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.

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.

Wait for it!

It is not very well known, but December 1 is an important date in Oregon state government every other year, the odd-numbered year.  December 1, if you don’t have your calendar handy during the pandemic, is tomorrow, Tuesday.

It is the date when, by the law, the governor must unveil a “Recommended Budget for the New Biennium,” this time for 2021-23.

During my 15 years in state government management, it was always a very important date because I was involved in either of two ways:  (a) I was in charge of the two-year budget for an agency when I served as deputy director of that agency, or (b) or, I was on tap to answer questions from reporters and editors about budget recommendations for an agency or for the Governor’s Office when I worked for Governor Victor Atiyeh.

When I became a lobbyist, the date retained its importance because it would have substantial affect on my firm’s clients.

That’s because state tax revenue goes essentially four places – K-12 schools, higher education, social and health programs, and public safety programs, (including state police and prisons).  Many of my firm’s clients cared deeply about these funding locations.

Add federal funds, lottery funds and fees to the mix and you get a $36 million biennial enterprise – state government as a whole every two years.

Here’s what important about the budget recommendations:

• What the budget recommends is what the governor – in this case, Governor Kate Brown – views as important for the future of Oregon.  Put another way, some observers believe a budget is just another set of numbers.  No, it is the most detailed example every time of a set of POLICY recommendations by the leader of state government.

• There is also a belief, in some quarters, that the budget is only a set of “recommendations,” not something that will stick.  But the reality is that about 90 per cent of what a governor recommends will be retained through the legislative process.

• I am not sure what Brown will do this year, but, in some past cases, governors made a mistake by not recommending what I call a “current services” budget.  That is a document that recommends what it would cost to operate state government for another two years, including the cost of inflation and predicted caseload growth — and not including expanded programs.

The recommended budget also is NOT supposed to include proposals for new taxes, which should be lodged in a separate document, not the main budget document. 

In a current services budget, members of the Legislature’s Joint Ways and Means Committee could consider genuinely what it would cost to operate government for two more years and decide whether to retain or change the cost.

At the same time, the House and Senate Revenue Committees are the venues for considering proposals for new taxes, which, if passed, first by the House and second by the Senate, would then go to the full House and Senate chambers for actions on a statutorily required three-fifths vote.

In the past, I have recommended that governors be charged with proposing three documents, not just one, every other year.  So, from my position outside government, I loft these recommendations again.

• Governors, by law, should be required to announce a CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL budget recommendation

• Governors, by law, should be required to produce a document showing TAX INCREASE PROPOSALS

• Governors, by law should be required to produce a document describing programs that have outlived their usefulness or have not achieved agreed-upon objectives and, thus, should be CUT BACK OR SCRAPPED.

If these kinds of proposals were adopted, the budget recommendations would gain far more clarity.  Often, the current documents can be opaque because they mix and match spending and taxes.

For a $36 billion dollar enterprise, clarity is critical.

And, here’s hoping that, tomorrow, December 1, we’ll get that clarity…but I also am holding my breath.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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.

But to call Thanksgiving a “holiday” is to limit its meaning.

What the day is:  Most of all, a day to remember and give thanks, especially to God, who has enabled us to live for another year with friends and family.

And, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that every day should be a day of thanks, just as today is, three days after Thanksgiving.

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan performed her annual ritual again this year when she wrote e-mails to a number of people and asked them to report back to her about why they were thankful, even in the midst of what she called “a hard year.”

Here are the firsts paragraphs of what she wrote:

“It’s been a fairly gruesome year—pandemic, lockdowns, economic woe, death and illness. We’ve done a column in past years asking friends and acquaintances what they’re thankful for.  This year we emailed a dozen people whom we respect and who know a lot, asking what they’d seen, experienced or realized this annus horribilis that left them moved or grateful. 

“It could be personal or galactic in scope, concrete or abstract, but not political, and it had to be particular to this year.

“An investor who feared he wouldn’t see much of his grown kids since they’d flown the coop is awed to be living with them in crowded, happy circumstances.  A priest is grateful young people are still coming into the church.  A former pollster can’t believe how Zoom kept her far-flung family together.

“There was a lot of surprised gratitude for technology. A subtext emerged, unexpected gifts of the pandemic.  Most of all and strikingly there was deep gratitude for the people who work on the ground in America, who kept the country functioning.  Almost everyone mentioned personal thanks for grocery-store workers and truckers.  For eight months we’ve read and heard stories of self-sacrifice and dedication.  They have sunk in.  I believe the pandemic inched forward a certain cultural shift, a broadened sense of who deserves honor.”

Noonan’s point is that the goal is to get your eyes off yourself and look to the good deeds of other who, even if they don’t know you personally, have made your life better in the last year.

So, in that spirit, here is my list of some of the reasons why I am thankful.

• The heritage of my parents.  I think of them literally every day and am grateful for solid start they gave to me and my four siblings.
• My wife who agreed to marry me 47 years ago, the best decision of my life.
• My kids – Eric and Lissy – and way they allowed me to be both father and friend.
• My grandkids – Mason, Drew and Kate – who are growing up too quickly for words.  I treasure all of my days with them.
• My dogs – Hogan (now looking at me from up in heaven) and Callaway – who love me even if I shoot bad scores on the golf course.
• Friends who have supported me through the years, including those on the golf course who have became great friends.
• Colleagues in a business I helped to found – CFM Advocates – which represented a host of solid public policy clients over, for me, more than 25 years.  With me in retirement, CFM is still active today.
• Churches I have attended – the one in Portland where I grew up, the one in Washington, D.C. where, as a family, we spent a couple years, and the one in Salem, Oregon, which we helped to lead for a number of years.  But, remember, “church” is more than just buildings; it is a place to gather as “children of God” and express gratitude for the relationship we have in Christ.

In this context, the words of a great hymn come to mind:  Christ has provided “a bridge across the great divide,” or, if you like, “a cross to bridge the great divide.”

Have a great Thanksgiving – every 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 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.

Call it gotcha!

That’s what has happened recently when some well-known politicians were caught violating virus restrictions very soon after they imposed them.

In the Wall Street Journal, columnist William McGurn put it this way:

“Yours truly enjoys a good gotcha as much as the next man.  And it’s easy to mock pols for their blatant hypocrisy when they are caught.  But maybe the more important lesson to be learned here is that hypocrisy is guaranteed when we impose one-size-fits-all mandates that are rigid and unworkable.”

McGurn makes a good point…not just about the “gotcha deal,” but also about the one-size-fits-all approach taken by many governors, including Kate Brown in Oregon.

One of governors who came in for criticism about being a hypocrite was Gavin Newsom in California.

Californians live under some of the tightest Covid-19 restrictions in the nation, so when Newsom was recently caught without a mask at a crowded table for 12 at a posh Napa Valley eatery – it was only a day or so after imposed restrictions on such activity — he instantly became the poster boy for the “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” crowd.

According to the columnist McGurn, he’s hardly the only one.  Not long after Newsom’s visit to the French Laundry was exposed, Californians read about a delegation of their lawmakers who jetted to a Maui resort for a conference as everyone else was being told to avoid non-essential travel.

New Yorkers earlier learned that Mayor Bill de Blasio was working out at his favorite Park Slope YMCA right as he was shutting down the city.  And of course House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot made headlines for sneaking off to get their hair done when barbershops and salons were closed to everyone else.

Now, does a mistake by the likes of Newsom, de Blasio or Pelosi negate all of their actions.

Of course, no.

Do their actions jeopardize their records in office and their ability to get things done.

Of course, yes.

Should we remember their hypocrisy?

Of course, yes…at least for a time to make sure they don’t continue down a hypocritical path.

Now, on to two other issues with the pandemic that represent areas of concern for me.

First, let me say that I have no interest in making decisions about how to control the pandemic and I have sympathy for public officials caught in this challenging problem.  I wouldn’t want their jobs, so I summarize my concerns from the cheap seats in La Quinta, California.

• I have concerns about the one-size-fits all approach, such as is being done in Oregon.  There is no way pandemic restrictions in downtown Portland should be the same as those imposed in far Eastern Oregon.  The same could be said about other states, such as the one I am sitting in now, California.
• I also have concerns that there does not appear, in many cases, to be a direct relationship between the cause for virus spikes and the actions directed to stem the tide.  It is not absolutely clear, for example, that restaurants are “superspreaders,” yet they are singled out for closure, which could mean many of them will go out of business.

In this connection, I was hopeful that a suit by the Oregon Lodging and Restaurant Association contending that Governor Brown had unfairly singled out restaurants for restrictions would go a way toward highlighting this deficit. 

But, a judge ruled yesterday against the Association’s suit, contending simply that the governor was within her rights to impose the restrictions.

Back to McGurn’s Wall Street Journal column:  “Daniel Halperin is an adjunct professor at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health.  He says he understands why people get upset when politicians are caught doing something they are admonishing everyone else not to do. But as he explains in his recent book, ‘Facing COVID Without Panic,’ he believes a bigger part of the problem has been the reliance on mandates, especially those that have only a marginal impact on the virus’s spread.

“’Many of these mandates and guidelines fixate on behaviors and settings where the actual risk is very low, such as fleeting public encounters, surface-based transmission or beach visits,’ he says in an email. ‘Meanwhile, measures which could have the greatest prevention impact, such as re-engineering buildings to improve air circulation, are still not widely prioritized—not to mention even simpler actions, such as opening windows to allow outdoor air to circulate indoors.’”

McGurn ends his column with a paragraph that resonates with me.  “Certainly leaders ought to live by the same rules they impose on everyone else.  But as we celebrate this Thanksgiving amid the many examples of double standards, maybe we should take them as less a morality tale than a sign we need workable guidelines that even politicians could obey.”

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 remember the time many months ago when I read a major story in The Atlantic reporting that the Trump presidential campaign intended to rely on what was labeled “disinformation” to push Trump to victory.

As usual with Trump and his sycophants, there was no commitment to honesty and accuracy.

The good news:  It didn’t happen.  At least not in sufficient supply to re-elect the worst president in U.S. history. 

Now, the question is what to do about the disinformation, which still lurks in the background of the just-concluded presidential election race.  Or, perhaps in the foreground as Trump refuses to admit defeat says he might run again in 2024.

Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan dealt with the topic in a piece for the Post last weekend by contending that the media should play a role in separating fact from fiction as the U.S. recovers from the Trump debacle.

To me, her thoughts are important for at least two reasons.  First, I got my start in my professional career in the news media business, so writing about media responsibilities catches my attention.  And, second, if we are to return politics to a solid, ethical process in this country, we will have to recover from Trump excesses.

Under this headline, Sullivan posited what “journalists must do about it” – meaning about disinformation:

The disinformation system that Trump unleashed will outlast him.

“President Trump didn’t create the media cesspool that he’ll bequeath to a troubled nation,” Sullivan wrote.  “He just made it exponentially worse — not only with his own constant lies, but with his ability to spread the ugliness.

“Just days ago, he tweeted out a debunked conspiracy theory that a company that makes voting machines had deleted millions of Trump votes.  And though he — barring true disaster — will leave office in January, the widespread disinformation system that he fostered will live on.

“Social media platforms, streaming ‘news’ channels and innumerable websites will spew lies and conspiracy theories, and will keep weakening the foundation of reality that America’s democracy needs in order to function.”

Sullivan proposed three actions:

First, she says, “the media should be bolder and more direct than ever in telling it like it is.  No more pussy-footing or punch-pulling.  No more of what’s been called ‘false equivalence’ — giving equal weight to truth and lies in the name of fairness.

I add that “false equivalence” is a critical topic because all of us – reporters an editors included – should not equate lies with truth.

Second, Sullivan maintains that “the only hope is for mainstream journalism is to appeal to passion as well as reason — providing moral clarity along with truthful content.  

“In other words, the reality-based press has to unapologetically stand for something.  Otherwise, it’s just a pallid alternative to the excitement of burgeoning lies.”

Third, Sullivan advocates that journalists and news organizations should get much more involved in media literacy — working with educators and advocates to teach people of all ages, but especially students, to distinguish lies from truth, propaganda from factual reporting.

All of this can be an uncomfortable role for journalists because it smacks of advocacy, something that mainstream journalists – at least those my age — were taught to avoid.  When I worked for a daily newspaper in Oregon, I was expected to focus on facts and context, not opinions.

So, Sullivan poses the bottom-line question.  “Can journalists, mired in our ‘how we’ve always done it’ mind-set, really change their stripes to fight the war on disinformation?  Can we be more clear and direct, embrace a moral purpose, help to educate news consumers? And even if we do, will it make a significant difference?”

The jury is out, but here’s hoping quality journalists will rise to the occasion – an occasion that is very important because the current occupant of the Oval Office is on the way out.  The goal should be that the disinformation campaign should be gone with him.