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 question in this blog headline has arisen recently over the Biden Administration’s proposal to spend trillions on “infrastructure.”

Why would I, from the cheap seats out West, choose to write about this subject?  Well, the simple answer is that I find it to be an interesting example of what the federal government is doing as we know it today.  So, for me, that is enough.

I have no argument with the idea of investing more in the country’s roads, rail and bridges.  Too many of those pieces of infrastructure are failing.  Plus, investing in the subject will provide jobs for many Americans — and that also is enough for me. 

The “jobs message” has been an emphasis for Biden and his staff.

But, since the Administration announced its infrastructure investment (or is it a “spending” plan), trouble has cropped up around several corners. 

Enough so that it may be difficult for the Administration to find its way toward a bi-partisan solution, even though in the Washington Post today, Biden said this:

“He was open to compromise with Republicans on how to pay for the approximately $2 trillion jobs and infrastructure package, even as he insisted that inaction was untenable.”

As an aside, that quote is a solid testament to the idea of bi-partisan action.  It is up to any president to propose actions.  It is then up to Congress to dispose of those actions.  But, too often, disposing of executive actions means doing nothing.

In this case, what Republicans ought to do is take Biden at his word.  Move forward on infrastructure development.  Find middle ground on the idea, including how to finance it.  And recognize that infrastructure investments could play well with Republican voters around the country.

But, today, infrastructure is a term that means different things to different people.

For my part, the term would apply to “bricks and mortar” developments such as roads, bridges and the like. 

Not so according to the Biden Administration.  The term covers a huge list of what I would call non-infrastructure proposals, such as:

• A stipulation that none of the $350 million Biden proposed for state governments can be used to finance tax cuts.  In a way, that may make sense, but Washington Post columnist George Will calls it:   “The essence of progressivism’s agenda is to create a government-centered society by increasing government’s control of society’s resources, then distributing those resources in ways that increase the dependency of individuals and social groups on government.”

Perhaps, though it may make no sense for me to counter Will’s perspective because he ranks today as the one of the best analysts of government processes.

• Investments in broadband, energy, manufacturing, wastewater systems, electric cars, housing, school buildings and more also are part of infrastructure.
• An estimated $400 billion would go to expand Medicaid payments for home healthcare – also part of infrastructure.

At base, I have no problem with investments in in-home and personal care because many elderly individuals prefer to stay in their homes for as long as possible.  It’s just that such investments may not be part of infrastructure, so should stand on their own.

Still, in any infrastructure plan, I believe there is room for Democrats and Republicans to find something to like.

It’s just that, at the moment:

• The price tag may be too high.
• The proposed tax increases may be too high.
• The definition of infrastructure may be too broad.

But, if officials of good will and good intent – yes, I believe there be some left – will decide against inaction, there should be a way to find middle ground.

Allow the president to propose and allow Congress to dispose – in the best sense of the definition of both words.  And find something that will benefit all Americans.

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.

In the realm of often-arcane golf rules, there was another case a week or so ago that underlined how difficult the subject can be.

One of my friends, if read this point, will no doubt ask my why I focus on such a subject.  There is no good answer just as they is no good answer for the question about why Sir Edmund Hillary decided to climb Mt. Everest so many years ago.

His answer:  “Because it’s there.”

That’s my answer, too:  I focus on golf rules “because they are there.”

The new rules issue arose in the World Golf Championship Dell Technologies Match Play tournament for professional golfers, which was held at Austin Country Club in Texas a week or so ago.

There was a match between two players – Dustin Johnson and Kevin Na – who now will no doubt remember the rules issue that arose for a long time, though both have said they hold no grudges.

What happened was this:

• Johnson had about a 10-foot for par on the 12^th hole, but missed by inches.

• Then, he quickly raked the putt,“apparently” not waiting for Na formally to concede the short one.

• Na called him on it, saying that the putt had to be conceded audibly with such words as “it’s good” before Johnson could pick it up.

• Johnson said he thought Na had done so.

The produced a tense exchange at the end of the hole, with both caddies listening intently as Johnson insisted that the putt was so short — the Shot-Link system had it at 13 inches, but it looked even closer — it never crossed his mind that it wouldn’t be conceded by Na.

Still, Johnson tersely apologized and began walking to the next tee.  Na then affirmed that they had halved the whole — or, in other words, that he would not enforce any sort of penalty on Johnson for the quick-rake before a concession.

Of course, that wasn’t the end of it.

After the round, tournament rules officials met with both players and asked them to recount what happened.

Put simply, the officials’ concern was this:  If Johnson picked up the short putt without the concession and, if Na had then said he would not call the penalty, both players could have been disqualified for violating the rules.

Golf rule 3-2(b) specifies that “a concession is only made when it is clearly communicated.”  If the audible concession had not occurred, Johnson would have been at fault.  And, if Na had decided not to try to enforce the penalty, he would have been at fault.

In talking with rules officials, Johnson maintained that he had heard Na concede the putt, and it turned out that officials chose to believe him.  That meant the incident was over; no penalties and no disqualifications.

The headline on the blog calls golf rules arcane.  I even had trouble above recounting what happened.

But, the situation called to my mind what has happened when I have served as a starter at Oregon Golf Association match play tournaments.  On the first tee, after giving general instructions to the players, I always call on a rules official to add to my comments..

Invariably, one of the statements is this:

If you are going to concede a putt (which is within match play rules, not stroke play rules), make sure you do so audibly so everyone can hear it, especially the other player and any referee supervising the match.

If that had occurred in the Johnson-Na case, there would have been no controversy.

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.

As I awoke this morning, the sun was shining here in Southern California.

It was – and is – a fitting way to celebrate Easter morning!

The sun was out. 

The son is risen!

Easter is more than a holiday when there is a scramble, at least among children, to find Easter eggs.  It is more than traditional Easter candy in the store.  It is more than Easter brunches across the land.

Easter is a time to reflect on what God has done to give us a way to have a relationship with Him.  It is time to reflect on the fact that, at a specific time in history, Jesus, God’s son, went to the cross to die an excruciating death, the purpose for which was to pay the penalty for our sins and to give us a way to have a relationship with God and Jesus.

I found these words on-line this morning:

“Today, Christians look back on these events (the death and resurrection of Jesus), not to relive the grief, sadness and morbidity, but to renew our commitment to living on a higher plane, the one Jesus challenged us to live on.

“We recognize the cross as a symbol of God’s love, but historically it was an instrument of torture devised by the Greeks and Romans to prolong the death of those deemed guilty of crimes against the state. “Since Jesus was guilty of no such thing, the cross had to have a higher meaning — one that could hold the hope of humanity.

“Jesus shared its meaning when he said: ‘This is how much God loved the world:  He gave his Son, his one and only Son.  And this is why:  So that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.  God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was.  He came to help, to put the world right again.’ (John 3:16-17—The Message Bible).

“Today, the cross is still a symbol of God’s forgiveness. The penalty of our countless sins against God — all kinds of sins — is death … eternal death.  As Jesus hung on the cross, our debt to God was being satisfied.  The cross was God’s way of picking up our tab.  It was His way of saying:  ‘I forgive you.’ The cross was a bridge to God’s forgiveness, and we have been invited to freely walk across it.”

Reflecting on this reality morning, the words of one of my favorite hymns come back to me – and I cite them this morning, just as I did yesterday in a previous blog.

Trying to fathom the distance
Looking out ‘cross the canyon carved by my hands
God is gracious
Sin would still separate us
Were it not for the bridge His grace has made us
His love will carry me

There’s a bridge to cross the great divide
A way was made to reach the other side
The mercy of the Father, cost His son His life
His love is deep, His love is wide
There’s a cross to bridge the great divide
God is faithful
On my own I’m unable
He found me hopeless, alone and sent a Savior
He’s provided a path and promised to guide us
Safely past all the sin that would divide us
His love delivers me

The cross that cost my Lord His life
Has given me mine
There’s a bridge to cross the great divide
There’s a cross to bridge the great divide

Good words, well-used – including the words “bridge,” and “cross.” 

“God provides a bridge across the great divide.  God provides a cross to bridge the great divide.”

On this Easter morning, I hope all of us can go beyond the trappings of another holiday on the calendar and reflect on the true meaning of the day.

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.

Those who know me know that I cannot sing a lick.  I remember the time my late mother-in-law heard me try to sing and she dissolved into gales of laughter.

No wonder.  But that’s not the primary point of this blog.

This next paragraph is.

For me, one of the best ways to focus on the true meaning of Easter – commemorating the fact that Christ rose from the dead – is to think of words from great songs we sing at this time of year.  Not just to think about the lyrics, but also to focus on the true meaning of what Christ accomplished for all of us – and remember those words as you live life.

Easter is more than eggs, candy, and brunch.  It is a time for remembrance and reflection.  The words of the songs below do a far better job than I could of capturing the real meaning of Easter.

Easter would not be complete for me unless this first song was performed in a powerful, upbeat way. This year, however, I’ll be sitting at home for the Easter service on-line as all of us deal with the coronavirus pandemic.  But the words are good enough that they will ring loud and true anyway.

UP FROM THE GRAVE HE AROSE

Low in the grave He lay,
Jesus, my Savior,
Waiting the coming day,
Jesus, my Lord!

Refrain:
Up from the grave He arose,
With a mighty triumph o’er His foes,
He arose a Victor from the dark domain,
And He lives forever, with His saints to reign.
He arose! He arose!
Hallelujah! Christ arose!

Vainly they watch His bed,
Jesus, my Savior;
Vainly they seal the dead,
Jesus, my Lord!

Death cannot keep his Prey,
Jesus, my Savior;
He tore the bars away,
Jesus, my Lord!

As a person who likes words, the next song uses two words “cross” and “bridge” interchangeably, with different definitions, to make the point about what Christ has done for us.

A BRIDGE ACROSS THE GREAT DIVIDE; A CROSS TO BRIDGE THE GREAT DIVIDE

Trying to fathom the distance
Looking out ‘cross the canyon carved by my hands
God is gracious
Sin would still separate us
Were it not for the bridge His grace has made us
His love will carry me

There’s a bridge to cross the great divide
A way was made to reach the other side
The mercy of the Father, cost His son His life
His love is deep, His love is wide
There’s a cross to bridge the great divide

God is faithful
On my own I’m unable
He found me hopeless, alone and sent a Savior
He’s provided a path and promised to guide us
Safely past all the sin that would divide us
His love delivers me

The cross that cost my Lord His life
Has given me mine
There’s a bridge to cross the great divide
There’s a cross to bridge the great divide

Celebrations at Easter are good for the soul and life, especially during this difficult time in our history.  Reflecting on the good words above is one way to focus your mind and remember what Christ did for all of us as he arose, thus confirming a way for us to have a relationship with God if we choose to do so.

So, sing — or think — about the good words of Easter songs as we anticipate Easter tomorrow.

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.

This is one of four departments I run as director with full and complete authority to manage them as I see fit.

There are no employees in any of the departments – the Department of Bits and Pieces (which is open today), the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, and the Department of “Just Saying,” so my authority is individual and unbridled.

So, I now decide that the Department of Bits and Pieces is  open.

 Item #1:  BIDEN VS. TRUMP

It has been tempting for me to be so glad Donald Trump is out of office as president that I give Joe Biden too much room for operating.  There is no question that he has returned a semblance of order and normalcy to the nation’s highest political office.

But he still makes mistakes.

So, it’s good that the Washington Post Fact Checker column is alive and well.

Today, the column points out three consistent Biden mistakes:

• He messes up a comparison of war deaths to pandemic deaths, suggesting that the latter has resulted in more deaths than in
  World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War combined.  Not true.
• He continues making a misleading claim Trump’s tax cut bill, contending that the benefits of the cut always end up in the pockets of the top 1 per cent of taxpayers.  Not true.
• He critiques Georgia’s new election, contending that it automatically shortens voting place hours to make it harder for persons to vote.  For all of the faults of the Georgia law – there are many – this is not one of them.

Item #2:  BIDEN’S BIG BET

We are just learning what’s contained in Biden’s big “infrastructure and etc.” plan.  It clearly goes beyond infrastructure and, in fact, may only go forward with huge tax increases.

Those tax increases are intended, supposedly, to fall on high wage earners, but it is hard to make that happen for at least two reasons.  First, not all high wage earners are rich folks who fall into the so-called 1 per cent category; in fact, they may be two-wage-earner families.  Second, if tax increases fall on business, it is consumers – you and me – who will pay them.

The Washington’s Post Greg Sargent wrote this about what he called “Biden’s Big Bet:”

“If you read the official summary of President Biden’s new $2 trillion infrastructure package, what’s striking is its air of what you might call forward-looking nostalgia.

“It’s nostalgic in its emphasis on boosting public investment to levels not seen since the prosperous 1960s, and in its faith that vast brick-and-mortar public works will restore national greatness.

“”But it’s forward-looking in its vow to direct such spending toward challenges such as climate change, racial inequities and the needs of the new, multiracial, care-economy-oriented working class.

This points to the big bet embedded in the new plan:  That in this combination lies a kind of kryptonite that will further weaken Trumpism, that amalgam of plutocracy and reactionary authoritarian nationalism, fueled by hallucinatory anti-leftism, that continues to hold large swaths of the opposition in its thrall.”

Not sure if Sargent’s notion is what motivates Biden, but it is an interesting idea as Biden navigates the shoals of a huge public policy debate.

Item #3:  SKEPTICISM VS. CYNICISM

I toyed with writing a separate blog on this issue, but decided to make the point more quickly – a point I adhered to when I worked as a daily newspaper reporter and a lobbyist.

Skepticism works well if you want to listen to perspectives, then form your own opinion without making harsh judgments about someone else’s point of view or motivation.

Cynicism, by contrast, is not as healthy because you tend to believe everyone is just out for self-interest and you don’t give any weight to careful consideration of opposing points of view.

Put simply:  Skepticism is good and productive.  Cynicism is bad and destructive.

When I worked many years ago in state government, one of my bosses frequently told me that cynicism is easy and skepticism is hard.

He was right.

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 use the word “major” in the headline because, when I was a lobbyist, I used to wait impatiently for release of what was called then and is called now, “The Joint Ways and Means Budget Framework.”

Sound a bit weighty?

Yes.

And, you have to be either a political junkie or a former lobbyist to wait with baited breath for the document.  I qualify on both counts.

But, in the way the State of Oregon budget is developed when the Legislature is in regular session, what the Ways and Means leaders say is important.

Almost as important as what the governor recommends when he or she submits budget recommendations to the Legislature at the start of its every-other-year long session.  That occurs on December 1, a couple months before legislators show up in Salem – or, this year, show up virtually, often on Zoom.

So, several months later, what the Ways and Means co-chairs recommend is informed by later developments, as well as the state of political affairs among the 90 legislators.

The document is important for these reasons:

• First, it sets the stage for what happens as the Legislature heads toward adjournment in late June.

• Second, it represents what legislative leaders say are important allocations to such political funding priorities as K-12 education, higher education, public safety (including State Police and prisons), and social programs (including Medicaid and children’s health).

[Those are the major programs, which receive state personal and corporate tax revenue.  Almost all other government programs are funded by federal funds, fees or lottery revenue, so the “state general fund allocations” are critical from both financial and political points of view.]

• Third, it appears that the State of Oregon two-year budget can be balanced without increasing tax revenue, though, of course, some legislators in Salem still want to do so.

• Fourth, it is not yet clear how the new budget framework affects the “kicker” – the process that requires taxpayer refunds if new tax revenue projections are more than 2 per cent higher than previous projections.  The kicker is designed to control state spending, though it remains very controversial politically. 

What the legislative leaders unveiled last week was summarized in these ways by my former colleagues in the lobbying firm, CFM Advocates.

With the state of Oregon receiving $2.6 billion from the American Rescue Plan, around $600 million in recent COVID- and wildfire-related FEMA reimbursements, and with last month’s quarterly economic forecast predicting higher-than-expected revenue, lawmakers are facing a much different budget situation than expected earlier in the pandemic.

The document outlined a $28 billion plan to fund agencies and services over the cycle starting July 1, 2021 and ending on June 30, 2023. Their goal is to fully fund K-12 schools and higher education while potentially introducing reductions in the state’s Medicaid program, the Oregon Health Plan.

While lawmakers have indicated a desire to hold benefits and eligibility harmless, their plan may end up reducing provider and hospital reimbursements, thus adversely affecting the state’s health system after a year of devastating pandemic-related effects.

A final May economic forecast will be released towards the end of session, and that will serve as the final piece of the puzzle for budget writers in the drive to end the legislative session in late June.

And, from me, again, why does all this matter to “regular” Oregonians?  Well, what state government does with “its” money affects nearly every taxpayer, including the possibility of the “kicker” being in play.

So, with me, pay attention to how all this sifts and sorts its way through the last three months of the current legislative session, for it could affect you directly.

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.

Why would I, fromm my winter base in the California desert, feel compelled to write about the first press conference held by President Joe Biden?

Well, perhaps not “compelled.”  But label me interested.  For one thing, I am a former journalist, so press conferences – how they are held, how the subjects conduct themselves and how reporters respond – all garner my interest.

In this case, for all the media hype prodding Biden to hold a press conference, his first since taking office, what happened was close to boring.

That is not a criticism of Biden.  In fact, it is a compliment.

As I watched live, I thought Biden carried himself with skill and distinction as, for more than an hour, he faced reporters, some of whom were intent on catching him in one of his periodic gaffes.

But, he did not commit any gaffes and, if he had done so, that would have made him look human, for, truth be told, all of us are subject to committing gaffes.

What Biden did was show that he grasped the detail of many of the policy issues that confront his presidency, the largest one of which is the pandemic, but that is followed close behind by immigration, gun control, infrastructure and climate change.

Biden started his press conference with a summary of what his Administration has done, is doing and will do to contain the virus.  Principally, he committed to achieving 200 million vaccinations by the 100^th day of his presidency, an increase from a previous goal.

Surprisingly, however, reporters, siting socially-distanced in a White House room, did not ask one question about the pandemic.  Not one.

In showing expertise on policy issues, Biden illustrated how different he is from his predecessor, Donald Trump. 

Trump rarely knew what he was talking about.  He did not read briefing books, preferring to watch television and emote on Twitter.  Plus, he mostly engaged in lies or diatribes against those he thought disagreed with him, including reporters at the White House.

Here is a summary of what commentators wrote about the long-awaited Biden press conference:

From David A. Graham in Atlantic Magazine wrote a piece under this headline:  WHAT BIDEN’S FIRST PRESS CONFERENCE REVEALED:  THE PRESIDENT INVOKED AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.

Graham went on:

“Joe Biden has a reputation as a softie—grandfatherly if you’re inclined toward him, somewhat windy and elderly if you aren’t.  But when he reached for a phrase to define his approach to office during his first press conference, he didn’t pick an Irish poet or an American statesman.  Instead, he quoted the hardheaded Teutonic conservative known as the Iron Chancellor:  “Politics is the art of the possible,” Biden said.

“The president invoked Otto von Bismarck in response to a question on filibuster reform.  Biden went further than he has in the past, coming close to an out-and-out condemnation of the 60-vote requirement, even as he said he’d be open to tweaks such as a ‘talking filibuster’ or a civil-rights exemption, rather than an outright abolition of the process.

“On the left, critics worried that Biden was a bi-partisanship fetishist, more interested in paying homage to the old ways of doing things (or not doing them, as the case might be) than actually achieving progressive goals.  On the right, critics painted him as a puppet of the ‘woke’ wing of the DemocratParty, putting a friendly face on a radical agenda.  Obviously, both of these views couldn’t be right. But so far, neither one has proved correct.’’

From Karen Tumulty in the Washington Post:  “In the tradition of most modern chief executives, Joe Biden arrived at his first formal presidential news conference with a nugget to announce:  He was doubling his initial goal and would assure that 200 million coronavirus vaccine shots would be administered to the American public in his first 100 days in office.

“So it was perhaps odd that the president got no questions from reporters about the pandemic that in the past year has killed nearly 550,000 Americans, devastated the economy and upended just about every aspect of daily life in this country.

“But it was also, in a way, a compliment to the Biden Administration’s management of the epidemic that is the White House’s most urgent priority, an acknowledgment that at last it has begun to feel that the situation is coming under control.”

From Jennifer Rubin, also in the Washington Post whose column appeared under this headline:  BIDEN EXCELS AT HIS FIRST NEWS CONFERENCE. THE MEDIA EMBARRASS THEMSELVES.

Rubin went on:

“Try as they might to seem ‘tough,’ the media did not succeed in knocking Biden off message.  Biden spoke in great detail and length to show not only his mastery of the issues, but also to suck tension and conflict out of the room.

“He simply would not be lured into accepting a false premise devised by Republicans (i.e., that his nice demeanor prompts parents to send kids thousands of miles under deadly conditions).

“’I’m going to send him on a thousand-mile journey across a desert and up to the United States because I know Joe Biden is a nice guy and he’ll take care of him? What a desperate act to take,’ he said. “The circumstances must be horrible.”

With all this, however, it was Dan Balz in the Washington Post who put it best.  If Biden’s first press conference was so important, he said, then the result didn’t prove the point. 

Given the media’s lackluster performance, Balz said the president might want to decide that there are better ways to communicate with the public than to hold press conferences.

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 in this blog derives from a column by one of my favorite writers, Michael Gerson, whose prose appears in the Washington Post.

[Today, by the way, his new column aks why, in the aftermath of two more shootings where people died, America shouldn’t allow “conscience rule” on gun control – so, control guns.]

But, in what appears below, Gerson writes about the dangerous U.S. Senator, Ron Johnson, who, Gerson opines, “prefers his racism raw.”

On occasion, I devote this blog to the entire text of a column, first, by giving due credit to the writer, and second, by admitting that I could not write better words, so publish someone else’s effort.

So, here is the Gerson column in its entirety:

A political movement will either police its extremes or be defined by them.

Disapproval from opponents is easy to dismiss as mere partisanship. It is through self-criticism that a political party defines and patrols the boundaries of its ideological sanity.

This is the reason the case of Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.) remains so instructive and disturbing. Johnson is a Republican who prefers his racism raw.

He recently described the majority-White crowd protesting on January 6 (some of whom stormed the Capitol and assaulted police officers) as “people that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law.”

Meanwhile, he would have been “concerned” by an approaching crowd of “tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters.”  So:  Whites who propagate a destructive lie, attack the democratic process and commit violence are Johnson’s kind of people; African Americans who protest a history of injustice are a scary horde.

There have always been bigots with access to a microphone. But in this case, Johnson did not face the hygienic repudiation of his party. Republican leaders preferred a different strategy: putting their fingers in their ears and humming loudly.  Republicans have abolished their ideological police.

The reason is simple. After four years of Donald Trump, Johnson’s sentiments are not out of the Republican mainstream.  They are an application of the prevailing Republican ideology — that the “real” America is under assault by the dangerous other: Violent immigrants. Angry Blacks. Antifa terrorists. Suspicious Muslims. And don’t forget “the China virus. ”

Trump did not create such views.  But he normalized them in an unprecedented fashion. Under Trump’s cover, this has been revealed as the majority position of Republicans, or at least engaged, activist Republicans. A recent New York Times poll found 65 percent of people who identify with the GOP to still be Trump “die-hards,” Trump “boosters” or captive to conspiracy theories.

And most of the rest find nothing disqualifying in Trump’s pathologically divisive performance as president.

Our country faces many crises.  But our nation’s politics has a single, overriding challenge:  One of the United States’ venerable, powerful political parties has been overtaken by people who make resentment against outsiders the central element of their appeal.  Inciting fear is not an excess of their zeal; it is the substance of their cause.

This has left some of us politically disoriented.  I am pro-life.  For me, this has always been the natural application of a humane historical trend:  The United States’ gradually expanding circle of legal inclusion and protection.  You may disagree with me, but I believe there is a logical moral progression that leads from abolitionism to the civil rights movement to the protection of the disabled and unborn.

Yet, it is precisely this progression that’s being denied in today’s GOP.  Claiming that discrimination is an illusion, that White people are the true victims, that diversity is a threat and that the American way of life is really identical to the good old days of White dominance — these are not just mistaken policy views, like being wrong on entitlement reform or tax policy.

They are the fundamental failure of empathy, the triumph of dangerous historical lies and the violation of the highest objectives of politics: the advance of equal justice and human dignity.

It is one thing to be involved in policing the excesses of an ideological movement.  It is another task entirely to persuade the large majority of an ideological movement to adopt the basic rules of morality and humanity.  In the first case, the Republican Party is a flawed instrument of good.  In the second case, it is a source of dangerous dehumanization that gets a few important things right.

The stakes could hardly be higher.  Politics does not directly determine the morality of citizens.  But it helps shape the system of social cues and stigmas in which citizens operate.  It matters whether leaders delegitimize hatred or fertilize it; if they isolate prejudice or mainstream it.

If political figures base their appeal on the cultivation of resentment for some group or groups, they are releasing deadly toxins into our society without any idea who might be harmed or killed.  Such elected leaders might not have blood on their hands directly, but they are creating a society with more bloody hands.

I am still finding it difficult to fully embrace the Democrat Party, which denies the American progression toward justice and inclusion in other ways.  But I could not advise an idealistic and ambitious young person to join today’s GOP because her ambition would be likely to destroy her idealism.

Most Republican leaders can no longer be trusted with the moral education of the young on the central moral challenge of our history. Elected Republicans who are not bigots are generally cowards in the face of bigotry.  And that is a shocking, horrible 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.

This blog headline is possible because of a commitment from Oregon’s golf industry leaders to take the pulse of the sports economic performance.

It did so to rate the year 2019, the most recent year for which statistics were available.  And that was before the pandemic boosted golf participation throughout the country, including in the Pacific Northwest.

The economic report was produced by the Golf Alliance of Oregon (GAO), in collaboration with the National Golf Foundation (NGF).

THE BOTTOM LINE:  Golf’s direct economic impact in Oregon was valued at $1.6 billion 2019.  Golf supports 16,500 jobs for Oregon residents, with $508.1 million in wage income and more than $69 million in state and local taxes.

The Golf Alliance consists of the Oregon Golf Association (OGA), The Oregon Chapter of the Pacific Northwest Section of the PGA of America, the Oregon Golf Course Owners and Operators Association, the Oregon Golf Course Superintendents Association, and the Oregon Club Managers Association. 

Thus, the Alliance covers all segments of the industry.

“There’s been a lot said about the 8 per cent increase in golf’s total participation during a COVID year in 2020 – which is great news,” says Barb Trammell, CEO of the Oregon Golf Association.  “However, this 2019 study, which is pre-COVID, indicates that golf is more than a safe and enjoyable pastime in our state — it is a key industry contributing to the overall economy and quality of life in Oregon.

“In addition, we’re proud that Oregon golf courses are leaders in environmental stewardship and are originators of maintenance practices aimed at protecting the environment and preserving limited resources.”

Here are a few statistics from the just-published report:

• Golf drives significant economic activity across the State of Oregon through golf facility operations, golf related supplies, capital investments, charitable events, tournaments, tourism, golf-related retail spending, and new home construction in golf communities.

• The size of Oregon’s direct golf economy in 2019 compares favorably with other key state industries such as fishing ($698 million) and wine ($5.6 billion).  However, beyond the economic metrics, the report also details how golf contributes to health and wellness for its 242,500 participants, thanks to the benefits of its 20,000 acres of green space and surrounding ecosystems.

• Oregon is home to 177 golf facilities with most of them open to the public.  The state is also home to notable golf apparel companies — Nike, adidas North America, and Columbia Sportswear — as well as several other smaller manufacturers and golf equipment companies.

• In 2019, more than 242,500 Oregon golfers played more than 4.5 million rounds, and more than 18,000 kids were reached through the PGA, First Tee, Oregon Junior Golf, Leisure Hour and First Green programs.

• A total of $19.1 million was contributed to charity from various golf events, including, in particular, the LPGA’s Cambia Portland Classic played at Columbia Edgewater Country Club.  Further, more than two things of Oregon golf facilities hosted a charity event in 2019.

• Golf courses benefit both people and wildlife.  In fact, Oregon was the first state to implement an Environmental Stewardship Guideline, Best Management Practices (BMP) for Golf Courses.

Am I an unbiased source as I report these pieces of good news?  No.

I am proud to serve on the Executive Committee of the Oregon Golf Association Board of Directors where I joined my colleagues to endorse our CEO’s commitment to produce the economic study.

And results continue to prove that golf is more than a safe and enjoyable pastime for many Oregonians, including me.  It is an economic engine.

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.

Legislators in Salem appear to be heading toward sending a measure to the ballot that would declare health care to be a “right.”

The measure would proposed a change in Oregon’s Constitution to achieve the objective, thus would require a vote of the people.

It will be a controversial decision for the Legislature, not because health care is not important – it is – but because establishing the right could come at the expense of other important public policy priorities. 

K-12 education.  Higher education.  Public safety.

All could be at risk if health care becomes a right and the Legislature choose to fund that objective.

Here’s the way the Oregonian newspaper described the status of the issue in a story that appeared March 18:

“The Oregon Senate on Thursday approved a resolution that would ask voters to decide whether the state is obligated to ensure that every resident has access to affordable health care as a fundamental human right.

“The resolution, whose aim is to amend the state Constitution, was approved along party lines, with Democrat senators in favor and Republicans opposed.  It next goes to the House in the Democrat-controlled Legislature.”

A similar effort in 2018 was approved by the House, but a Senate committee demurred, thus not allowing it to become the first constitutional amendment in any state to create a fundamental right to healthcare.

Senate Majority Leader Rob Wagner made a simple case for the measure this time around when he said, “Every Oregonian deserves access to cost-effective and clinically appropriate health care.  Oregon’s Constitution should reflect that truth.”

By contrast, Senate Minority Leader Fred Girod took a different tack.

 “The bill doesn’t fund any system to deliver on that promise.  If Democrats are serious about giving Oregonians free health care, they should come up with an actual plan.”

All of this calls to mind a number of similar efforts over the years when I worked as a lobbyist at the State Capitol in Salem.  Health care organizations always were a major part of my client list.

The usual promoter of the right was the late State Representative Mitch Greenlick for whom the issue was a top priority, though he never climbed the hill to realize his goal.

For my part, I have mixed emotions about the issue.  On one hand, it’s hard to argue with the importance of health care as a public policy priority.  On the other hand, the other major programs funded by state tax dollars – education and public safety to name two – could contend they should be a right, as well.

Where I end up is here:

• Don’t establish any of the above issues as rights in the Constitution.
• Rely on the Joint Ways and Means Committee – the Legislature’s budget-making arm – to make the hard decisions about how to use limited state dollars to find the right balance for all of the top priorities.

That won’t appease health care advocates, but it represents reliance on legislators to accomplish one of main actions whenever they show up in Salem – which is to balance the state budget.

That won’t appease health care as a right advocates, for the proposition relies on elected leaders to do their jobs, which they sometimes don’t do.  Still, in this case, leaders have to balance the budget in relation to available revenue, not spend in deficit.  That alone makes the effort reliable.