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

This is a new topic for me on my blog post.

Consider it to be a respite from blogging on the impeachment process.

Does President Donald Trump like dogs?

On one hand, I don’t care what the answer is.

On another hand, I suspect the answer is no.

Witness this piece that ran in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago.

“Trump participated in a Rose Garden ceremony honoring Conan, the hero canine who helped trap and kill Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“The tribute was especially unusual, since Trump, who has never owned a pet, is clearly no fan of man’s best friend.

“Former Republican rival Marco Rubio was ‘sweating like a dog’ during a 2016 presidential debate, candidate Trump asserted. He has suggested that a female challenger was ‘barking like a dog,’ said that Republican challenger Carly Fiorina had a ‘face like a dog,’ and described a cabinet secretary being ‘fired like a dog.’

“So it was surprising to see Trump hailing Conan on the White House lawn as ‘brilliant,’ ‘smart,’ ‘excellent,’ ‘fantastic, and an ‘incredible fighter.’

“Trump awarded Conan a medal and a plaque for his outstanding service.

“What the Belgian Malinois did not get from POTUS was a treat or even a head pat; Trump left the touchy-feely part of the ceremony to Vice President Mike Pence, a self-described ‘pet person.’

“The significance of the Conan tribute: It’s a reminder of how closely Trump follows opinion polls. Half of all American households have dogs. And last week, Trump signed into law another measure aimed at pleasing pet-lovers — the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act, which makes mistreatment of animals a federal crime punishable with stiff fines and up to seven years in jail.”

Okay, so Trump gets credit for honoring a dog.

But I’ll bet, if the dog had a choice, he would have decided not to go to the White House.

And, if the dog had another choice, he’d vote – doggedly, I say – in favor of impeachment.

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

I have made my views known on this subject in past weeks, but I want to do so again…for whatever reason (see below).

For one thing, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee has released an impeachment report summarizing its views, plus the points made by 17 witnesses who appeared before it.

For another thing, House Republicans are gearing up for a fight – a fight they stand to lose in the House, but one they are likely to win in the Senate.

And, for a third thing, the Judiciary Committee is set to begin hearings today on whether to propose articles of impeachment and, as the Washington Post reports, the hearing could be marked by the tactics of a “bunch of brawlers,” which could boost TV ratings.

In the past, there used to be decorum in D.C. hearings. No longer.

The Intelligence Committee report’s conclusion shows the depth of Trump’s misdeeds:

“The president placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.”

In more detail, here’s the way the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin wrote about the report’s conclusion:

“President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign. The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election.  To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.”

I am not sure my views matter from my post in the cheap seats out West – and, even if they do in my own mind, I suspect no one pays much attention to them. But, still, I feel compelled to provide my views…again…as well as to go on record against the Wall Street Journal’s editorial proposition, which contended that “the report’s summary sentence reveals the weakness of its case with overstatement.”

No. Not overstatement. A statement of Trump’s sacrifice of the national interest in favor of his own.

I prepared this post having read a column in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank who skewers Trump and the Republicans for their duplicity as the process has moved forward.

So, giving credit to Milbank, here are elements of the duplicity:

TRUMP OR COUNSELS TESTIFYING: For months, the Trump White House and its congressional chorus have clamored for Democrats to allow President Trump’s counsel to be present at impeachment proceedings.

Trump and his supporters have shared that the impeachment resolution is unfair because it “doesn’t allow POTUS’ counsel to be present to question witnesses.”

So what do Trump and his over-the-top legal counsel Pat Cipollone do when offered a chance to participate?

They say “we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.”

SECRET IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS: Trump and his allies complained about secret proceedings. The proceedings were made public.

NO FORMAL IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTON: Trump and his allies complained that there was no formal impeachment resolution. A formal resolution was passed.

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS: Trump and his allies complained that deposition transcripts weren’t released. The transcripts were released.

IMPEACHMENT TIMING: Trump and his allies complained that Democrats should hurry up and “move on” with impeachment. Processes. But as Democrats worked to wrap up impeachment quickly, Georgia Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, complained that, “we’re rushing this.”

TESTIMONY FROM SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIALS: Trump and his allies have barred top administrative officials from testifying, which means they continue with a charge that the House Intelligence Committee is getting “only second hand information.”

What’s next?

The columnist, Milbank, continues: “Cipollone is plagued by inconsistencies, but he is blessed with a surfeit of adjectives and adverbs, which he deployed in great number in his committee’s report to Nadler (New York Representative Jerome Madler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee).

“It wasn’t just the impeachment inquiry but a “purported,” “baseless” and “highly partisan” one, with an “irretrievably broken process” characterized by “profound,” “unprecedented,” “historical,” “basic,” “arbitrary,” “fundamental,” “extremely troubling,” “false,” “rudimentary” and “unfair” elements.

“If the president had a better defense, it stands to reason, his lawyer wouldn’t need such an adjectival arsenal. If we had a healthier political climate, Republicans would acknowledge Trump’s wrongdoing and propose, in lieu of impeachment, a bi-partisan, bi-cameral resolution of censure.”

Then, we could move on to the 2020 election and see if it turns out there is a candidate who could beat Trump and, thus, free America from the misdeeds of worst president in our history who continues to operate with a sense of personal entitlement, not any semblance of the national interest.

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

The Trump impeachment hearings – not to mention Trump’s conduct as president – illustrate that many Americans have lost their faith in government. Call it what it is – a lack of trust.

A recent PEW Research Study confirms the failure.

Americans, PEW says, report record levels of mistrust in institutions of government, religion, business and media.

From the study: “Two-thirds of adults think Americans have little or no confidence in the federal government. Majorities believe the public’s confidence in the U.S. government and in each other is shrinking, and most believe a shortage of trust in government and other institutions makes it harder to solve some of the nation’s key problems.”

Yet at the same time, the PEW Study says, “the gig and sharing economies have transformed Americans into a people ready and willing to trust complete strangers to drive us around town, share our homes, borrow our cars, and lend us money.”

Fascinating contrast.

To deal with lost of trust issues, Oregon Common Cause formed a committee several months ago to look at trust issues. Could something be done to restore trust in the public consciousness?

Early in its work, the committee heard comments, via teleconference, Walter Schab, the retired director of the Federal Ethics Office – yes, there is one. [In the spirit of full disclosure, I serve on the committee.]

Given Watergate, or, more accurately, the response to it in the immediate aftermath of the crime and attempt to cover it up, Schab said ethical behavior was viewed more than 40 years ago as critical by public, if only because then-President Richard Nixon and his cronies had so violated the public trust.

Now, so many years after Watergate, he said trust in government has receded from the public consciousness, a perception confirmed by the PEW Research Study cited above.

From my post in the cheap seats out West – not to mention in retirement – I posit these thoughts as among reasons for the decline.

• The fact that the Trump approach to government – he lies on every issue and uses government for his own ends, including to benefit his personal bank account – breaches trust. Further, his conduct prompts many citizens to believe every public official lies and that government cannot be trusted to do the public good.

• The fact that Democrats and Republicans cannot seem to agree on anything – even the time of day – breaches trust. There is no middle ground.

• The fact that public officials, including staff members for the president, and, even, members of Congress, conduct themselves with no recognition of the “common good” breaches These officials talk and act with impunity toward the public.

I have three examples here, though there are many more.

Number One: Stephen Miller, the aide to President Trump, who appears function as a person who hates ALL immigrants and sides with white supremacy organizations.

In the Washington Post, columnist Michael Gerson wrote this about Miller:

“All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry.

Number Two: Congressman Jim Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of utter conviction. His version of events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit” in his determination to oppose corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,” the aid was released.

For Jordan and his colleagues on the far right, consistency and coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the demonstrated fidelity to a single man.

Number Three: Lest anyone believe that I pillory only Republicans, consider this. U.S. Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, walks and talks like Trump. She has no time for facts or views other than her own and she spends all of her time making government the answer for every question in life.

If she knew what she was talking about, she would be even more dangerous. She doesn’t, so thinking people can do to Ocasio-Cortez what the same people do with Trump – consider the source, ignore the source and move on.

The trouble, of course, is that trust in government is continuing to recede and, for me, it is not an overstatement to contend that the very future of U.S. democracy is at stake.

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

This post will be a bit like “insider baseball” in that what I write deals with an esoteric subject – the “Associated Press Stylebook” (AP Style).

As a reporter for a daily newspaper many years ago, I followed the stylebook religiously as did all of those who worked with me. Plus, my boss – a friend who eventually became my partner in business – expected rigorous adherence to the AP Stylebook.

It was a bible.

To be sure, there was a rationale for it. It was an attempt to provide workable rules and regulations about newspaper writing – when to use abbreviations, when to use commas, how to refer to persons in positions of authority such as a governor or a president. And, by following the rules, writing would be clearer no matter where it appeared.

All of this has changed, both for me and for the newspaper business in general, the latter owing largely to societal changes.

Several reasons:

First, I don’t work for a newspaper anymore, so I don’t allow the rules to apply to me as they once did.

Second, I have developed my own style— my rules, if you will, which, include:

• Using few abbreviations because, often, abbreviations suggest readers know more than they do.
• Using hyphens because they make reading easier. Consider the word bipartisan. Easier to read if it is like this – bi-partisan.
• Using more commas than some language usage rules advise, including the AP Stylebook. For me, commas add to readability by specifying pauses when they are indicated – pauses that it would be possible to ignore if they weren’t there.

Third, societal norms are changing and that means writing style must change with the times.

Consider this “Letter to Readers” from Theresa Bottomly, editor of the Oregonian newspaper, which appeared a week or so ago. Here are excerpts of what she wrote:

“A pronoun in an article last week left some readers confused and others annoyed.

“Jayati Ramakrishnan, general assignment reporter, turned in a routine about the resignation of an Oregon school board member. She wrote: ‘A member of the Corvallis School Board will resign Tuesday, after they tweeted an anti-police message that the rest of the board publicly disavowed.’

“Ramakrishnan explained later in the article that the subject, Brandy Fortson, identifies as non-binary – in other words, neither male nor female. Ramakrishnan used the pronoun ‘they’ as singular, abiding by Fortson’s preference.”

Bottomly went on to report that at least one reader was confused and letters to the editor over recent days indicate that more readers than one were confused, some strong adherents to “rules of grammar.”

I was one who was confused until I read Bottomly’s letter, then understood the “binary” issue today, far different than would have the case years ago.

Bottomly defended the reporter’s usage.

“The reporter’s usage is correct. The Oregonian/OregonLive, like most newspapers, follows Associated Press style. In 2017, the AP changed its guidance to allow “they” as singular. The entry reads, in part:

“’They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy.’”

Okay. An understandable change, especially given the reality of today’s gender issues. But, beyond gender, I was surprised to learn that the Stylebook recognizes the sometimes awkward or clumsy nature of singular pronouns, even though singular may be grammatically accurate.

The use of a plural pronoun to modify a singular subject always has bothered me. It was as if the writer didn’t want to pay attention to solid, accurate writing skills.

Let me provide one example.  Here is a sentence: “The committee did their work in private.” Proper usage would be, “The committee did its work in private.” Or, if that proper usage sounded tinny to the ear, use this: “Committee members did their work in private.”

Adding the word “members” allows the sentence, using a plural pronoun with a plural noun, to adhere to rules of grammar, as well as to sound better.

Bottomly’s contends that society is changing and language has to change with it.

Which means an old guy – me – also has to change. As does the AP Stylebook.

Count me as a reluctant changer, not to mention that someone who has time to right this post, has too much time on his (not their) hands.

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

Back a few years ago, when Senator Peter Courtney, D-Salem, proposed creating annual legislative sessions, I was one of the detractors.

I had to express my position at the polls because the change required a vote to amend the Oregon Constitution, which stipulated annual legislative sessions.

Unhappily for me, more voters in Oregon supported the change than opposed it.

I thought then – and still do now – that annual sessions were only one step toward a professional legislature, one that would meet continually.

Goodbye to the notion of a “citizen legislature” that had been a factor in Oregon politics for many years as the every-other-year gathering in Salem allowed legislators to keep non-legislative jobs if they chose to do so.

Was my negative premonition right?

Hard to tell.

But as we approach the annual session in early 2020, we are seeing the normal controversy about the approach – controversy that could have been avoided if we stuck to the every-other-year approach.

Today, confusion reigns over what such a short session should consider, given that it only meets for about 30 days at the Capitol in Salem.

In retirement, to state what could be obvious, I don’t have as much personal knowledge about legislative issues as I did as a full-time lobbyist. But, one issue ranks as a major, divisive one that reflects typical differences between Democrats and Republicans as they return to Salem — “cap and trade climate change” legislation.

Democrats appear to want to consider the issue. Republicans say no.

It was the issue that triggered the unseemly end of the long 2019 legislative session in Salem. – unseemly in the sense that Republicans in the Senate were so incensed by the issue that they staged a walk-out to avoid providing a quorum which was needed to close down the session.

Walk-outs are legal and have been used by both Republicans and
Democrats over the years. But the look of walking out does not reflect well on the legislative process.

Here is what my colleagues at my old lobbying firm, CFM Strategic Communications, wrote about the status of the “cap and trade” in their “Insider” blog:

“…news of a cap-and-trade revival in the 2020 Oregon legislative session unleashed familiar partisan passions. Democrats said action was overdue. Republicans said here we go again. Legislation in 2020 would be the third try.

“Representatives Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, and Karin Power, D-Milwaukie, are circulating the Oregon Resilient Communities Act (ORCA), which, according to reports, maintains the basic structure of House Bill 2020, which failed when three Senate Democrats sided with Republicans in blocking passage.

“Marsh and Power are proposing significant changes, including giving fuel importers a two-year pass on complying with cap-and-trade provisions. That modification is designed to negate, or at least delay, an immediate impact on gas prices at the pump – one of the more effective arguments of opponents.

“The Marsh-Power proposal would give more of the money generated from the cap-and-trade regime to cities and counties without competitive grants.

“Brown (Governor Kate Brown) also is exploring concessions. Instead of delaying inclusion of fuels under cap-and-trade, Brown would divide the state into three regions with staggered start dates. The Portland region would go first, other urban centers would be next, and rural areas would come under regulation at an unspecified date.

“OPB’s Dirk VanderHart reports Nik Blosser, Brown’s chief of staff, has been meeting with cap-and-trade skeptics.

“VanderHart notes that Senators Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, and Fred Girod, R-Stayton, are cooking up their own proposal. Both were ‘no’ votes on HB 2020.

“Senate Republicans, who staged a multi-day walkout near the end of the 2019 session, aren’t ruling out a similar tactic in 2020. ‘The short session was created to balance the budget and to do some fixes, said Senate Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger Jr., R-Grants Pass. ‘Cap-and-trade is an all-encompassing policy that dramatically affects how we will be conducting business. That simply should not happen during the short session.’

“Environmental groups have been agitating for another cap-and-trade try in 2020. They say meaningful climate change legislation can’t wait.

“Marsh, Power, Brown, Roblan and Girod all describe their legislative ideas as preliminary, which raises a tactical question of whether there is time and willingness to craft consensus legislation that can pass the narrow procedural windows of a short 35-day session.

“If a bill doesn’t clear a committee in its house of origin by the end of the first week of the session, it is effectively dead. Major legislation may be able to leapfrog deadlines, but it also could be snagged by a lack of time to air a proposal that could still be forming more or less on the run.”

There, the last paragraph contains a critical point. There is not enough time in a short, 30-day legislative session to debate complicated and controversial public policy issues – and cap and trade is clearly both complicated and controversial.

So, this former lobbyist says legislative leaders should stay with the original focus of short sessions – fixes to bills that passed earlier with innocent errors, updates on state budget issues, and hearings designed to provide information, but not resolve, major public policy proposals, thus saving resolution to the next “regular session.”

But, will thoughts from a retired lobbyists matter these days? Probably not.

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

Some points I have made in this blog could prompt folks to believe I am against government.

No.

I support government.

Except that I want government to operate more effectively for the benefit of citizens, not for its own growth ends.

That applies to all government sectors, including the Executive and Legislative Branches, especially in Oregon where I have related to government for more than 40 years, as follows:

+ First, just out of college, I worked for a daily newspaper in Astoria, Oregon where my beat focused on city government, as well as another government agency, the Port of Astoria.

+ Second, I worked for about 15 years directly for government – in Portland, in Washington, D.C., and in Salem.

+ Third, I worked for almost 25 years a lobbyist in Salem, which meant that I related to legislators, to various governors and to other statewide elected officials, and to appointed officials in Executive Branch agencies.

Those experiences gave me a lot of time to develop perceptions about government — perceptions that, I believe, go beyond just the “for” and “against” perspectives of many of those running for office today, or, for that matter, to many of those who compete for high-level government appointments.

I have come to the following conclusions about government:

• I believe those who work for government should operate with the commitment that they have to earn their way every day. By that, I mean displaying a commitment to those they serve. One way to do this is to assume that, as a government employee, you have to earn revenue every day to support your operations – which is exactly what happens to those in the private sector who have to earn their way every day.
• I believe those who work for government should always do what they think is right, not necessarily what they believe could be politically popular.
• But, before doing what is right, I believe those who work for government should consider the views of others BEFORE resolving their own positions.
• This rests on my belief that those who work government should function as part of a team, given the reality that nothing good happens due to the individual work of one member of the team. It’s always the work of a team.
• I believe those who work for government should recognize the absolute importance of ethics, honesty and integrity as part of earning the public’s trust.
• I believe those who work government should exemplify the “your word is your bond ethic.”   Being true to your word (and, by the way, if you have to change your mind, no problem – just be clear and vocal about the need to do so) is one way to earn and retain credibility, which, if lost, will compromise any operation.
• I believe that, in the spirit of the phrase “what you see depends on where you sit,” those who work for government should recognize that that they don’t always have the right or the only answer to government action. Various viewpoints inform government processes.
• I believe most solutions to pressing public policy issues lie in the “smart middle ground,” not the extremes of either the left or the right. Government officials should recognize this reality.

If these commitments were lived out every day by those who work for government, government would earn the trust and support of more Americans than is currently the case.

And, we wouldn’t be experiencing the poles of the far left and the far right, which leave no apparent room for civility and centrist citizenship.

NOTE: Back to business today after a great Thanksgiving Day with family and friends yesterday. Still, I hope every day would be one in which we would give thanks for various blessings even as we watch our current political system careen from one issue to another.

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

The Wall Street Journal – and other news outlets – reported a fact that ought to give left-leaning, tax-everybody liberals in California second thoughts.

The brokerage firm, Charles Schwab, decided to merge with TD Ameritrade and move the joint firm’s headquarters from California to Texas.

One reason?

High taxes.

Here’s what Wall Street Journal editorial writers said:

“Schwab will pay much lower taxes in Texas. The Lone Star State imposes a 0.75 per cent franchise tax on business margins (total revenue minus compensation), which is substantially less than the corporate tax rates in California (8.84 par cent) and Nebraska (7.81 per cent), where TD Ameritrade is currently headquartered. The city of San Francisco also imposes a 0.38 percent payroll tax and a 0.6 per cent gross receipts tax on financial service companies.

“Texas has no individual income tax, while the top rate on income and capital gains in California is 13.3 per cent, and the Lone Star State’s housing and energy costs are substantially lower. The average monthly rent in San Francisco is $3,870 compared to $1,200 in Dallas. Schwab workers and executives can have a higher standard of living, and more after-tax income, at the same salaries.”

What California liberals fail to realize is that, as they impose tax after tax to grow government, they sometimes achieve the opposite. Businesses that pay taxes and hire staff who pay taxes have options to leave in the face of those high taxes.

So, liberals lose.

They lose the revenue that would result from a lower, fairer tax structure.

It is a point I hope government officials in Oregon will consider, even as more taxes are imposed on businesses in a structure developed by the Democrats who are in charge across-the-board here.

Put another way, I hope what I call “the jobs issue” would take a high profile.

Government – both the Executive and Legislative Branches – should place a high value on jobs, either retaining them when they exist, or creating environments to help business establish new ones.

Two reasons.

First, those who hold jobs pay taxes to help fund government – and that should matter to all political figures on both the left and the right.

Second, for me, there is no better social program than for citizens to hold jobs and gain the benefits that result – money to fund their own existence and maintain their families without having to resort to government programs. Those programs that clearly have their place for individuals and families that are unable to find and keep work.

The lessons of Charles Schwab’s flight to Texas ought to carry lessons for California – and, by extension, for Oregon.

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

This is a good day to take a respite from such issues as the impeachment process in Washington, D.C. – or other news with negative implications — and reflect on day when we should focus on being thankful.

For me, a good way to do this is to reprint here a piece by James Freeman that appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) this morning. He chronicled stories of Americans volunteering at home and serving abroad in what he wrote should be a “day of thanks and charity.”

Here is Freeman’s column.

*******

Brad Harris and Celedonia Hunt at the annual Thanksgiving food distribution at the Salvation Army Corps Community Center in Pottsville, Pa. on Monday. Photo: Jacqueline Dormer/Associated Press

It’s the season for counting blessings, and one naturally thinks of the enormous sacrifices made on our behalf by Americans overseas. It’s also inspiring to see simple acts of charity occurring at home.

Dave Sutor reporrts in Johnstown, Pennsylvania’s Tribune-Democrat:

Two hundred guests came together to share a meal, camaraderie and holiday cheer during the Salvation Army’s Thanksgiving dinner on Tuesday.

Individuals in need of something to eat or just looking to spend time with some folks were welcomed, no questions asked… Roberta Kear, a military widow who recently moved to the area, spent time preparing plates of food in the kitchen.

This was her first year helping out at the dinner.

“My daughter is going to her boyfriend’s for Thanksgiving, so I thought I’d give my hand at volunteering,” Kear said. “I’m really enjoying myself.”

Similar events are taking place across the land. In Sherman, Texas, Michael Hutchins reports for the Herald Democrat that volunteers in the annual Bob Skaggs Memorial Food Drive are hoping to beat last year’s total by collecting 50 tons of donations.

The effort is named for a longtime participant “who would often save his vacation time in order to volunteer at the annual fundraiser.” Hutchins adds: “Major Tex Ellis with the Salvation Army of Grayson County said the food raised last year helped stock the organization’s food pantry for nearly a full year. This equated to nearly 20,000 meals and food gifts for nearly 9,000 families.”

This week Thanksgiving meals for the elderly will be delivered via a Meals on Wheels program. For readers in the area along the Red River known as “Texoma,” Hutchins has news you can use:

Ellis said the Salvation Army just got the final turkeys it needed for the meal, but is still in need of deserts, bread and most importantly volunteers to help prepare the food.

Meanwhile Jenny Berg reports in Minnesota’s St. Cloud Times that no registration is required and all will be welcome at a Thursday noon feast at the St. Cloud Salvation Army building. Berg reports that Kathy Finlayson has been helping prepare the Thanksgiving meal for about a decade and her husband volunteers to pour the coffee. Berg reports:

… When asked if the sweet potatoes will be adorned with brown sugar and marshmallows, Finlayson replied, “Oh yeah, we’re going to do it up right.”

… In addition to donations of ice cream and pumpkin pies from area businesses, the shelter received enough turkeys just in the nick of time.

“We had two turkeys about a week ago. We put a message on Facebook and now we’ve got 16,” Salvation Army Major Mike Parker said. “So we have plenty of turkeys for Thanksgiving.”

Plenty more will be needed further west. A staff report in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser notes:

The Salvation Army will be providing about 5,000 Thanksgiving meals through annual meal events at locations statewide, including the 49th annual Thanksgiving Meal at Blaisdell Center Exhibition Hall in Honolulu for approximately 2,000 guests.

Back in Minnesota, Colleen Harrison reports in the Albert Lea Tribune on two friends who began volunteering through their church and have become Salvation Army regulars. Marilyn Zimmerman and Grace Bos, both of Hollandale, show up each week to help with food preparation, service and clean-up. Harrison reports:

“It’s nice to see the regulars at Thanksgiving,” Bos said… “We’ve been so blessed to be able to give back and help somebody. After all, we’re supposed to love one another.”

Speaking this week to another Army—and also to members of the Navy, Air Force, and Marines—Vice President Mike Pence told assembled U.S. troops at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq:

In gatherings large and small all across the country, I know there’ll be a place saved at Thanksgiving tables for each and every one of you. But I also know that millions of Americans, when they pause to reflect on what they’re thankful for, they’re going to breathe a prayer of thanksgiving for each and every one of you and all of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed around the world. I promise you that.

The American people know that while you come from the rest of us, you’re the best of us. You volunteered to serve. And every American is proud of you and more thankful for your service than you’ll ever know.

… some people spend their entire lives wondering if they’ve made a difference. But you’ll never have that problem.

*********

So, using this reprint as a prod, I hope you spend your day being thankful – and that this day spurs you to think of Thanksgiving every day.

Further, as the WSJ piece by James Freeman reminds us, be thankful today, but remember and act on behalf of those who have special needs, such as clothing, shelter and friendship.

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

On the eve of one of my favorite holidays of the year – Thanksgiving – I open this department, one of three where I serve as director.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Just Saying.

Each has a place in today’s political scene. While I am thankful to be an American, I fear for the future of the country under the current president, Donald Trump. The fact is that, despite the impeachment process (which he is likely to survive), he could win a second term in 2020.

Perish the thought.

There are a number of competitors for the good quotes this time around. Here are three.

From columnist Dana Milbank in the Washington Post: “On Fox News on Sunday, Energy Secretary Rick Perry reported that he told Trump he was God’s choice: ‘I said, Mr. President, I know there are people that say you said you were the chosen one and I said, ‘You were.’”

“Who but a demon could vote to impeach God’s chosen one?

“The surest way to make a climate-change denier even more aggressive in his denial is to present him with more science. “Likewise, presenting Trump supporters with evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing only makes them more defiant of the demons doing the presenting. Scream about the facts and the damage done by ignoring them until you’re blue in the face (I do), but it makes no difference.”

Comment: To compare Trump to and with God is sacrilege. They don’t belong in same breath. So, huge criticisms for Perry who appears to be coddling Trump as a way to preserve his Cabinet position.

From Washington Post editorial writers: “As Post columnist Michael Gerson colorfully put it, “If you are a national security official working for a malignant, infantile, impulsive, authoritarian wannabe, you need to stay in your job as long as you can to mitigate whatever damage you can — before the mad king tires of your sanity and fires you.”

Comment: To revert to the first good quote worth remembering, this sounds like exactly like Perry. “If you are a national security official working for a malignant, infantile, impulsive, authoritarian winnable,” you want to stay in your job. Isn’t there a better objective than to stay around in a corrupt administration?

Plus, I say it’s time to be rid of all those who function as acolytes to and for Trump.

From columnist Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “Trump’s complicity in spreading the Russian version of these events — and in disputing the one conspiracy theory that turns out to be valid — is partially understandable and partially mysterious.

“The president clearly views any admission that Russia aided his 2016 victory as a concession of electoral illegitimacy. But this comes in the context of a broader deference to Russian influence in Ukraine, the rest of Europe and the Middle East that indicates some deeper motive.

“Through all Trump’s erratic policy wanderings, submissiveness to Russian aims has remained his North Star.

“Is this explainable by sympathy for Putin’s ruling style, or secret admiration for a system in which journalists fear for their lives? Is it just a function of Trump’s general determination to free the world from U.S. influence? Or is some private interest at work?”

Comment: In a column that appeared under a headline calling into the question “the galling complicity of Republicans in standing by Trump,” Gerson nails it.

He writes: “Through all Trump’s erratic policy wanderings, submissiveness to Russian aims has remained his North Star.”

My view is that it is high time for those who say they lead America to recognize the threat from Russia and quit peddling falsehoods about Russian intentions. Trump may like despots like Putin, but his – Trump’s — acquiescence confounds America’s interests.

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

Does anyone care if newspapers go under these days? Especially in a time marked by the prevalence – if not, on occasion, the perversion – of social media.

As newspapers die around the country, some might not care.

I care.

If only because I started my professional career as a daily newspaper reporter and developed a love for the media.

A couple of sobering perspectives caught my attention this week.

One was from Les Zaitz, a former Oregonian newspaper reporter who also, at one time in the past, ran the Keizer, Oregon Times. He now serves as editor and CEO of the Salem Reporter, a journalistic endeavor that aims, on-line, to replace the nearly defunct Salem Statesman-Journal.

Here’s what Zaitz wrote:

“Last week was not a good week to keep up with news about my profession. Headline after headline, tweet after tweet, told the same story: Local news is in trouble.

“More layoffs. More consolidations. Less news.

“Most of the news involves major news chains. I doubt many local readers are too worried that corporate owners aren’t getting as fat as they once did. And with the explosion of online sources, the loss of a news outlet or two might not seem like much.

“But it does matter, and significantly.”

Here’s why, according to Zaitz:

“As local journalism declines, government officials conduct themselves with less integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness and corporate malfeasance goes unchecked. With the loss of local news, citizens are: Less likely to vote, less politically informed, and less likely to run for office.”

To buttress Zaitz point, I have been struck over the years about how little attention Salem’s remaining newspaper, the Statesman-Journal, has paid to state government which, until the newspaper moved its offices to the south, was just about five blocks from the Capitol.

Easy to walk down the street and monitor representative government in action. But, over the years, the Statesman-Journal paid less and less attention to government news, which, in many ways, gave rise to the still-new Salem Reporter.

Margaret Sullivan, media columnist for the Washington Post, caught my attention with a story she wrote on the decline of newspapers under this headline:

The death knell for local newspapers? It’s perilously close.

Sullivan said local newspaper survival “is of crucial importance to the future of the nation” because, she contended, citizens need to have sources of independent analysis of issues that matter to them where they live.

She reported new facts.

• Gannett and GateHouse, two major newspaper chains, finished their planned merger, and the combined company intends to cut the combined budget by at least $300 million. That will come on top of unending job losses over the past decade in the affected newsrooms of more than 500 papers.
• The McClatchy newspaper group — parent of the Herald and the Charlotte Observer — is so weighed down by debt and pension obligations that analysts think it is teetering on bankruptcy.
• And the storied Chicago Tribune on has fallen under the influence of Alden Global Capital, a hedge fund that has strip-mined the other important papers it owns, including the Denver Post and the Mercury News in San Jose.

What happened to newspapers? Well, several developments combined to make staying alive difficult.

First, newspaper advertising began plummeting about a decade ago, given the rise of social media sites. Today, some newspapers try to re-generate some of the lost revenue by hosting advertising on their on-line sites, thought that pales in comparison to what they could generate in newspapers delivered to front doors.

Second, the impact of social media had its own, huge adverse affect on newspapers. New generations if citizens were taught to depend on on-line sites, not newspapers. And, if truth be told, even older folks like me often go on-line to read newspapers I used to hold in my ink-stained hands.

And, third, a number of reporters became their own stories rather than reporting news for citizen. In that way, they sucked the life out of dispassionate, fact-based reporting – and that, alone for me, raised questions about the efficacy of journalism.

Can anything be down about this foreboding trend – the loss of true journalism?

Only time will tell, though the future is not bright.

For me, I will continue every day to read venerable, journalistic products such as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times. By sifting and sorting through good writing in those newspapers, I will be able to continue to hone my own perceptions.

But note that each of these newspapers is a national publication, which, to state the obvious, does not focus on local news where I live in Salem, Oregon, or in Oregon as a state, for that matter.

So it is that I wish success for purposeful local journalism commitments such as that illustrated by the Salem Reporter. I subscribe and hope that others will, too.