PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

As a reminder, I am the director of this department with clear and complete authority to manage it as I see fit. Therefore:

From Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal (written before the health care bill was pulled off the House agenda): “Less than three months into full control of government and the chance to reshape the American system for a generation, Republicans are doing something no one thought possible: They are reinventing the circular firing squad.

“Maybe in politics, genes really are destiny. Under pressure from a CBO ‘score,’ the genetic disposition of Republican politicians is to go wobbly. The disposition of movement conservatives is to get out the long knives and start carving up other conservatives.

“The result will be guaranteed political defeat for years if congressional Republicans choke at the chance to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

“The Beltway bubble has never looked so big or real as now, to wit: The Trump-Ryan-Price health-care reform bill is too tough on Medicaid. Or it isn’t tough enough. It will break the Trump entitlement bond with the middle class. We want the 2015 repeal-only bill. Let ObamaCare collapse. What’s the rush? We can do this reform some other time.

“If this bill fails, there is only one Plan B. It will be a single-payer system enacted after 2020 with votes from what’s left of the Republican party after—Donald Trump is right about this—they get wiped out in 2018 and lose the presidency two years later. After blowing it on ObamaCare, why would anyone vote for them again?”

From The Wall Street Journal on confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch in response to advocacy by Democrat leaders that Gorsuch should have to announce how would vote on key Supreme Court issues: “Mr. Leahy (Senator Pat Leahy) told nominee Ginsburg at the time that he ‘certainly’ did not want her ‘to have to lay out a test here in the abstract which might determine what your vote or your test would be in a case you have yet to see that may well come before the Supreme Court.’

“Further, at the 1967 hearings for Thurgood Marshall, then Senator Edward Kennedy called it a ‘sound legal precedent’ that ‘any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters which are either before the court or very likely to appear before the court.’”

Now, Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer is saying he will vote no on Gorsuch because he is too conservative and also is saying the Ds will filibuster the nomination.

Senator Orrin Hatch on the D position on Gorsuch: “What sort of civics lesson were the American people treated to last week? Judge Gorsuch’s performance was outstanding. Enduring more than 20 hours of questioning over two days, he displayed an impressive command of the law and an intellect befitting someone with his stellar credentials.

“He showed that he understands the proper role of a judge in our system: to apply, not make, the law. Throughout, his demeanor was serious, thoughtful and humble. These qualities have defined his judicial service for the past decade and will serve him well on the Supreme Court.

“In stark contrast was the astonishing treatment Judge Gorsuch received from many of my Democratic colleagues. Whatever their motivation—be it the outcome of President Obama’s lame-duck nomination during last year’s election, an unwillingness to accept the November results, or the desire for judges to push a liberal political agenda—they have apparently decided to wage a desperate, scorched-earth campaign to derail this nomination, no matter the damage they inflict along the way. We are now watching the confirmation process through the funhouse mirror.

From Wall Street Journal editorial writers (who wrote this before the health care bill was pulled from the process): “The biggest gamble in the House health-care bill is whether it includes enough reform to arrest the current death spiral in the individual insurance market. No one knows for sure, but critics are overlooking important provisions that will help people who are now exposed to ObamaCare’s rapidly rising premiums.

“Notably, the bill includes a new 10-year $100 billion ‘stability fund’ that allows states to start to repair their individual insurance markets. Before ObamaCare, it wasn’t inevitable that costs would increase by 25% on average this year, or that nearly a third of U.S. counties would become single-insurer monopolies. With better policy choices, states can make coverage cheaper and more attractive for consumers and coax insurers back into the market, and the stability fund is a powerful tool.”

From hill.com: “Jim Dyer, who served for 13 years as the Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, says it will be tough to find tens of billions of dollars for President Trump’s proposed defense increase from other programs.

“If Mr. Mulvaney tries to get $54 billion out of nondefense cuts, he will have to tread softly,” Dyer said of popular programs on the nondefense side of the budget. “There are veterans’ benefits  — you don’t want to touch that. There’s funding for the wall and homeland security. There’s money for cancer research that everyone supports.”

“He predicted that Congress will largely ignore Trump’s budget and do what it wants.”

From the New York Times: “Once again, Mr. Trump’s agenda was subsumed by problems of his own making, his message undercut by a seemingly endless stream of controversy he cannot seem to stop himself from feeding.

“The health care measure appears on track for a House vote this week, and the president, who planned a weekend of relaxation at Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach, Fla., club, is likely to receive a large measure of the credit. But it has also become clear that Mr. Trump, an agitator incapable of responding proportionately to any slight, appears hell-bent on squandering his honeymoon.”

From Ari Fleisher, press secretary for George W. Bush: “It’s a pattern with him — he sometimes counterpunches so hard he hits himself.”

Fleischer’s comment is a good way to end this post because it describes very well a president who jeopardizes his own ends.

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 headline answers the question: Nowhere.

President Donald Trump and Republican leaders illustrated that they cannot govern in their first big chance to do so in the majority and the main reason is one they will have to own. Republican conservatives, the inaptly named the “House Freedom Caucus,” compromised their own leaders and voted no – or at least pledged to vote no when, in the end, there was no chance to do so on the House floor because the bill was pulled.

President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan will be called losers for this result – and, in many ways, they probably deserve the moniker.

Trump, putting his personally acclaimed deal-making ability on the line, couldn’t produce one. He tried to blame Democrats for the result, but that won’t hold up under scrutiny. It was Republicans – very conservative ones – who produced the result.

As for Ryan, I have been a fan of his for years and I remain so.

He could be – and will be – criticized for bringing up health care first rather than, say, tax reform. But I also felt he had no choice, given the campaign rhetoric about getting rid of the government entitlement that came to be known as ObamaCare.

He did exactly what good leaders do, which is to PROPOSE a solution then allow it to be debated by all sides as the bill moved through a total of four House committees on the way to the House floor.

He’ll be criticized for not involving Democrats in the early stages so they could have a hand in devising a health care reform bill. That charge doesn’t hold up, in my view, because Democrats were never going to participate in an effort to reform the signal achievement of the Obama era. They voted en masse for ObamaCare and they were not going to participate in its demise, despite all of the facts that the plan was not working.

The fact that Congressional Budget Office (CBO) produced a report saying 24 million Americans would lose coverage contributed a lot to the debacle. Many Republicans couldn’t stomach the report, but I also wish the CBO would have acknowledged that some of those who would “lose” government-provided coverage could buy insurance on their own. Plus, I also wish the CBO would analyze results of the ObamaCare’s own crater in the next few years.

[My own prescription for health care reform relies on a simple, but controversial, proposition. It is that the law should require citizens to purchase health insurance in much the same way as laws requires drivers to purchase automobile insurance. That way, for health care, we’d all be in the same pool. Of course, there would have to be additional provisions related to covering low income citizens, but a purchase requirement is the base from which everything else proceeds.]

So, now Ryan moves on to other issues, though, if I were him, I would be attempted to do what John Boehner before him did – not just move on, but move out to a position in the private sector that would take advantage of his substantial intellect and credentials. It appears those will be of little use in the House where leadership is foiled mostly because follower-ship doesn’t exist.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that “this failure also reveals the unfortunate skills gap between Democrats and modern Republicans in practical legislative politics. Democrats have their Bernie Sanders faction, which claimed to ‘oppose’ ObamaCare in 2009-10 for lacking a government-run public insurance option. But the far left voted for the bill anyway because they concluded, rightly, that a new entitlement was a great leap toward single-payer national health care.”

It always is difficult to get rid of a government program that dispenses money to citizens. In reform, someone will inevitably lose and those who lose will rally those on the left to keep the government entitlement.

Critics assailed the House leadership bill as “ObamaCare Lite,” but the result of their rule-or-ruin strategy will now be the ObamaCare status quo, and Representatives Mark Meadows (North Carolina), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Louie Gohmert (Texas) and the rest of the Freedom Caucus will now have to own all of ObamaCare’s problems.

The Wall Street Journal – properly in my view, said “the grand prize for cynicism goes to Senator Rand Paul, who campaigned against the bill while offering an alternative that did not have a prayer of passing. ‘I applaud House conservatives,’ Paul said, ‘for keeping their word to the American people and standing up against ObamaCare Lite. I look forward to passing full repeal of ObamaCare in the very near future.’”

I doubt that there will be any such repeal in this Congress, and probably not in any other Congress under Republican leadership, which, of course, will be jeopardy in the mid-term elections of 2018.

So, the bottom line question is now what – for health care and for almost anything else. My sense is that Congress is in such disarray that nothing will happen in a bi-partisan way. It didn’t when Democrats were in charge and it is not now happening with Republicans in the driver’s seat.

Makes one wonder if the American form of two-party democracy works any more. [More on that in my next post.]

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.

Legislating is tough business.

So is developing compromise.

That is what is happening in Washington, D.C as House Republicans work to pass a replacement for the flawed ObamaCare health care program passed only by former President Barack Obama and his Democrat colleagues several years ago.

The fact that Republican leaders postponed a House floor vote for a day was just one more indication of legislating in action. Early today, a compromise bill emerged from the House Budget Committee and is scheduled to make it to the House floor later today, Friday.

ObamaCare, by contrast, was imposed from above and many of those Democrats who voted for it had not even read its 2,000 pages.

Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal described the situation very well, as follows:

“With a hat-tip to Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Republican health-care bill have been greatly, vastly, even bigly exaggerated. What we are witnessing isn’t a legislative demise, but the rebirth of a long-lost Washington concept: politics.

“From the moment Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled his ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill, the media have declared it a doomed project. The newspapers have run out of synonyms for division, disunity, discord, conflict, struggle, mess. Since the only thing the media enjoy more than bashing Republicans is helping Republicans bash each other, the cable stations have offered a nonstop loop of a handful of GOP naysayers and grandstanders (cue Rand Paul) who wish the bill ill.

“Perhaps the talking heads can be excused for their dim outlook. The Obama administration marked one of the more dysfunctional and destructive periods in Washington—eight years of threats, executive rule, non-communication and opposition politics. So it is undoubtedly confusing for some people suddenly to watch an honest-to-goodness legislative process, with all its negotiating, horse-trading and consensus-building.

“Under prior management, Nancy Pelosi did her thing, Harry Reid did his thing, President Obama did his thing, and the three tried not to talk if at all possible. The Obama legislative affairs team couldn’t have found Capitol Hill with a map.”

If you have ever seen sausage made – I have – it is not a pretty sight. Neither is legislating. House Speaker Paul Ryan and colleagues, buttressed by President Trump, are trying to appease both conservatives (the House Freedom Caucus) without losing moderate/centrist votes.

In the background, of course, is the prospect of a Senate vote later which, in fact, could make some House Republicans wary of casting a tough vote only to see it come to naught in the Senate.

Sausage and law, an opt comparison.

What’s at stake is the credibility of Republican leaders in Congress as they work to express a majority in both chambers that they have wanted for several years.

If they succeed, they’ll have better prospects for remaining elements of their conservative agenda, including tax reform.

If they fail, there are only two solutions – leave a government-imposed system, ObamaCare, in place (which has been threatened by President Trump) or, at the insistence of liberal Democrats, impose a government-run, government-financed single payer system that, frankly, none of us can afford.

We are already a few steps down that pathway with a system of government health care benefits under ObamaCare. Getting rid of government largesse is a tough business because someone always loses.

As I write this, the outcome is not clear. But, the Wall Street Journal conveyed the seriousness very well: “House passage would provide the double dividend that any useful reform pays: Credit for promises kept, and then credit from voters who benefit from solutions to problems they confront personally, such as being rescued from ObamaCare’s cycle of rising premiums and declining choices.”

Good luck to House Republican leaders. It appears they’ll need a little luck, beyond hard work, to prevail.

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 Honourable Company of Edinburgh golfers finally got it right: It decided to admit women to Muirfield Golf Club in Scotland.

About time!

It took a crusty group of men far too long to make this decision, one that some will say occurred only so as to keep Muirfield in the rotation of golf clubs able to host the British Open – pardon me, “The Open.”

But, whatever the reason, it was time for one of the oldest golf courses in the home of golf, Scotland, to recognize 21^st century reality.

Muirfield, formed in 1744, was one of the last clubs to host a major golf event to dig their heels in on membership. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews opened its membership to women in 2014. Royal St. George’s, another British Open site, followed suit a year later. Last year, Royal Troon ended its male-only policy, a few weeks before hosting the British Open.

Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Masters, deserves a dose of credit for offering membership to women in 2012, however belatedly, and, in doing so, daring the rest of the heel diggers to fall in line behind it.

Here’s the way the New York Times characterized the Muirfield decision:

“Tuesday’s victory was perhaps more about pragmatism than principles. Just over 80 per cent of the men of the Honourable Company of Edinburgh, which runs Muirfield, determined that it is better to have to share membership privileges with the occasional woman than to be excluded from hosting a British Open.

“Of the 621 members who voted, 498 were in favor of admitting women. Last May, 616 members cast ballots, with fewer than 400, or 64 per cent, voting for the resolution.

“Any inclination to warmly welcome the gentlemen of Muirfield into the 21st century is tempered by the fact that 123 members — even confronted with a boycott of their storied course by the Royal and Ancient, the organizer of the British Open — stubbornly thumbed their noses at what passes for progress in the civilized world by voting against admitting women.

“In their defense, the pace of change must be dizzying for those stuck in the era of knee-length trousers, ruffled cravats and tweed jackets. For more than a century, Muirfield had been able to welcome the world to its storied course while keeping women out, except as guests and visitors. Sixteen times, most recently in 2013, Muirfield managed to keep its discriminatory membership policy and host one of golf’s most prestigious championships, too.”

Speaking of the phrase “except as guests and visitors,” my family’s experience adds to this lore. Specifically, it is the experience of my wife and daughter-in-law.

About 15 years ago, we were at Muirfield to watch son Eric play in the British Mid-Am, a golf tournament for which he qualified by playing well in the United States Golf Association Mid-Am in America. [“Mid-Am” refers to the fact that players are at least 25 years of age, which means that college players or those just out of college are not eligible to play.]

Here is the way my wife, Nancy, described the experience of being “allowed” to be at Muirfield, along with Eric’s wife, Holly:

“The British Mid-Am was not expecting a lot of spectators, but as this was a national tournament, the Muirfield members had to provide access to the clubhouse for any women who might show up. Holly and I were there to watch Eric, and we were directed to a minimal powder room and were told that we could also use the dining room for lunch.

“The only reason the clubhouse even had a ladies’ room in this men-only club was to provide a necessary spot for the once-a-year access for wives at the annual Christmas party.

“After following the first blustery, rainy round, we looked forward to warming up over lunch. We were immediately aware that this was no ordinary club cafe. There were long tables filled with distinguished-looking mostly older men in sports coats and ties, and every one of them turned and silently watched two bedraggled females walk into their domain.

“We enjoyed the amazing buffet put out for members every day and the men we talked to at our table were completely polite to us, though seemingly a bit dazed that we were there (and in golf togs!).

“I do like to think that Holly and I may have had a tiny part in integrating the club for women!”

No doubt they did!

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.

Legislating is tough business.

So is developing compromise.

That is what is happening in Washington, D.C this week as House Republicans work to pass a replacement for the flawed ObamaCare health care program passed only by former President Barack Obama and his Democrat colleagues several years ago.

ObamaCare was imposed from above and many of those Democrats who voted for it had not even read its 2,000 pages.

Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal described the situation very well, as follows:

“With a hat-tip to Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Republican health-care bill have been greatly, vastly, even bigly exaggerated. What we are witnessing isn’t a legislative demise, but the rebirth of a long-lost Washington concept: politics.

“From the moment Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled his ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill, the media have declared it a doomed project. The newspapers have run out of synonyms for division, disunity, discord, conflict, struggle, mess. Since the only thing the media enjoy more than bashing Republicans is helping Republicans bash each other, the cable stations have offered a nonstop loop of a handful of GOP naysayers and grandstanders (cue Rand Paul) who wish the bill ill.

“Perhaps the talking heads can be excused for their dim outlook. The Obama administration marked one of the more dysfunctional and destructive periods in Washington—eight years of threats, executive rule, non-communication and opposition politics. So it is undoubtedly confusing for some people suddenly to watch an honest-to-goodness legislative process, with all its negotiating, horse-trading and consensus-building.

“Under prior management, Nancy Pelosi did her thing, Harry Reid did his thing, President Obama did his thing, and the three tried not to talk if at all possible. The Obama legislative affairs team couldn’t have found Capitol Hill with a map.”

If you have ever seen sausage made – I have – it is not a pretty sight. Neither is legislating.

What’s at stake this time around is the credibility of Republican leaders in Congress as they work to express a majority in both chambers that they have wanted for several years.

If they succeed, they’ll have better prospects for remaining elements of their conservative agenda, including tax reform.

If they fail, the only solution is a government-run, government-financed single payer system that, frankly, none of us can afford. We are already a few steps down that pathway with a system of government health care benefits under ObamaCare. Getting rid of government largesse is a tough business because someone always loses.

As I write this, the outcome is not clear. But, the Wall Street Journal conveyed the seriousness very well: “House passage would provide the double dividend that any useful reform pays: Credit for promises kept, and then credit from voters who benefit from solutions to problems they confront personally, such as being rescued from ObamaCare’s cycle of rising premiums and declining choices.”

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.

I think Daniel Henninger, author of the Wonderland column in the Wall Street Journal, is brilliant.

Yeah, okay, one of the reasons is that he agrees with me. Or, more accurately I agree with him.

Here is the way he described what’s at stake as Congress debates the GOP-proposed repeal and replacement of ObamaCare:

“If this bill fails, there is only one Plan B. It will be a single-payer system enacted after 2020 with votes from what’s left of the Republican party after—Donald Trump is right about this—they get wiped out in 2018 and lose the presidency two years later. After blowing it on ObamaCare, why would anyone vote for them again?”

So, it appears we are heading for an even bigger government program, one that appeases those on the left who want more government, but one we can hardly afford as the federal deficit runs ever higher.

Republicans, in my view, deserve credit for having the courage to propose, not just repeal, but also to replace ObamaCare, which has become a new national entitlement. It often is difficult to get rid of government largesse; those who have it want to keep what they have.

While Republicans proposed a new health care act, as they said they would do, there are not holding onto it with an iron fist. They have said they are considering amendments to make it more palatable as it has been considered or is being considered by four committees in the House.

The bill is heading to the House Rules Committee, where leadership will make amendments to appease conservatives and moderates unhappy with the current legislation.

And the president himself, who was not involved in drafting the Republican plan, is reported to be meeting with groups of Members of Congress to ask them for support in return for his commitment to make changes, including giving states more control over Medicaid.

The rub, of course, is that, as the president negotiates with Republicans in the House, he may make passage more difficult in the Senate.

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 may be stating the obvious, but health care in Congress could go one of two ways: Up or down.

It would be good if there was a third option: Middle ground in a deal among Republicans, Democrats and the Trump Administration. Unlikely, you say. Yes. But I wish it was possible, so the result would be different than a “just Republican” result that would mimic another bad result, the “just Democrat” approval of the original ObamaCare.

Two of my favorite columnists in the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger and Peggy Noonan, dealt with the subject in different ways this week.

Henninger contended that Republicans should double down and make good on their campaign promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare, despite growing opposition. If they don’t prevail, he wrote, their majority will be short-lived.

Noonan, in a different voice, called on President Donald Trump to do something many of us feel he would not be able to do, which is to negotiate with Democrats so we are not left with another ObamaCare debacle.

Here, in a bit of an extended way, is how each columnist characterized their contentions:

Henninger: “The American people didn’t endure and survive the 2016 presidential election for this. The public that voted Donald Trump into the White House will drive Republicans into a deserved wilderness if they go back on the only promise anyone can remember them making the past six years.

“The day the Republicans clutch on this reform, there will be six-column headlines across the Washington Post and the New York Times: ‘Trump Abandons Promises on Health Care.’

“It will be a fast ride downhill from there. That is because the health-care reform bill is linked inextricably to the politics of tax reform, the second pillar of the Trump legislative agenda.

“If this bill fails, there is only one Plan B. It will be a single-payer system enacted after 2020 with votes from what’s left of the Republican party after — Donald Trump is right about this — they get wiped out in 2018 and lose the presidency two years later. After blowing it on ObamaCare, why would anyone vote for them again?”

Noonan: “Why aren’t we talking about growing and building and knocking down barriers? Why aren’t we talking about jobs and a boom and reforming regulation and taxes so people can build and invest?

“Is cutting the absolute No. 1 priority right now? In a country that is, in Pope Francis’ famous characterization of the modern world, ‘a field hospital after battle’?, is that what the Republican party wants to lead with? Why isn’t the priority unleashing, getting past limits, pushing toward dynamism and expansion?

“All these old arguments—we have to have them now? Why? Because it’s important for a party to prove it doesn’t know what time it is?

“How about a little prudence and patience? The priorities should be jobs, growth, social cohesion and an atmosphere, in Washington, of constructiveness. We don’t need any new culture wars — we’ve got enough, thanks! Is the worst thing that could happen in the world right now that a kid from New Jersey can come into Manhattan and see an off-Broadway show seeded with a $30,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts? No, that’s not the worst thing that could happen!

“The worst that could happen is that Congress is so exhausted as an institution, everyone’s ideologies so played out, that they’re all just playing a part, going through the motions, mindlessly replicating past battles in hope of some new reward.

“The president should confound expectations, pivot, and turn to the Democrats for a bi-partisan deal (on health care).

“Here is the tradition. If you are Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 and you want to create Social Security—an act that affects Americans very personally—you get the other party in on it. You need them co-owning it, invested in it. You want the American people saying, ‘Congress did this,’ not ‘the Democrats did this,’ because if they say the latter the reform will always divide. FDR got 81 Republicans to vote for it in the House, and 284 Democrats. The same with Medicare in 1965: Lyndon Johnson did all he could to get the GOP on board. A majority of House Republicans supported it.

“Barack Obama, full of himself after his 2008 victory and surrounded by triumphalist House Democrats, ignored the teaching of history and passed ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. The Democrats would get all the credit. In time they got all the blame. Republicans had no incentive to bail them out.

“But the health-care system, as Ohio Gov. John Kasich has observed, is crucial. The Democrats must be in on the process to achieve ‘true and lasting reform.’”

A third option – compromise? Most of us would bet that it won’t happen. But, I believe it should so, here in America, we can prove that democracy works again for the benefit of all of us.

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.

All of the to’ing and fro’ing by the White House over Donald Trump’s claim, issued via twitter, that the Obama Administration wiretapped his residence underlined a reality for me based on my 40 years of relating to the media.

It is this: If your responsibility is to deal with the media, work hard to avoid becoming part of what I call “media process” story. The facts of the story should dictate the coverage, not how you deal with or respond to reporters and editors.

Hard to do in the Trump Administration, I suppose, because there is so much disagreement over the facts, or, in some cases, “the alternative facts.” Thus, those who speak for the Administration often end up being part of the story.

Consider Sean Spicer’s conduct over the last few days. Against an intentional set of media questions, he had to stand on his head, perhaps for good reason, as he tried to answer for Trump’s claims that Obama had wiretapped his residence.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it when describing his answers to probing questions:

“…Mr. Spicer’s remarks on Monday were the first from the press secretary suggesting the president hadn’t meant his allegation as necessarily literal—and therefore wasn’t maintaining that he, and his own phone lines at Trump Tower in Manhattan, were targeted directly by the Obama administration.

“’His tweets do speak for themselves,’” Mr. Spicer said at one point, then noting again that Mr. Trump had placed quotation marks around the words ‘wires tapped’ and ‘wire tapping’ in two of his tweets.”

Spicer danced and, as he did, his conduct became part of the story.

The same with Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway who, in a media interview, tried to contend that it was possible microwave signals from TV had been used to tap Trump.

In both of these cases, you could contend that Spicer and Conway were caught in a web created by their boss – and you would be right. But, their approach to the media also put their own conduct as spokespersons front and center.

Without trying to put myself on any kind of pedestal, in all of my media relations work for a state university, for an Oregon Congressman, for a state agency and for an Oregon governor, I worked hard to avoid giving reporters a chance to focus on my actions as a spokesman. I wanted the facts to dominate the story, not my tactics.

To provide one example, when I served as spokesman for the management side of Oregon state government during each of two state employee strikes, I tried to strike – pardon the play on words — a reasonable posture with reporters and editors.

I didn’t want my conduct to be part of the story. To be sure, I was quoted on management views, but I avoided arguing with reporters and editors. That way the focus would be on issues separating management and union members, not on methods of providing information to the media and answering their questions.

I knew the spokesman on the other side, Bentley Gilbert, who is now retired as I am. He conducted himself with theskill and discipline. We were apart on issues; we were not apart on how we dealt the media. Even when we were interviewed together, which happened on a few occasions, I respected his even-handed, honest approach. And his approach did not spark media coverage of his methods and tactics.

I suspect it will be difficult on a continuing basis for Trump staff like Spicer and Conway to avoid becoming part of the story. For one thing, that appears to be their style. For another, the Trump Administration focuses on generating controversy with the “opposition party,” the media.

For me, though, facts and perspectives ought to prevail, not tactics for dealing with the media.

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.

House Republicans are coming under increasing pressure because of the health care reform plan they have proposed to get rid of ObamaCare.

At least one reason is that they, in a tribute to PROCESS, have designed an approach that allows a specific bill to be considered by four committees before it gets to the House floor…that is, if it gets to the floor.

That path allows for many individuals and groups to raise questions about the bill as the draft is considered in public.

Consider the contrast to ObamaCare. When it was proposed in President Barack Obama’s first term, it came out one night – all 2,000 pages of it (in contrast to the repeal and replace bill that runs to about 200 pages) – and then was considered in the House and Senate almost immediately.

Few of those who voted on the bill had even read it, chief among them then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who admitted as much even as she voted “yes” and asked all of her colleagues to do the same.

In the end, only Democrats voted for ObamaCare and the process became another illustration of the duplicity of Obama. He talked a good line about bi-partisan cooperation, then acted in just the opposite way.

Process matters and the House Republicans this time around deserve credit for what they have designed. But, the trouble is they may not be able to produce a PRODUCT.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has tried artfully to describe the new compromise bill, saying it will be the best and perhaps the only chance to repeal and replace ObamaCare. If the approach fails, at least a 50-50 proposition, at best, Ryan says there won’t be another chance in this Congress.

Failure will stand as a major deficit for Republicans as they seek to express their majority.

As for the PRODUCT, here is a rendition of some of the good points about the compromise bill – a rendition provided, with all credit to a Wall Street Journal piece written by two leaders of the Republican health care compromise movement – Representatives Greg Walden from Oregon and Kevin Brady from Texas:

• Begins to return control of health care from Washington, D.C. back to the states, so that they can tailor their health-care systems to their unique communities.
• Provides immediate relief from ObamaCare by eliminating the penalties attached to the individual and employer mandates. Washington, D.C. will no longer force Americans to purchase expensive, inadequate plans they don’t need and cannot afford.
• Dismantles the ObamaCare taxes that have hurt patients, job creators and health-care providers. It repeals taxes on prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, health-insurance premiums and medical devices.
• Preserves and protects insurance for the more than 150 million Americans who receive employer-sponsored health coverage. It provides ObamaCare enrollees with access to the existing financial support for their plans through the end of 2019. People will also be able to use their ObamaCare subsidy to purchase expanded insurance options—including catastrophic coverage—without being tied to the failing exchanges.
• Enables young Americans to continue coverage on their parents’ plans until age 26.
• Insures that persons with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied policies. Nobody can be charged more for getting sick—period.
• Proposes a new protection for patients who maintain continuous coverage in the individual and small-group markets. [A similar “continuous coverage” provision already exists for those who get insurance through an employer. Extending this safeguard is a simple but important reform that will give patients an incentive to enroll and stay enrolled. This protection is based solely on enrollment status, ensuring that patients will be treated equally no matter how healthy or sick they are.]
• Establishes a Patient and State Stability Fund to help low-income Americans afford health care and to repair the damage done to state markets by ObamaCare.
• Strengthens Medicaid, which is a critical lifeline for millions of Americans and refocuses Medicaid’s limited resources to the patients most in need.
• Provides tax credits to help Americans pay for the health-care options they want—not the ones forced on them by Washington. [The bill repeals ObamaCare’s flawed subsidies, effective in 2020. After that, individuals and families who don’t receive insurance through work or a government program become eligible for between $2,000 and $14,000 in tax credits a year. These credits, based on age and family size, will give millions of people new flexibility and freedom to buy insurance tailored to their needs. The full credit would be available to Americans with low or middle incomes and would slowly phase out as they climb the pay scale.]
• Strengthens and expands health-savings accounts so Americans can save and spend their health-care dollars the way they want and need.

There is a lot of stake both for Republicans and for Americans in this effort to reform health care. My hope is that an interest in perfection will not derail a solid compromise effort, which will accomplish at least two objectives – get rid of a government-run program, ObamaCare, and inject the private marketplace back into health care.

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.

Last night, I watched House Speaker Paul Ryan hold a town hall-type meeting with journalists to talk and answer questions about the Republican health care plan.

To say he was competent would be an understatement. He was able easily to discuss all aspects of the plan, including answering probing questions from the media without a teleprompter. He contended that the current process would be the last and best chance to do what Republicans had promised for years, which is to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

When Barack Obama took office as president more than eight years ago, he arrived at the White House with a pledge to overturn gridlock in Washington, D.C. and lead an effort to find compromise on pressing public policy issues.

Despite that pledge, over his eight years, he did just the reverse.

The best illustration was his personally proclaimed signature health care reform “achievement,” which came to be known, with his eventual blessing, as “ObamaCare.” It was passed with only Democrat votes in a huge indication of what illustrated his intention to work around Republicans, not with them.

Today, the legacy of Obama, no middle ground, is taking root in the new health care debate. Given all of the opposition over the last few days, it appears Republicans may not be able to get their act together sufficiently to undo ObamaCare and enact a new Health Care for Americans program, despite Ryan’s best and compelling rhetoric in defending of what his leadership has proposed.

Further, it also would appear that, even if Republicans coalesce around a plan, they will not get Democrat support, so we’ll be left at best with another “one side of the aisle action.”

As someone involved in politics and public policy for nearly 40 years, that makes me sick….for at least three reasons.

First, the current swirl indicates that we, as both Americans and those who represent us, have no ability to find what I call the smart middle ground. We like to contend for our position, to fight more than agree.

Second, it tends to illustrate that very good legislators – Speaker Ryan and Oregon’s Greg Walden can do good work only to be pilloried by colleagues more interested in sound bites that solid policy.

Third, it indicates that the likely result is continued movement toward a single payer health care system, a government-run and government-financed program. And, surely know this, if a single payer system emerges, it is you and I who will be paying for it with higher taxes.

The current reform proposal, crafted by three leading Republicans – Oregon’s own Walden, Kevin Brady from Texas and House Speaker Ryan – debuted the other day to immediate negative reactions from many quarters.   But, to the credit of the three, the intention was not to impose a bill on everyone as a done deal. Rather, they brought the bill forward in two committees, one chaired by Walden and the other by Brady.

Ryan emphasized that the 143-page document, in contrast to ObamaCare’s 2,000 pages, would be reviewed by four committees before it came to the House floor. He also emphasized that the bill was only one part of a three-part strategy, a second being administrative actions by House and Human Secretary Tom Price to reduce health care costs, and another bill that would deal with issues that could not be included in the “reconciliation process.”

Under “reconciliation,” admittedly an arcane rule, a bill cannot be filibustered by senators. They have to vote it up or down.

All of this was a far cry from what happened early in Obama’s tenure when the health care act, in its 2,000 pages, emerged overnight and moved quickly toward votes on the floors of the House and the Senate. It passed without one Republican vote.

And, further, in an incredible statement if you think about it, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had not even read the bill when she voted for it and asked all of her colleagues to do the same.

As I wrote in a previous post, there is a lot at stake here. For one thing, Republican credibility as those in charge in Washington, D.C. rides on the outcome, and, if majority Republicans don’t rally behind the bill, their tenure in leadership will start on a sour note. And, as Speaker Ryan noted, they may not have another chance to deal with ObamaCare.

Further, if the House Republican bill fails, it becomes even more likely that we’ll see what may have been the goal of many interests all along, especially Democrats — a government-run and government-financed single payer system.

To be sure, government has a clear role in health care. Witness Medicaid and Medicare. But, if we devolve to an entire government-run system, we’ll be sorry for years. The marketplace will have no effect on health care decisions and, sooner than you can say TrumpCare or ObamaCare, the government will be telling you who your physician will be – and you’ll be paying for it.