Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

I now open one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

This time, it’s the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

FROM JESSIE WEGMAN:  Wegman, a member of the New York Times editorial board, wrote an excellent column the other day on the felony convictions of presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Without reviewing the entire piece, here is one of best sentences Wegman wrote:

“Donald Trump considers himself to be above the law even as he threatens to wield the law against his enemies if given the chance.”

Nothing more needs to be said, though I will add this.  Besides convictions on 34 criminal violations, Trump also stands guilty of this – duplicity.

FROM AARON BLAKE:  In the Washington Post, political analyst Aaron Blake, wrote this:

“Taking a step back, Trump’s tactics are familiar to those who study fascism.  ‘Fascism encourages contempt for democrat institutions, particularly elections, and the rule of law,’ the Public Leadership Institute explained in a 2022 essay. 

“Instead, it calls on the majority group to turn over power to a strongman and his lieutenants, while glorifying the use of violence in support of fascist myths and goals.’”

There, Blake says it – Trump is a Fascist.  He wants all the power.

Blake adds:  “…every conspiracy theory must occasionally be fertilized.”  So, Republicans set about doing that last Tuesday (in a hearing they called in the House to rail against Trump’s guilty verdicts).

FROM FRANK BRUNI:  In the New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni wrote this this:

“Trump’s a bona fide felon now.  Back in 2016, it was somewhat easier for Americans itching to cast a protest vote to see the vilest of Trump’s behavior and the most vicious of his remarks as theatrical provocations, as a flamboyant show of defiance that wouldn’t amount to all that much.  

“The line between mischief and malice could be blurry, at least if you didn’t care to look closely.

“Eight years later?  There’s nothing blurry about Trump. There’s no mistaking or minimizing the Nazi echoes in his talk of immigrants poisoning the blood of the country or his reference to his critics on the left as vermin.  There’s no shrugging off his invitation to Vladimir Putin to invade NATO allies who didn’t pay their dues and his pledge to use the presidency to take revenge on his enemies.”

FROM DANA MILBANK:  The columnist, Miltank, wrote under this headline:  “As Biden rallies the free world, Trump serves a higher cause – himself.”

Milbank continued:

“In Phoenix, at his first post-conviction campaign rally, Trump portrayed a dark and desperate America.

“The 80th anniversary of D-Day provided the contrast that should define the election.

“President Biden went to Normandy and spoke about American greatness.  Donald Trump went to Phoenix and ‘a ‘very sick country.’

“In France, Biden rhapsodized about ‘the story of America’ told by the rows of graves at the Normandy America Cemetery:  ‘Nearly 10,000 heroes buried side by side, officers and enlisted, immigrants and native-born, different races, different faiths, but all Americans.’

“In Phoenix, Trump, invoked the racist ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory, saying Biden had orchestrated an ‘invasion’ at the border as part of ‘a deliberate demolition of our sovereignty’ because ‘they probably think these people are going to be voting.’”

All four commentators are right.  Now, who do you want vote for later this year?

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

Remember back in the day when Donald Trump tried to make hay by advocating that authorities lock up Hillary Clinton?

I do.

Now, Trump could face the same call because he has been convicted of 34 felons.

That’s right, 34.  He is a felon.  So, lock him up.

Of course, he doesn’t care.

And, believe this – he actually tries to capitalize on that status to raise money from the MAGA crowd who believe he is a victim.

Well, to me, he is not a victim.

All of us, instead, are victims, given his proclivity, even as president, to break the law and contend that such action is what makes him and America great.

Washington Post analyst, Jennifer Rubin, wrote in the Washington Post this week about Trump’s new status.  This was the headline: “The best argument to lock up Trump:  Merchan must protect the judiciary.”

“Seasoned legal minds differ on whether felon and former president Donald Trump should receive prison time for his conviction on 34 counts. However, considering the context of Trump’s crimes and his propensity to threaten judges, juries and witnesses, significant prison time is the only punishment that fits the crime and this convict.

“Trump’s crime of falsification of business records is considered a Class E felony — the lowest-level felony, punishable by up to four years in prison. Punishment for each count would run concurrently, so the maximum would be four years, not 136 years.

“In addition to the gravity of the offense, the factors weighing most heavily in favor of a significant prison sentence are Trump’s conduct and character. It is not ‘simply’ that Trump has multiple civil judgments against him (e.g., sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, inflating his property values and misusing charitable funds), or that he spearheaded a violent insurrection to overturn an election, or even that his conduct resulted in multiple contempt citations in Merchan’s and Justice Arthur Engoron’s courtrooms.  

“In this case, character and conduct also encompass how Trump treats the criminal justice system.

“From that perspective, imprisonment may be the only effective penaltybecause of Trump’s defective character.  Chump-change fines for contempt during the trial did not slow him down.  So long as he remains at large, with unfettered access to social media, he poses a threat to the people he attacks and the judicial system he maligns. Incarceration is the only means of holding Trump accountable for his wholesale attacks on the rule of law that continue to this day.”

COMMENT:  Rubin makes good points, though, I suspect, in the end, Trump will escape with a fine (he won’t care how much) and perhaps home confinement in a way that will allow him to continue campaigning.

I’ll give Ruth Marcus from the Post the last word here.

“Reasonable people can differ about the wisdom of prosecuting Donald Trump.  Reasonable people can differ about the justice of the guilty verdict in the Manhattan hush money case against the former president.

“But we are not dealing with reasonable people in the Trump-fueled reaction to his conviction on 34 felony counts.  We are dealing with dangerous people — and a dangerous assault on the rule of law in the call for state-level officials to launch revenge prosecutions and the threat of federally directed retribution against President Biden and other Democrats if Trump returns to power.

“This is so unhinged it is tempting to ignore it as overheated bloviating. That would be a mistake.  The individuals inciting this prosecution-as-payback approach sit at Trump’s elbow.  And they appear incapable of grasping the essential flaw in their reasoning:  That, even assuming the basest partisan motives on the part of Trump’s pursuers, the proper response is to retaliate in kind.”

So, if Trump wins, the anti-democracy approach will continue.  Round up anyone who disagrees, Trump says, and put them in jail.  Sounds like a puppet regime, which is exactly what Trump wants.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

If I would have been smart – how many times in life have I said that? – I would have added a key point yesterday in a blog I wrote about my support for changing a golf rule, divots in fairways.

The point would have been this:  The late professional golfer Payne Stewart had bad luck with his ball coming to rest in a fairway divot during the 1998 U.S. Open at The Olympic Club, then again a year later in the Open at Pinehurst.

This stands as the hallmark of the need to change the unfair golf rule.

Of course, Stewart didn’t like what happened either time.  But, what do you do?

Official golf rules say, “live with it.”

When the “divot problem” happened again at Pinehurst, Stewart was ready for it the second time around because he had practiced on how to escape from such a predicament.

Here is the way golf writer Lee Pace put it in a story I found through Mr. Google:

“Payne Stewart made a remarkable personal metamorphosis over the 1990s.  Always a graceful and talented performer on the course, Stewart, as a young tour pro, wasn’t universally embraced away from the course as his somewhat bratty, churlish ways rubbed many he encountered the wrong way.

“A variety of circumstances and lessons conspired over the 1990s to soften and smooth the edges, and the 42-year-old Stewart who came to Pinehurst for the 1999 U.S. Open was significantly more humble and likeable than the one who won the 1991 Open at Hazeltine.”  Or, I add, almost won at Olympic in 1998.

“That evolution of Stewart, Pace writes, “is perhaps best illustrated in the story of the divots of Olympic 1998 and Pinehurst 1999. 

“Stewart enjoyed a four-shot lead to begin the final day of the ’98 Open in San Francisco, but he was two-over on the front nine and his lead had shrunk to two shots over Lee Janzen by the time he reached the tee of the par-four 12th hole.

“Stewart hit a good drive but encountered a bad break — his ball landed in a divot made earlier in the week and subsequently filled with sand and tamped down by course maintenance workers.

“Stewart and his caddie took a little extra time to examine the lie and contemplate the shot, then Stewart hit his approach from the divot into a greenside bunker.

“USGA official Tom Meeks had been clocking Stewart’s shot and told him, as Stewart walked to the green, that he had taken too long and that Stewart was being issued a slow-play warning.  

“Stewart was stunned and aggravated.  Unsettled by the divot and the warning, Stewart made two consecutive bogeys, fell out of the lead and opened the door for Janzen to rally from behind for the win.”

Given what happened, Stewart said something with which I agree — there should be relief when a good drive in the fairway lands in a divot.

Then, in 1999 at Pinehurst, the same thing happened to Stewart – a drive in a divot.  He was ready for it and played well from that divot to win the Open title, but the bottom-line point is the same:

Even if golfers demonstrate the ability to hit out of a divot in the fairway, a good drive should not be punished in that way.  Just as occurs on a green where there are ball marks and spike marks, give golfers relief in the fairway.  A free drop out of the divot without penalty.

It’s the fair and right action to take.

Payne Stewart’s experience in the 1990s is one of the best illustrations on this change in golf rules – and I wish I would have cited it yesterday.  It’s not too late today.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

One of my favorite golf magazines – Links – came up this month with a good story, citing 10 golf rules that it said should be changed.

I didn’t agree with all its recommendations, but, for one, a solid yes.

This:  “Relief from Divots/The Rules of Golf grant relief from many kinds of abnormal ground conditions — including by way of Rule 13.1c(2), which allows a player to repair ball marks and spike marks on putting surfaces.

From Links:  “The rules look to strike a balance between the longstanding tradition of playing the ball ‘as it lies’ and fairness, and in the case of this rule, they indicate that on greens, such relief is warranted.  But no such relief is offered in the case of a ball coming to rest in a divot, which is manifestly inconsistent.”

My vote – again a solid yes.

It is a condition – the unlucky bounce that, even for a good drive, ends up in a divot – always strikes me as patently unfair.  So change it.

One other major rule change for me is this:  Re-write Rule 12, which makes a number of ill-conceived comments about permitted actions in bunkers.  One of these, incredibly, says it is “allowable to strike the sand in anger and frustration.”

Say what? 

If a golfer did this in Oregon Golf Association sponsored events where I often volunteer, he or she would get a “code of conduct” penalty.

There is absolutely no reason for this to be included in the Rules of Golf.

Drawing on the Links Magazine article, I list below all the rules it advocates changing – but just by title without all the detail.  And, then I add my agreement or disagreement.

1. Limit of 14 Clubs/the magazine wants to allow as many or as few as a player wants:  Disagree. 

2. Relief from Divots:  Agree.

3. Relief in Bunkers…if your golf ball is in areas not previously raked:  Agree.

4. Stroke and Distance Penalty for Loss of Ball or Ball Hit Out of Bounds:  Disagree.

5. Three-Minute Time Limit to Find a Lost Ball…by adding more time:  Disagree.

6. Ball Embedded by Someone Stepping on It:  Agree.

7. Interference from Boundary Objects…if your ball comes to rest in bounds but in a position where the boundary fence interferes with your stance or swing, there is no relief, but it should be granted:  Agree.

8. Use of Distance-Measuring Devices – allow them:  Agree (though I don’t know that allowing such devices would necessarily speed up play).

9. Rules for Relief from Penalty Areas…to provide consistency:  Agree

10. Pace of Play Rule:  Either throw this out or enforce it…I vote for the latter.

There it is.  Enough.  With that, I am heading out to play golf…again.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

Back when I was a lobbyist in the State of Oregon, there would have been a major event last week for me and my firm’s clients.

This:  State government economists appeared before a joint legislative committee to unveil the latest quarterly forecast of tax revenue available for the state in the next “biennium,” an unusual word that means the next “two years, 2025-27).”

This time, during what lobbyists call “the interim between legislative sessions in Salem,” few paid much attention.

For me, a new revenue forecast always was a critical development for at least two reasons:

1. How much money is available sets the stage for the ONLY decision lawmakers in Oregon must make as they meet in a regular legislative session — approve a new two-year spending plan for such issues as health care, higher education, K-12 education, and public safety (including state [police and prisons].

• The predicted total also sets the stage for another major decision —  how much to spend and how much to raise in taxes, if any of the latter.

I remember many days when, along with a bevy of other state lobbyists, I waited impatiently in the hearing room for the next revenue forecast to be made public. 

During various recessions, the event was even more critical because state legislators would begin to understand how much they had to cut in state government, many of which were important to citizens.  Decisions about what to cut are often more difficult than decisions about what new spending makes sense.

As for the U. S. economy, here’s what state economists said:

“…it remains in an inflationary economic boom, albeit one that has cooled somewhat over the past year and a half.  Real GDP is growing above potential.  Ongoing employment and income gains allow households to spend even as prices are rising faster than the Federal Reserve’s target.

“Given the strong economy, the Fed has yet to cut interest rates.  The outlook indicates the Fed will begin to reduce interest rates late this year, only after further slowing in inflation is seen in the data.”

As for the outlook in Oregon, the economists added:

“The Oregon economic outlook remains solid, but this cycle has been different.  The state’s topline population, employment, and income growth is in the middle of the pack across all states.

“However, the economic outcomes for individual Oregonians have been noticeably stronger than the nation.  While still lower than the U.S., Oregon’s per capita income and average wage are at their highest relative point compared to the nation in decades.

“A record share of working-age Oregonians have a job.  And the state’s labor force participation rate has risen the second most across all states.

“The major economic forecast change is a larger U.S. population due to increased international immigration.  This boosts the national employment, income, and spending forecasts.

“The Oregon population forecast remains essentially unchanged, and Oregon is not a major port of entry for international immigrants.  As such, the local impact of the U.S. forecast changes is smaller.  That said, a larger U.S. economy boosts non-wage Oregonian income, like investments and proprietors’ income, as local firms sell more goods and services into that larger customer base elsewhere in the country.”

So, lawmakers will have more to spend for the 2005-27 biennium when they return to Salem next January.  This is a summary of the projections:

• About $533 million more in the “general fund” arriving from individual taxpayers, which sounds like a lot, but only up about 1.6 per cent from the last forecast.
• About $588 million in corporate tax revenue for the “general fund,” up about 26 per cent from the last forecast, with most of the increase due to federal tax policy changes.
• Almost the same projection of lottery revenue as the last forecast – lottery revenue goes to education, economic development, and other specific purposes outlined in state law – so functions just like the “general fund”…another bucket of money.

This means the 2025 Legislature is not likely to face major debates over tax increases, even if some Democrats – that party is likely to remain in charge in both the House and Senate – would like to have such debates.

Instead, the basic issue will be what it always is:  How to allocate state revenue and work to assure that spending will achieve what it is supposed to achieve, a tough task given the reality that expenditures and revenue must be in balance.  No deficit spending.

That’s a key distinction from the federal government where deficit spending always occurs.

One more issue is just around the corner for Oregonians.  Current Oregon law requires legislators to return money to taxpayers if revenue is more than 2 per cent over previous projections.  This has come to be called “Oregon’s kicker law.”

In the past, some legislators have said they don’t like the law, so have tried to repeal it.  To no avail.

It is popular – many Oregonians what their “kicked back” money.

Enough for now because, in retirement, I am heading to the golf course, not to review more tax and spending detail.