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 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 goes by a strange name – the “kicker.” 

What is it?  It is an Oregon law that gives taxpayers money back if the economy keeps growing above a certain rate.

The effect is that the kicker is an effective mechanism to control state spending, which, otherwise could follow a government mantra – spend it all.

In 1979, the Oregon Legislature enacted a “surplus kicker” statute, along with a spending limit and a major tax relief plan.  Voters approved this package in the 1980 primary election.  The 1999 Legislature referred a constitutional amendment placing much of the kicker statute in the Oregon Constitution.

Here is how it works:  The state returns revenue to taxpayers when collections exceed forecasts by more than 2 per cent.  The payouts come at the end of each two-year budget cycle in the form of a credit when Oregonians file their taxes in the spring.

Some Republicans would rather have the state mail refund checks to taxpayers, but, so far, that has not happened.

If you are into politics as I am, you can imagine the competing points of view over the kicker law.

• On one hand, advocates of the law, including those who proposed it many years ago, say it controls state government spending, which, otherwise they believe, would be forever out of control.

• On the other hand, proponents say the law handcuffs state government from spending taxpayer money already in state coffers on important programs, such as education.

Each side has points in its favor, but, over the years, it has been impossible to dispatch the kicker law, though, in every session of the Legislature, there are efforts to do so.

Guess what will happen next year?

Oregon taxpayers will see a $5.61 billion “kicker” refund, by far the largest amount ever returned.  State economists confirmed the eye-popping payment last week during their report on the latest quarterly state revenue forecast, which was announced, as always, in a meeting of the Legislature’s Joint Revenue Committee.

Exactly what each taxpayer will get in the way of a refund depends on their individual tax circumstances.

During my 25-year career as a lobbyist at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon, the kicker was not a top tier issue for any of my firm’s clients.

To be sure, it was always in the background in our attempt to analyze the state government budget, which often was a tedious, complicated process marked by a lack of transparency, no matter what some legislators maintain about transparency.

So, for that reason, as well as waiting to avoid an often-shrill debate between “limited-government” and “pro-government” interests, we watched from the sidelines – close to the kicker action, but not at the center.

Limited-government advocates always won, so the kicker law is still just that – the law.