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.

One test of every election, including the stunning one that just occurred in this country, is whether those who won can get about the business of governing.

Apparently, it’s not easy because, too often, the end of one campaign simply signals the start of another.  Those who won immediately begin planning for the next campaign, including trying to generate positive headlines — either in the mass or social media — or working to put their potential opponents in a bad light.

There has been talk of a “continual campaign” for a long time, evidenced, for one thing, by a book in 2012 by two professors, Amy Gutmann, then president of the University of Pennsylvania, and Dennis Thompson, a professor of philosophy at Harvard.

Their contention:

“The problem of compromise in American democracy has always been challenging.  It becomes harder still with the rise of the permanent campaign.  The relentless pressures of campaigning, which call for an uncompromising mindset, are overtaking the demands of governing, which depend on a compromising mindset.

Given the most unpredictable of results — Donald Trump is the president-elect — most eyes are on Washington, D.C. as Trump prepares to assume power in the nation’s highest political office. Will he in his ascension to the top job, as has been the case over the last several days or will he revert to his over-the-top campaign style

There are issues, as well, in Oregon where most election results were predictable.

Here are questions for Oregon’s current political leaders — Governor Kate Brown, who won her own two-years in office after taking over from John Kitzhaber; Representative Tina Kotek, D-Portland, who very likely will remain as House Speaker; and Senator Peter Courtney, D-Salem, who was not up for election this time, but is looking ahead to what might be his last two years in office:

*  How will these leaders navigate the shoals of the major defeat for Ballot Measure 97, which, by taxing business, would have produced $3 billion a year for state government?  Brown and Kotek endorsed the measure; Courtney did not.  But all three, with their allies, will have to figure out how to balance the budget for 2017-19, a tall task politically with risks for K-12, higher education, cops and prisons, health care and the elephant in the room — a major funding gap for the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS).

*  When and, if so how, will these and other leaders reach out to the business community in Oregon, a typically disparate group which came together to raise almost $30 million to kill Measure 97?  Some business leaders want to respond immediately with potential compromise tax increases that could pass muster in the legislature and, if necessary, at the polls.  Others want to bide their time until legislators reach out to them to ask for participation in finding a middle ground solution.

*   Democrats retained control of both the House and Senate in Salem, but not with super-majorities, and the question is how those in charge will play their leadership hand.  Will they reach out to Republicans to find middle ground?  Will they try to entice one Republican in each chamber to sign up for tax increases if, that is, the leaders can keep all Democrats in line in favor of taxes?

*  How will Republicans continue to play their minority role?  In the recent past, they appear to have been mostly content to oppose Democrats.  In the 2017 session, will they work across party lines to forge compromise?

No one yet knows the answers to these and other questions. Legislators don’t return to Salem until January when they will hold opening ceremonies before beginning to meet in earnest as of February 1.

There are huge issues on the horizon — balancing the state budget, dealing with a big hole in the state’s Medicaid budget, honing a transportation funding package, dealing with the PERS funding gap, finding a way to boost funding for higher education (as advocated last week in a letter signed by 18 legislators). Most of them, if they are solved at all, will be solved somewhere in the middle.

As Gutmann and Thompson contend, such compromise will require laying down the cudgels of campaigning to get about the business of governing.

We’ll see whether this occurs in Oregon in the new year.

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.

If there is an agreement in the aftermath of this national election, it is this: The result was the most stunning in memory, if not in history.

Donald Trump rise to the most powerful position in the free world defied conventional wisdom and turned public opinion polling on its head.

But, if this result was stunning, think back to the 1948 election presidential election. On the evening I was born – so obviously I have no memory of the events – Thomas Dewey was predicted to defeat Harry Truman. Headline writers proclaimed that result in huge fonts, but had to eat their words.

Journalism has changed since 1948, so headline writers did not make the mistake this morning. Editions of the Salem Statesman-Journal were printed before the result was final, so the paper went with the word “Cliffhanger” on its front page.

Even the Wall Street Journal did not have final results on the morning after the election, so resorted to this non-committal headline, “Division Race Ends.” The paper didn’t say who won.

Even as the nation tries to adjust to the Trump win, I have focused mostly on Oregon races, coming up with several takeaways:

GOVERNOR KATE BROWN’S WIN: The question is what the re-elected governor, a Democrat, will do with her first elected term in office, albeit only two years to fill out the remainder of John Kitzhaber’s term.

She easily turned back a challenge from political newcomer, Salem oncologist Bud Pierce, even though various election watchers suggested that Brown had failed to impart a cohesive vision for her administration. She’ll now have a year or so to find her footing before having to run again – and she says will seek a full four-year term in 2018.

No one knows who Republicans will put up to oppose her, but one name making the rounds is Knute Buehler, who won re-election to a House seat from Bend.

BALLOT MEASURE 97 GOES DOWN: The measure went down by a wide margin, 58 to 41. The decision means legislators, who return to the Capitol in January, will have to look elsewhere for money for K-12, cops and prisons, higher education, and health care, plus the elephant in the room – a multiple million dollar Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) funding gap.

Observers wonder how Governor Brown and leaders of the legislature – House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, and Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem – will react to Measure 97’s demise. Brown and Kotek endorsed passage.

Businesses, often a disparate group in Oregon, raised nearly $30 million to kill the measure, which had been lofted without much detailed analysis by public employee unions.

There is a view among some of the winning businesses that they should head to Salem immediately to propose a tax increase that has chance to pass muster with legislators and voters. Another group of businesses are reported to believe that it would smarter to hold private counsels about alternatives, then wait for the governor and legislative leaders to ask for help.

I favor the latter. No need to rush to Salem after the governor and Democrat leaders at the Capitol failed to avoid the Measure 97 mishap, thus requiring business to pony up to defeat a flawed measure.

A NEW SECRETARY OF STATE: Southern Oregon Republican Dennis Richardson, a former legislator and candidate for governor last time around, defied conventional political wisdom in Oregon by winning his race.

He did so despite conservative social beliefs that do not resonate well with urban voters. But he had two advantages in the race, the first Republican win in a state constitutional race in more than 30 years. One advantage was that he focused heavily on the auditing function of the position, which enabled him to come down on the side of improving the effectiveness of state spending, a popular theme with voters.

Richardson’s second advantage was that his opponent, Democrat Brad Avakian, ran an over-the-top campaign where he tried to depict the Secretary of State position as one involved in social issues, as well as environmental protection.

While the job is next in line of succession to the governor, the position does focus on auditing, as well as running elections.

LEGISLATIVE CONTROL: Democrats retained control of both the House and Senate in Oregon, though not with super-majorities. That means Democrats cannot pass tax increases on their own without Republican help. And, in turn, that means one of two things – either Democrats have to find one Republican vote for tax increases assuming they can keep all Democrats in line, or they will have work to find middle ground on taxes without party-line votes.

For Republicans, the question is whether they will get leadership from Democrats that asks Republicans for their contributions, and, if they do, will they follow it.

Leadership requires leaders AND followers.

Observers of legislative processes hope for middle ground on major issues, including taxes, which may be more possible, frankly, with the defeat of Measure 97.

As is the case with all elections, one early question will be whether those who won can get about the business of governing without resorting immediately to laying the foundation for another campaign. The first official test in Oregon will come in the 2017 legislative session, which starts with opening ceremonies in early January, then begins meeting in earnest in February.

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 all of us adjust to the stunning reality of this election, my thoughts have gone to a long-standing topic for me – the difference between campaigning and governing and whether, after an election, those who win can turn their attention to governing.

Usually, they cannot, giving rise to what has been called “the continual campaign.”

But, as I began writing this blog, I came again to the realization that getting to the business of governing will require something more basic than political will. It will require a change of heart that will have to weave its way into politics and, indeed, into every area of life.

That is especially true now, with Donald Trump’s upset to take the presidency. His victory speech struck high notes missing from his campaign, but, given his over-the-top rhetoric during the campaign, will he be able to rally Americans to support him and to swallow their differences?

No one knows yet, even as everyone adjusts to his upset win.

[As an aside, if you have told me that a candidate could commit alleged sexual assault, ridicule those with physical disabilities, impugn all immigrants, compliment a Russian dictator, and indicate his narcissism by claiming that “he and only he” can solve all of the world’s problems, then win, I would have scoffed. Shows you what I know, right?]

For me, Washington Post opinion writer Michael Gerson prompted deeper thoughts than just politics with a very well-written piece in the Post. Who among our political leaders, he asked, “is calling for mutual understanding and practicing it? This would involve the concession of truth on both sides.”

Gerson went on to quote Judge Learned Hand who, in 1944, told newly minted citizens in New York’s Central Park:

“What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it. I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit that weighs their interests alongside its own without bias . . . the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten, that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.”

Very early signs about the ability to govern, not just campaign, are not positive.

In the U.S. House and Senate, Republicans maintained control, an expected result in the House and a surprise in the Senate. But House Speaker Paul Ryan may have difficulty keeping his job…and who knows whether he wants it or not.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it:

“Mr. Ryan’s ability to govern will be significantly affected by both the composition and size of his majority. Some members of the Freedom Caucus, a group of sharply conservative House Republicans, already is suggesting they may try to make it harder for Mr. Ryan to be re-elected as speaker, arguing he is too willing to compromise with Democrats.”

So, at least for these right-wing wackos, compromise is out the window. And, for different reasons, left-wing wackos also oppose compromise, some of them in the Senate where they are threatening filibuster to stop Republican initiatives.

Going to the dictionary, politics is supposed “to be the art of compromise.” No longer, apparently. Politics has become the art of assuming your opponent is an idiot, then saying so in the most derogatory terms possible.

At one point in his life, Ben Franklin, who has been labeled by some as “America’s first diplomat,” decided that simply winning arguments was not very useful. A Wall Street Journal article said that, as Franklin grew into adulthood, his motto was: “Respecting other people led to goodwill. Continued cooperation was better than grudging consent.”

Franklin determined never to contradict other people’s statements in conversations, instead presenting his opinions modestly with due regard to others’ attitudes and feelings.”

Imagine what politics would be like if elected leaders followed these simple, but important, practices, including heeding Judge Hand’s commitment. Practice modesty. Consider the viewpoints of others. Don’t assume you have all the answers. Recognize the value of liberty.

So, I say to myself and others, go beyond Trump’s campaign phrase and “make America great again” in politics, as well as in areas of life.

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 attended regular Sunday services at our church earlier this month and came away with a thought-provoking contrast.

On one hand, in the back of my mind, there was Donald Trump with his diatribe against all immigrants in this country. Sorry to admit this thought crossed my mind in church; not a welcome thought at that place and at that time.

On the other hand, there were stories at our church – Salem Alliance Church in Salem Oregon – about our attempt to reach out to immigrants in our city, including a number of Syrian families in the throes of adjusting to a new culture, not to mention new freedoms.

In fact, our church is hiring a couple fresh from a missionary stint in the Middle East to lead an effort to help re-settle refugees in the Salem area. To be sure, there are not many compared to some other parts of the country, but there are some and they need help to make an adjustment to this country, an adjustment that may be a welcome one given their heritage in a war torn part of the world.

Without language, though, there are special challenges.

We heard a story about one couple from Syria who, now in Salem, took their child to school, then stayed in the hallway all day to make sure the child was safe. It was hard to explain to them that staying all day was not necessary.

Donald Trump has been making headway in this strangest of all political campaigns by impugning the integrity of anyone but himself. All immigrants are evil, he has said and, if elected, he will move to deport millions.

Yet, in our church, various individuals are working on a one-on-one basis to help immigrants succeed in their new country.

Choose which story you want to illustrate your point of view. Without hesitation, I take my church’s open and compassionate stance toward newcomers as the best policy for life in America.

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.

If I were going to run for public office – and let me assure any readers of this blog that I am not – I have given some thought to my personal political platform.

One reason is that, in retirement, I have time for this irrational pursuit. Another is that I have become so irritated by the state of politics today, especially nationally politics, that I wanted to propose, at least for myself, a more positive political future, however unrealistic it may be.

So here goes:

• I’ll work to solve pressing public policy problems.

• I’ll work to find middle ground with the “other side” – which is where the best solutions lie anyway.

• I’ll be skeptical of the contention that government has a solution for every problem, making sure to ask a basic question first – should government be involved, a question that, today, is seldom, if ever, asked.

• But, I’ll be open to government solutions when impartial analysis shows they have the potential to work.

• I’ll avoid using derogatory labels for representatives of the “other side.”

• I’ll be interested in re-election, but not at the expense of “doing the right thing.”

Now, I understand the reality is that none of these planks would resonate with most voters who have become accustomed to sound bites that drip with derision, as well to derogatory comments on Twitter, Facebook or other social media.

The noise has soiled the process of political discourse in this country, none more evidently than in the last year of a debilitating presidential campaign. It’s as if criticizing an opponent stands for something.

Elections are supposed to be a prelude to governing. But, not today. They are mostly a prelude to the next election, which actually starts immediately after “election day.”

If I were to run, would I win? No.

But, if you have a moment, think of your own platform, one that reflects your own commitments, as well as is designed with an eye to putting American politics on a more satisfying plateau.

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 Washington Post performed an excellent service a few days before final voting in this strangest-of-all presidential elections by listing some of the incredible things Trump has said along the campaign trail.

Plus, the editorial writers say that, when Trump is caught in a lie or an overstatement, he doubles down and contends that he and only he can deal with the issue.

I have thought that, along this campaign trail, Trump has showed signs of being mentally ill. He comes across as paranoid and so obviously self-centered that who knows what he would do if he had the nuclear trigger at his disposal.

The editorial writers closed with this paragraph:

“It is mystifying that so many Republicans, after criticizing Mr. Obama for eight years for showing insufficient pride in the United States, would attach themselves to someone who has such contempt for the country, its institutions and its values. U.S. generals have been “reduced to rubble,” the U.S. Army cannot fight, U.S. cities are “hell,” U.S. wealth has been “stripped” away by global interests, the electoral system is “one big, ugly lie.” To each of these disasters, Mr. Trump offers phony solutions (Mexico will pay to build a wall) or none at all. He has neither the interest nor the capacity to suggest actual policies.”

Here, then, is the list of Trump pronouncements.

• “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely.”

Comment: Don’t bet on it. His refusal to release returns, the Post says, is an unprecedented sign of contempt for voters

• “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people who have lots of problems. . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Comment: To Trump, all Mexican immigrants are rapists. Surely, the United States must do a better job of controlling its borders, including to the south, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who is not Trump is a criminal.

• “You’d be in jail.” (a remark to Hillary Clinton)

Comment: Every four years there are winners and losers in national elections. This time, if Trump loses, going against the pattern of history, he says he won’t accept the outcome.

• “I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

Comment: So, Trump, himself proposes that he would be a terrorist.

• “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.”

Comment: Trump’s instinct to fight with anyone who disagrees with him portends nothing but trouble if he sits in the Oval Office.

• “When you’re a star, they let you do it.”

Comment: Consider the incredible, over-the-top egotism of this comment. He’s a star so he can do what he wants to women.

• “Make America great again.”

Comment: For me, this comment always stirs up disquieting memories of what it must have been like in post World War I Germany when Hitler rose to power. Like Hitler in Germany, Trump says he alone can be the savior of America.

Now, some who may read this post will respond that Hillary Clinton has her own problems with ethics and integrity. To that, I answer, “yes, true.” But Trump’s pronouncements are far worse.

If that means, we, as voters, face a choice between the evils of less than honorable candidates, so be it. I’ll choose the one, Clinton, who at least has a semblance of qualifications to serve in the nation’s highest political office.

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.

One of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, wrote the other day about an interesting focus group conducted by reputed national pollster Peter Hart.

He gathered 12 “regular citizens” in a room and asked questions about the current presidential campaign, questions that resonate with many of us who have watched the current depressing run for the nation’s highest political office.

Here is one exchange reported by Noonan:

“Raise your hand, said Mr. Hart, if you like both candidates. No one did. Raise your hand if you like one candidate. No one did. Raise if you don’t like either. All 12 did.

“When asked to describe the America they want, they wrote things like ‘a solid education system, ‘no longer at war,’ ‘people have joy in their work,’ ‘leading the world in everything, including morals, ‘equal opportunity and reward based on work,’ ‘people haven’t lost their homes,’ and ‘a culture that improves us as a people.’”

Agreed.

One of the risks in the current debacle of an election is that it leaves us, as Americans, more dubious about our future.

If Clinton wins, we’ll be subjected to more lies and unscrupulous behavior.

If Trump wins, we’ll be embarrassed by his conduct, his words, his actions and an inability to take other than an “I am great” approach to anything.

Hart’s focus group is interesting for another reason. It did not produce just a slew of negatives from the respondents.

There was some optimism. Hart asked whether there could be a good outcome from this election. Five of those in the room answered “yes,” including this comment. “We’re a hardy bunch,” said a woman. Another: “It’ll stick in our minds. We’ll learn from it.”

Also this week, San Francisco columnist Kathleen Parker worried that there only days remaining before the time comes to vote (unless you have done what I have done in Oregon, which is to vote by mail early). “Wait, no, I’m not ready!” Parkear said. “Where’s the one I want to vote for? Can it be true that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States? For real? Is this really all we’ve got?

Where, Parker wondered, “is the individual who compels us to cheer for the good that unites us, the virtue that defines us, the strength that sustains us and the faith that tomorrow will always be better? Where is the sunny, aspirational leader who understands the frustrations of Trump supporters and the sense of left-behindness of people on both left and right?”

Parker also worries that decent people – more decent than either of the presidential candidates – may decide that getting into public service isn’t worth the total surrender of one’s autonomy and privacy.

“Who can blame them? Thus, our next president will be chosen not with the enthusiasm of a well-informed electorate but with the forelornness that comes of having no better option.”

So, amidst all of the depressing news, how can we not only survive, but thrive? As the focus group and Parker note, there are ways to find optimism. One is to maintain a sense of personal equilibrium, knowing that, this too, will pass and we can learn from the experience.

Another is to remember, as Parker urges, “the good that unites us, the virtue that defines us, the strength that sustains, and the faith that tomorrow will always be better?

Beyond that, I say find your own roots.

For me, roots are family and friends, buttressed by the reality of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which provides a basis for living day-to-day, as well as being optimistic about the future.

…This is the second of several blogs outlining criticism of the State of Oregon budgeting processes, which is important as voters here consider a major new tax increase…

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.

Back in 2003, the Oregon Legislature came up with an idea that sounded questionable, but was based on explicit U.S. government permission.

It was this:  Impose a special tax on 16 major Oregon hospitals, take the money into the hands of state government, then use it to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid, the joint state-federal health care program for low income citizens.

Everyone wins, right?

Well, perhaps not the federal government, which had to shell out more money in matching funds, but the purpose was positive in the eyes of most people — provide more and better health care services for low income citizens.

It didn’t work out as planned, especially not for Oregon hospitals or the citizens they serve.

The transaction illustrated what could have been suspected back then, but wasn’t as clear as it is today:  It is impossible to negotiate a deal with the legislature, then expect that deal to hold up, even for one two-year budget cycle.

Something always intrudes.

Legislators and the governor forget the deal they cut, so they don’t honor it.  Or, a new “emergency,” real or imagined, comes up and the deal is off.  Or, even more perversely, legislators appear to honor the deal and devote the “new money” to health care, then, in a back room and out of public view, they take “general funds” out from behind the deal and allocate it elsewhere, including to the legislature’s top political priority — K-12 education.

So, does the hospital tax make sense?

To some, the answer might be yes if they want government to have more money.  In other words, the lure of the federal match drives the process – and, at the moment, this is the case in 49 states, as well as in the District of Columbia.

To others, the answer also might be yes if the general purpose is served — more health for low-income persons who don’t have access to health care otherwise.

To hospitals, the answer might be yes if, in fact, they would get back money for the tax they pay, which, after all, was the original design of the program.  But, as it is today, not all hospitals get back all of “their” money and the new money for Oregon often goes to other than health care programs.

To taxpayers, the answer also is murky.  Could be yes or could be no, depending on an individual’s political persuasion. If you want more government and believe taxes should be increased, you would be in favor of the transaction. If, on the other hand, you believe government should be more frugal in how it allocates money, you would oppose the tax scheme; after all, it results in more federal and state spending.

Back to hospitals.  They have operated in good faith in this kind of transaction, but have suffered because of the realities outlined above, which underline again the inescapable conclusion:  You can’t negotiate and cut a deal with the legislature and expect it to be honored.

Along the way, hospital lobbyists have insisted on “memoranda of understanding” (MOU) to memorialize the deals over the years and, while not ironclad, the MOUs provided a bit of assurance that the legislators and the governor who signed them would live up to the deals.

No.  There was only one legislator who was at the table during the negotiations who admitted in public that legislators did not live up to what they signed.  That was Senator Betsy Johnson, the Democrat from Scappoose, who is one of the legislature’s chief budget experts, not to mention a public official marked by candor and integrity.

She announced that legislators and the governor had reneged on the deal to her chagrin. Her position was that legislators should honor it.

All of this will matter down the road if legislators and the health insurance industry sit down in a room to negotiate an extension of a health insurance tax, which, again, is designed to garner more federal matching dollars.

As originally designed, proceeds from the insurance tax and matching dollars were supposed to fund health insurance for children who did not have coverage.

It didn’t work out that way.  Legislators said they needed the money elsewhere and they took it. In the vernacular of the Ways and Means process, this is called “sweeping” the money.

And, this time, hospitals were not the ones left out in the cold.  It was citizens who had commercial insurance coverage.  A one per cent tax was added on to their insurance premiums and the insurance companies then sent the money to state government where it performed the magic of gaining federal matching dollars. So, the insurance tax was a tax on general citizens.

It is not clear how long this house of cards will be allowed to stand, either for hospital or insurance taxes.

At some point, observers expect the federal government to say, whoa, we are spending a lot of money on this, given that the 49 states and the D.C. now impose provider and insurance taxes.  We’ve got to stop, they may say.

When the federal government does say no, the question remains — what will states like Oregon do to replace the lost money?  The betting in this corner is that they will leave the hospital and insurance taxes in place, without the federal match.

Once a new tax is on the books, it stays on the books, even if the rationale goes away.

 ********   

[Full disclosure: The author, Dave Fiskum, represented private health care interests in Salem for 25 years. He was at the table in 2003 when the hospital and health insurance taxes were first envisioned and he watched – not to mention opposed – actions to renege on the deals.]

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 was shocked to learn this morning that the Salem Statesman-Journal (S-J) was laying off its editorial page editor Dick Hughes after more than 34 years at the newspaper.

The S-J, perhaps already a shell of its former self as is the case with many other newspapers around the country in a digital age, will not be same without Dick.  His work as a committed journalist was a highlight for me every day in the newspaper.

I first knew him when I worked for state government about 30 years ago and Dick covered state government for the S-J.

One of my tasks for a number of state agencies, including a governor’s office, was to deal with the media. Thus, I dealt a lot with Dick and, while we have had differences over policy and outlook, he always was imminently fair.

He was, appropriately for a journalist, a skeptic of state government. Not a cynic. A skeptic.

I say that because, when I reported for a daily newspaper a long time ago, I tried to be a skeptic, as well, believing that was an appropriate role for a watchdog of the people.

In state government, I worked for a manager who once said that the easiest thing to do with regard to government “was to be a cynic.”

Dick wasn’t a cynic.

As I watched him move from being a reporter to an editor and eventually editor of the editorial page for the S-J (not to mention a “content coach”), I noted a few aspects of his character:

• He was an honest as the day was long. If he didn’t know something, he would find out.

• He was inquisitive, always interested in finding our new information about old and new topics.

• He was particularly good at using the right words, as well as using them with an appropriate commitment to solid grammar and syntax.

• He readily shared information about his own Christian faith, a commitment that found its way into his own reporting and editing.

For the Statesman-Journal, there will be no way to replace Dick’s history and journalistic ethics.

His departure is a great loss for the Statesman-Journal. It is also a great loss for the Salem community.

But I am confident that Dick will land a new gig. He is too good to be silent.

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

…This is the first of several blogs outlining criticism of State of Oregon budgeting processes, which is important as voters here consider a major new tax increase…

Head down a back hallway on the first floor of the State Capitol in Salem and what do you find?

A back room where legislators and budget staff hammer out the State of Oregon two-year budget beyond the glare of public view.

It used to be called “a room with a blackboard” on which staff wrote big numbers reflecting proposed commitments to the largest budget categories – K-12, higher education, cop and prisons, and social services, including health care.

These days, there is a “whiteboard.”

But the point is the same. Proposed allocations of the state budget are discussed and agreed upon in private. Yes, of course, ratification occurs in public, but the deals are cut in the backroom, then simply endorsed blandly in public.

I outline this to underscore a reality: It is impossible to understand what goes into the State of Oregon budget and how one fund relates to another. I would defy even an acknowledged budget expert to uncover the interrelated details.

I have tried. And, while I may not be a “budget expert,” I have lobbied state budget issues for more than 25 years (see footnote).

The basic problem can be summarized in one word – supplanting. Supplanting occurs when money comes in to state government for one purpose, the money is used ostensibly for that purpose, then other resources are taken out from behind the original allocation, thus making the “new money” ineffective.

Supplanting can be difficult to understand and almost impossible to track through the corridors of state budgeting processes. But it is critical concept and one that renders state budgets nothing if not opaque, even as legislative budget leaders trumpet transparency.

Let me cite a few examples to illustrate my point.

HOSPITAL TAXES: In 2003, state officials decided to do what most other states were doing, which is to tax major hospitals, take the tax proceeds into state coffers, and then use the money to generate federal matching funds under the Medicaid program while, in theory at least, paying back hospitals for their taxes.

Sounds good, I suppose, especially if you believe that state government needs more money to do so-called “good work.” This was a scheme, albeit legal, to garner the federal matching funds and bring the money home to increase support for health care programs.

But, I would defy anyone to prove that the money actually went to fund expanded health care programs. What happened was typical legislative sleight of hand. Sure, the “new money” went to health care programs, but, behind that, legislators and their budget took “general fund” money away and directed it instead to K-12.

Supplanting occurred in spades.

HEALTH INSURANCE TAXES: Or, consider another let’s “hide the real purpose” legislative construct. This time, it was a proposal to impose a one per cent tax on top of all commercial health insurance premiums.

The tax proceeds would flow to the state, where, again, much like money in the hospital tax, they would be used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid. The justification was that the new money would be used to fund health insurance for children who did not have coverage.

What happened?

Not that.

Instead, legislators practiced another budget shenanigan. They “swept” the money from the health insurance fund and used it, again, to fund K-12 education.

Those left holding the bag were private health insurance premium payers who might have been okay helping to fund health insurance for children, but might have not have been okay diverting health insurance money to fund K-12.

TOBACCO SETTLEMENT FUNDS: One of the most egregious legislative slight-of-hand actions occurred with “tobacco settlement funds,” which emerged in 1998 as a result of a court case against tobacco companies.

As part of a $10 billion settlement, millions of dollars were supposed to come to Oregon (as well as other states) to fund anti-tobacco education programs, as well as expanded health care programs.

The money arrived; the result did not.

Instead, legislators diverted general funds behind the tobacco settlement money to fund K-12 education.

Same supplanting story. Second verse.

Oregon likes to talk about itself as a leader in transparent state budgeting practices. But, as these three examples indicate, the truth does not match the rhetoric.

And that should be an important factor as voters consider Ballot Measure 97. There is no way to understand where the new money will go if the measure passes.

What’s needed is simple and straight-forward: An open and candid state budgeting process that is clear about where the money comes from and where it goes.

*********

[Full disclosure: The author, Dave Fiskum, represented private health care interests in Salem for 25 years. He was at the table in 2003 when the hospital and health insurance taxes were first envisioned and he watched – not to mention opposed – actions to renege on the deals. He also opposed the “sweep” of health insurance taxes and the diversion of tobacco settlement funds.]