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.

Kudos to legislative leaders here in Oregon for holding a “Legislative Prayer Breakfast,” the first in six years.

Here’s hoping the Prayer Breakfast becomes a tradition.

I say that because, whatever your religious convictions, it makes good sense to stop the hustle and bustle of politics and pause to express the need for guidance from a higher power.

For me, that higher power is Jesus Christ, with whom you can have a personal relationship, as I do. For others, it may be different. And, to be sure, the Prayer Breakfast had an ecumenical touch of sorts with prayers from a Muslim and a Rabbi.

I say good.

I had the privilege of being asked, albeit in my retirement, to co-host a table at the event. It was an honor to be asked and to comply.

The legislative leaders who deserve praise for resurrecting the Prayer Breakfast are:

• House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland
• House Minority Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte
• Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson, D-Gresham
• Senator Tim Knopp, R-Bend

Notice the bi-partisan character of the leaders, a fact which sent a solid message that this was not just another political event, but something more solemn and sacred.

On May 25, these legislators and many of their colleagues gathered at the Salem Convention Center for the breakfast event. More than 250 guests were there to support the need for divine guidance.

The keynote speaker for the event was Paul Young, an author who self-published a book in 2007, The Shack, which became a best-seller and was turned into a movie.

The title of the book is a metaphor for “the house you build out of your own pain,” according to Young who appeared at the Prayer Breakfast at the invitation of Representative McLane, a personal friend. Young has told a radio talk show host that The Shack “is a metaphor for the places you get stuck, you get hurt, you get damaged…the thing where shame or hurt is centered.”

He wrote the book especially for his children, though it obviously has reached many more than just his own family.

In that sense and apart from the spiritual message Young intended, his remarks were especially appropriate for a crowd aware that, only a few blocks east of the Convention Center, legislators were locked in a place “where they were stuck and could get hurt.”

One hopes that, by spending a few minutes in contemplation and prayer, legislators will find a way to stand on their principles, bridge gaps and reach agreement on tough issues without denigrating each other. That would be a sweet taste in today’s politics, which often are based on antagonism and acrimony.

Admittedly, the Prayer Breakfast was an event. But, if the spirit lives on, it could become something more.

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.

“It” was a small event. “It” didn’t generate many headlines. Many people didn’t even know “it” occurred. But, “it” did underline a failure of the Oregon Legislature two years ago.

The “it” was a small earthquake. In earthquake measurements, it was only a magnitude 3. It hit last week about two miles west of Interstate 5 In the Woodburn area. Still, despite it’s small size, the quake went about 14.8 miles deep.

Now, about the mistake. After moving for several years to safeguard the State Capitol – the “People’s Building” — from an earthquake, legislators failed to reach agreement on doing the deed in 2015.

The result? If a major quake hits, the State Capitol could be in ruins.

That may sound like an overstatement, but, in a quake about 15 years ago, the “gold man” at the top of the building, a major landmark in Salem, came within seconds of toppling down. The quake did damage to the murals on the walls, requiring more than a year of restoration. Plus, the internal infrastructure at the Capitol suffered damage, in part because it is so old in the first place.

Due to the major quake, legislators created a task force to look at what to do if there was another major event. The group worked for a couple years and came up with a plan and even went to the extent of working with legislative leaders to take bids from contractors that could do the work, including architecture, design and construction.

The company that won the construction contract, JE Dunn, did so after a stiff and fair competition. JE Dunn was then and is now a CFM Strategic Communications client. It is a national company with a base in Oregon and substantial experience in retrofitting state capitol buildings in various parts of the country.

[It is appropriate to note this CFM involvement because I am a partner emeritus in the company and played a role in representing JE Dunn until my retirement at the end of 2014. So, I have a bias.]

In the 2015 legislative session, lawmakers couldn’t reach agreement on bond allocations to finance Capitol restoration, plus another important priority — retrofits for a number of K-12 schools in the state. Bond funding would have been entirely appropriate as a way to finance the project, just as borrowing money is a way to buy or remodel your house.

Failing to do the deed stands as a major mistake, one that turned its back on years of work, plus commitments from companies willing to take on the job of helping to re-build the “People’s Building” for the benefit of all Oregonians – and to retain an important historical landmark in the state’s capitol city.

Every time there is an earthquake in the region, even a small one, “it” underlines the legislature’s failure.

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.

Despite the best efforts of certain legislative leaders — Senator Mark Hass, D-Beaverton, for example — lawmakers in Salem have not found the key to new tax policy.

Time is short.

By language in Oregon’s Constitution, legislators must adjourn their regular session by July 10 at the latest, a deadline which does not leave much room to craft the political compromise to allow new taxes – presumably with some spending cuts – to be adopted.

The Oregon Education Association (OEA) added to the difficulty last week when it filed an initiative that, if approved, would ask voters to raise corporate taxes.

Never mind that legislators are at work in Salem trying to craft a compromise.

Never mind that, last fall, voters turned down what the Oregonian newspaper called “the mammoth Measure 97” – and it fell by a huge margin.

I have no idea what political calculus drove the OEA to head to the ballot at this time. It would have been smarter for the union to have waited until the end of the legislative session and, if an agreement was not reached, then head to the ballot.

But, no surprise here. The OEA does not consult with me to frame its political agenda.

The OEA’s proposed initiative could raise as much as $1.75 billion annually for K-12 and higher education through a corporate tax that would be assessed based on companies’ sales.

The teachers union is also filing a second initiative that would make it easier for the Legislature to raise corporate taxes to pay for education. To pay for education in some circumstances, the OEA proposes to remove the current requirement for a three-fifths super-majority in the Legislature to increase taxes.

“Parents and students are fed up with having the third largest class sizes in the nation,” Hanna Vandering, president of the Oregon Education Association said in a press release that was quoted in the Oregonian. “Having strong public schools is an Oregon value, but you would never know by looking at the Oregon legislature. These ballot measures seek to put the power back in the hands of the people, not the powerful business lobbyists that control Salem.”

Also, according to the Oregonian: “The union is among the financial supporters of Our Oregon, the political nonprofit behind Measure 97. That initiative would have raised more than $3 billion annually, but it went down to defeat in November after a bruising campaign that was the costliest ballot battle in Oregon history.”

Meanwhile, the Joint Ways and Means Committee (it writes the overall State of Oregon budget) approved and sent to the floors of both houses an $8.2 billion K-12 budget proposal for 2017-19. That sparked the usual “it’s not enough” howls from the OEA and other self-styled advocates for K-12 education.

“We’re at a crossroads,” Senator Hass said last week. “We have a choice to do nothing because it is too hard. We have a choice to do some tried and true short-term changes, tax increases. And third, we have a choice to reform our system that will add a measure of stability and reform I think is the key.”

Hass is right about the crossroads. There are only a few weeks left in this regular legislative session, which has prompted some to speculate that a special session in late summer or early is in the offing.

What’s happening here is what has been happening in the last few years in Oregon – a deadlock over state spending and taxes, which illustrates that legislators cannot find middle ground.

Too bad, because middle ground is where the best policy solutions lie.

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.

This department is one of two I run with complete authority. What this department does – in other words, which quotes are included – is entirely my responsibility.

In this case, the quotes I have included this time, with my comments, were just too good to pass up.

So, here goes.

From the Wall Street Journal:  “The White House also wants to reform programs that have ballooned during the Obama years and effectively become a guaranteed national income. The budget cuts $193 billion over 10 years from food stamps, mainly by letting states impose a work requirement; $72 billion from the Social Security Disability Insurance program; and $12.5 billion by requiring a Social Security number to receive the earned-income tax credit or child tax credits.

“The left says this ‘guts the safety net,’ as if the measure of success is how many more people government can make dependent on government. Some 44 million Americans now receive food stamps, 16 million more than in 2008—despite eight years of economic growth and a 4.4% jobless rate. One reason the Obama economy grew so slowly is that millions of workers left the labor market, and getting them back and working would lift GDP.”

Comment: This points out a key problem with reforming ObamaCare. Once an entitlement is in place, it is almost impossible to change it. Someone will always point to anecdotes about how certain individuals are adversely affected.

From The Atlantic magazine: “News organizations should consider the kind and amount of coverage devoted to terrorist acts: Unfortunately, the very act of publicizing an act of terrorism cannot help but advance the ends of terrorists, who try to generate as much media attention as possible to stoke fear.”

Comment: Great point. The same holds true for demonstrations on the Capitol steps in Salem. Those who participate want media coverage and reporters, some with cameras, usually oblige. Would be interesting if such demonstrations – or, in the quote above, incredible acts of terror – did not generate so much media coverage. Too much to hope for? Yes.

From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Nonetheless CBO says 14 million fewer people on net would be insured in 2018 relative to the ObamaCare status quo, rising to 23 million in 2026. The political left has defined this as ‘losing coverage.’ But 14 million would roll off Medicaid as the program shifted to block grants, which is a mere 17 per cent drop in enrollment after the ObamaCare expansion. The safety net would work better if it prioritized the poor and disabled with a somewhat lower number of able-bodied, working-age adults.

“The balance of beneficiaries ‘losing coverage’ would not enroll in insurance, CBO says, ‘because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.’ In other words, without the threat of government to buy insurance or else pay a penalty, some people will conclude that ObamaCare coverage isn’t worth the price even with subsidies. CBO adds that ‘a few million’ people would use the new tax credits to buy insurance that the CBO doesn’t consider adequate.

“The problem with this educated guess about enrollment is that CBO’s models put too much confidence in the effectiveness of central planning. The nearby table shows CBO’s projections about ObamaCare enrollment, which were consistently too high and discredited by reality year after year. CBO is also generally wrong in the opposite direction about market-based reforms, such as the 2003 Medicare drug benefit whose costs the CBO badly overestimated.”

Comment: The CBO estimates are important, at least from a media perspective, even though the Wall Street Journal editorial indicates that the analysts at the CBO are often wrong and usually underestimate the affect of free market forces. The office is inclined to support more government regulation, which is not what is needed if health care is to be reformed effectively – unless, of course, you are a believer in a government-run, single-payer system.

From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal: “One thing Mr. Trump did right while overseas was to stay on message. During his trip the president had one powerful theme a day. He stuck to prepared remarks and generally did not create controversies or send tweets that would overshadow his agenda. Take his stop in Saudi Arabia. There the president called on leaders of Muslim nations to ‘drive out’ Islamist terrorists in their midst.

“Mr. Trump’s tone abroad was often ‘presidential,’ a quality that’s difficult to describe but that you know when you see it. The first lady’s dignified presence helped as well.

Comment: The chances that Trump will stay on message are nearly nil. He will say – or tweet – the first thing that comes to his mind, no matter how much damage it does to his agenda or his standing as president.

Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal: “The Trump presidency is on three parallel tracks: the Trump tweet track, the Trump-Russia track and the Trump policy track. What lies beyond the horizon is either a successful presidency or a train wreck. As always, the choice of which track is in the hands of Engineer Trump.

“The cauldron of new media—which operates now on about a 10-minute news cycle—has boiled down Washington into pure political extract. The details of public policy, Mr. Trump’s or anyone else’s, disappear into the vapors. What’s left has become a kind of political crack, and the Trump tweets only feed the habit. Every ‘fake news’ tweet does nothing but take the media’s delirium higher.

“In the new world of synthesized politics, policy substance exists only as a walk-on character in the melodrama. Would anyone notice if they reversed the White House reporters sitting in front of Sean Spicer and the White House reporters in front of Melissa McCarthy on “Saturday Night Live?”

Comment: As usual, Henninger is right…on two counts: (1) Noting that the chance for a successful presidential administration lies mostly in Trump’s hands, and (2) Slamming the media for its focus on controversy and drama, not policy.

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.

This department is one of two I run with complete authority. What this department does – in other words, which quotes are included – is entirely my responsibility.

In this case, the quotes I have included this time, with my comments, were just too good to pass up.

So, here goes.

From the Wall Street Journal:  “The White House also wants to reform programs that have ballooned during the Obama years and effectively become a guaranteed national income. The budget cuts $193 billion over 10 years from food stamps, mainly by letting states impose a work requirement; $72 billion from the Social Security Disability Insurance program; and $12.5 billion by requiring a Social Security number to receive the earned-income tax credit or child tax credits.

“The left says this ‘guts the safety net,’ as if the measure of success is how many more people government can make dependent on government. Some 44 million Americans now receive food stamps, 16 million more than in 2008—despite eight years of economic growth and a 4.4% jobless rate. One reason the Obama economy grew so slowly is that millions of workers left the labor market, and getting them back and working would lift GDP.”

Comment: This points out a key problem with reforming ObamaCare. Once an entitlement is in place, it is almost impossible to change it. Someone will always point to anecdotes about how certain individuals are adversely affected.

From The Atlantic magazine: “News organizations should consider the kind of amount of coverage devoted to terrorist acts: Unfortunately, the very act of publicizing an act of terrorism cannot help but advance the ends of terrorists, who try to generate as much media attention as possible to stoke fear.”

Comment: Great point. The same holds true for demonstrations on the Capitol steps in Salem. Those who participate want media coverage and reporters, some with cameras, usually oblige. Would be interesting if such demonstrations – or, in the quote above, incredible acts of terror – did not generate so much media coverage. Too much to hope for? Yes.

From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Nonetheless CBO says 14 million fewer people on net would be insured in 2018 relative to the ObamaCare status quo, rising to 23 million in 2026. The political left has defined this as ‘losing coverage.’ But 14 million would roll off Medicaid as the program shifted to block grants, which is a mere 17% drop in enrollment after the ObamaCare expansion. The safety net would work better if it prioritized the poor and disabled with a somewhat lower number of able-bodied, working-age adults.

“The balance of beneficiaries ‘losing coverage’ would not enroll in insurance, CBO says, ‘because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.’ In other words, without the threat of government to buy insurance or else pay a penalty, some people will conclude that ObamaCare coverage isn’t worth the price even with subsidies. CBO adds that ‘a few million’ people would use the new tax credits to buy insurance that the CBO doesn’t consider adequate.

“The problem with this educated guess about enrollment is that CBO’s models put too much confidence in the effectiveness of central planning. The nearby table shows CBO’s projections about ObamaCare enrollment, which were consistently too high and discredited by reality year after year. CBO is also generally wrong in the opposite direction about market-based reforms, such as the 2003 Medicare drug benefit whose costs the CBO badly overestimated.”

Comment: The CBO estimates are critical, even though the Wall Street Journal editorial indicates that the analysts at the CBO are often wrong and usually underestimate the affect of free market forces. The office is inclined to support more government regulation, which is not what is needed if health care is to be reformed effectively – unless, of course, you are a believer in a government-run, single-payer system.

From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal: “One thing Mr. Trump did right while overseas was to stay on message. During his trip the president had one powerful theme a day. He stuck to prepared remarks and generally did not create controversies or send tweets that would overshadow his agenda. Take his stop in Saudi Arabia. There the president called on leaders of Muslim nations to ‘drive out’ Islamist terrorists in their midst.

“Mr. Trump’s tone abroad was often ‘presidential,’ a quality that’s difficult to describe but that you know when you see it. The first lady’s dignified presence helped as well.

Comment: The chances that Trump will stay on message are nil. He will say – or tweet – the first thing that comes to his mind, no matter how much damage it does to his agenda or his standing as president.

Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal: “The Trump presidency is on three parallel tracks: the Trump tweet track, the Trump-Russia track and the Trump policy track. What lies beyond the horizon is either a successful presidency or a train wreck. As always, the choice of which track is in the hands of Engineer Trump.

“The cauldron of new media—which operates now on about a 10-minute news cycle—has boiled down Washington into pure political extract. The details of public policy, Mr. Trump’s or anyone else’s, disappear into the vapors. What’s left has become a kind of political crack, and the Trump tweets only feed the habit. Every ‘fake news’ tweet does nothing but take the media’s delirium higher.

“In the new world of synthesized politics, policy substance exists only as a walk-on character in the melodrama. Would anyone notice if they reversed the White House reporters sitting in front of Sean Spicer and the White House reporters in front of Melissa McCarthy on “Saturday Night Live?”

Comment: As usual, Henninger is right…on two counts: (1) Noting that the chance for a successful presidential administration lies mostly in Trump’s hands, and (2) Indicting the media for its focus on controversy and drama, not policy.

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.

Republicans in Congress, especially in the House, are learning a tough, but old lesson: It is almost impossible to get rid of a government entitlement program once it is in place.

Led by House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republicans have tried to make good on a campaign pledge to get rid of ObamaCare, the still-relatively-new health care entitlement started under former President Barack Obama.

The effort is in the process of coming to grief, underlining the old problem of changing entitlements.

Anecdotes about who is losing coverage dominate the political debate no matter how hard public policy wonks like Ryan try to underline the dispassionate rationale for change.

The near failure of the Republican plan has prompted some observers to contend that the only answer is a single payer system, a government-run, government-financed entitlement that would go even farther than ObamaCare.

In fact, California is moving in that direction.

According to Wall Journal editorial writers, “this proves the truism that the liberal solution to every government failure is always more government.”

Many on the left, the Journal continues, “championed single-payer in lieu of ObamaCare’s regulations and subsidies, but in 2010 the program lacked enough support among Democrats in Congress. But with premiums soaring and insurers fleeing the Affordable Care Act exchanges, progressives are now trying to pivot to achieve their longtime dream.”

The California bill reflects the left’s ideal – or, without using political terms, something we all would like if paying for it wasn’t an issue: Free care for everyone for everything.

Patients would be entitled to an essentially unlimited list of benefits, including acupuncture and chiropractic care, as well as “all medical care determined to be medically appropriate by the member’s health care provider.” Patients could see any specialist without a referral. Co-pays and deductibles and charging premiums would be prohibited.

Thus, there would no restraint on health-care use and costs. Patients could get treated for virtually any malady by any physician at no cost.

But even paradise has a price. In California, the Senate committee considering the single payer bill pegged its cost at $400 billion a year, which is likely a conservative estimate since analysts assume utilization rates close to those for Medicaid in which patients lack access to many specialists. About $200 billion could be re-allocated from other government health-care programs including Medicaid and Medicare, though this would require federal waivers. The rest would require higher taxes.

A $200 billion tax hike in California would be equivalent to a 15 per cent payroll tax, which would come on top of the current 15.3 per cent federal payroll tax. The Senate staff analysis estimates that “between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of the payroll tax revenues would represent a new tax on employees, not likely to be offset by higher wages.”

One danger for taxpayers in the other 49 states is that California liberals will drag ambitious Democrats elsewhere to endorse a single-payer system if they want to compete for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Plus, for those of us in Oregon, public policy proposals often move north and south along the West Coast, so it will be only a matter of time before Democrats here have a single payer bill under consideration.

Okay, so, if not a single payer system, then what?

Well, if I was in charge of health Care policy, I would have five planks in my reform platform.

1. Require all citizens to have health insurance. [As I’ve written before, think of it this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. The same policy should exist for health insurance, though it will be difficult for many Republicans to stomach this mandate.]
2. Provide a catastrophic health insurance plan for those who cannot afford regular insurance and who need a lower-cost option. Call it what it is, which a “high-risk pool.”
3. Accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.
4. Allow broad access to health-savings accounts.
5. Save as much as possible of the joint federal and state Medicaid program as a way to provide government-financed care for low income citizens.

Will these proposals solve all of today’s health care problems? Of course not. But they will go a long toward removing incentives for a single payer system, which, frankly none of us can afford, especially if we to preserve funding for important priorities such as K-12 education, higher education, and public safety.

Just ask Californians as they contemplate huge tax increases to fund government health-care-for-all.

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.

The Secretary of State’s Office issued a breathless “audit alert” a few days ago suggesting Oregon was facing a huge financial deficit by granting Medicaid payments to ineligible citizens.

It was almost as if the contention was that questionable payments had been made intentionally.

Not true.

There is an issue here, to be sure, but my view from cheap seats – in other words, from my position as a retired state lobbyist – suggests that the Secretary of State’s alert was way overstated. Frankly, that has been the case for years as secretaries of state have capitalized on their audit function to come across in the media as guardians of state taxpayer dollars.

In this blog, I try to be careful about what I write on issues where I served as a lobbyist for many years. In this case, I handled major health care issues, including Medicaid, for more than 20 years as a representative of Providence Health System, a major health care provider in this state which operates eight hospitals, a number of special programs and a health insurance carrier.

However, I set aside my caution this week, given the huge discrepancy that exists between what the Secretary of State announced and the true context.

That context emerged this week as Oregon Health Authority (OHA) officials appeared before a Joint Ways and Means Subcommittee to provide a report on the Medicaid eligibility issue.

The history is this. When the Cover Oregon health insurance exchange collapsed, Health Authority officials were left with a huge task – to determine how many individuals supposedly covered by Cover Oregon were eligible for Medicaid, the cooperative health care entitlement system for low income individuals financed jointly by the federal and state governments.

They also faced a legal requirement to review eligibility at least once a year because, unlike Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is a “dynamic” program, meaning recipients cycle on and off based on their income, as well as family status.

The rigorous eligibility determination process – sometimes called re-determination — is still under way and will be completed by August 31, according to what Oregon Health Authority officials told the Joint Ways and Means Subcommittee.

It is possible that a total of 32,000 Oregonians might have received payments in error. That won’t be known until the end of the determination (re-determination) process in late summer. That total is part of a 115,000 person backlog of re-determination issues that is proceeding apace, with an estimated an estimated 6,200 cases resolved each day.

The size of federal Medicaid matching funds is an interesting sub-issue here. For those citizens who are in the so-called “expanded Medicaid population” (newly and potentially eligible for Medicaid under the more liberal standards of the federal Affordable Health Care Act), then the federal government bears 94 per cent of the cost of their care. That is way above the normal federal Medicaid matching rate for Oregon – 64 per cent.

Another issue that arose in the Secretary of State audit alert dealt with whether there had been coordination between the federal agency responsible for Medicaid, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and OHA. The Secretary of State contended that such coordination did not occur.

The fact is that it did. State and federal officials have been meeting at least weekly – by phone conference, of course — to share updates on the Medicaid eligibility determination process. Further, the federal government has approved Oregon’s process by granting additional waivers.

In its report on the Joint Ways and Means Subcommittee hearing, Salem Statesman-Journal newspaper quoted subcommittee member Senator Sara Gelser, a Democrat from Corvallis, as saying this:

“I think that we can and should expect of our Secretary of State to send out information that is accurate, that is honest. I expect more. I can’t begin to imagine the amount of work this has caused by sending out an alert that clearly has some faulty and inaccurate information.”

The Secretary of State has a role to play in all of this – to audit state agency programs – and it is a worthwhile endeavor. But the clarity gets very clouded when the office overstates the reality of a problem.

As the legislature drives toward the finish line a month or so from now, one of the issues at stake here is an important one. It is whether to approve taxes on hospitals and health insurances to help finance Medicaid.

Principals from hospitals and insurers are negotiating the tax issues, which are likely to occur if only because the health of so many low income Oregonians is at stake.

But the Secretary of State’s audit alert made the tax agreement much more difficult. The Oregon Health Authority appearance before the Joint Ways and Means Subcommittee did a lot to set the record straight.

Footnote: It should be noted that Lynne Saxton, director of the Health Authority, is a good friend. We have known each other for years and have worked together on a number of important public policy issues. My friendship did not influence this blog: I was interested in dealing with competing views of a major public policy issue for Oregon.

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.

This department, one of two I control as director, is open again. It was open last week, too, but there have been a lot of good quotes recently, so are a few.

Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ): “Maybe the 70-year-old president is too old to change, and Americans must simply accept his chaotic, unpredictable, impulsive nature. But if Mr. Trump can’t recognize he’s the cause of the turmoil, he risks creating a hard cap on his approval ratings in the low 40s or high 30s. This will drain his power, make it difficult to achieve his agenda, and turn him into a lame duck well before normal. If Mr. Trump can’t change his ways, he will fail the people who entrusted him with their hopes.

“This presidency has reached a critical moment. For months, true-blue Trump supporters grimaced at tweets and winced at needless controversies, but stood firm. Now many are questioning whether their man is up to the job. Mr. Trump will not restore their confidence with the behavior he’s shown so far.

“Americans want a president who is steadier, humbler, better disciplined, more honest and fully engaged on creating jobs, paychecks and prosperity—the issues that got Mr. Trump to the White House. The clock is running. Either he changes or he fails.”

Comment: Rove, with his substantial Washington, D.C. experience, is accurate again. Either President Trump changes or he will fail. So, failure is likely; change is not.

Daniel Henninger in the WSJ: “After the past two weeks, one must ask: How many parallel universes can the U.S. political system endure?

“Let us enumerate the celestial bodies traveling along independent orbits just now: Donald Trump, Sean Spicer, the Beltway press chorus, the White House’s Borgia factions, 2018’s at-risk congressional Republicans, the Schumer Democrats, the mosquito clouds of social media, and the various people working in what little exists so far of the Trump government.

“One more parallel universe deserves mention: the Trump vote, which decided the 2016 election. Oh, them.”

Comment: Whether you voted for Trump or not, it is hard for all of us to watch the travails of the president as he scrambles around to stem controversies of his own making. I say that with an assurance that I wish the best for America, which is near impossible with Trump at the helm.

Dorothy Rabinowitz in a WSJ Review of television program, Bannon’s War: “The subject of this documentary has never yielded in his regard for the infliction of shock and chaos as a political tactic, according to the commentators, mainly journalists, assembled for ‘Bannon’s War,’ a ‘Frontline’ film on the life and career of Steve Bannon. It’s a perception regularly echoed in this telling portrait of the adviser primarily responsible for shaping Donald Trump’s message for most of the presidential campaign—and the one delivered in President Trump’s memorably dark inaugural address.”

Comment: The upcoming documentary could explain a lot, confirming that Bannon, who has had the ear of the president for months, focuses on “shock and chaos” as means to a political end. Trump’s strange and foreboding inaugural address was only the first step down a dark path. If Bannon is now moving to the background, good.

Too much to expect, I know, but wouldn’t it be a breath of fresh air if sound arguments on policy – health care, taxes infrastructure, international relations – could dominate our political debate?

Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post: “Invariably, the president contradicts statements from his communications team and other officials, and blurts the truth. As counterintuitive as it seems, Trump is a truth-teller among spinmeisters.”

Comment: An interesting thought from Parker, but I disagree. Suggesting that Trump tells the truth does not square with the facts. Most of the time his huge ego takes over and blurts out what could be called “alternative facts,” certainly not truth.

From the editorial columns of the Oregonian newspaper: “The federal government pays by far the larger share of Medicaid costs, but Oregon still shoulders millions in reimbursements. Will money need to be paid back? To whom and by whom? As those questions are parsed, the Oregon Health Authority must accurately portray its financial commitments to the Legislature, awash in spreadsheets that detail money in, money out. Let this be the last headache in the state’s Cover Oregon hangover, a record-keeping mess deepened by the explosion in the number of Medicaid enrollees under Obamacare.”

Comment: This issue – inaccurate Medicaid payments – is becoming bigger by the moment. In this editorial, Secretary of State Dennis Richardson takes credit for unearthing the issue by way of his state agency audit function. Perhaps. But the Oregonian is also right to paint this as one of the last hangovers from the Cover Oregon scandal. Still, getting past this issue with an accurate summary of the real costs is a challenge for the Oregon Health Authority and its very capable director, Lynne Saxton.

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.

After writing about Donald Trump yesterday, I couldn’t help doing so again, despite my post far away from the Washington, D.C. beltway.

I have come to a basic conclusion about Donald Trump, one that struck me first a few months ago and now has been confirmed by recent events.

It is this – and it won’t be surprising to many who follow national affairs of state.

Trump is an egotistical narcissist (perhaps a redundancy). He will do and say anything to aggrandize himself.

I was talking about this on the golf range the other day when a friend of mine raised the subject. He said he thought Trump was the victim of Democrats out to get him in much the same way Republicans were out to get Barack Obama when they said, “let’s make him a one-term president.”

Trump would be successful, this friend said, if only Democrats would leave him alone.

I responded that, no, Trump was his own worst enemy, jeopardizing his chances to succeed in such issues as growing the economy, reforming the tax system and making sense out of health care policy.

Then, one of my favorite columnists, Kathleen Parker, who writes for the Washington Post, came to another conclusion, one with which I disagree.

“One thing we’ve learned the past several weeks is to ignore the White House and wait for Donald Trump to spill the beans,” she wrote in the Post. “Invariably, the president contradicts statements from his communication team and other officials, and blurts the truth. As counterintuitive as it seems, Trump is a truth-teller among spinmeisters.”

For me, that is giving Trump far too much credit.

Truth is not a criterion for his behavior.

What explains him is his unbelievable desire to be the central figure in everything.

Call him a narcissist.

The dictionary defines the term this way:

“Inordinate fascination with oneself. Excessive self-love. Vanity. Gratification derived from administration of one’s own physical or mental attributes.”

Sound like Trump?

Imagine him in the Oval Office with the two recent Russian visitors. Rather than do what smart presidents would so, which is to guard sensitive intelligence material, Trump puts himself at the center of everything by trying to impress his visitors with his grasp of intelligence information.

As Kathleen Parker put it: “…his odd boast to the Russians that he ‘gets credit intel” – I have people brief me on great intel everyday’ – seemed more like showing off than a serious discussion of mutual security concerns.”

On another issue, his staff (by the way, no doubt one of the worst jobs in the history of political Washington, D.C.) provides a credible explanation for the decision to fire FBI Director James Comey. They said he relied on a well-written memorandum from the deputy director of the Department of Justice, Rod Rosenstein, which made a compelling case that Comey had violated a number of well-understood and venerable department protocols.

But, Trump could not stand it. Rather, he said HE had planned to fire Comey all along and had not relied on the Rosenstein memo.

Again, Trump had to be the pivot around which everything else spun.

Narcissism is, or at least could be, a very serious fault for any president, especially as this one heads overseas for his first international trip as president.

Not just on this trip, but, in general, with his finger on the nuclear trigger, it is easy, unfortunately, to imagine Trump doing the unthinkable, which is to plunge the United States into another war because someone has made the mistake of offending him, the egotistical narcissist.

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.

What gives me status to write about President Donald Trump, you might say, after you read this blog? After all, I live in Salem Oregon, not Washington, D.C., so I do not have an up-close-and-personal view of national politics.

I have no status, but, for what it’s worth, I do pay close attention to national issues as I read the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times each day.

Does that provide status? Perhaps not, but I commented often as Donald Trump ran for and won the presidency, worrying that, perhaps in an overstatement, he came across a lot like what Hitler must have been in Germany of the 1930s. Trump, railed against the down economy and said only he could produce a recovery. He also criticized almost everyone, save for himself, the savior.

Recent processes with Trump – some call them missteps – underline basic questions about this most unpredictable of presidents, a question that began emerging in the campaign and now shows up full throttle in office.

• Is Trump the savior of a post-conventional truth in politics as he rallies the U.S. to his view of its place in the world.
• Or, is he always the smartest person in the room who leads the country to be, as he might say, “all it can be because of me…just like Hitler in pre-World War II Germany?
• Or, is he absolutely stupid without any real, down-to-earth knowledge of what he is doing in the nation’s highest political office, thus risking the security of the United States?

For my part, I vote for the latter, though there are evidences that the answer to all three questions could be yes.

The most recent example was the stupidity of Trump’s action to divulge sensitive intelligence material – gathered, it has been reported lately, from Israel – in his meetings with two high-level Russian officials. As president, Trump may aver that he has the right to talk about anything, including sensitive intelligence information, but it is easy to imagine him trying, as an egotist, to impress his Russian visitors with his grasp of inside information on terrorism.

The fact is that Trump, blowhard that he is, cannot be trusted to hear and keep sensitive national security information. To satisfy his narcissism, he will tend to blurt out information he is supposed to hold close.

With Trump, it is always me first, me most, and me at the center.

In the case of Trump firing FBI Director James Comey, Comey may have deserved it after a checkered list of recent missteps in one of the nation’s top law enforcement jobs. The word “one” is in bold to indicate that Comey should not have acted as an independent agent. His position reports to superiors at the Department of Justice…whether Comey liked it or not.

But Trump botched the firing, too, giving aid and comfort to his opponents, especially in Congress.

After his staff pointed to a well-written memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that made the case it was time for Comey to go, Trump reverted to the me-first attitude. He said, no, the Rosenstein memo had nothing to do with his decision, one he said he intended to make all along on his own.

The trouble with his contention was that it underscored the possibility that Trump was firing Comey to stall or stop the investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, an investigation that could reach to Trump’s campaign or to the Oval Office itself. The investigation gained even more momentum when Trump, before the firing, was reported to have asked Comey to stop the investigation into former Trump aide Michael Flynn. Trump also said he had tapes of meetings with Comey, a tale that recalled to mind the Watergate tapes.

The fact that Trump’s action to fire Comey produced the reverse spin effect – the intent to investigate Russian entanglements in the U.S., even those that could reach to Trump himself, gained more steam.

Wall Street Journal editorial writers put it this way this morning:

“The state of the Trump Presidency has been perpetual turbulence, which seems to be how the principal likes it. The latest vortex is over Mr. Trump’s disclosure of sensitive intel to the Russians—and whatever the particulars of the incident, the danger is that Presidencies can withstand only so much turbulence before they come apart.”

What’s at stake in all of this? A lot.

Trump is already perilously close to losing Republicans he will need to pass his health care and tax reform agendas. As the Wall Street Journal wrote, “Weeks of pointless melodrama and undisciplined comments have depleted public and Capitol Hill attention from health care and tax reform, and exhaustion is setting in.”

But beyond “just” Republicans, it appears he is perilously close to losing support from the general public, especially with polling numbers sliding down past a 40 per cent approval rating.

We need top quality persons in the nation’s top job and we don’t get it with Trump, even as the chorus grows that he needs to be impeached.