic terms. The veterans not only had vanquished Nazi tyranny, he said, but built the American century.

“To the men who sit behind me and to the boys who rest in the field before me,” Trump said, “your example will never, ever grow old, your legend will never tire, your spirit — brave, unyielding and true — will never die.

“To all of our friends and partners: Our cherished alliance was forged in the heat of battle, tested in the trials of war and proven in the blessings of peace. Our bond is unbreakable.”

Of course, Trump didn’t stop there.

As solid as his comments were about the D-Day, he went beyond them to violate inter-country norms by advocating for a premier candidate – Boris Johnson – to replace the outgoing Theresa May.

He also met with Prince Charles to hear the prince advocate for international action to control climate change.

Here is what columnist Robinson wrote:

“It is not unfair to point out that President Trump, on many important subjects, is just an ignoramus.

“A vivid illustration of this unfortunate fact came this week in London, when it was revealed that Prince Charles, a knowledgeable environmentalist, had tried to educate the president on climate change — and utterly failed.

“I believe that there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways,” Trump told the ‘Good Morning Britain’ program. “Don’t forget it used to be called global warming. That wasn’t working. Then it was called climate change. Now it’s actually called extreme weather, because, with extreme weather, you can’t miss.”

“Good Lord,” Robinson wrote, “it’s breathtaking that anyone could pack so much ignorance into so few words.”

Robinson also wrote tariffs: “Who bears the cost of tariffs is another topic about which Trump has views that are both unshakably settled and spectacularly wrong.

“China is paying the tariffs he imposed, Trump claims. Companies in Mexico will pay the tariffs he threatens, he promises. Yet, that simply is not how tariffs work.

“Tariffs are taxes, paid by the U.S. firms that import Chinese, Mexican and other foreign products. Those companies pass along those costs to American consumers, in the form of higher prices for foreign-made merchandise. In other words, the money that Trump claims is flowing into the treasury doesn’t come from Beijing or Mexico City. It comes out of your pocket and mine.”

Robinson avers that “the president is often wrong but never in doubt, a know-it-all on subjects about which he knows nothing. He is not, for example, any kind of expert on horse racing. Yet when Maximum Security was disqualified in last month’s Kentucky Derby, Trump immediately sent out an authoritative-sounding tweet:

“The Kentucky Derby decision was not a good one. It was a rough and tumble race on a wet and sloppy track, actually, a beautiful thing to watch. Only in these days of political correctness could such an overturn occur. The best horse did NOT win the Kentucky Derby – not even close!”

Political correctness? About a horse? “What’s wrong with the man,” Robinson asks.

“Even more dangerous than Trump’s ignorance is the near-impossibility of changing his mind about certain things. It’s one thing to stick to one’s guns. It’s another thing to stubbornly resist fact and reason — especially when the stakes are so high.”

I have developed in recent years my own list of words to describe Trump, most of them of the derisive type, which he richly deserves, as he believes that what he says illustrates, which is far from the truth.

I won’t list my words here, but Robinson goes one better by saying that “only Trump can pack this much ignorance into a few words.”

I wish I would have thought to write or utter those words.