PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Sometimes a column in a national newspaper is so good that I decide to reprint it in my blog.

Such an occasion occurred this morning when I read a piece by Kathleen Parker that appeared in the Washington under the same headline that leads this blog.

It’s time for the brat in the White House to go.  The “brat,” of course, is Donald Trump who continues to boost himself over the country, even as he solidly bears the title of “loser.”  His refusal to accept the result of the election will continue through January 20 when Joseph Biden takes over as president. 

And Parker reports below that, not only will Trump not concede, he won’t attend the inauguration and, instead, will hold a rally in Florida that competes with the formal transfer of power.  Thus, the title “brat.”

Parker writes a twice-weekly column on politics and culture.  In 2010, she received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for “her perceptive, often witty columns on an array of political and moral issues, gracefully sharing the experiences and values that lead

her to unpredictable conclusions.”   A Florida native, Parker started her column in 1987 when she was a staff writer for the Orlando Sentinel.  She joined the Washington Post Writers Group in 2006.

So, here is her column on Trump, “THE BRAT.”

**********

In the film version of Dan Brown’s “Angels and Demons,” the most memorable scene features the pope’s camerlengo, or right-hand man, hijacking a helicopter from St. Peter’s Square, along with, implausibly, a vessel containing antimatter.

The camerlengo ostensibly intends to save the Vatican from an antimatter attack plotted by various church conspirators. In fact, the plotter is the camerlengo himself. What matters today is that the camerlengo bails out just before the chopper explodes and, wearing a parachute, floats celestially to the basilica roof, where he kneels in prayer and is proclaimed a hero-savior.

I’ve ruined the movie if you haven’t seen it, but stand by: Another movie about getaways is in the making, starring President Trump, who is said to be plotting a dramatic exit from the White House — aboard Marine One in his last government-subsidized chopper ride, followed by a flight to Florida for a rally timed opposite the inauguration ceremony of President-elect Joe Biden.

What a sad little man.

Of course, Trump might have based his fantasy escape from any of several action flicks, but “Angels and Demons” offers several obvious parallels: Trump’s messianic self-regard, his acute narcissism, his need for maximum attention and cinematic diversion.

He’s a legend in his own mind, and a reality-TV celebrity to boot. Nothing so ordinary as acquiescence or participation in the inauguration would suit his supreme ridiculousness. Not only has Trump refused to concede to Biden, but he has also declined to invite him to the White House, as is customary, much less signal he’ll attend the inauguration.

As we’ve long known, he’s a brat. A big, bawling baby who wants his paci. It’s little wonder that Trump was so attracted to North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, the man-boy whose people’s coerced loyalty Trump envied. If only Trump could have commanded such devotion from His People, he said in so many words.

They say the very rich are different from you and me, and this is certainly true when it comes to the rules. Born to wealth and privilege, little-boy Trump has never had to play by the regular rules of conduct: personal, business or otherwise. His talent for making deals at the expense of lesser mortals — combined with his strategic use of bankruptcy as a money-making instrument — has basically allowed him to proclaim victory on the backs of the screwed.

Today, those backs belong to the American voters who decided he should no longer win. The guy who can’t stop talking about winning has lost and simply can’t, or refuses to, believe it. This is the man who said dead and wounded troops were losers — and that the late Sen. John McCain was a hero only because he was captured. He of the silver spoon and heel spurs said he preferred heroes who weren’t captured.

I can think of few who so richly deserved losing as Donald J. Trump — for his lack of character alone. If he managed some things well during his four years in the White House, he should get credit, possibly for removing barriers to the speedy development of the coronavirus vaccine. But he likely won’t be remembered for what little good he did. His poor sportsmanship upon losing fair and square has overwhelmed any public sympathy or the fare-thee-well extended to those who accept defeat gracefully.

Trump doesn’t just make himself look bad; he makes the country look bad. For this, he should be shuttled out of town riding a jackass backward, wearing a clown suit. He might take a few Republicans with him.

Although Trump’s bogus, conspiratorial claims — from faulty Dominion voting systems to widespread voter fraud — have been repeatedly debunked, only 27 House and Senate Republicans acknowledge that Biden won, according to exhaustive reporting by The Post.

By attaching themselves to Trump’s lies and fallacies, these Republicans in denial are captives themselves, prisoners of the president’s madness and nothing like heroes. The ultimate irony is that Trump despises people like them. He may demand submission, but he is contemptuous of their weakness. He knows he’s selling snake oil, but he also knows that people need to believe in snake oil.

Finally, the barker has run out of magic potion and soon will parachute into a Florida rally, where he’ll shout to the heavens not a benediction but the same deranged rant: “I won. I won. I won.” Pray there is no sequel.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

It’s not a brilliant thought, but for the last year as all of us have endured the unprecedented pandemic, the clear-cut reality for me is this:  Vaccines that work are the key to our future.

Pharmaceutical companies, aided by federal government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration, have moved far more quickly than ever before to bring vaccines to market. 

Was there a profit motive?  Frankly, I hope so because, if there was, it is an example of what the private sector can do to solve major puboic policy problems in this country, if not around the world.  Not alone.  With government help – but that just, help.

To answer questions about the availability of vaccines in Oregon, I turned to a client I used to represent when I worked as a lobbyist – Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), which remains to this day a shining example of solid journalism and public affairs reporting.  It was a privilege to represent OPB for 10 years or so.

This summary illustrates that credential.

Oregon officials anticipate seeing the first shipments of the COVID-19 vaccine arrive in just a couple of weeks. The deliveries are expected to be enough to provide the first of a two-dose vaccination for just over 100,000 people.

The speed at which vaccines for COVID-19 have been developed and soon distributed has been unprecedented.

How many vaccine doses are we getting and when?

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) says it expects to get 35,100 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine around December 15 and then another 40,950 from Pfizer and 71,900 doses from drug-developer Moderna around December 22.

Both vaccines require two doses to achieve the 95 per cent effectiveness rate the developers are touting, and the doses have to be spaced out by three to four weeks, depending on the vaccine. This means that those early shipments of about 147,000 doses will serve as the first dose, and then additional shipments of an estimated 120,000 more at the end of the month will provide the second dose for those early recipients.

These first doses are enough to provide vaccine to Oregon’s health care workers — nurses, doctors and other support staff — who are in direct or indirect contact with COVID-19 patients

The vaccines are coming from the federal government, which says it will distribute them to states based on the adult population. Oregon has roughly 1.3 per cent of adults in the U.S. and consequently should get 1.3 per cent of the available vaccine.

Who gets the vaccine?

Understanding that there won’t be enough vaccine available for everyone for many months, Oregon is developing a phased hierarchy to determine who gets vaccinated first. The state is taking its cues from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The groups are broken into three phases of vaccine availability. The specifics of who gets vaccinated and when are being finalized and will govern how these early vaccines are distributed. The priorities for the first shipments are:

· Front-line health care workers and support staff

· Emergency medical service providers

· Residents and workers in long term and communal care settings

Does the plan account for health disparities for people of color when prioritizing distribution?

State officials say they are placing a high priority on equity and addressing traditional health disparities when deciding where to prioritize vaccines, but the details of how that will look have not been figured out.

In Oregon, the number of cases per thousand for Black, Indigenous and people of color is far higher than for the white population. Pacific Islanders have five times as many cases per thousand, Hispanic people have four times as many and Native Americans and African Americans have around three times the cases. Nationally these groups are nearly three times more likely to die of COVID-19 than are their white counterparts.

Does Oregon have a plan for the physical distribution COVID-19 vaccine?

Yes. The state currently is working on the logistics of how to get the vaccine to where it’s needed in the state. The first shipments will be sent to hospitals, which will administer the vaccine to frontline medical and support staff.

Oregon is also taking advantage of a federal program that is contracting with pharmacies such as Walgreens and CVS. The companies will receive vaccine doses from the state and then provide on-site vaccine clinics at long term care facilities across the state.

For populations of people that are more scattered and difficult to reach — such as people experiencing homelessness, migrant agriculture communities, and dispersed rural communities — the state is planning to contract with local Emergency Service providers to deliver vaccines in the field.

Is the state ready to store ultra-cold vaccines?

Not yet.

“That, I will tell you, is the biggest headache at OHA in trying to plan this rollout of these vaccines,” according to an OHA official.

“It requires us to set up a cold chain, the ability to keep this vaccine protected and safe at a minus 70 C from the manufacturer, out to the place where it’s going to be provided,”

The University of Oregon is working with the state to get 15 smaller, more portable ultra-low temperature freezer units to send to remote areas that don’t have sufficient storage.

Only the Pfizer vaccine needs to be stored at ultra-low temperatures. The Moderna vaccine and others in the development pipeline have much higher temperature storage requirements

What are the benefits of having different kinds of vaccines?

When the pandemic broke out, dozens of companies and institutions turned their focus to creating a vaccine for COVID-19. It was unknown if any of the vaccines being developed would work, and the more shots on goal there were, the better the chance we’d have of finding success.

Now, nearly a year later, there are several vaccines that are showing great promise. They’ve gone through or are close to completing sufficient testing to apply for Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA. Two companies have applied and another small group is expected to apply within the next few months.

But even now, with so much early vaccine-development success, there’s still a great advantage in having several vaccines available. One is related to manufacturing:  If several companies are making vaccines, the chance they’ll be able to make enough doses to inoculate a global population increases.

When is federal emergency use authorization (EAU) expected to come through?

Both Pfizer and Moderna have applied for EAU for their vaccines. The FDA is expected to hold off on its decision until the scientific and human vaccine trial data is analyzed by the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

The committee will meet on December 10 to evaluate the Pfizer vaccine. Moderna’s vaccine will be considered on December 17.

AstraZeneca is expected to apply for a EUA soon. The company is already seeking similar approval in the United Kingdom.’

Are the vaccines safe?

The FDA requires all vaccines to be extensively tested in three phases of human trials before approving them for wider use. Each trial seeks to answer different questions, with the first two focusing heavily on safety — specifically short-term side effects. During phase three testing, which can last several years, researchers are looking for longer-term safety concerns.

Because of the dire need for a COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA is considering emergency approval before the Phase 3 trials are completed. Officials won’t yet have full information about long-term effects of the vaccine, but the United States is experiencing a record number of COVID-19 deaths. The federal process is designed to determine if the vaccines are safe and effective enough that the immediate benefits of slowing an out-of-control pandemic outweigh the unknowns.

In addition to the federal process underway, Oregon has joined Washington, Nevada and California to conduct an independent safety review of the vaccines. Two physicians from Oregon are part of that working group, which will examine the data from the vaccine trials before recommending their use.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The Oregon state government budget is, if nothing else, a complicated document.  I would call it opaque, not just complicated.

While some political figures laud the budget-making process as open and fair, my experience over more than 40 years is that the process is mostly unintelligible, even to a trained eye.  I contend this, not as a slight to those involved in the process – they work hard – but more as a comment on the process itself.

This became timely last week when, on December 1, Governor Kate Brown released her “Recommended Budget for the 2021-23 Biennium.”

She performed this statutory ritual on time – and she deserves credit for that because, in the past, some governors have not met the deadline.

But she and her predecessor governors could have done better.  And, so, in this blog, I’ll expand on the reforms I consider to be important as part of making the budgeting exercise more accurate and transparent. 

That’s important for all of us because, as taxpayers, the biennial blueprint is “our” budget for state government, not someone else’s.  We pay for it with our taxes.

Too often, what happens in backrooms controls the outcome in public. 

Are my ideas magic answers?  No.  The only real solution is for legislators to adopt, personally and conceptually, a more genuine process, one that does not just mimic backroom deals, as well as one that expects government programs to achieve results, not just exist from year to year.

Here, then, is summary of some reforms worth considering.

+  Brown did a good thing by producing a “current services level budget” for the new biennium.  In other words, what would it cost to maintain state government for another two years?  The budget document should not include proposals for new taxes.  To Brown’s credit, it appears at first blush that it did not.

+  The problem, however, is that a “current services level” budget, for all its worth, does not take a hard look at all government programs to verify whether they are working or not.  One of my friends, a businessman, says legislators should take a “return on investment” look at government. 

Perhaps, but, at least, if tate programs are not working, or, more specifically, not producing the results managers say will be produce, then either of two actions should occur – scrap the programs or revise them on a “results-required basis.”

Too much to ask, you say.

No.

Taxpayers deserve this kind of hard look.

+  Some good-budget advocates support what they call a “zero-based budget” approach.  Start from zero and build from there.  Makes sense, but a fallback position would be to require governors to announce recommendations for scrapping or cutting back programs that are not producing results.  Impose the new requirement in the same law that requires the basic “recommended budget.”

Doing this effectively also would require something that is not now in place – requiring state programs to project what they propose to achieve in the next two years, then holding them to those pledges. 

Call it “outcome-based budgeting.”

If the programs don’t make the targets, scrap them.

If governors performed this function, they would be doing a solid public service…yes, tough politically, but worth doing.

As an example, when I represented Youth Villages, Inc., the executive director there was incensed that state foster care organizations were not required to verify the outcomes they intended to achieve for foster care children as they competed for state contracts to care for those children.

So she authorized me to introduce a bill for Youth Villages that would solve the problem.  It would require foster care contract applicants to sign up for results before they got a contract and, then, if results were not achieved, they would lose the contract.

For Youth Villages, the point was that foster care programs exist for the benefit of the children involved.  If the children are not treated effectively, scrap the contract.

Sounds good.  And the bill passed the Legislature and was signed by the governor.  The problem?  State managers failed to implement the bill, though it was law, and they were not held to account for that failure.

One of my friends gave me an article that included this good quote:

“A 21st-century operating system (I add, for state government in Oregon) should identify the results it most wants to achieve and the strategies most likely to get there, and then rigorously establish priorities and allocate resources to achieve them.  It should co-produce the results with citizens, business, non-profits and other governments.  It needs to recruit, nurture, empower and reward entrepreneurial leaders and staff, many of whom move readily among all three sectors.  And it must relentlessly improve and innovate, continuously creating higher-value methods and activities while shedding those that deliver less value.”

Another article from the Public Affairs Strategy Group in 2009 said this:

“Bigger or smaller government is not a bad question, just not the one that most needs an answer today.  The right question:  What kind of government do we want?  It doesn’t make sense to debate bigger or smaller until we replace an obsolete way of ‘doing government’ that pretty much guarantees that government will not be as focused, effective, innovative or efficient as it should be.”

Tough to move state government here in a new, better direction when it comes to budgeting?  Yes.  But doing so is worth the time, effort and energy it involves despite entrenched obstacles.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline could apply to a former partner of mine in the public relations and lobbying firm where I worked for 25 years.  Here is how he would answer:  It is too late for Republicans to stand up for the nation because they have done so in the last four years.

But he might go even farther, making a generalization that ALL Republicans – yes, ALL – are complicit with Donald Trump because they let him get away with his insanity over the last four years, amplified by his failure to accept the decision of voters that he lost the election.

I do not make the kind of generalization my partner does.

I say “some” Republicans have saluted Trump when they should have put the country first, even if that came with Trump’s derision. 

For me, if I was in elective office, getting Trump’s derision would have been a reward worth treasuring.

One of my favorite columnists these days, Michael Gerson, who writes for the Washington Post, dealt with this in a column this morning. 

Here are excerpts:

“There are three stages of Republican political pusillanimity.

“The first is feral cowardice — captured in the wild-eyed, hunted expression of Republicans senators asked to comment on the president’s latest insane or destructive tweet.  This is pure ‘fight or flight,’ minus the fight part.

“The second is calculating cowardice — in which an elected Republican hopes he or she (but mainly he) can refuse comment in the several days after a presidential outrage.  This reflects the undignified but understandable desire to blend into the scenery and avoid the attention of primary predators.

“The third is complicit cowardice.  This is silence in the face of presidential attacks on the constitutional order — a silence that rings out across the prairies and down the hollows as approval and permission.”

Gerson goes on to say that, by claiming the plot against his rightful rule was successfully coordinated across several states, Trump is not merely claiming instances of election fraud.  “He is alleging that the American system of democratic government has failed, which implies a right to revolution.  By demanding specific, unlawful acts to overturn results in a fair election, he is urging authoritarian solutions to his political problems.”

Further, Gerson says, “the coup has already occurred in the president’s mind.”

Can there be any doubt this most narcissistic of all presidents would keep power by overturning the election’s legitimate result?  Can there be any question he would snuff out the democratic voice of the nation if he could?

 More from Gerson.

“This is the interpretive key to Trump:  He is instinctually un-American.  He has no respect for the country’s institutions or values. He is ignorant of the nation’s story, dismissive of its conventions and unmoved by its romance.  He sees politics the way a Machiavellian would in any country — as the pursuit of power, not the stewardship of certain truths.

“Loyalty to Trump now leads well beyond democratic boundaries. Loyalty to the country and its government — being shown primarily by Republican state officials — brings down presidential wrath and abuse by MAGA forces.  With even the morally malleable Attorney General William P. Barr now rejecting ridiculous, dangerous libels against the electoral system, the continuing silence from many elected Republicans is — how to say this politely? — sickening.  Craven.  Dishonorable.”

Gerson says the fact is that U.S. democracy must re-create itself in every generation by reaffirming the ideals that created it.  “Our institutions are not machines that automatically produce the common good.  They depend for their survival and success on democratic values — on the constraint of power, not only by law, but by convention and conscience.

“By expecting such integrity in elected Republicans, we are not asking all that much. The fear of being targeted in a presidential tweet and gaining a primary opponent is real enough.  But it is hardly the risk of a young soldier on D-Day, or a protester at a segregated lunch counter. Honoring the oath of office is the minimal commitment of responsible representation.”

Many Republicans have done this – been committed to responsible representation.  It is past time for all others to do the same. 

And this conclusion from Gerson:  “My plea to elected Republicans:  Remember who you are.  Remember the oath that binds you. Remember the idealism and love of country that brought you to service.   In a world of chance and change, the great things are eternal:  Courage, judgment, honesty, honor, moral integrity and a sense of the sacred.  It is never too late to do the right thing.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I pledged earlier that I would avoid writing any longer about one Donald Trump.

Well, either I changed my mind or I lied.  And, if the latter, then I am following hard on the heels of Trump, the biggest liar ever to occupy the Oval Office.

Today, I mention one of my favorite subjects, “words matter” – and note how words will change in American governance as the Biden Administration takes over on January 2021.  In the course of what I write, there is no option other than to draw a contrast with Trump.

Now, with Biden, we no longer will have to tolerate Trump’s lack of vocabulary, his inherent tendency to misspell words, or his devotion to finding scapegoats for any perceived slight.  We got a new dose of his inability to use good words when he went on a 46-minute rant a day ago, then translated the rant into a tweet.

No more, I say.

Shortly after the New Year dawns, we’ll have a president who knows how to use words.  So will his staff, including a press secretary and a communications director.  Both are professionals.  Biden has appointed credentialed persons to those and many other jobs in his new administration.

The “words matter” proposition was driven home for me this week by an essay written by Ross M. Wallenstein, vice president of J Strategies, a communications and government relations firm with offices in New York City, Albany, and Boston.  It appeared on-line in a post sent to me by one of my former partners in CFM Advocates – a partner who, himself, was and is skilled at using words.

Share to LinkedIn

Here are the first paragraphs of what Wallenstein wrote:

“Regardless of party, all Americans should rejoice in one result of the 2020 elections:  The return of well-planned, positive, carefully crafted presidential messaging and traditional media operations.

“On Monday, November. 9, just 48 hours after winning the election, President-Elect Joe Biden released a simple, yet effective statement, which extolled the announcement from Pfizer that its COVID-19 vaccine is predicted to be 90 per cent effective.

“Biden’s 232 words struck the right tone of excitement, tempered optimism and pragmatic realism.  It reminded Americans that the fight against the virus is far from over and the best protection against it remains the careful pursuit of science.  It ended with the following:

“America is still losing over 1,000 people a day from COVID-19, and that number is rising — and will continue to get worse unless we make progress on masking and other immediate actions. That is the reality for now, and for the next few months. Today’s announcement promises the chance to change that next year, but the tasks before us now remain the same.”

At the same time, Wallenstein said Trump performed his usual off-based ritual, which was that, in two tweets totaling 51 words, he fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.  Apparently, Esper had not been sufficiently local to Trump.

Wallenstein writes that the tone of the dueling statements could not have been more striking.

“I have been a student of history and a lover of words for as long as I can remember,” he says.  “’The better angels of our nature…,’ ‘… nothing to fear but fear itself…’ and ‘… ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country…’ are not empty rhetoric uttered by the temporary holders of a constitutional office.  Rather, they are examples of the best our country has had to offer at the times when we needed them the most.”

Can you imagine Trump uttering any of those words?  I cannot.

Using right and good words won’t solve every daunting public policy problem a president will face.  But good words, well used, can influence public opinion.

More from Wallenstein:

“Past president have been mindful of this fact for decades.  Beginning with Herbert Hoover, who established the press secretary position, the public relations of a White House have been full-time endeavors. His successor, Franklin Roosevelt, ever mindful of the power of his own words, transformed the media operations by hosting press conferences in the Oval Office and conducting his famous fireside chats.

“Since 2016, the American people have seen the direct, forceful version of political messaging.  Instead of long press conferences or daily briefings, Trump used his personal Twitter account (often re-tweeted by the official White House account instead of publishing own original content) to communicate directly with his followers and the media, which amplifies his messages free of charge.

“There is an undeniable cost to that delivery method.

“While Americans have been treated for the first time to the unfiltered thoughts of the president, we have also been spared the complexity of issues and the nuance of their ramifications.  Press statements or primetime Oval Office speeches designed to calm stock markets or quell a riled citizenry—of our country and the world—have been traded for the inflammatory tweets.”

With Biden, whether I agree with him or not, I will welcome thought and effort that once again will go into White House communications.  Instead of tweets, we will see 1,000-word statements or detailed press releases explaining a subject in full, while offering information, context and clarity to the American people – all with good words.

And, that’s a good thing.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Whether you agree with all of her proposals or not, it should be noted that Governor Kate Brown met her obligations to produce a new two-year set of budget recommendations on time.

The deadline was yesterday, December 1, and she met it.

A two-year set of spending proposals for the 2021-23 biennium represents the starting point for the 2021 Legislature as it meets for about six months in Salem starting officially in January, but, in fact, around February 1.

As I wrote yesterday, the biennial budget recommendations were a focus of my interest for about 40 years, first as a state government manager for 15 years and then as a state lobbyist for 25 years.

The reasons:

• With a nearly $30 billion proposed spending blueprint over two years, governor’s recommendations represent what the individual in the state’s highest political office thinks and values.  So, the proposals are more than just a set of numbers; they are a set of public policy prescriptions.
• Income taxes provided by citizens and businesses support four main state government spending categories – K-12 schools, higher education, public safety (including prisons and cops), and social programs (including health care for low-income Oregonians).  All are very important for the future of the state.
• Reviewing the budget recommendations was a way for me to know whether a governor had lived up to his or her charge, which, I believe, is to develop a spending blueprint for two years WITHOUT new, proposed taxes.  In other words, what would it cost to run government for two more years, including inflation and caseload growth?  That way, the Legislature would have a real chance to decide whether it agreed or not.

At first blush, it appears to me that Brown met what I consider to be this obligation.

I suspect there is little question but that Brown, in her last two years as governor, will want tax increases.  She will have to propose those to the Legislature and, with super-majorities of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, she may see them enacted.  And that would likely set up major campaigns at the polls if business is asked to absorb new taxes and opposes the impact, even as virus recovery presumably will be under way.

Okay, let me stop there, except to reprint what my colleagues in my old firm, CFM Advocates, wrote last night about the budget recommendations.  The memo to CFM clients contains good and solid information.

**********

Governor Kate Brown kicked off December by releasing her proposed 2021-23 Governor’s Recommended Budget (GRB), which includes $25.6 billion in total spending, an 8 per cent increase from the current biennium.

Lawmakers will use it as a starting point to hammer out the state’s official budget during the upcoming 2021 Legislative Session. Brown’s budget proposes the closure of three state prisons while reducing support for healthcare services.

In a press release outlining her budget on Tuesday, Governor Brown emphasized that each area of the budget was formulated with an emphasis on racial equity.  

The budget relies very heavily on the hope that Congress will pass an additional coronavirus relief package soon and send revenues to bolster states battling the pandemic. Federal aid would be used to fill funding shortfalls in the Oregon Health Plan, increase Covid-19 testing, support ailing businesses and allow the state to forgive nearly $350 million in unpaid rent. 

While expectations were grim, recent forecasts show revenue collections remaining steady despite the economic shock associated with the pandemic.  Despite job losses, average income levels have remained balanced.  In a state where personal income taxes provide the lion’s share (88 per cent) of revenues, Oregon’s coffers have not yet taken a significant hit.

However, consumer spending linked to the $14 billion influx of federal aid into Oregon’s economy, which is expected to be reduced over the coming months, paints a cloudy picture for revenues heading into the 2021-23 biennium.  

Healthcare
As a result of the pandemic, many more Oregonians have signed up for the Oregon Health Plan, resulting in a $718 million budget gap.  In her budget narrative, Governor Brown implores Congress to provide substantial federal stimulus dollars make up for the shortfall.

Despite hospitals and health care advocates fighting successfully at the November ballot to pass Measure 108, raising hundreds of millions of new revenue for Oregon’s Medicaid plan through an increased tobacco tax, the GRB ignored that contribution and sought additional reductions on the system protecting Oregonians against the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The GRB also seeks over $20 million in reductions to Oregon’s Coordinated Care Organizations, the backbone of care for vulnerable Oregonians.  Such a reduction will end up hurting doctors, nurses and care providers around the state as reimbursement rates are slashed to compensate for the reduction.  These are the front-line workers managing the pandemic and may raise significant concerns with lawmakers over this recommendation. 

Wildfire Recovery
In 2020, over a million acres and over 4,000 structures burned in wildfires across Oregon.  Brown’s budget calls for nearly $360 million to rebuild Oregon communities devastated by the Labor Day wildfires.  It also includes $73 million for wildfire preparedness, response and prevention.  

Education
While Oregon’s K-12 school funding receives a historic $9.1 billion for the next biennium in the GRB, that may not meet the state’s current service level roll-up costs.  The budget as outlined could lead to reductions in teachers or increased class size. 

Business and Labor
Businesses impacted by the pandemic and subsequent shutdown orders are not provided direct assistance in the proposed budget, and Governor Brown again calls on relief from the federal government.

Recognizing that many businesses are leaning heavily on virtual or online methods to stay afloat, the budget proposes $118 million for investment in broadband for rural and urban communities. 

Housing
The proposed budget would increase funding for housing and homelessness by $66 million and direct $17.9 million toward protecting seniors in assisting living and nursing homes from COVID-19.  It also includes $20 million in homeowner assistance and invests $250 million toward affordable housing development.

Enough. 

Except to emphasize that the governor has taken on a huge issue by proposing to close three of Oregon’s 14 prisons, albeit minimum security facilities.  She’ll face push back from legislators who represent the locations of those prisons (North Bend, Salem and Lakeview).  Lawmakers believe the prisons provide important jobs in their communities.  For her part, the governor said corrections policy should control the issue, not jobs.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

There always is a controversy over whether health care issues and identities should be made public or kept private.

Often, privacy rules and that’s okay.

But, issues with the Covid virus have underlined the tension as never before.

Consider this.  What if, in a community of which you are a part, some individuals are reported to have come down with the virus?  Should their names be made available, at least to you and others in the community, in order to help stop the potential spread?  Or, should the names be confidential?

In the health care arena, one of the controlling laws is called HIPPA – the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.  Passed in 1996, it required creating national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge. 

The law has controlled health care information for years and creates a balancing test that often falls down on the side of privacy.  Which, I add, is good in the sense that I want my health information protected, just as many citizens do.

I lived closely with HIPPA during my professional career, 15 years in Oregon state government management and 25 years as a lobbyist during which I represented hospitals and health insurers.  HIPPA governed many of our operations, including in the development of public policy at the Capitol in Salem.

I remember many times that, due to HIPPA, I could not respond to requests from legislators for information on their constituents who might have been in hospitals or on health insurance company rolls that I represented.

The rubber has met the road during the pandemic.

Here’s how.

In the community where I live, it became known that three individuals had tested positive for the virus.  Should their identities be released or kept private?

I can argue both sides:

• On one side, it should be up to the individuals who tested positive to decide whether to allow their names to be released or not.

• On the other side, the rationale to prod release of the names is to allow others who may have come in contact with the three to decide how to respond, including whether to quarantine to reduce chances for the virus to spread.

• Would I support forcing release of the names?  No.  The decision should rest with those individuals who have contracted the virus.

To avoid the “one side-other side” debate, let me just say this.  If I came down with the virus, I would allow my name to be known so others could decide how to respond – and so effective tracing could be done.

Beyond all this, my fervent hope is that a vaccine will be approved soon and that the tough issues of distribution will be solved so we can begin healing from the pandemic.

Meanwhile, all of us should diligently follow reasonable prescriptions to slow spread of the virus, even if, on occasion, divulging names trumps privacy.