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

The headline on this blog makes it seem like I know more than I do about the U.S. and the Czech Republic.

I know just enough to be dangerous.

Still, as I write this, I am sitting in Prague where my wife, Nancy, and I will be spending another day or so before heading four hours away by bus to Nuremberg where will board our ship for a river cruise on the Danube.

We are on a line called Scenic, which began as a land-tour operation in Australia, then expanded to river cruising in Europe. One of the good things is that – and this could be true of more lines than Scenic – once you pay your will you are done.

Everything is covered, including wine and tips.

Should be a fun and rewarding experience where we will see a lot history, as we have done in several previous European river cruises, including on the Rhine, Mosel and Senn.

On the Senn, one of the highlights was a visit to the D-Day battlefields where we saw so many graves that, I suppose, to call the visit a “highlight” is not altogether accurate, given the gravity of so many graves.

This time, here in Prague, on a four-hour walking tour of the city with our guide, I gained a couple of quick perceptions:

1. It was raining here yesterday, which is not an unusual occurrence in Prague. The Czech Republic is surrounded on all sides by various mountain ranges, so, in a way like Oregon, rain is a fact of life.
2. It is possible that the United States and the Czech Republic have one other unfortunate fact in common: The countries are led by a crazy person.

In our case, of course, it is Donald Trump who continues to confound, not only in the U.S., but also around the world with his erratic behavior that, for me, conjures up the image of a TV entertainer who has no idea what he is doing in the nation’s highest political office.

In the case of the Czech Republic, the culprit is Milos Zeman, now more than 80 years old who appears to have a good chance to continue leading the Republic.

He has a fondness for alcohol, so much so that our guide told us, in one TV shot of his performance as president, he was seen tottering toward the door of the meeting room without any ability to find it.

Our guide told us he roles with an iron hand in a country that is “a republic,” which is better, I guess, than communism. Like Trump, he also appears to have a yen to get close to Russian premier Vladimur Putin. Some in the Czech Republic worry that, with at least a personal lead toward the Russian, Zeman could enable a Russian takeover of the Czech Republic – again – or, at least, more Russian influence.

Perhaps that is an overstatement and, of course, I don’t know much about all of the political to-ing and fro-ing in this country.

Our guide, who said she risked a bit by getting into politics – and, also, religion – did say the country is roughly 50-50 split between wanting a Republic, which could be described as a democracy, and communism, which could build a bridge to Russia.

Here is the way my wife described the issue in her first-day travelogue of our trip — a description that brings a major political issue down to earth:

“Our guide is probably 45 years of age, so was a child in the Russian-control years and revels in freedom to travel and to share opinions. She is worried that the current president’s coziness with Putin will bring back too much Russian influence.

“Her mother, on the other hand, is 73 and, while she endured hardships (months of no toilet paper, queuing up for food, worrying about KGB spies, etc.), is fearful of spending older years without the expected government support of communist years.

“Our guide thinks the country is divided 50/50 over whether communism or current freedom is better. We would not have expected that.”

Here is what the New York Times wrote in 2018 after Zeman won his second term in office.

“After an election campaign centered on questions of civility in politics and the Czech Republic’s place in Europe, voters decided to stick with President Milos Zeman and his often-caustic brand of populism that has stoked resentment toward Muslim immigrants and ruptured the country’s relationship with its allies to the west.”

So, politics is askew in the Czech Republic as it is in the U.S.

Further, we also did not know in advance that the Czech Republic is basically an atheist society, which has been true since the Russian years. That is true even though there are wonderful old churches, with high steeples, all over the city.

More from Prague and the Danube if I think or more to write.

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

Here’s a far-fetched idea.

How about those who represent us in today’s political system – as well as us, as voters – work together to solve the country’s problems?

Possible?

Should be.

Probably not.

This notion crossed my mind as I listened a few weeks ago now to Attorney General William Barr announce release of the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a report about possible collusion with Russians to affect the 2016 election.

It would seem possible that, with release of the report, at least in a redacted version that was in line with statutory authority, the release would mean the end of occupation or preoccupation with the Mueller report.

No.

Democrats didn’t get what they wanted, potential criminal charges against Donald Trump, but they are not inclined to stop their hunt for a way to bring Trump down through investigations.

In many ways, I wish them success for, in Trump, we have the nation’s worst ever chief executive, someone who tries to lie his way out of every dilemma he faces, most of them of his own making.

Here’s the way the Washington Post, Dan Balz, one of the most experienced journalists in Washington, D.C., put it the other day:

“The Trump presidency long has been an exercise in normalizing extraordinary behavior, with President Trump repeatedly stretching the limits of what is considered appropriate conduct by the nation’s chief executive. The report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III puts into high relief the degree to which President Trump has violated the norms.

“The principal focus of the special counsel’s investigation was on questions of criminality. But there is more than the issue of what rises to the level of criminal conspiracy or criminal obstruction when judging a president and his administration. These are questions that go to the heart of what is acceptable or normal or advisable in a democracy. On that basis, the Mueller report provides a damning portrait of the president and those around him for actions taken during the 2016 campaign and while in office.

“The 448-page document is replete with evidence of repeated lying by public officials and others (some of whom have been charged for that conduct), of the president urging not to tell the truth, of the president seeking to shut down the investigation, of a Trump campaign hoping to benefit politically from Russian hacking and leaks of information damaging to its opponent, of a White House in chaos and operating under abnormal rules.”

So, the Mueller report, far from exonerating Trump, described him in accurate terms. According to Balz, “President Trump repeatedly stretched the limits of what is considered appropriate conduct by the nation’s chief executive.”

An understatement!

Still, Democrats would be better off if they would get about the business of governing. That would be the best way to hold Trump to account, defeating him in 2020.

If the Ds just head off into further investigations of Trump, however they would be warranted given his abhorrent content, what they could do is fuel Trump supporters to elect him again. Perish the thought of four more years in the Oval Office.

So, with all of us dominated by bad news every day, is there a chance for public officials in the Nation’s Capital to work together? That’s the question I asked at the beginning of this post and I suspect the answer is a hearty and unfortunate no.

I wish we could return to a time when Republicans and Democrats found a way to disagree agreeably.

No longer and all of us, as citizens, are worse for the descent into the political abyss.

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

This could be a long list – Americans President Donald Trump has criticized because they don’t agree with him.

But, for me, two of the most perplexing involve true American war heroes – the late Senator John McCain and the retired Special Forces officer, William McRaven.

On this Memorial Day, far better to honor their service.

Trump, who has no military service of any kind – he selfishly managed to avoid any obligation – has no standing to fire off criticisms of two military veterans who played major roles in preserving freedoms in the United States of America.

You can argue about Trump until you-know-what freezes over, but, if you were to defend Trump’s diatribes against McCain and McRaven, you would illustrate your own insensitivity, as well as failure to grasp history.

Trump’s criticism of McCain are well-documented.

I have no idea why Trump felt it necessary to say the McCain deserved no credit for his military service because “I (Trump) like people who weren’t captured.”

That McCain survived incredible torture at the hands of the Vietnamese and returned home to run for and win a U.S. Senate seat is the stuff of legend. Whether you agreed with him on policy issues or not, he was a true American hero.

The same can be said of McRaven, once the longest-serving Navy SEAL on active duty. He played key roles in thousands of dangerous missions abroad, including commanding the one that cost Osama bin Laden his life.

McRaven, who is retired, has warned that the greatest threat to American democracy he has seen during his decades in national security comes not from a rogue regime or a terrorist group but from the caustic rhetoric of Trump.

“An attack on the press or an attack on the Department of Justice, or to imply that there are dirty cops at the FBI or to ignore the intelligence community.  Trump’s conduct really undermines our institutions,” McRaven told USA TODAY in an interview about his memoir, ‘Sea Stories: My Life in Special Operations.’ “And that,” McRaven said, “makes me fearful of the future direction of the nation.”

McRaven’s service in daredevil missions includes the following: Intercepting Somali pirates, freeing American missionaries held hostage in the Philippines, interrogating Saddam Hussein and recovering long-frozen military remains in British Columbia.

Of course, Trump denigrates all of this, hammering both McCain and McRaven because they didn’t or don’t agree with him.

Trump’s behavior and conduct is all the more incredible to me as all of us, as Americans, look forward to celebrating Memorial Day on Monday. This is a time when we should respect the sacrifice of all those who served with distinction and honor.

That includes McCain and McRaven.

I’ll take their character any day over Trump, the buffoon who thinks he rises as he ridicules.

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

At first blush, it may sound a bit juvenile.

Leaders of the Executive Branch in Washington, D.C. won’t subject themselves to questions, in public, from legislative staff.

The Members of Congress, if they were summoned to the White House or to a federal agency’s headquarters, would expect to speak to the top person – either the president or the agency director – not lower-level staff.

All of this came to mind late this week as I was reading a piece in the Wall Street Journal by columnist James Freeman. It appeared under this headline:

Nancy Pelosi Backs William Barr

The Speaker agrees that senior government officials don’t answer to staff

Freeman added: “It’s not easy keeping up with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s shifting position on the conduct of President Donald Trump. But at least for the moment the California Democrat seems to be in agreement with Attorney General William Barr on a key question regarding our co-equal branches of government.

“President Trump abruptly blew up a meeting with Democratic congressional leaders on Wednesday, declaring that he could not work with them until they stopped investigating him and lashing out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi for accusing him of a cover-up.

“After Trump walked out, Pelosi turned to other Democrats there and recounted a story about how Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt had each brought people together to solve infrastructure problems.

“Kellyanne Conway, the counselor to the president, was in the room. ‘Respectfully, Madam Speaker,’ she asked, ‘do you have a direct response to the president?

“Pelosi said she was responding to the president, not members of his staff.”

There!  The co-equal branches point.

Pelosi’s position is in direct conflict with the House Judiciary Committee where the incendiary chair, Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, wants Attorney General William Barr to submit to questions from Judiciary staff, not just elected members of the committee.

Barr, properly, said no.

In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson described the conditions set by the committee’s chair as “unprecedented and unnecessary.”

“Congress and the executive branch are co-equal branches of government, and each have a constitutional obligation to respect and accommodate one another’s legitimate interests. Chair Nadler’s insistence on having staff question the attorney general, a Senate-confirmed cabinet member, is inappropriate.

Wall Street Journal reader Greg Woods put it this way in a letter to the editor:

“Imagine for a moment that the House invites the leadership of the Senate over to discuss pending legislation. When the senators arrive, they find only staff waiting for them. They would no doubt walk out the door in a huff. The way Congress acknowledges that the Executive Branch is a co-equal branch is by following this simple rule: Staff meets with staff, and principals meet with principals.

“Nadler’s violation of this rule isn’t just an insult to Barr, it is a constitutional insult to the Office of the Attorney General, implying that Congress has supremacy over the executive branch. If Barr does meet with the Judiciary Committee, and Nadler allows a staff member to ask questions, Barr should direct a member of his staff to replace him at the table and direct that staff member to answer each question with: ‘I am not authorized by the attorney general to answer that question.’”

This resonates with me as a former member of the state government Executive Branch in Oregon. I thought then and think now that the branches ought to be – and appear to be – co-equal. The Executive Branch runs government programs and relates to the Legislative Branch.

Mutual respect. Each deserves it from the other.

Many years ago, sitting at the witness table as the deputy director of the Oregon Economic Development Department before a legislative committee, I often had to endure hard questions from legislators. No problem, as long as the goal was policy, not personality.

For me, it never got as bad as it did for one agency head, a friend. He was at the witness table where he was subjected to over-the-top negative questions, including about his personality.

At one point, he had enough. He stood at the table and said, “I don’t have to take this s_____ from anyone,” and stalked out of the room.

I was one of the agency directors in the back of the hearing room and, with others, I nearly rose to give the one who walked a standing ovation. Plus, he was credible enough that he survived the episode.

The point: Developing sound policy on pressing problems requires mutual requires branch to branch. It also requires top leader-to-top-leader contact buttressed by staff-to-staff contact.

It would be good if all of us would remember this key approach to operating in an ever-changing political world that sometimes is not marked by mutual respect, but by the politics of personal destruction.

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

This post will indicate one important fact: I am old, so remembering the past is part of what I do each day.

Do you remember where you were and what you were doing during the Vietnam War? I am old enough to remember, though, in the spirit of full disclosure, I never fought in that far-off country as many of my peers did with sacrifice and distinction.

I thought of Vietnam today when I read a story in the Wall Street Journal under this headline:

Climbing Hamburger Hill 50 years after the Vietnam War’s brutal, haunting battle

It was the story of a man, Paul Shemm, who went to Hamburger Hill in Vietnam to try to understand the battle which was fought essentially for nothing – just a hill – that claimed so many lives on both sides and, thereby, illustrated, for many, the futility of war.

Here are excerpts from the WSJ story:

+ “Hamburger Hill is one of the most famous battles of the long Vietnam War. It inspired a movie and congressional hearings, symbolizing, for some, the incredible bravery of the American infantry in Vietnam and, for others, the futility and waste of the war.

+ “Where exactly on this hill had the battle been fought all those years ago? On May 10, 1969, the U.S. Army’s most decorated unit, the 3rd Battalion of the 187th Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division, known as the Rakkasans, spent 10 days taking this hill against a deeply entrenched enemy. Every year the veterans mark the anniversary of the battle in Fort Campbell, Ky., and this year it’s the 50th.

+ “’Returning to the site of an incredible battle — is a rediscovery, it is a journey to remember our friends who did not come home,’ wrote Mike Smith, 70, who was a private first class with Delta Company’s 2nd Platoon.

+ “For most of your vets, they are really emotional when revisiting the sites where they were stationed and operated,” he said, adding that some were still bitter about the war after all these years.

+ “The U.S. troops didn’t stay long, and the hill was soon abandoned, an outcome that became the focus of congressional hearings featuring Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), who called the battle ‘senseless and irresponsible.’

+ “Fifty years after the battle, Hamburger Hill, now at peace, belongs to those who fought and died there.”

This crunching story about Vietnam underlines two concepts for me:

• Take time to understand history, including wars, in the hope that doing so reinforces the futility of shooting at each other.

On this count, I wish I would have spent more time talking to my late father about his service in World War II, which could be justified on the basis of getting rid of a tyrannical dictator, Adolph Hitler, whose mission was to kill off the Jewish race. Failing to talk adequately to my father about this, though we had a great relationship, one I am thankful for every day, was missed opportunity for me.

• Make a concerted effort to honor and respect those who have served the country in wars – and that includes Vietnam, as well as the most recent conflicts in Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of my good friends in Salem these days is Ricky Love, a retired military veteran who left the service as a colonel after infantry service in Iraq and Afghanistan where he led battalions of servicemen. In war zones, he was a real leader who risked his life every day just as those who served under him did. Well done, Colonel!

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

I’d be much more apt to support tax increases if the Oregon Legislature would pay attention to getting the most bang for the buck out of current programs.

I could say the same about Congress, but, way out here in the West, it appears to be a useless errand.

So far, an emphasis on what I call “performance-based budgeting” is sadly lacking or perhaps even non-existent in Oregon. The best indication is that, since Senate Bill 964 passed in the 2011 legislative session (it was a bill proposed by my firm’s client, Youth Villages, that would install a performance-based system in foster care contracts), nothing – NOTHING – has happened. So, a law on the books is being ignored, with no penalty for the inaction.

In an earlier post, I argued against what I called “the three S’s” of current budget processes, which I described this way.

Supplanting: This is what occurs when new money comes into state government to fund a specific program or programs, then legislators take “general funds” out from behind the new money, thus neutering the purpose and effect of the new.

Sweeping: In some ways, this is more egregious than supplanting because, when it occurs, it violates the will of the taxpayers who provided the money in the first place.

Consider this example. What legislators have done in recent years is levy a tax on commercial health insurance premiums to create a repository of “state money” that can be used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid. To support the premium tax, legislators said the money would go to help put kids on insurance if their families could not afford it on their own.

What happened?

Without much, if any, hesitancy, legislators said they intended to “sweep” the money to fund other programs, thus not keeping faith with assurances made to taxpayers.

Sojourning: I stretch to get to this “S” as a way to indicate that, in many cases, new money “sojourns” in its intended place for only two years, if that, then becomes just general money for use wherever legislators want to deploy it. Thus, the money sojourns in its location only temporarily.

Avoiding these traps would involve something which does not occur now – transparency in budgeting processes.

Taxpayers would know where state tax money goes and whether it stays there to keep faith with the purposes for which the money was raised in the first place.

On top of this, legislators should install “performance-based budgeting” in all programs, just as was enacted in SB 964. Require managers to announce the outcomes the programs will achieve with assigned dollars and, then, if the outcomes are achieved, allow the programs to remain in place or even grow.

But, if the programs fail to achieve outcomes, give them one warning, then, if outcomes still are not produced, terminate the programs.

If the “three S’s” went away and if performance-based budgeting existed, I would be far more willing, as one taxpayer, to give state government more money for important government programs.

Now, the risk is that tax payments become “just money” and it is business as usual for government, not business designed to produce results. So, for me, no new taxes until budget processes improve.

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

It may be a surprise to learn I know anything about what often is a very complicated policy subject – the use of non-compete employment agreements to make it more difficult for high-level employees of one company to jump to another.

But, I learned a lot about the policy several years ago when I represented the Oregon Association of Broadcasters (OAB) as its lobbyist at the Capitol in Salem.

All of this came to mind this week as I read a piece in the Wall Street Journal that contained these paragraphs:

“Quitting a job for a better offer is a time-tested method of securing a pay raise, improved working conditions or both.

“Now a national backlash is building against employers that make such movement harder with non-compete agreements that bar departing employees from taking jobs with industry competitors for certain periods of time. That’s good news for workers, because eliminating barriers to job-hopping could help stir the kind of wage growth workers haven’t seen since before the last recession.

“Employers have long used non-competes to protect company secrets and intellectual property, applying them primarily to high-earning professionals such as business executives, scientists and lawyers.”

Well, I don’t know about the “phrase” good news. Perhaps for some workers, but not for executives of major companies trying to protect their organizations’ future.

For broadcasters in Oregon – and me as the organization’s lobbyist –the issue arose in 2009 because the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) – a union — came to the Capitol to oppose OAB non-compete agreements.

No one knew why AFTRA showed up because it was not usually involved in Salem, but the union got support from then-Oregon Senator Rick Metsger, a former TV broadcaster who almost was able to work his will on a bill to bar non-competes.

No one, including Metsger, seemed to care about the rationale for non-compete agreements as they had been negotiated by OAB member stations.

The OAB’s rationale was this: After television and radio stations had invested heavily in promoting top talent – including television anchors – they ought to be able to protect their investment by requiring the talent to stay around at the same station, at least for a period of five years.

This made eminent sense, given the investment.

But, to legislators, fueled by Metsger, it didn’t matter.

We almost lost the battle until we proposed the following language, which, in the 2009 legislative session, made into law in the form of an amendment to ORS 653.020. Sorry, this is pretty detailed language, but, then, so is the issue.

“(c) The employer has a protectable interest. As used in this paragraph, an employer has a protectable interest when the employee:

“(A) Has access to trade secrets, as that term is defined in ORS 646.461;

“(B) Has access to competitively sensitive confidential business or professional information that otherwise would not qualify as a trade secret, including product development plans, product launch plans, marketing strategy or sales plans; or

“(C) Is employed as an on-air talent by an employer in the business of broadcasting and the employer: (i) In the year preceding the termination of the employee′s employment, expended re-sources equal to or exceeding 10 percent of the employee′s annual salary to develop, improve, train or publicly promote the employee, provided that the resources expended by the employer were expended on media that the employer does not own or control; and

“(ii) Provides the employee, for the time the employee is restricted from working, the greater of compensation equal to at least 50 per cent of the employee′s annual gross base salary and commissions at the time of the employee′s termination or 50 per cent of the median family income for a four-person family, as determined by the United States Census Bureau for the most recent year available at the time of the employee′s termination.”

Fortunately, this language recognized the specific circumstances of broadcast executives who often made huge investments in on-air talent. Why lose the benefit of that investment?

Over Metsger’s opposition, the compromise passed, saving genuine non-compete agreements, though with several conditions as listed.

Given the Wall Street Journal coverage – and the passage of bills barring non-compete agreements around the country – watch for this issue to re-emerge in future legislative sessions here in Oregon.

Further, what this shows is that, even back in 2009, many Oregon legislators couldn’t care less about perspectives from business. Today, my sources at the Capitol, lobbyists with whom I worked before retirement, tell me things are still the same, if not worse.

Many legislators, not only won’t consider perspectives from business, they won’t even listen.

At some point, probably in the next recession, which is inevitable, those “don’t consider and don’t listen” perspectives will come back around to haunt Oregon, still a state that depends on personal and corporate tax revenue to survive.

So, legislators, I say listen and consider business perspectives.

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

In this country, I would hope that Donald Trump’s outlandish conduct in office would earn him no support and he would not win, perish the thought, another four-year term in the Oval Office.

As I have posted [reviously, that may not occur unless Democrats are smart enough to nominate someone to run against Trump who can appeal to the vast middle in America. That means not heading to the far left as so many avowed D presidential candidates have done.

And it means that Democrats should not tear each other down, which, of course, is their current style. Polling says Joe Biden is up by a bunch, so the Ds go after him.

Winning also means finding a persuasive way to convince Americans that Trump does not get singular credit for economic gains. Surely, he will claim such credit.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how so many Americans – including a number of my friends – can tolerate Trump’s behavior.

• He ridicules migrants and poor people.
• He gropes women, then boasts about it.
• He lies at every turn as if he believes – which he may – that, if he says something, it must be true. [The Washington Post Fact Checker reports that Trump has passed the 10,000 mark in lies.]
• He has no respect for the norms and conventions of the Office of the President, which, for me, makes it hard to do what I have done in the past – respect the office even if I don’t respect the person who holds it. Trump has trampled on the office during his three years there.
• He ridicules anyone who has the guts to disagree with him because, of course, he is always the smartest person in any room.

Still, the “infomercial president” may find a way to come out on top unless Democrats behave more smartly than they often do.

To change the subject just a bit, but it is still on the general point, here is my definition of politics, which may indicate either or both of two things – I am of the old-school when political activity was a purposeful and substantive activity, and I have a lot of time on my hands in retirement:

• Politics should be about solving pressing public policy problems.
• Politics should be substantive…you have your ideas, an opponent his or her ideas, and you find a way to meet someplace in the middle.
• Politics should still be about the importance of a “good idea,” not just more talk.
• Politics should be respecting your opponent, even though you disagree with him or her.
• Politics should not be about calling the other side names and, figuratively, yelling on the street corner to indicate how smart and loud you are.
• Politics should be about finding the “public interest,” not just one or more special interests.

I thought of this list recently as I was under consideration for a temporary Executive Service position with the State of Oregon. I was honored to be considered, but I said no for at least one reason. Those involved in government, especially in Washington, D.C., but also in Oregon, practice the art of personal destruction.

I did not want to risk being subjected to this kind of diatribe, which, I know, in Oregon has disrupted the lives of appointed officials who were trying their besst to serve Oregonians.

Not for me.

But, if we could support a list such as the one above – or a better one if you have one — we’d have better elected officials on both sides of the political aisle, as well as better officials in appointed positions.

Too bad we cannot get back to this kind of real politics.

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

This, remember, is one of three departments I run with a free hand to do and act as I wish. Call me a dictator.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

So the Department of Just Saying is now open.

A NEW “KICKER” DEBATE: Just saying it is important to retain the “kicker” law as a hedge against government over-spending.

Almost everyone in Oregon knows what the word “kicker” means.

But, in case you don’t, “kicker” refers to a policy that returns money to taxpayers if revenue exceeds estimates by more than 2 per cent.

As a generalization, Democrats hate the kicker. They want to spend the money.

Republicans like it. They believe excess revenue should go back to taxpayers because, after all, they paid the money in the first place.

I was struck by hearing a quote from State Economist Mark McMullen who said reporting the facts about the kicker “was a terrible day for Oregon.” What he appeared to mean was that, under current law, the “excess money” would have to go back to taxpayers – and it did not appear that he liked it. Normally, state economists keep political statements to themselves; this time the economist didn’t.

Bad news, right? Well, not if you were and are a taxpayer. It is logical for you to want “your” money back.

All of this arises again because the most recent revenue forecast for the next two-year budget indicates that revenue will be up enough to produce the largest kicker rebate in history.

There actually is a relatively elegant compromise here. It is that part of the kicker rebate be salted away in a fund – a mostly untouchable fund such as the Rainy Day Fund – that can be used to help the state withstand the next inevitable recession.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS STAYING AWAY FROM WORK: Just saying that it does nothing for trust in government when public officials don’t go to work.

We had two examples of this recently.

One was when Republican senators stayed away from the Capitol in Salem for more than a week to deprive the process of a quorum necessary to conduct business. Such actions – leaving — is allowed, but, whatever the leverage being sought, it was not pretty to regular Oregonians.

The second case was when hundreds of Oregon teachers stayed away from classrooms in early May to head to Salem to advocate for more money for schools.

Senator Ginny Burdick, D-Salem, castigated Republican lawmakers for “not showing up for work” while, at the same time, supporting hundreds of teachers who did the same thing?

Seems like a double standard.

THE CONTROVERSY OVER BILL BARR IN CONGRESS: Just saying that Attorney General Barr has become a lightening rod for various members of Congress, but doesn’t deserve the slander and vitriol he is getting.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) says issues over Barr’s performance and conduct are “Mainly Blatant Partisanship.”

The WSJ says the way Congress acknowledges that the Executive Branch is co-equal is by following this simple rule: Staff meets with staff, and principals meet with principals.

Congress doesn’t want it that way as it continues to go after Barr. Members want Barr to subject himself to an inquisition from staff attorneys who, no doubt, will try to make a name for themselves before the TV cameras.

I thought Barr conducted himself with consummate Executive Branch leadership as he dealt with release of the Mueller report and as he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee where, without an responding – a very smart move – he endured slander from Senator Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.

If Barr had done what Congress wanted, he would have broken federal law. Plus, he offered congressional leaders a chance to review the full Mueller report in private – without redactions. Not one Member of Congress took him up on the offer.

NADLER GOES NUTS: Just saying that Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, continues to look like he is preening before the cameras, not doing the real work of Congress.

Here’s a description from a piece by Wall Street Journal Deputy Editor of the Editorial Page Dan Henninger:

“Democrats’ assaults on the Trump presidency roll in like the ocean’s tides. But one has landed on the beach recently that deserves to go under the microscope. It is the notion that Donald Trump is a dictator.

“Most prominently, there is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who is maxing out his 15 Warholian minutes of fame.

“When Attorney General William Barr refused to appear before the committee—after being ridiculed and slandered by Senate Democrats the day before—Nadler unloaded: ‘The very system of government of the United States, the system of limited power, the system of not having a president as a dictator, is very much at stake.’”

Henninger is right. Nadler goes over the top against Trump.

No sympathy for Trump in this corner. I say boot him out of the office in the 2020 election. Trying to impeach him before, no matter how much he deserves the process, will only strengthen his base and prompt Trumpians to give him four more years in the Oval Office.

Obtain solid legislative achievements in Congress and elect a nominee with the clout to take on and beat Trump.

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

The phrase in the headline comes to mind as we watch the continuing political squabbles in the Nation’s Capitol.

I call it “phony baloney” and believe it applies to both sides – President Donald Trump as he continues to try to lie his way out of every issue, and congressional Democrats who practice the art of going after Trump while ignoring legislative processes that could put Trump on the defensive.

Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editors, as they often do, contributed to my angst about Washington, D.C. by posting an editorial under this headline:

‘Constitutional Crisis’

Nancy Pelosi stages a phony impeachment war

Call it phony Pelosi.

To give her credit, if that is, in fact, the right word, Pelosi has risen from an object of ridicule by many Republicans, not to mention concerns in her own party, to become a relatively popular Speaker of the House – that is, if popularity resides at MSNBC and other left-of-center outlets.

Does she deserve much credit. I answer no, as does the WSJ.

From Pelosi via WSJ: “America is in a ‘constitutional crisis.’ Trump Administration officials have ‘decided that they’re not going to honor their oath of office.’ President Trump is ‘almost self-impeaching and is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice.’

“These are quotes in the last few days from Pelosi, who will soon have to hire a lexicographer to come up with new ways to say that Trump is committing impeachable offenses. How many synonyms are there for “obstruction?”

“Yet, Pelosi and House Democrats refuse even to begin a formal impeachment inquiry. If Trump is so disrespectful of the Constitution, and so in violation of the separation of powers, what are they waiting for? Trump still has 20 months left in his four-year term, so surely, if the threat is so dire, Democrats should move urgently to fulfill their sacred vow to protect the Republic?

“Unless, that is, all of this is political theater. P elosi’s rhetoric keeps getting more fluorescent precisely because she doesn’t want to impeach Trump. She knows most of the country opposes impeachment following the report by special counsel Robert Mueller that found no evidence of collusion with Russia by the Trump presidential campaign.  But millions of Democratic voters still favor it, so Pelosi needs to feed the beast at MSNBC.”

Now, let me emphasize again that I am not defending Trump. He is easily the worst president in U.S. history and it is a travesty that he remains in office. Forget the policy, for the moment; look at character. He fails on all counts.

From my usual position the cheap seats out West, I hope the Ds will not move to formal impeachment proceedings despite the fact that there are ample reasons to start.

The risk is that impeachment won’t just put Trump on defense. It will infuriate his base and prompt more of them to vote for his re-election.

What Democrats should do is two things.

First, they should do what they are supposed to do in Congress, which is to legislate. Post some achievements that, in and of themselves, could put Trump on defense.

Second – and more importantly – nominate a presidential candidate in the 2020 election who has a genuine chance to win. That cannot be a candidate who espouses left-wing trope. It needs to be a candidate who gives concerned voters a real choice in 2020.

That’s the best way to remove from the office the worst president in the history of this country.