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 legislators begin to gather in Salem for a five or six-month run at the Capitol, it is a good time to review just a few details about such a session.

First, legislators are in Salem to consider additions or deletions to Oregon law and that means they will consider what called “bills” – or, in more formal legislative parlance, a “bill for an act.”

In all, nearly 3,000 individual pieces of legislation will see the light of day in Salem – and the “light of day” is an intentional phrase because all bills are available for public review (if anyone wants to spend their time in that kind of exercise).

Rather than focus on major issues this session (the major one as I wrote in a previous blog will focus on balancing the State of Oregon budget for 2017-19, with its funding for K-12 schools, higher education, cops and prisons, and social services, including health care), this blog will focus on process.

Based on my many years as a lobbyist at the Capitol, here is a summary of tactics to pass or kill a bill – and there is broad agreement that it is much harder to pass a bill than to kill one.

To pass a bill:

1. Have a good idea for a bill (based on your own experience in a subject area or a study of a perceived deficit in Oregon law…the point is that ideas still matter)

2. Consider the design of a bill in a way that is aimed at garnering additional support

3. Find a champion or champions who are well-situated in the legislature to wield a gavel or close to it (in other words, they must hold important positions on committees relevant to the subject of the bill because the Oregon Legislature, at its base, is driven by committees)

4. Identify grassroots resources that could advocate for passage. Identify persons who live in the districts of key legislators and encourage them to communicate directly with legislators via phone calls, texts, e-mails and individual letters, the latter of which are always better if they are written by hand, are short and are personal

5. Do the hard work of counting to 31, 16 and 1 (the House, the Senate and, don’t forget, the Governor’s Office), the number of votes that are necessary to achieve passage

6. If all is lost or you are tired, employ a “tinker bell” strategy – hope your bill will pass or fail
   

To kill a bill:

1. In testimony and conversations, raise general questions about the bill, both in terms of policy and the specific language

2. Ask whether passing legislation is necessary at all

3. Don’t fill gaps…just let the bill’s advocates make the case, if there is one, in favor of the bill

4. Emphasize other more important issues for legislators to consider

5. Generate “grassroots” comments in opposition using the ideas in #4 above

Then, if you achieve the objective – passing or killing a bill – be prepared to share credit with all those who have helped because a truism in the legislative process is that results are the product of a collaboration effort, not individualism.

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 is that one thing, you may ask?

Well, it is that, in the end, the state budget must be in balance, which means that spending can only reach the level of available revenue.

Contrast that to the federal government where no such limit exists.

Now, some surely would say that it is appropriate for there to be no limit at the federal level because spending must be available for top-line U.S. security interests, including the military and economic recovery.

Point made. Point taken.

But there is still major virtue in the Oregon system. Those who want spending on certain subjects must compete for dollars within revenue limits. And, at the end of an odd-numbered year, the “long” legislative session, members of the Joint Ways and Means Committee and the full legislature must approve a budget in balance and it must be voted on by both the House and the Senate and, finally, the governor.

No extra spending beyond revenue.

This process forces political decisions to be made on how much to spend within the reality of limits – and that makes the decisions better.

As we approach the start of the 2017-19 long legislative session, the state budget again will be the major issue under consideration in Salem. Some players want more money, chief among them Governor Kate Brown who has built a total of $897 million in new taxes into her “Recommended Budget for 2017-19.”

If she really wanted legislators to approve new taxes, she should have developed a “current tax rate” budget to underline, at least from her perspective, the need for more taxes. In fact, just last week the Joint Ways and Means Committee produced a “current taxes” budget and that will give legislators a starting point for spending decisions, a better starting point than provided by the governor.

So far, those competing for more money are the usual suspects:

• Higher education institutions in Oregon have sent along to the governor and legislators, via a public letter, an aggressive appeal for more money, which they contend is necessary to avoid huge tuition increases.

• K-12 schools always want more money and, in some cases, there is relative agreement from all sides that they need it, at least to a degree.

• The biggest hole in the 2017-19 budget revolves around the Medicaid program, which provides health care for low-income Oregonians.

• With prison populations still on the rise and calls for more law enforcement, corrections and cops always compete well for state dollars.

• And, the elephant in the room where budget decisions will be made is the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), which faces a substantial underfunding problem, and, for that reason, extra spending burdens will fall on all levels of government.

Now, back to the good news. All of these spending decisions – some call them “investments” – will be made, by law, within the amount of revenue available.

No deficit spending!

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.

That headline puts it mildly.

One of my favorite columnists, George Wall, called it the “worst inaugural address in history.”

Another favorite columnist, Peggy Noonan, had kinder words, saying the address “was utterly and uncompromisingly Trumpian.”

Washington Post editorial writers put it this way:

“… he repudiated the postwar precedent of values-based U.S. leadership of and engagement with the rest of the world. The United States over the decades has done well by doing good; American generosity, and its support for fair global rules, fostered prosperity in Europe and Asia and beyond, which in turn redounded to the United States’ advantage at home. Announcing falsely that protection will lead to great prosperity and strength,” Mr. Trump derided engagement and interdependence as suckers’ games, elevated “winning” as the only goal and endorsed the zero-sum notion that all nations “put their own interests first.” It made for a dark vision indeed — the opposite, if such can be imagined, of Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural appeal to ‘the better angels of our nature.’”

And the Wall Street Journal said this:

“As he often does, Mr. Trump also made American life today seem much darker than it is, invoking “this American carnage” in one jarring passage. Subtlety is not the Trump style, and America has problems, but carnage is a word better suited for Aleppo under Russian bombing. Many Americans will wonder what country Mr. Trump is talking about, even if the speech ended with an appeal for unity, patriotism and solidarity.”

To me, it seemed like the speech, from the portico on the Capitol Building, was intended more for his campaign audience than for all those he now will attempt to govern.

I also thought that, whatever one thought of their politics, now former President Barack Obama and failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton showed remarkable grace as they sat only a few feet from the new president and heard him denigrate everything they stood for.

So, here then, from me – one observer of this incredible transition of power in “our” democracy – is a list of some random comments from my friends and neighbors as they tried to grapple with the events of January 20.

• One person said, “I thought he was stoking the fears of his followers with the same negative view of American life that we saw during his campaign. It’s completely off kilter with reality. I also thought he put himself in a tough situation because it will be so hard to improve an economy that, compared to many places in the world, that has been doing so well lately.”
• Another repeated the point that Trump should have tried to strike a higher note that talking about, in one example, “American carnage.”
• Finally, another said, “I thought Trump strike exactly the right chords. It is time for a change in American and I believe Trump speaks to that need.

I, for one, was ready for the first steps in a style and demeanor that showed America’s new leader as one who is trying to governor, not just to campaign.

Didn’t happen. Who knows what’s next?

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 the introduction to this blog indicates, I have been involved in public policy issues for more than 40 years, first as a state government manager and then as a state lobbyist.

During that time, I had the privilege to work with several top-level associates in our private firm, CFM Strategic Communications. It also has been a privilege to watch three of them to go on to bigger and better positions.

When I worked for a time in Washington, D.C. a number of years ago, I heard story after story about how those who worked for long-time Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield went on after positions in his office to make their own mark, both in D.C and in Oregon.

Now, to state what should be obvious, I don’t compare myself to the good and late senator from Oregon who was one of the best public officials I ever knew. But, I do take a bit of pride in watching “my” associates move on.

Here are the three examples:

• Erica Hetfeld, after several years with CFM, first as an intern, then as a public affairs associate in Salem, moved on to another lobby firm in Salem where she had more individual responsibility for clients. Then, she moved to direct a major association of business interests intent on building a stronger economic climate in Oregon. She is still here and took some justifiable pride in a role to kill a major, anti-business tax initiative at the polls last November.

• Beth Remley, again after several years with us, moved on to another lobby firm in Salem where she has increased responsibility for direct client management. She also is heavily involved in recruiting new clients. One of her credentials that impressed us and that she has used to her advantage is a degree in economics – and one of her favorite publications is, naturally, The Economist.

• Ellen Miller is the latest CFM associate to move on. After about five years with us, she is moving up to take a high-level management position in a major state agency where she will be asked to handle urban policy issues, as well as legislative relations. Ellen is the only person I know who had a degree in civil engineering, then a six-year practice in that discipline, before becoming a state lobbyist. She made a great transition then and she will make a new one now with great success.

The good news here is that the experience these individuals got at CFM made them eligible for more responsibility in new positions. Like many persons in their age group, far younger than me, they were not opposed to changing jobs from time to time. In my age group, many of us tended to remain in the same position, or at least the same discipline for a number of years.

But millennials are inclined to move around.

In this case of the three, they moved, not because of a “grass is greener view” elsewhere, but because they were ready for more responsibility.

As I said, I take pride in the role I played to groom these individuals to be ready for promotions. But they deserve what they go on the basis of their own credentials.

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.

Congressman John Lewis says, “He does not deserve to be president.”

Actress Meryl Streep uses a platform to criticize him.

News reporters are called out for not hewing to his party line.

Who is this?

Well, to anyone who follows news, even fake news, these days, it is Donald Trump who will be president in only a few days, not just the president-elect. Call his style narcissism personified.

In this space previously, I wrote that Trump, in his bid to win the presidency, reminded me of what Hitler was reported to have done in post-World War I Germany. Trump called on Americans, just as Hitler called on Germans, to recover from economic doldrums and re-assert their right of primacy.

For Hitler, it was racial primacy that unconscionable act to try to ripe out an entire race of people, the Jews. For Trump, we are not sure what his view of primacy is yet, though clues are that whatever he says will be THE truth.

In some ways, the analogy of Trump to Hitler may be an overreach because we are able to look back on the incredible human tragedies Hitler wrought and, with Trump, we have only the “opportunity” to look forward and imagine the results he will proclaim as his own.

But, beyond general comparison, there is a word that, I think, describes the two, Hitler and Trump. Again, it is narcissism.

Both are full of themselves. Any perceived opposition is considered to be a personal slight. They respond in kind, if not worse.

Trump has made headlines recently – via tweets, it must be said – by criticizing U.S. civil rights icon John Lewis, a member of Congress who stood with other civil rights figures, including Martin Luther King on the bridge to Selma and in other venues where he argued against racism while being attacked physically.

Lewis had questioned Trump’s right to be president in light of Russian claims of hacking to benefit Trump.

Here’s how Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson put it:

“It must be said that the whole business of questioning a president’s right to hold office is pernicious. It puts a hard stop on all civility and cooperation. The worst instance, of course, was the claim hat Barack Obama was Kenyan-born and disqualified to be president — an argument based on partisan, conspiratorial and quasi-racist lies enthusiastically spread by Trump. When the president-elect calls out Lewis on this topic, it is a display of hypocrisy so large that it is visible from space.

“Trump often justifies his attacks as counter-punching. Even a glancing blow seems to merit a nuclear response. But this is the exact opposite of the ethical teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, and of the principled nonviolence of the civil rights movement. In these systems of thought, the true victory comes in absorbing a blow with dignity, even with love. It is the substance of King’s message. It is the essence of a cruciform faith.

“This is not always easy to translate into politics. But a president-elect attacking a hero of the civil rights movement less than a week before he takes the oath of office is not normal. There is some strange inversion of values at work. Because Vladimir Putin praises him, Trump defends Putin. Because Lewis criticizes him, Trump attacks Lewis (as “talk, talk, talk — no action or results”). The only organizing principle is the degree of deference to Trump himself. It is the essence of narcissism.”

There it is – that word narcissism.

Or, Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post: “As I’ve said before, Trump’s compulsion to answer any perceived slight with both barrels blazing is a sign of dangerous insecurity and weakness, not strength. We are about to inaugurate a president with the social maturity of a first-grader.”

To Trump, like Hitler, everything revolves the “big I.” “I” am the answer to every problem, Trump says. Making it personal, he goes after everyone who even slightly disagrees with him. Meryl Streep? Yes, go after her. John Lewis? Yes, go after him. A disabled reporter? Yes, go after him. Senator John McCain, a Vietnam era prisoner of war? Yes, go after him.

We need a president who respects and evokes the storied history of this country, including a recognition of the real account of Black America, not one who peevishly attacks heroes and believes that he is the only one “who can make America great again.”

So, Mr. Trump, please get about the business of being president, not a 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.

Governor Kate Brown complied on December 1 with a state law requiring governors to produce what’s called a “Recommended Budget” for the next two-year period. It includes both spending and new taxes.

But, there is a better way for governors like Brown to underline what they believe to be the necessity for new money. It would be to submit a budget based only on current tax rates, not new taxes. That would show the depth of cuts necessary to live within current means.

In a Salem Statesman-Journal front-page article early in December, this is how Brown described her recommended budget for 2017-19:

“The budget includes significant cuts at a level I find absolutely unacceptable. This budget is a short-term solution, nothing more.”

In what the governor announced, she followed a script favored by her predecessor John Kitzhaber who always produced a “recommended budget” pinned to new taxes. In fact, according to the Statesman-Journal article, Brown built a total of $897 million of new taxes into her budget recommendations.

Included are increased taxes on tobacco and liquor worth $74 million, eliminating a specific business tax break known as “the partnership pass through,” thus boosting revenues by $117 million, and turning taxes on hospitals into what Brown called “true taxes,” which means hospitals and insurers won’t get their money back after paying taxes.

A bit of background on the hospital tax: Originally, the tax, negotiated first in 2003, was meant to generate state revenue that would be used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid. When the increased money arrived in Oregon, hospitals would be paid back for the taxes and the “extra” would be used to improve health care programs for low income Oregonians.

Most states were engaged in this legal matching funds scheme. But, now, the original deal hospitals cut with the governor and legislature has been turned on its head. It could become a straight tax, which will mean an increase in costs for hospitals that then will have no choice but to pass on the increased costs to consumers.

Beyond all this, the challenge the governor and legislative leaders will face in the 2017 legislative session is how to bring business and labor together to find a middle-ground compromise on new taxes, especially after the bruising battle at the polls where the business community came together as never before to kill the onerous tax on sales.

Governor Brown, along with House Speaker Tina Kotek, endorsed that tax (Ballot Measure 97), so it could be contended they have some damage to repair with the business community. If businesses are smart, they will wait for entreaties from Brown, Kotek and other leaders to become involved. Meanwhile, they should hold their own private counsels to determine if there are tax increases business could tolerate to fund important government programs.

The elephant in any room where there is such a budget discussion will be the “PERS problem.” That is the fact that the Public Employee Retirement System is underfunded to a substantial degree and any wide-ranging budget and tax compromise will have to include a PERS fix, which won’t go down easily with public employee unions.

Incredibly, Brown took the stage at the Business Summit last month to appeal to business leaders “to find new revenue.” She made the plea without any assurance of her own involvement, which, given Ballot Measure 97’s defeat, is a little like asking the winning team to forfeit its victory.

The current “Governor’s Recommended Budget” could have represented a solid starting point for a reasoned discussion of taxes and spending in the 2017 legislative session.

Instead, it doesn’t contribute much to what needs to be a real debate over the future of state government’s services to Oregonians.

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 makes the point that the department is open again. I am the director. I don’t report to anyone. I just name the pet peeves at my whim.

So, here goes.

I WISH TRUMP WOULD STOP TWEETING: When I attended the swearing-in ceremony for Oregon’s new treasurer, Tobias Read, he said that it seldom is possible to render sound judgments on complicated public policy issues in 140 characters.

Well said.

My wish is that Donald Trump would stop tweeting. The tactic should be beneath him in his role as president, if only now as president-elect.

And, one more point on tweets…next.

I WISH THE MEDIA WOULD BE MORE DISCREET IN COVERING TRUMP’S TWEETS: Not everything Trump tweets is news, so reporters and editors should show more even-handed discretion. Don’t just tumble to the Trump goal, which is to usurp the news cycle, if there is a cycle any more.

As a former journalist, my view is this: Since it is likely that Trump will continue tweeting, take note of what he says via that medium and then do real stories on the subject he raises, not just stories that he is tweeting again.

In other words, use the tweets as pegs for news stories. But do the stories themselves using sound journalistic standards and judgments.

New York Times media critic Eric Wemple put it this way in his column this week: “Journalism is a classic craft that does not need new strategies to manage its fundamental work. Report, report, report. That’s how one major newspaper is approaching Trump, as its six-person White House detail is the largest it has ever deployed to this beat. The Washington Post also has a six-person deployment, and Politico has seven, the largest in its decade-long history. More resources to cover a president-elect that deploys falsehoods and misdirection at every turn — that’s called a strategy.”

CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS: We are witnessing another chapter in a long book – confirmation processes for persons named by a president or a president-elect to head a federal agency. Similar processes exist at the state level in Oregon for those named to head state agencies.

Call me stupid or poly-annish, but I think the focus of these confirmation processes should be on whether a nominee has the experience and credentials to manage a particular agency, not on whether the nomine agrees with the views of a particular senator who may be asking the questions.

In fact, if a Republican president or president-elect nominates someone, it is likely that person will not hold the same positions on issues as Democrat members of the Senate. Further, a case could be made that they should not; they don’t work for the Senate; they work for the president.

One of the recent examples went even farther down a dead-end road. This time, Republican Senator Marco Rubio from Florida – yes, Republican — was not pleased with answers provided by Rex Tillerson who has been nominated by Republican Donald Trump to be Secretary of State. Rubio was not pleased because Tillerson did not share all aspects of his, Rubio’s, bias against Russia, including whether Vladimir Putin was a “war criminal.”

Tillerson, properly, I contend, declined to provide a yes or no answer to the question until he had more information, but also came me across as an official, if confirmed, who would be appropriately skeptical of Russia’s motives.

Here’s the way Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan put it in a column this week: “Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson came across as distinguished, calm, informed. In intense questioning, Senator Marco Rubio was strangely, yippily hostile. ‘Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?’ Mr. Rubio pressed. ‘I would not use that term,’ Mr. Tillerson replied, blandly, but with an expression that allowed you to imagine a thought bubble: You can mess with me, son, but it won’t end well for you. In the end, Mr. Rubio did Mr. Tillerson no harm and himself no good.”

Rubio’s focus should have been on whether Tillerson is qualified for the job, not whether he agreed with him on tough issues about which there can be many views.

Beyond the confirmation process, columnist Ruth Marcus notes that the Trump administration’s first Cabinet meeting should be a very interesting affair. On issue after issue — Russia, the border wall, the Iran nuclear deal, climate change, torture, NATO — she writes that Trump’s nominees have diverged from his stated positions. “So, she continues, “whose views will prevail? Could Trump’s secretaries help save Trump from himself — and the country from Trump? Will they offer a sobering dose-of-reality therapy for the reality TV president?”

And this footnote. Soon we’ll see a confirmation process for a U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Here, based on seeing past Court confirmation processes, the focus will be whether the nominee agrees with a questioner, not whether he or she is qualified for the court seat. No way to avoid this, I guess.

DEMOCRATS IN OREGON SHOVE REPUBLICANS ASIDE: Democrats are in charge of nearly all aspects of government in Oregon – the House, the Senate and the Governor’s Office. They lead 35-25 in the House and 18-12 in the Senate and they hold the Governor’s Office.

Republicans in the House are complaining that Democrat leaders there are giving the Rs short shrift in dividing up the committee assignments for the 2017 legislative session. Sure, the Ds are in charge and they get to assign committees, but as the Oregonian opined this week, Democrats “should court Republican support anyway for reasons far beyond bi-partisan bragging rights. First, the problems of educational mediocrity, a massive budget deficit and the lack of affordable housing cut across Oregonians – from urban Democratic precincts to Republican strongholds – and those elected to represent them deserve a hand in shaping policies to meet their constituents’ needs.”

Further, the Oregonian used a telling phrase by saying that “good legislation is not created in an echo chamber.” My pet peeve is that those in charge, in this case, the Democrats, usually overplay their leadership hand – yelling in the echo chamber, if you will – rather than getting about the business of finding real solutions to real public policy problems.

Here’s hoping that all parties in Salem will end up being able to find middle ground. It will take reasoned leaders and followers, not those who shut out the other side.

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 makes the point that the department is open again. I am the director. I don’t report to anyone. I just name the pet peeves at my whim

So, here goes.

I WISH TRUMP WOULD STOP TWEETING: When I attended the swearing-in ceremony for Oregon’s new treasurer, Tobias Read, he said that it seldom is possible to render sound judgments on complicated public policy issues in 140 characters.

Well said.

My wish is that Donald Trump would stop tweeting. The tactic should be beneath him in his role as president, if only now as president-elect.

And, one more point on tweets…next.

I WISH THE MEDIA WOULD BE MORE DISCREET IN COVERING TRUMP’S TWEETS: Not everything Trump tweets is news, so reporters and editors should show more even-handed discretion. Don’t just tumble to the Trump goal, which is to usurp the news cycle, if there is a cycle any more.

As a former journalist, my view is this: Since it is likely that Trump will continue tweeting, take note of what he says via that medium and then do real stories on the subject he raises, not just stories that he is tweeting again.

In other words, use the tweets as pegs for news stories. But do the stories themselves using sound journalistic standards and judgments.

New York Times media critic Eric Wemple put it this way in his column this week: “Journalism is a classic craft that does not need new strategies to manage its fundamental work. Report, report, report. That’s how one major newspaper is approaching Trump, as its six-person White House detail is the largest it has ever deployed to this beat. The Washington Post also has a six-person deployment, and Politico has seven, the largest in its decade-long history. More resources to cover a president-elect that deploys falsehoods and misdirection at every turn — that’s called a strategy.”

CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS: We are witnessing another chapter in a long book – confirmation processes for persons named by a president or a president-elect to head a federal agency. Similar processes exist at the state level in Oregon for those named to head state agencies.

Call me stupid or poly-annish, but I think the focus of these confirmation processes should be on whether a nominee has the experience and credentials to manage a particular agency, not on whether the nominee agrees with the views of a particular senator who may be asking the questions.

In fact, if a Republican president or president-elect nominates someone, it is likely that person will not hold the same positions on issues as Democrat members of the Senate. Further, a case could be made that they should not; they don’t work for the Senate; they work for the president.

One of the recent examples went even farther down a dead-end road. This time, Republican Senator Marco Rubio from Florida – yes, Republican — was not pleased with answers provided by Rex Tillerson who has been nominated by Republican Donald Trump to be Secretary of State. Rubio was not pleased because Tillerson did not share all aspects of his, Rubio’s, bias against Russia, including whether Vladimir Putin was a “war criminal.”

Tillerson, properly, I contend, declined to provide a yes or no answer to the question until he had more information, but also came me across as an official, if confirmed, who would be appropriately skeptical of Russia’s motives.

Here’s the way Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan put it in a column this week: “Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson came across as distinguished, calm, informed. In intense questioning, Senator Marco Rubio was strangely, yippily hostile. ‘Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?’ Mr. Rubio pressed. ‘I would not use that term,’ Mr. Tillerson replied, blandly, but with an expression that allowed you to imagine a thought bubble: You can mess with me, son, but it won’t end well for you. In the end, Mr. Rubio did Mr. Tillerson no harm and himself no good.”

Rubio’s focus should have been on whether Tillerson is qualified for the job, not whether he agreed with him on tough issues about which there can be many views.

Beyond the confirmation process, columnist Ruth Marcus notes that the Trump administration’s first Cabinet meeting should be a very interesting affair. On issue after issue — Russia, the border wall, the Iran nuclear deal, climate change, torture, NATO — she writes that Trump’s nominees have diverged from his stated positions. “So, she continues, “whose views will prevail? Could Trump’s secretaries help save Trump from himself — and the country from Trump? Will they offer a sobering dose-of-reality therapy for the reality TV president?”

And this footnote. Soon we’ll see a confirmation process for a U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Here, based on seeing past Court confirmation processes, the focus will be whether the nominee agrees with a questioner, not whether he or she is qualified for the court seat. No way to avoid, I guess.

DEMOCRATS IN OREGON SHOVE REPUBLICANS ASIDE: Democrats are in charge of nearly all aspects of government in Oregon – the House, the Senate and the Governor’s Office. They lead 35-25 in the House and 18-12 in the Senate and they hold the Governor’s Office.

Republicans in the House are complaining that Democrat leaders there are giving the Rs short shrift in dividing up the committee assignments for the 2017 legislative session. Sure, the Ds are in charge and they get to assign committees, but as the Oregonian opined this week, Democrats “should court Republican support anyway for reasons far beyond bi-partisan bragging rights. First, the problems of educational mediocrity, a massive budget deficit and the lack of affordable housing cut across Oregonians – from urban Democratic precincts to Republican strongholds – and those elected to represent them deserve a hand in shaping policies to meet their constituents’ needs.”

Further, the Oregonian used a telling phrase by saying that “good legislation is not created in an echo chamber.” My pet peeve is that those in charge, in this case, the Democrats, usually overplay their leadership hand – yelling in the echo chamber, if you will – rather than getting about the business of finding real solutions to real public policy problems.

Here’s hoping that all parties in Salem will end up being able to find middle ground. It will take reasoned leaders and followers, not those who shut out one side.

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 has been almost 30 years ago that U.S. President Ronald Reagan, while in Berlin, uttered his now famous line:

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Today, we are contending with the reverse. Someone, no less than President-Elect Donald Trump, wants to build a wall. The purposes, I suppose, are similar in some ways to the Berlin Wall.

According to the History Channel, back in 1961, the official purpose of the Berlin Wall “was to keep Western fascists from entering East Germany and undermining the socialist state.”

This time, with Trump, the purpose is to bar Mexicans from entering the U.S, where, beyond being, in some cases, illegal, they could undermine our economic state.

And many Americans seem to be saying, “please, build this wall.”

Retired Marine General John Kelly, who supervised U.S. operations in Latin America and is now the director-designate of the Homeland Security Department, says he has long shared Mr. Trump’s concerns about border security.

But, in his confirmation hearings this week, he told Congress that, if the U.S. built “a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf Mexico,” it would still need to be backed up by border patrols and technology. He said border security hinges on building stronger partnerships in Latin America.

“A physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job,” General Kelly told the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “It has to be really a layered defense.”

So, in the tale of two walls, one was torn down about 30 years ago and another is poised to be built.

My view is that General Kelly was dead-on when he made the point that effective border security hinges, not on building barriers, but on building stronger personal relationships with other countries, especially in this hemisphere, but also around the world.

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.

Even as members of the House and Senate, not to mention the incoming Trump Administration, debate health care reform, it strikes me as a logical time to suggest my own framework for reform.

I do so, not because I will have any role in the effort, but because I want to have a response when those who support ObamaCare suggest that ObamaCare opponents have nothing to say about replacing that government-dominated system.

I also believe that a country such as ours, with all of its various political viewpoints, should be able to solve a challenge such as health care. A solution can emerge if, in contrast to the Obama Administration, the goal is to produce a program somewhere in the middle, not one adopted by only one side or the other.

As columnist Kimberley Strassel wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week, “Republicans already agree on the general contours of a free-market proposal—one based on tax credits, entitlement reform, freer insurance markets, portable policies and fewer mandates. The internal debates are over scope and details, not approach.”

What might undo Republicans isn’t policy so much as politics. This is where they’d do well to reflect on all that President Obama did wrong. Long before ObamaCare cratered on the merits, it had failed in the court of public opinion—because of both the manner and the means by which it became law. The first test for Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration is whether they prove foolish enough to repeat those obvious mistakes.

Senior Democrats crafted ObamaCare in backrooms, foregoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues—much less Republicans. It was an exercise in secrecy and control.

It’s time for something different, a middle-of-the-road plan that takes into account perspectives from reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

So, borrowing, in part, ideas from the American Enterprise Institute, not just my own notions, here are what could be called “four legs of the health care stool.”

1. It won’t be popular in some quarters, especially with some Republicans, but, first, a critical component of reform is to require all citizens to have health insurance, either by buying it if they can afford it, or by having it provided by government if they cannot.

Without everyone in the to-be-insured pool, any system will collapse, much as occurred with ObamaCare. The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk.

Think of 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.

2. Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan.

As the American Enterprise Institute has written: “Health insurance is also important for financial security. The ObamaCare replacement should make it possible for all people to get health insurance that provides coverage for basic prevention, like vaccines, and expensive medical care that exceeds, perhaps, $5,000 for individuals.

“Those Americans who don’t get health insurance through employers, or Medicare and Medicaid, should be eligible for a refundable tax credit that can be used to enroll in a health-insurance plan. The credit would be set at a level comparable to the tax benefits available to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance plans. The subsidy would be enough to make a basic level of catastrophic coverage easily affordable for all Americans.”

3. Third, any new middle-of-the-road health coverage approach should accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

I have mixed emotions about this because, inevitably, the price of insurance will go up with the added risk of covering pre-existing conditions. Yet, there is a reasonable social consensus that people should not be penalized financially for health problems largely outside of their control.

4. Fourth, any new plan should allow broad access to health-savings accounts (HSA). ObamaCare pushed millions of Americans into high-deductible insurance without giving them the opportunity to save and pay for care before insurance kicks in. There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs, combined with high-deductible insurance, could be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As millions of consumers begin using HSAs, the medical-care market will begin to transform and deliver services that are convenient and affordable for patients.

While I am not advocating this specifically as part of my proposal, I believe consideration also should be given to deregulating the market for medical services.

As I wrote above, HSAs will empower the demand side of the market, but suppliers need freedom from overly-aggressive regulation to provide packages of services better tailored to individual needs.

Hospitals and physicians should also be allowed to sell access to their networks of clinics, oncology services, and inpatient facilities as an option to be used in the event a patient is diagnosed with an expensive illness.

American health care is teetering because it relies too much on governmental mandates and funding. A functioning marketplace can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

As Congress and the Trump Administration move to do something different than a government, top-down ObamaCare approach, now is the time to develop a system that empowers consumers to take more responsibility for their own health care and that of their families. A political approach from the middle is the only way to achieve acceptable reform.