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 more I know about Elizabeth Warren and her proposed policies, the less I like them.

And I worry that, if she wins the Democrat primary to run for president, she will have the effect of boosting election prospects for Donald Trump. That is, of course, if Trump survives impeachment.

Take from the “rich” and give it to others. That’s exactly what Warren wants to do. Which continues to recall the good quote, which is that “it’s always easy to spend other people’s money.”

Warren envisions big government being responsible for many areas of our lives. No thought of individual responsibility, along with increased commitments from the private sector, including those with money, to increase charitable contributions.

[Is there a role for government in all of this? Absolutely. I am not part of the Republican “we hate government” notion; I just think government and personal responsibility should work together rather than being some kind of either-or deal.]

Witness the following concerns about Warren as expressed by commentators following her on the campaign trail – and, if you notice that many of the quotes below are from the Wall Street Journal, I plead guilty without apology:

* From Andy Kessler in the Wall Street Journal: “Warren told the New England Council last year, ‘I am a capitalist to my bones.’ She then told CNBC, ‘I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets.’ It was almost as if she didn’t believe it herself. Then came the caveat: ‘But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all, it’s about the powerful get all of it. And that’s what’s gone wrong in America.’ She clearly doesn’t understand capitalism.”

* From Wall Street Journal editorial writers mimicking concerns by many others after Warren released her fanciful Medicare for All funding plan: “Now we know why Warren took so long to release the financing details of her Medicare-for-All plan. The 20 pages of explanation she released reveal that she is counting on ideas for cost-savings and new revenue that are a fiscal and health-care fantasy.

“You certainly can’t criticize the new Iowa Democrat caucus front-runner for lack of ambition. Despite criticism from fellow Democrats, she is sticking to her plan for a government takeover of American health care, including the elimination of private insurance that 170 million or so Americans now have. She continues to claim that this will cost ‘not one penny in middle-class tax increases.’ She walks on water too.”

* From William Galston in the Wall Street Journal as he accused Warren of committing political hara-kari: “Warren should be commended for the wealth of detail in her plan, which allows voters to judge it for themselves. This said, she may well have penned the longest suicide note in recorded history. There’s no reason for the entire Democrat Party to sign it.”

* From a letter to the editor writer in the Washington Post: “The insidious thing about Warren’s plan to dismantle American free enterprise is that she aims to sneak it past moderates by calling it ‘accountable capitalism,’ as if it is some mild tweaking of the capitalist system that has served the nation so well and has ensured freedom of the individual as no other system can.

“Warren proposes to make the market work.  In a free-market system, no one makes the market work. Thousands of individuals make choices based on the market conditions they face, and the outcome is the consensus view. This brilliant and efficient synthesis of opinions and desires of the many disappears in a market that is meddled with for the purpose of making it work. Warren is free to flog her government takeover, but she doesn’t get to sell it as a variety of capitalism. It is nothing of the kind.”

* From Daniel Henninger, deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal: “So this is what nationalized health care looks like. We knew that half the U.S. population—some 177 million people—would lose their private insurance. Now we find out that federalized health care would cost nearly $52 trillion over 10 years, paid for by myriad bureaucratic “savings” and new taxes. There’d be a new Employer Medicare Contribution (i.e., a tax) plus an annual tax on the unrealized capital gains of the “wealthiest,” plus a threat to abrogate drug companies’ patents if they don’t comply with federal price controls. Doctors, some warned, might leave the profession.

“Warren has let the cat out of the bag: Progressivism is basically undeliverable pie in the sky. Indeed, by stringing together in detail so many progressive wish lists, she has made clear how difficult, if not impossible, it is for them to survive the most basic tests of political or fiscal plausibility.”

So, I agree, Warren has gone over-board. Initially, I was inclined to give her at least some credit for announcing how she would fund her “more government” goals on health care.

Now, I say rubbish. Her plans don’t hold up under scrutiny and also verify the left’s intent to have government control every area of private lives from health care, to education, to paying for higher education, to….you name it.

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 post for those among us who, (a) like golf, and (b) love to be involved in the often-arcane subject of golf rules.

The question:

Is it ever legal, under the official rules of golf, to take a “mulligan,” the word in golf that refers to taking a stroke again?

Most of us involved in golf would answer no.

But, the answer is yes.

The issue appeared under this headline in a recent Golf Digest magazine:

Pro receiving penalty for NOT taking mulligan is the weirdest rules controversy of 2019

The article went on:

“Even by their byzantine and bizarre nature, it’s been a rough go for the Rules of Golf in 2019. Still, this story involving Jesper Parnevik and a mulligan not taken puts other oddities to shame.

“During the final round of the SAS Championship, Parnevik missed a short bogey putt that horseshoed around the hole and ultimately hit his foot. From there, Parnevik tapped in what remained for his double.

“Only to find out that he really carded a triple.”

Under golf rules, it turns out that Parnevik was entitled – actually required — to replay the original bogey putt under Rule 11.1.b, Exception 2. Here’s the terminology:

“When Ball Played from Putting Green Accidentally Hits Any Person, Animal or Movable Obstruction (Including Another Ball in Motion) on Putting Green: The stroke does not count and the original ball or another ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated).”

Because Parnevik failed to follow the rule, he incurred a two-stroke penalty.

Brian Claar, a former PGA tour player, was on the site as a rules official. When he saw what happened, he was confused.

“They said ‘did that really happen out there’?,” Claar told Reuters. “He actually gets a mulligan. It’s strange you get a do-over because there’s (generally) no such thing as a do-over unless you hit a power line or something. He should have put it back and tried again.”

The situation was so rare, according to Claar, that the United States Golf Association couldn’t recall the incident happening in a professional tournament.

The snafu did not decide the event. Parnevik finished 22 strokes behind the winner, Jerry Kelly.

And, upon reflection, I thought of another occasion when a mulligan is allowed under the rules of golf. It is when a golf shot hits a power line over or near a hole on a course. In that case, the player gets a do-over – automatically.

This has happened recently in two cases in junior tournaments run by the Oregon Golf Association where I have been a volunteer. At Mallard Creek in Lebanon and Rock Creek in Beaverton, power lines intrude on the course on a few holes.

Instructions I provide to players on the first tee instructs them that, if their ball hits a power line, play again.  No choice. No penalty. Take a mulligan.

Finally, a friend of mine pointed out this week that the official golf rules document does not use the word “mulligan.” True. Good catch.

But, still, the point is that, in the two situations outlined above, the players gets to play another stroke, without penalty, which is unusual in golf. And, most of us, if asked a question this subject – as remote as such a question would be – would say “no.”

“Yes” is the correct answer.

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 question in the headline was part of a thought-provoking piece this morning in the Wall Street Journal.

It appeared under this headline:

Universal Health Care Makes Politics Sick

Why would a president or prime minister want to be responsible for every single patient in the country?

From London, the author, Joseph Sternberg, asked probing questions about universal health care, often called a “single payer system” in this country – or going back a few years, ObamaCare. And, often in Europe, called “National Health Service.”

Sternberg started his piece this way:

“Elizabeth Warren is making socialized health care her signature campaign issue. Were British politicians not embroiled in their own election season, they might be weighing in with a question about this: Is she insane?”

Britain’s political class, Sternberg writes, knows all too well the perils of a state-run health system, indicated by:

• Cancer survival rates that lag far behind other European countries with more market-oriented health systems
• Winter crises
• Shortages of doctors and nurses
• Rationing
• Interminable waiting times

More from Sternberg: “It’s worth contemplating the ways state-run health care strangles a country’s politics like a python suffocating a pig. As soon as the government takes on full responsibility for health-care provision, health-care provision becomes political. And given the importance voters quite naturally place on their own health, health-care politics becomes the worst sort: Emotionally fraught and inescapable.

“Consider three of the myriad ways this distorts British political life.

• First, no amount of money is ever enough.
• Second, when the government runs health care, every political question boils down to health care.
• Third, and worst of all for a politician, to be the leader of a government that manages health care is to be personally responsible for every sick patient in the country. Every single one.

All of this called to mind for me a seminal issue in my past as a health care lobbyist in Oregon.

Early in my lobbying career, I was heavily involved in what came to be called “the Oregon Health Plan, a version of Medicaid in Oregon. It was an effort by the then-governor, John Kitzhaber, who had experience as an emergency room doctor, to put medical treatments under Medicaid into a specific order of priority based on their treatment efficacy.

Then, the government would fund as much of the list as possible, but not all of it if money was short.

Sounded good.

Didn’t turn out that way.

It led to complaints about whether it was appropriate to ration what should be a right – health care.

Early on, beyond all of the policy rhetoric, a classic case emerged. A young boy served by the Oregon Health Plan needed a heart transplant to survive. The treatment was not high enough on the priority to be covered, so it was turned down.

That produced a huge outcry over how the State of Oregon could let a young boy die.

The Legislature got involved and – no surprise here – the heart transplant was funded beyond the regular Oregon Health Plan budget.

Had I been a legislator at the time I might have voted for the “extra” money, too, given the incredibly serious status of the issue – literally a life or death. Putting treatments in priority order made sense in theory, but not so much in practice.

Now, to be sure, this was a story about one aspect of health care in Oregon– services for low-income citizens under Medicaid, not services for the entire population. Still, it indicates the reality that, under a single payer system, government would be responsible for all patients, including the sick ones.

Sternberg contends: “Nationalizing health care nationalizes bad outcomes, in every sense. Botched care—deadly cancers gone undetected, births gone wrong, autistic patients fatally mistreated—becomes national news because health care is national policy. Voters then expect to hold their politicians accountable for their doctors’ mistakes. Imagine one big rolling VA scandal coupled with the politicization of every instance of medical malpractice, and you get a flavor of what it’s like to read a British newspaper every morning.”

Is that something America wants?

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and others would say yes. Others, including those on the political right, would say no.

A better approach that nationalized health care, I contend, would be for a system to be developed that takes the best of Europe and the best of the U.S., merge those credentials, and offer quality health care options, including through smart private health care operatives, such as the hospitals and health insurers I represented for 25 years.

Sternberg gets the last word: “Seven decades into their own misadventure in socialized medicine, British pols have little choice but to labor in this salt mine. Why any American politician would volunteer to do so is a mystery for the ages.”

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.

Tom Brokaw made a name for himself in the world of television journalism, becoming a familiar figure in households around the country.

Today, in retirement, in addition to a few guest gigs as a political commentator, he writes books, the latest of which, The Fall of Richard Nixon, focuses on Nixon, recalls a terrible time in our history, but also conjures up images of Donald Trump.

Nixon created his own failure. Trump appears to be doing the same.

Here’s what Pulitzer prize-winning author Jon Meacham said about Brokaw’s book:

“A divided nation. A deeply controversial president. Powerful passions. No, it’s not what you’re thinking, but Tom Brokaw knows that the past can be prologue, and he’s given us an absorbing and illuminating firsthand account of how Richard Nixon fell from power. Part history, part memoir, Brokaw’s book reminds us of the importance of journalism, the significance of facts, and inherent complexity of power in America.”

As I read the book, I thought it should be required reading for all of those who work for Trump and appear to do his bidding without question, even at risk of their own careers, if not their own freedom.

That’s what happened to Nixon acolytes such as Bob Haldeman, John Erlichman, John Dean, Chuck Colson and many others. They not only cashed in their reputations, they spent time in jail.

Having Brokaw write about the Nixon-Watergate era recalls my own memories of the period, which represented a huge downfall of government, one from which we recovered, at least for a time. But we may be reliving the same tension as Watergate.

For me, the book also underscored a point Meacham made in his quote – “the importance of journalism and the significance of facts.” In some quarters, both appear to be missing today.

Consider two selected quotes from Brokaw’s book, both of which foretell, in fascinating detail, what could be happening to Trump.

From page 15: “By August 1973, several of Nixon’s top advisors had lied their way into certain jail time. The bungled Watergate break-in was symptomatic of a larger criminal conspiracy run out of the White House, the aim of which was to crush political enemies.

“The fabric of the presidency was unraveling and constitutional law was under assault. That we’ve known for some time. What is worth examining again, in light of today’s political climate, are the day-to-day developments, decisions and delusions, as well as the actions of the president, that led to the historic disgrace of the man who had come so far and fell so hard.”

Comment: Sound familiar? I wonder if current aides to President Trump, in the solitude of their evenings off the job, contemplate whether they are serving a president who has gone so far off the rails as to be unrecognizable – and if their own reputation will end up in tatters.

From page 125: In a State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress – “We meet here tonight at a time of great challenges and great opportunities for America. He expressed hope that America’s longest war – Vietnam – would be followed by America’s longest peace. That received a rousing reception. He then introduced a ‘personal word with regard to – and here his tone took a dismissive tone – the ‘so-called Watergate affair.’”

“The president challenged his adversaries. I believe the time has come to bring that investigation and other investigations of this matter to an end. One year of Watergate is enough.

“That challenge brought a booming round of applause from the Republican side of the House chamber. It was also a preview of the president’s strategy, so familiar to his political opponents. The best defense for Nixon was always a strong offense…One could imagine him saying to himself at night with his yellow pad in his lap as he sat in a favorite easy chair – You are the president, goddammit, act like it.”

Comment: Again, sounds like Trump today, except that he has his Twitter machine, not a yellow pad, on his lap.

I continue to believe we have it in our power as citizens to expect honesty, ethics and integrity from those who lead our democracy.  We don’t get that from Trump.  And we don’t get that from those on the far left.  Where are the centrists?

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.

Did presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren commit hara-kiri when she announced her plan for government to take ALL of health care?

Perhaps.

There is no big surprise here, but the more we know about Warren’s plan have the government make all of your health care decisions, the more it fails to impress.

The senator running for president on the Democrat side came under substantial pressure to say how she would fund here support for Medicare for All, as the Democrats like to call it. To appease those critics, she announced a plan.

William Galston, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, was among those who pilloried Warren’s effort, using colorful imagery-laden language, including the hara-kiri word above, the description of an old Japanese form of suicide.

“Warren should be commended for the wealth of detail in her plan, which allows voters to judge it for themselves. This said, she may well have penned the longest suicide note in recorded history. There’s no reason for the entire Democratic Party to sign it.”

The headline for Galston’s piece used the Japanese suicide phrase “Health Care Hara-Kiri” to describe Warren’s commitment.

“Is the country ready for the ‘big structural change’ that Warren is promising?,” Galston asked. “Would the Democrat Party be wise to bet that it is? The answers to these questions will shape the outcome of the nomination contest and the general election.”

More from Galstson.

“Since Warren made her plan public, analysts have sharpened their pencils and gone to work. Many believe she has underestimated the cost of her program and overestimated the revenue from the measures she would use to pay for it. But on one point there can be no doubt: Medicare for All would enroll everyone in the same government plan, whatever their preferences.

“Let’s be clear about what this would mean. According to the most recent government statistics, more than 218 million Americans now participate in private health care plans, of which 179 million are employment-based. As critics of Medicare for All have pointed out, many of these plans are the result of tough negotiations in which employees have compromised on wages and working conditions in return for more-generous health-insurance benefits. These workers would be asked to surrender their hard-won gains in return for a promise that they will prefer what they get from the government instead.”

So, like many of those on the far left, Warren wants bureaucrats to be in charge of your and my health care.

I say no.

Take ObamaCare – I had my own questions when it was first started several years ago – and make it better. Capitalize on the fact that it has had the effect of reducing the number of uninsured in this country.

To use another image, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Doing the right thing will take a concerted on the part of both Democrats and Republicans. The Ds have to back away from their commitment to government-run stuff. The Rs have to find a way to say something other than “no.”

Meanwhile, Warren continues to insist that, if Democrats are willing to put up a fight, they can get Medicare for All done.

“As I recall,” Galston writes, “the Light Brigade was full of fight, but its charge into enemy lines still yielded an epic catastrophe.

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.

In a post earlier this week, I outlined my mixed emotions about Elizabeth Warren who is at or near the top of the list of Democrats running for president.

She made headlines late last week by unveiling her plan to fund the Medicare for All plan that she touts as a priority for Americans.

Still, while I give her credit for going on record with the numbers, the problem is two-fold – first, they don’t hold up well under scrutiny, and, second, they impose huge tax increases on many Americans who may not favor an approach where federal bureaucrats would make their health care decisions.

If Warren wins the Democrat primary, my fear is that Donald Trump, even with all his bombast and buffoonery, often, will take her apart on the campaign trail.

The fact is that a Warren win for the Ds could very well mean Trump gets re-elected.

That was a point made very well this morning by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, who with good words and trenchant analysis, often gets to the heart of issues facing this country.

Witness what he wrote under this headline, “Warren’s climb in the polls should horrify Democrats.”

“With the fact of serious ethical breaches by President Trump all but demonstrated, most elected Republicans do not seem to be struggling with their consciences over impeachment. They wrestle, instead, with a more practical challenge: Continuing to support a corrupt man without appearing too corrupt themselves.

“This is not the kind of political objective that encourages idealism and attracts young people to public service. Instead, the torch has been passed to a new generation of shills and rationalizers, frightened of their own mercurial leader, intimidated by an angry base and dedicated to maintaining the blessing of presidential fundraising for their campaigns.

“The main occupation of the GOP at this point in history is the defense of public corruption, which is a particularly insidious form of corruption. Those who excuse Trump’s abuses of power will not escape his taint.”

“And yet — at this low point of presidential character and congressional GOP courage — perhaps the most politically talented Democrat challenger to Trump in 2020, Senator Elizabeth Warren is six points behind the president in Michigan, even with Trump in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and four points behind Trump in Florida (according to recent surveys by the New York Times Upshot and Siena College).”

This, Gerson avers, should horrify Democrats. “One of the most exciting, substantive, compelling voices in their presidential field would stand a good chance of re-electing Trump. And this is not a problem that can be solved through good speeches and clever advertising. The weak points that Trump would exploit are the centerpieces of Warren’s campaign — the very reasons that Democrats are falling for her.”

Here is a list of problems for Warren.

• In producing her recent funding plan for Medicare-for-all, she doubled down on ending private health insurance in the United States. Ds may like this ideological boldness, but now, Gerson says, Warren has very little flexibility to make her plan seem less disruptive and frightening in a general election against Trump.
• She is proposing hugely to expand the role and reach of government in American lives, and to spend an additional $20.5 trillion (or more) over 10 years to do so, at a time when trust in government is near an all-time low.
• Her plan to socialize — there is no other word for it — the health insurance industry fights against a swift current of public skepticism.
• The fact is that, over time, Obamacare, has become more stable, reducing the number of uninsured Americans (though less than proposed by the former president). This reality creates more problems for Warren. She wants to scrap ObamaCare and start over with a government-centric approach, thus displacing private insurance for millions of Americans.

Whether Warren can achieve her big health care idea without middle-class tax increases appears unlikely. So, she will be solidly on record, whether she likes to admit it or not, in favor of huge tax increases if she fights Trump next year.

Gerson asks a final question about Warren.

“Can she eventually transform her public image from being a progressive populist to being a mere populist? Her health-care proposal indicates she cannot. Trump’s charge of socialism — more accurately, SOCIALISM! — may seem hyperbolic. But it is more likely to stick when a candidate proposes to abolish all private health insurance, put a government bureaucracy in charge and spend an additional $2 trillion a year on her ambitions.

“It is always tempting to view the weakness of a political opponent as an opportunity to gain total ideological victory. But in the case of Trump, this would be a blunder. If the 2018 midterms are any indication, the president has shed supporters at the more moderate edges of his coalition. And they will be attracted by stability and incrementalism, not disruption and radicalism — no matter how principled and well explained.”

So, for Trump, Warren may be the exactly the kind of candidate he would relish meeting at the polls – that is, if he survives 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 asked myself a probing question this past weekend in between watching golf and football.

If the 2020 presidential contest came down to Donald Trump vs. Elizabeth Warren, for whom would I vote? The context is that support for Warren appears to be on the rise while support for Joe Biden appears to be waning.

I thought of this in relation to a comment from a friend of mine a couple weeks ago – a stalwart Republican, by the way – who said he was so sick of Trump’s excesses that he would vote for “anybody but Trump.”

In the spirit of full disclosure about a year away from the presidential vote, I find myself in a similar camp, though I have not yet decided if I could vote for a currently-running Democrat, including Warren, because they are so far left as to be out of sight.

For me, that might mean casting my vote for a third-party candidate who would display the types of credentials I think we need in the leader of the free world.

Regarding Warren, I would have to think long and hard about her vision for America, which, put simply, is to create more and more government. The result would intrude into all of our lives, often with a demand that we pay for the privilege of having government control us.

My mixed emotions about Warren arise from various sources, including her recent proposal to outline how she would pay for her government-run Medicare for All plan.

On one hand, she deserves credit for stepping up to the plate to outline an approach on health care rather than continuing to dodge the funding question.

But would her plan work?

I say no.

To arrive at this position, I rely on three perspectives – my own background for 25 years as health care lobbyist in Oregon, a column by the Washington Post’s Megan McArdle, and a Wall Street Journal editorial.

McArdle writes that the “math for Warren’s health care plan adds up if you accept its ludicrous premise.”

“After months of pressure,” McArdle wrote, “Warren finally released her comprehensive Medicare-for-all plan, which promises lower costs for everyone, paid for by taxes on corporations and the rich.

“The good news is, the math adds up, as long as you buy her assumptions. The bad news is that Warren’s assumptions are crazier than keeping a pet rhinoceros, after which, who cares that her calculator works? This is to actual policymaking as the plastic noodles in a ramen-bar window is to lunch.”

And this from Wall Street Journal editorial writers:

“Now we know why Elizabeth Warren took so long to release the financing details of her Medicare-for-All plan. The 20 pages of explanation she released Friday reveal that she is counting on ideas for cost-savings and new revenue that are a fiscal and health-care fantasy.”

Key criticisms revolve around her reductions in what almost every analyst believes is a cost in the range of $30+ trillion – yes, trillion – plus the effect of huge taxes on business, which would reduce the tax payments from business which could re-locate operations, again, overseas to escape the punitive Warren taxes.

In this blog, I don’t intend to summarize all of the deficits in the Warren plan, which will come under the glare of analysis in the next days leading up to the next Democrat presidential debate, if not in the debate itself, not to mention the first vote in the Iowa caucuses.

Rather, I will make two concluding points.

1. Warren’s funding plan creates a new federal entitlement with no way to pay for it – at least no legal way, short of displaying the excellent quote, “it is easy to spend other people’s money” – which Warren does in spades.
2. It is time, as I have posited previously, for public officials on both sides of the aisle, also armed with private sector health policy expertise, to get into a room – yes, there will have to be a round table inside that room – to devise a plan from the center.

No Democrat big government proposal. No Republican “just say no” approach.

I have seen this work in Oregon over the years and it is time for it to be tried again as an illustration that America can still solve pressing public policy problems, such as health care.

So, for whom will I vote in 2020?  Don’t know yet.

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.

From Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty: “Republicans don’t know how to take yes for an answer.

“For weeks, they dutifully echoed President Trump, baying that the House’s ongoing impeachment investigation is a ‘witch hunt’ and a ‘sham.’

“They have complained that the House never took a formal vote on proceeding with the inquiry (though there is no requirement for one), that it was being conducted in secret (though open hearings are promised), and that the president is not being offered an opportunity to respond to his accusers (though he does it constantly on his Twitter feed).

“On Thursday, they will have the vote they demanded (of course, now the vote is over and the impeachment won), along with a road map for how the inquiry will go from here.

“The procedure as outlined strikes a reasonable balance between the need to collect evidence and testimony, some of which must be done initially behind closed doors, and the transparency necessary for the public to have confidence that something as grave as the impeachment of a president is done fairly.”

Comment: Tumulty criticizes House Republicans for their ham-handed action to infiltrate a House impeachment hearing, using cell phones (which was against policy in the secure hearing room), and, incredibly, ordering pizza as they stopped the hearing.

They did so even as many of their Republican colleagues were members of the three committees holding the hearing and, thus, were already in the room as the stunt occurred.

Tumulty makes this excellent bottom-line point: “Nonetheless, Republicans continue to howl about process. The reason: It allows them to avoid talking about the actual substance of the allegations against Trump.”

From Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal: “When Trump first came in I would press his supporters on putting all of American military power into the hands of a person with no direct political or foreign-affairs experience or training. They’d say, confidently, ‘But he’s got the generals around him.’

“His gut would blend with their expertise. But though they went to work for him with optimism and confidence in their ability to warn him off destructive actions or impulses—though they were personally supportive, gave him credit for a kind of political genius, and intended to be part of something of which they could be proud—they found they could not. This president defeats all his friends. That’s why he’s surrounded now, in his White House and the agencies, by the defeated—a second-string, ragtag, un-led army.”

Comment: Noonan is right to outline a key difference in the Trump presidency. When it started, accomplished generals signed up to run important national security operations. Now, all of them have left, knowing that Trump cannot run anything as he veers off repeatedly on more Twitter feeds, plus take international actions (read, the retreat from Syria) that risk America’s future.

From David Leonhardt in the New York Times: “Personal attacks don’t hurt him (Trump). Substantive ones do.

“House Democrats are doing the right thing by pursuing impeachment against Trump. But it does create a political quandary for their party.

“Democrats have been most successful against Trump when they have focused on his unpopular policies, as they did during the 2017 fight over ObamaCare and the 2018 mid-terms. They have been least successful when focusing on his outrageous behavior, as Hillary Clinton did in her 2016 campaign.

“Trump’s supporters seem to take his personality as a given and aren’t moved by complaints about it. Some fraction of them, however, can evidently be swayed by his failure to live up to his policy promises.

“Impeachment unavoidably returns the focus to the cartoon version of Trump, the gleefully norm-breaking president who resembles no other. The trial is also likely to end in acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate. Trump will then claim vindication, and Republicans will deride the exercise as a vindictive waste of time and money.

Comment: Leonhardt, in a piece that was clearly labeled “opinion,” emphasizes a useful distinction between substance and Trump’s personality. Go after the first, not the latter.

On the Trump personality issues, I agree with Leonhardt – it appears that Trump supporters always give him a pass on person failures because he does what they want him to do.

I have come to the conclusion that, given Trump’s clear excesses on substance, there was no real choice but for Democrat leaders to begin impeachment. Even if doing so would not result in final conviction in the U.S. Senate, thus allowing Trump to claim vindication in the 2020 election.

Sometimes it is important to rest on honesty and integrity, not bombast.

It is time for leaders in Congress – yes, there are some on both sides of the political aisle – to throw Trump out of office and get back to the important business of governing from the middle.

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 one of three departments I run with a free hand to operate as director-in-charge. The others are the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering and the Department of Bits and Pieces.

Like Trump, I fancy myself to be a dictator. But, I add with emphasis, in no other way am I like the buffoon who occupies, perish the thought, the Oval Office.

So, here are my new pet peeves.

DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN SUBJECT AND VERB: The Wall Street Journal made a mistake earlier this week when it ran this:

“According to the Urban Institute, a non-profit economic and social-policy research organization, increased costs would outweigh savings. They say the most generous single-payer plan would require between $29 trillion and $34.8 trillion in additional federal revenue over a decade. A “single payer lite” plan excluding undocumented immigrants and imposing cost-sharing on individuals would need between $13.3 trillion and $17.3 trillion.”

Note the word “they.” It should have been the word “it,” which would have agreed with the noun, “the Urban Institute.”

This grammatical mistake is made far too often today. One of the most frequent mistakes is this sentence: “The committee made their decision.” It should be, “Made its decision.” If you like the word “their,” then write the sentence this way – “Committee members made their decision.”

Or, consider this from no less a quality journalist endeavor than the Washington Post. “A number of presidential candidates who signed onto Sanders’ bill in 2017 have since wavered on some of these key components.”

The word “have” should be “has” to comply with the early phrase in the sentence – “A number of presidential candidates…”

Sounds tinny to the ear? Yes. But, it’s right.

Why is this kind of stuff an issue for me? Well, who knows, but one reason is that I am retired and have nothing much else to do – other than, of course, golf.

ANOTHER LANGUAGE ISSUE — TURNING GOOD NOUNS INTO STUPID VERBS: The most recent example is the tendency to turn the word “helm,” a useful noun, into a verb.

An example: “The baseball manager helmed the team to a victory in the World Series.” I didn’t actually see that sentence, but I could have.

You don’t helm something. Helm is what exists, for example, on a ship. It is a noun.

I say leave nouns as nouns and verbs as verbs.

TOO MUCH FOCUS ON TRUMP TWEETS: Since he took office, Trump has tweeted more than 17,000 times. But who is keeping track?

Well, some news outlets are, including the Washington Post. And, on some days, Trump sends so many tweets that it appears he would not have time for anything else. I suppose it could be added that he is at least tweeting, not doing something more risky such as feuding with North Korea.

My pet peeve is this. Why allow Trump to control the flow of “news” on any given day by emoting on his twitter machine? Just ignore what he says because, most of the time, they are lies anyway.

It would be better for journalists to report real news rather than focus on this aspect of Trump.

DEMOCRATS LABELING CORPORATE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS “EVIL,” WHILE FULLY ACCEPTING PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION CONTRIBUTIONS: Frankly, I am stunned at the duplicity of this contention.

If there is “evil” in political contributions, then the evil rests in all segments, not just in corporations.

An emerging plank in Democrat party platforms, both in Oregon and nationally, is to go after corporations. Of course, some have made huge mistakes; think only of what has happened to Boeing over the last couple years.

But, also know that corporations provide jobs for thousands of citizens who, with jobs, pay taxes to support government. And, on occasion, if those corporations make political contributions, they do not automatically fall into the evil dump.

It’s time for equity in expressing views about political contributions, regardless of the source.

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.

To read the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) this week, you would suspect the answer the answer would be no – strategic plans in an organization are not much more than pablum.

I beg to differ.

Obviously, a strategic plan that engaged in platitudes and not much else would not be worth the paper on which it was printed or the PowerPoint to display it.

But a solid strategic plan could be worth gold to anyone who was involved in developing it with skill and insight, or who was subject to its provisions.

The worth of a strategic plan depends on how well it was done, as well as the process for producing it — a process that must consider all points of view regardless of position in an organization.

The question in the headline arose when Wyatt Wells, a professor of history at Auburn University in Montgomery, Alabama, decided to take on strategic plans in a piece he wrote for the WSJ. It appeared under this headline:

Why “Strategic Plans” Are Rarely Strategic – or Effective

Effective managers can list their goals on a note card. They don’t need long recitations of bromides.

My sense is that Wells goes over-board in his criticism.

What he contends can be summarized by this quote:

“The typical strategic plan begins with an anodyne statement of principles, lists several general goals, and finally recounts a series of initiatives that the institution will undertake to realize these objectives. In its statement of principles, Auburn University’s plan asserts that the university seeks ‘to provide quality and diverse educational opportunities,’ offering a ‘student-centered experience ‘with excellence as our standard.’

“These are more specific that Google’s old mantra, ‘Don’t be evil,’ but not much. Presumably, every institution of higher learning shares these goals – none would boast that ‘adequacy is our standard.’”

So, with these words, Wells denigrates all strategic plans because the ones he knows about from his university includes high-sounding phrases with no way to measure success. What Wells doesn’t recognize, even in passing, that strategic plans, if done right, can advance the cause of any organization, public or private.

Several writers of letters to the editor of the WSJ disagreed with Wells, as I do. One headline led the way:

Good Strategic Planning Can Be Productive

The antidote to Wells’ anecdotes is exactly the kind of deeper, more genuine thought and engagement that great strategic planning entails.

The writer said this:

“Wyatt Wells throws the baby out with the bath water. While he cites anecdotes to support his thesis, he neglects to mention that strategic planning, when done well, involves establishing a robust fact base, conducting rigorous analysis, surfacing the most intellectually and emotionally challenging questions for the organization, addressing those questions with genuine thought, integrity and collaboration, and communicating effectively across the organization throughout the process of developing and implementing the plan.”

Excellent points.

For me, a well done strategic plan involves all of the credentials listed above, plus allows those who develop the plan – as well as those affected by it – to ascend to a higher level than just the humdrum and limitations of day-to-day business.

Put another way, the process allows those involved to focus on strategy, not just tactics – to focus on context, not just individual issues. It is easy to fall victim to coming up first with tactics, but, often, with no good way to measure whether the tactics contribute measurably to the higher-end goals.

A friend of mine who consults with business leaders added these thoughts:

“Strategic conversations are critical to moving forward. They release a synergy that cannot be achieved by one person alone. They also add another dimension that is absolutely critical for advancement – engagement of critical partners, expertise, and everyday workers.

“Finally, they better align all parties to shared, common goals.

“What does not seem to be addressed (in the WSJ piece) is the ‘planning’ part of the phrase ‘strategic planning.’  Planning, on a large scale, with lots of time spent on all of the above, in a lengthy, drawn-out, round-and-round process is antiquated today. Instead, we are moving at warp speed, data is abundant, and we lose to others if we are not nimble and forward-focused.”

Over my years in management and consulting (even if those years rank as lesser in status to the credentials of my friend), I often have advised organizations and clients to commit to strategic planning.

I continue to believe it is the right way to go.