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.

Two legislators – Representative Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, and Senator Mark Hass, D-Beaverton – went on record this week asking Oregon businesses, in turn, to go on record in favor of what kind of tax they wanted to absorb.

Over my years at the Capitol, I lobbied both Nathanson and Hass and found them to be interested in what they considered to be sound policy from their position as centrists, but a little to the left. I know their current request was made with the best of intentions, but I was left with a question.

The request was made in a letter to Oregon Business & Industry (OBI), the new organization that grew out of a merger of sorts between Associated Oregon Industries and the Oregon Business Association.

OBI Executive Sandy McDonough responded appropriately, I felt, when she said the organization she runs would expect government spending control in return for new taxes.

More detail on all of this can be read in various newspapers, but, for now, let me cite an axiom that would animate my lobbying on this issue – if I was still a lobbyist and, thankfully, I am not.

If Oregon businesses are going to accept new taxes, the deal should be part of a political transaction.

In return for supporting for more taxes for business to pay, I submit legislators should commit to taking either of two actions:

1. Commit to getting control of the now out-of-control Public Employee Retirement System. Some will say this is impossible given the contract the State of Oregon has signed with PERS pensioners, a contract upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court. [And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am one of those pensioners.]
2. Or, put in place what I call a “results oriented” approach to state government spending. What I mean is that programs should, by law, be required to estimate the results they will achieve and, then, if they don’t achieve those results, be subject to termination. Otherwise, all new taxes produce is more government, with no accountability for performance.

Now, a number of my former colleagues who still work the halls of the State Capitol probably will tell me that the axiom I have summarized above will not work. One of the main reasons is that Democrats are in charge by super-majorities in both the Oregon House and Oregon Senate and, because of their clear control, many want to impose new taxes on a number of payers, including businesses.

So, my lobbyist friends say, business lobbyists should propose how they want to be taxed rather than simply let taxes be imposed by Democrat super-majorities.

Perhaps.

But, in the spirit of good and better government, I say impose the “results orientation” instead of just more government business as usual.

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 big news this afternoon is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has forwarded his long-awaited report to Attorney General William Barr as he was required to do under the regulation that created his position.

Now, just want for various Democrats to do what they have been doing for months since Barr stood for and survived Senate confirmation for his second stint in the top job at the Department of Justice.

There is little doubt but that Barr will withstand the almost-constant demand for release and stick with the regulatory and traditional response to such a report.

Here is what Barr said to the Wall Street Journal this afternoon:

“The attorney general wrote he would consult with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Mueller “to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department’s long-standing practices and policies.”

Well said!

Many Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for advocating loudly and strongly that Barr violate the law.

Barr should continue to resist Democrat entreaties to violate regulation and accepted legal tradition by releasing the report.

I am glad Barr is serving as attorney general. We need reasonable and experienced officials in top Executive Branch positions. Barr fits the needed description to a “T.”

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 will not be news to anyone who knows me to report that I am a dog lover.

My wife, Nancy, and I have had two – first Hogan, who is in heaven looking down on us, and now Callaway who provides us our every day with love and devotion.

And those to emotions go both ways.

So it was this week that I read a piece by the Associated Press under this headline:

Exhibit explores keen senses, abilities of man’s best friend

It was a story about a major dog-related exhibit that is starting in Los Angeles and moving to other cities.

The AP writer asks this question: Did people domesticate dogs or was it the other way around? And why do these two species seem to think so much alike, act so much alike and get along so well?

He reports that the California Science Center has spent the past five years sniffing out the answers to those and hundreds of other vexing canine questions. It will begin revealing the conclusions Saturday (last Saturday) with an ambitious, if somewhat lighthearted, new exhibition called “Dogs! A Science Tail.”

“It’s really not about just dogs and science,” the museum curator says. “It’s really about how dogs and humans are both social animals. About how dogs and humans have evolved together over thousands of years. And the fact that, because we are both social animals, we’ve learned to work together.”

Most of us have seen dogs around fire hydrants. They do what comes naturally to them. But the new exhibit on dogs reveals this:

“…we just smell pee. A dog can tell what other dog was there, what time they were there, and actually which direction they were going.”

Dogs have an amazing ability to learn information, in part because of the estimated 300 million sensory receptor sites they carry in their noses. That far outnumbers the six million receptors in humans.

These receptors led the exhibit curator to say that, “In a bedroom, dogs can hear a termite scratching on the wall.”

Such skills also provide more riveting benefits. An avalanche rescue dog is able to sniff out a person buried in snow in a minute’s time while its handlers stand there without a clue. Dogs are able to sniff out bombs people would never find until they exploded.

Those who see the L.A. dog exhibit watch canines from around the world help save people from drowning off the coast of Italy, rescue people trapped in collapsed buildings, even track down Kenyan poachers preying on endangered elephants and rhinos.

They also can watch Garmin, a two-year-old golden Labrador retriever who is about to graduate from guide-dog school. He takes blindfolded folks through a maze of obstacles, and when one person hesitated, Garmin pulled gently on his leash as if to say, “Come on, let’s go. I’ve got this.”

But do really love us?

Or, are they just trying to wheedle another treat when they open those big black eyes of theirs and give us that look?

“If you look a dog in the eye, a dog will look back at you and you will produce oxytocin,” says the exhibit official. It is the chemical known as the love hormone because of the feelings it evokes in people.

“And,” the official adds, “the dog will produce oxytocin in his own body from looking back at you. It’s a mutual affection.” A chimp, on the other hand, will just look away.

Back thousands of years, both wolves and people could see the other was pretty good at hunting for food. But did the wolves walk up and offer their help in that endeavor? Or, did people make the first move?

Whoever did, they created an enduring bond.

And, I have been lucky enough to experience that bond twice – first with my good old boy Hogan, and, second, with Callaway who is just getting out of puppy hood.

They both came from the same poodle breeder in Amity, Oregon, and she says that, if you trace the lineage, Hogan is Callaway’s uncle.

Both great dogs – and, more importantly, great friends.

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

This is the way Washington Post columnist James Hohmann put it in his Daily 202 column as he wrote about U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, the Democrat from Colorado:

“He slammed his head on the table four times when I asked what he thought about other Democrat presidential contenders embracing the idea of expanding the Supreme Court.

“Having seen up close just how cynical and how vicious the tea party guys and the Freedom Caucus guys and Mitch McConnell have been, the last thing I want to do is be those guys. What I want to do is beat these guys so that we can begin to govern again.”

Sounds like a 2020 candidate worth considering, though it is important to cite one fact – Bennet has not declared yet that he is running, though his candidacy seems to be all but a foregone conclusion.

Here are some other notable excerpts from the Hohmann column, with my comments:

• “Court packing, like reparations, has emerged as a bright new dividing line to separate the pragmatists from the ideologues in the Democrat contest. The issue is quickly become a proxy for the larger choice Democrats must confront as they pick a standard bearer for 2020: Will they go with their heads or their hearts?”

Comment: It is very likely that left-wing Democrats – that’s redundant, isn’t it? – will go with their hearts because, based on their various wacko policy notions, they don’t have much head left.

• “Bennet, who says he’s inclined to run for president and will decide in a matter of ‘weeks,’ represents an antidote to the Democrat Party’s leftward lurch. I guess I’m starting to think strongly that we need a voice in this primary that’s willing to make the kind of case that I think that I would make.”

Comment: An antidote to the leftward lurch of many Democrats? Ye

• “Speaking at a house party up the hill from the State House, Bennet made an impassioned plea to 50 Democrats that the party must be more careful to avoid the ‘traps being laid by President Donald Trump. Look, we’ve got to nominate somebody who can beat Donald Trump. That means we have a responsibility not to do ourselves in. I went around in 2016 saying Trump couldn’t win. I was totally wrong.

Comment: Bennet is right again. Given how bad Trump is, the Ds should band together behind someone who can win, not someone who caters to the far left bloc. The risk is that the Ds, by who they nominate (Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Warren ???) will put Trump in the White House again.

• “Bennet said Trump’s not an idiot. Whatever you think of Trump – and I can’t stand the guy myself – he is a marketing genius. He is a savant of some kind when it comes to marketing. And where he sees the weakness, he will exploit it. Trump knows he can’t get elected on his two feet. What he’s trying to do is disqualify the Democrat Party. He looks for opportunities to do that by calling people socialists, by saying Democrats are for open borders, and by saying Democrats are anti-Israel. I think Democrats need to be very strategic in not falling into the traps that Donald Trump is laying for us.”
  

Comment: First, to contend that Trump is not an idiot is saying something! To me, it is a compliment to call Trump an idiot. He is far worse, an opportunist who ran an infomercial to get into the White House with no thought of arriving there, but just with a goal to pump his own brand.

• “Bennet explained why he stood to applaud the president during the State of the Union. When he said we’re never going to be a socialist country, I was the first Democrat out of their chair. I didn’t know this at the time, but Bernie Sanders is sitting right behind me and he’s sitting in his chair scowling while I’m standing up and applauding. The reason I was on my feet is that I’m not going to let him disqualify us that way. I know what he’s trying to do. … It’s not because I’m applauding him. It’s because I want to show that Democrats don’t feel that way. Most Democrats don’t.”

Comment: I hope that Bennet is right when he says “most Democrats don’t want socialism.” Standard bearers for the far left – Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Warren — illustrate that they favor giving a free hand-out to everyone as they display again the left-wing penchant for spending all they can of other people’s money.

• “Asked about the Medicare-for-all bill that several of his Senate colleagues running for president have co-sponsored, Bennet made the case against the bill both on the substance and the politics. That legislation takes insurance away from 180 million people who get it from their employer, 80 per cent of whom like it. It takes it away from every single union that has collectively bargained for their health-care plan. It takes it away from 20 million people that have Medicare Advantage who love Medicare Advantage.

“We’re making it too easy for the people who don’t want to cover everybody. Donald Trump has been smart enough to figure out that he can agitate seniors about this question because he’s going to say to seniors, ‘Wait a minute, you guys had to wait until you were 65 years old. You spent your whole life paying into it. And now all of America is going to be in the plan with you.’ I have no problem with political slogans, but we have to have a plan for how to address this. … I want to say very clearly: This is a not a call for moderation. It is not a call for splitting the difference.”

Comment: For all of its frailties – and there are some – throwing out the entire health care system in this country to provide free government hand-outs makes no sense. Bennet is right to point out the fallacies of the Medicare for All dalliance – and I hope it becomes just that, a dalliance, not a formal proposal.

• “For me, this isn’t just about beating Trump, which I think is important and essential but not sufficient. We also have to figure out how to govern the country, and we’re not. We weren’t before Trump showed up. I’m not going to say one thing in the primary and something else in the general, and obviously I’m betting on the fact that that’s going to be appealing to people who want politicians to… level with them. That may sound naive, but I think that’s the only path that I have. And I don’t happen to think it’s naive because I think what’s naive is imagining that we can keep repeating what we’re doing in Washington – and this is even without Trump – and imagine that our kids and grandkids are going to remember us very favorably.”

Comment: Again, Bennet is on right on point. Beating Trump ought to be a top goal, so we, as Americans, don’t have to try to survive four more years of stupidity and worse.

As all of us consider presidential candidates for the 2020 election I, for one, intend to give Bennet a closer look.

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 blog headline above refers to my experience yesterday – walking Illahe Hills Golf Course here in Salem, Oregon to watch high school athletes play golf in a tournament that drew all five schools from our city.

Great fun!

I love that our course made time for the kids to play. Most of them don’t have access to a course of such high quality on a regular basis, so I, as one Illahe member, support giving kids of all abilities the experience to play in tournaments on an excellent course.

My fond memory, of course, applies to my own experience many moons ago of watching my son Eric play in high school tournaments. He had honed his game in his early years at Illahe.

It was not uncommon, in the summer, for me to drop him off at Illahe in the morning, then pick him up as light faded into night. He would have hit 10 bags of golf balls on the range, gone for a swim, played a bit of tennis, charges my number at the hamburger and hot dog shop, then gone out for golf with some of the older guys at Illahe who wanted to play, they told me, “with the young guy with a shock of red hair who could hit the ball a mile.”

The experience at Illahe was a key factor in Eric getting a golf scholarship to play for the Beavers at Oregon State University, which turned out to be another great experience for him.

At one point, he even gave me just a bit of credit for helping him get his start in golf, which remains a passion for him to this day. Good for a father to hear such a comment!

My daughter, Lissy, also had great experiences at Illahe, some on the golf course, and some in the swimming pool where she spent time with friends, intent on opening the pool in the spring and closing it in the fall.

Memories like this came flooding back to me as I watched high school golf yesterday.

Three of my young friends were involved, each of whom is in a family with an Illahe Hills membership and each of whom tolerates me as an “old guy friend.”

• Quincy Beyrouty is in her final year at Sprague High School, then, upon graduation, will head up to George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon to pursue her degree on a golf scholarship.
• Her brother, Sawyer, leads the boys team at Sprague where he hits the ball a mile.
• Brandon Eyre is a sophomore at West Salem High School where he is a three-sport star – football, basketball and golf – though it appears he will focus on golf as he prepares for college, still a couple years away.

Great kids all!

It was a great day for me yesterday to be able to walk or ride with them on few golf holes and to see first-hand how they conducted themselves with golf skill and golf etiquette.

And note that I have not written word-one about their scores. For this blog, scores don’t matter. What does matter is seeing three great young people have fun on the golf course, with me in the audience.

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.

FROM HILL.COM: “Joe Biden is proud he can get along with Republicans — and that could be a problem if he enters the 2020 race.

“The former vice president seems to see comity and decency as the antidotes to the fractious Trump era. But his approach can look too timorous to a swathe of the Democratic primary electorate — especially those who have come to view the GOP as the enemy, not just the opposition.

“Biden, who was first elected to the Senate in 1972 and served six terms, often hearkens back to an era of greater civility among lawmakers, even if they represented diametrically opposed viewpoints.”

Comment: I have not been much of a Biden fan in the past, though I have a lot of respect for how he has handled huge life difficulties, such as the deaths of members of his family. There is very little question but that Biden would be far better than the current clown in the White House.

Note the phrase above: “The former vice president seems to see comity and decency as the antidotes to the fractious Trump era.”

A number of Democrats, including some of those running for president, as well as a bloc of left-wing voters, ridicule “comity and decency,” as, of course, does Trump.

My view is that our political system needs to find a way to go back to the era when compromise was not a dirty word – to a time when those who might disagree with each other did so agreeably, with “comity and decency.”

Fat chance, you say. Probably. But that’s why I am preparing to support either Biden or a centrist third-party candidate in 2020.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “Dick Cheney: “We’re getting into a situation when our friends and allies around the world that we depend upon are going to lack confidence in us… I worry that the bottom line of that kind of an approach is we have an administration that looks a lot more like Barack Obama than Ronald Reagan.”

“The former vice president uncorked one of the most searing conservative critiques to date of Trump’s foreign policy while conducting a Q&A with Vice President Mike Pence at a recent donor retreat.

“Cheney respectfully but repeatedly and firmly pressed Pence on a number of the president’s foreign policy moves. He expressed concerns that such actions are taking a harder line toward U.S. allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deciding to withdraw troops from Syria during in what he fretted was ‘the middle of a phone call.’ Cheney expressed alarm over news reports that Trump ‘supposedly doesn’t spend that much time with the intel people, or doesn’t agree with them, frequently,’ as well as the high staff turnover rate at the intelligence agencies.

“He worried aloud, again and again, that, for Trump, foreign policy boils down to a crude dollars-and-cents transaction… He worried about Trump’s decision to cancel the decades-long U.S. military exercises with South Korea and referenced a recent Bloomberg News Report about the president’s directive ‘to pursue a policy that would insist that the Germans, the Japanese, and the South Koreans pay total cost for our deployments there, plus 50 percent on top of that.’ … ‘I don’t know, that sounded like a New York state real estate deal to me,’ Cheney quipped.”

Comment: Many voters dislike Cheney, despite his long record of public service, which, clearly, has been marked by various controversies, some of his own making. Without commenting on that either way, Cheney has a good point this time around. Allies around the world won’t have confidence in the U.S. if the country continues to operate with off-the-top-of-his head views by Trump, which, as Cheney averred, seem more attuned to a real estate deal than international relations.

Time to move Trump out of the Oval Office so, perhaps, he can spend time in prison for his crimes once he exits the nation’s top political office. It remains a mystery why he holds that office when he treated his campaign for it as an infomercial in favor of the so-called “Trump brand.”

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST: “…Biden also continued his running argument with the Democrat Party’s ‘new left,’ returning several times to the idea that politics had been broken by people who refuse to seek consensus. He referred to Delaware’s election tradition of ‘returns day,’ where victorious and defeated candidates literally bury a hatchet together and ride in a parade, as an example of the way politics should be.

“’We don’t demonize our opponents,’” he said. ‘We don’t belittle them. We don’t treat the opposition as the enemy. We might even say a nice word about a Republican if they do something good.’”

Comment: As hugely different as they are and have been, we need more Bidens and Cheneys in politics these days. As Biden well said, “our politics has been broken by people who refuse to seek consensus.”

We need to elect leaders who will seek just that – consensus motivated by compromise and a zeal for middle ground, which is where most good solutions like anyway.

******

And this footnote: I almost included quotes relating to Representative Alexandra Oacasio-Cortex, but couldn’t bring myself to do so. She is so far left that she doesn’t show up on any political spectrum. Yet, she still appears to reflect a growing tendency in this country – let’s have socialism. Enough said!

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

This is one of the first departments where I ascended to the throne – er, the directorship of the agency.

It is open today.

PEEVE #1: My first pet peeve revolves around Democrats who use the term “democratic” to describe themselves when, much of the time, they are not democratic at all.

So, in response to my pet peeve, I always use the word Democrat, dropping the final two letters – i and c.

PEEVE #2: My second pet peeve revolves around the use of the word “progressive” to describe those who operate from the left of center. For me, the word “progressive” means to move forward and that’s usually not what those on the left are doing.

So, in response to my pet peeve, I decline to use the word progressive to describe my friends on the left.

PEEVE #3: My third pet peeve revolves around the substantial fall-off of skills and experience among the reporters and editors covering politics at the Capitol.

There used to be a group of reporters who worked out of the basement Press Room at the Capitol, close to the action where they literally could head upstairs to any committee meeting room, as well as roam the halls to talk with those who represent us.

No longer.

Some reporters “cover” developments at the Capitol or other government buildings in Salem without even being on hand to witness results in person. They figure out a way to talk with folks after the fact, which makes it seem like they, the reporters, are on top of events. They aren’t.

The failure to employ formerly distinctive journalism codes of conduct means that reporters and editors often fail to focus on FACTS and almost never provide CONTEXT. Now, my friends in the media might say that there is not enough print room, on-line room or video room to focus on context.

Thus, my peeve. If readers or viewers don’t get at least a bit of context, then they don’t get the full story.

PEEVE #4: My fourth pet peeve revolves the failure of reporters – and, for that matter, the public – to understand the role political contributions play in our process.

Of course, the process of making contributions gets tarnished – understandably – by crimes those in Washington, D.C. (read, Manafort, Gates, etc.) – have perpetrated against the country.

But, most lobbyists participate in the process honestly and ethically. In my case, my clients and I expected only one thing when we made political contributions: Consideration.

If elected officials considered our viewpoint, great. If they considered our viewpoint and decided they needed to go another way, so be it.

Our decisions on political contributions were made on the basis of what I call “relationship records,” not “voting records.”

PEEVE #5: My fifth pet peeve resolves around situations where elected officials want Executive Branch administrators to violate the law in order to achieve the political ends elected officials want.

This is what is happening in Washington, D.C. over release of the Mueller report. When Attorney General William Barr was up for Senate confirmation, many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee – all Democrats – demanded that Barr agree to release the full text of the Mueller report as soon as he received it.

Properly, he declined to do so.

The official orders that started the Mueller investigation in the first place directed that the full report not be released, including if, as is likely, it contains information, in some cases, about allegations of criminal charge, but no charges. The report could include names of persons who were on a list of those who might be charged, but weren’t. .

In addition to the text of the order convening the investigation, standard Justice Department practice is not to release such documents for fear of impugning the integrity of those no charged.

Did Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats care about these issues? No.

They demanded that Barr violate the law and Justice Department tradition. Those D are still making the demands as release of the Mueller report draws closer. Kudos to Barr for upholding law and precedent.

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.

The Oregon Legislature has gone down a familiar path again to fund health care in Oregon.

By passing House Bill 2010 and sending it on to Governor Kate Brown for her signature, the Legislature is using the approach to tax major Oregon hospitals and health insurers as a way, first and foremost, to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid.

Is it a good idea to do so?

If I was in the Legislature – perish the thought, you may add – I probably would vote for the approach, too. Money for health care is as important today as it always has been and, if not for the legal funding gambit to increase Medicaid, health care – including for low-income Oregonians – would tend to fall behind K-12 and other general fund users.

But, I would vote for the funding deal only with several provisos, all of which were ingrained in me when I represented hospitals and insurers in Salem during the times when the funding approach first existed. It started in 2003 and has continued to this day.

The provisos are these:

1. AVOID SUPPLANTING: I would make sure, insofar as it is possible to do so, that the “new money” – including hospital and insurer taxes and federal matching funds – actually would be directed to health care programs.

I write “insofar as possible” because it is easy for the new money to become just that – “new money” without restrictions. At the decision of members of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, the money can be treated simply as more “general fund” money available to be used for anything.

Even if, for example, there is a clause in the funding approach that money be reserved for health care, budget managers can honor that agreement, but take other general fund money out from behind and re-direct that money elsewhere, often to K-12 education.

In budget lingo, it’s called “supplanting.”

I first saw this used when, a number of years ago, the State of Oregon received “tobacco settlement” money – millions of dollars in cash from tobacco companies under a court order.

The money was supposed to help fund efforts to limit tobacco use on the basis of health concerns. That occurred, but so did supplanting – taking general funds away that had been used for anti-tobacco programs in the past.

Based on my sources at the Capitol, my understanding this time around, in the case of House Bill 2010, there is no specific language that assures new money goes to health care programs, but one of the key Ways and Means members, one who has credibility on this issue in the past, has provided oral assurances that the “new money will fund new health care.”

The key member is Senator Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, who has a solid track record of integrity and being above-board in any state budget negotiations. She has always been good to her word.

2. ASSURE RESULTS: When the new money arrives to fund expanded health care programs, steps should be taken to require results.

What do I mean by this? Often new government programs are started without adequate expectations for what the programs will be expected to achieve. I believe new government programs should exist only if they produce results for those they are expected to serve – consumers, customers or taxpayers, pick your word.

When programs don’t produce results, the best result would be to get rid of them.

3. MAKE A LOGICAL TRADE-OFF: If hospitals and insurers agree to be taxed – at the current time, most of them do – then a price for the agreement should be that bills negative to hospitals and health insurers should either not be considered or go down to defeat.

Some critics might label this an inappropriate trade-off. They might say, “Let individual issues be decided on their individual merits.” Often, I might agree, but in this case – taxing health care providers – there should be what you could call “a quid pro quo.” In return for agreeing to be taxed, providers should escape bad legislation.

When we first negotiated these new taxes in 2003, that was a price we advocated and it happened.

So, with passage of House Bill 2010, legislators and the governor have one issue – health care funding – off the table.

I hope the new deal works.

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 and to do as I please as the director – read, dictator.

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

Here is a set of new good quotes worth remembering.

FROM PRESIDENT DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, REMEMBER HIM?: I was only about eight years old when former president Dwight D. Eisenhower included this quote in a March 6, 1956 speech:

“If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is moral and right, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.”

Comment: I wish I would remember hearing that quote in person. At eight years old? Probably would not have recognized what the good words meant.

But, as applied to today, it resonates.

And, I think both major political parties – the Republicans and the Democrats – are more interested in seizing power and, then, if they have such power, finding ways, good or bad, to keep it.

If that means good public policy suffers, so be it.

A SO-CALLED GREEN NEW DEAL: “Today’s Democrat presidential candidates sound like late-night infomercials: ‘A Green New Deal! Medicare-for-all! Reparations for some! Free college for the young! Increased Social Security for the elderly! BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! At no additional cost, you get Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).’

MMT, which supposedly banishes nitpicking worries about how to pay for things, is the Democrats’ intellectual breakthrough du jour. Although the theory remains somewhat hazy (or, as Democrats say about their un-empirical flights of fancy, MMT is beautifully ‘aspirational’), it is this:

The nation has fiat money — currency whose issuer will not convert it into something valuable (e.g., gold) but that the public accepts is a reliable store of value. A government that controls its currency need never run short of it. Therefore (non sequitur alert), the government can borrow and expand the money supply sufficiently to allow spending to proceed without reference to government revenue, as long as interest rates are, and are apt to remain, low. In the words of three MMT believers (Stephanie Kelton, economics professor and former Bernie Sanders campaign adviser; Andres Bernal, doctoral student and adviser to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.); Greg Carlock, a climate researcher): “Anything that is technically feasible is financially affordable.”

Comment: Sounds like Bernie Sanders and other far left-wing wackos run wild. Spending other people’s money is great fun!

HOW DEMOCRATS COULD WIN IN 2020: Two Democrat consultants, James Carville and Jim Messina, told this to the Wall Street Journal: “If Democrats run our numbers up—which we’re sure to do in what will likely be the largest presidential turnout in history—we only need to peel off some of these voters to put us over the top in the states that will decide the election.

“This president is no Barack Obama, no Bill Clinton. Trump didn’t bring about the largest increase of college opportunity since the GI bill, get an unprecedented number of Americans health coverage, or dig us out of a great recession. His daily circus of corruption has failed the working class. That is a vital message we need to get to these voters and we need to start now. The longer we wait, the more daunting our prospects become.

“There’s a great saying: “When your opponent is drowning, throw ’em an anvil.” Trump is already underwater. So as a party, while Democratic candidates are out trying to make a name in the primary, we need to get to Waukesha, Wisconsin, Scranton, Pennsylvania., and Macomb, Michigan, look voters in the eye, and throw Trump that damn anvil.”

Comment: Readers of this blog – both of you – will know that I am no Trump fan. I think character counts for something in the nation’s highest political office and Trump has none.

But, I also think Carville and Messina have out-lived their usefulness as they have advocated for years for left wing candidates who are no better than Trump.

I say, “through Carville and Messina an anvil, too.”

SOMETHING GOOD IS GOING ON: The deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger, scores again with his “Wonderland” column. He writes this:

“The great political challenge of our time is sorting out what matters from what’s just chatter. The din of distracting statistical noise is overwhelming. A Democrat governor named Inslee announces he’s going to run for the U.S. presidency on one issue—climate change. Days later, the real president delivers a speech of immeasurable length to a conference of conservatives about pretty much everything rattling around in his head. The new week dawns with a Democrat House committee chairman named Nadler demanding that 81 of the president’s “associates” provide him with a document dump.

“Serious people would like to believe something real in politics is going on. The good news is . . . something is.

“This past weekend, The Wall Street Journal published a series of stories titled “Inside the Hottest Job Market in Half a Century.” As far as I’m concerned, this jobs record is the story of the year. The Journal’s articles transformed a year of economic data into the new daily reality of getting paid to work in America.

“All sorts of people who have previously had trouble landing a job are now finding work,” the Journal reported. “Racial minorities, those with less education and people working in the lowest-paying jobs are getting bigger pay raises and, in many cases, experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for their groups. They are joining manufacturing workers, women in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities and those with criminal records, among others, in finding improved job prospects after years of disappointment.”

Comment: A solid economy matters to all of us. And, for me, as I have written before, I cannot believe that most political figures these days ignore “the jobs issue.” Having one – a job – solves many problems. Therefore, creating a system where the private sector can create more jobs – as well as save the ones they have – strikes me as political proposal worth selling.

**********

And this footnote: In blogs such as this when I write the word Democrat, I refuse to use the word “Democratic.” That’s because most of those who call themselves Democrats are definitely not “democratic.” So, I avoid the use that word just as an expression of personal preference.

**********

As is my unfortunate tendency, my first post of this blog contained a few typos.  So, rather than let the first post sit, I am posting this again, without the typos.  The subject — golf in Scotland — is too important to allow typos to remain.

**********

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.

After reading the other day about an “Affordable Golf Course” idea from golf writer George Peper, I went back this week to read another golf tome from Peper – his book, Two Years in St. Andrews, At Home on the 18^th Hole.

A great and fun read.

Makes me want to go back to St. Andrews, the so-called “home of golf” to do what I have had the privilege of doing three times – playing some of the seven courses in the St. Andrews Links Trust, including, and especially, the iconic Old Course.

I won’t be proposing to live at St. Andrews as Peper and his wife did for several years, though, if I was going to live in Scotland for a time, I might choose the small town of Dornoch where sits my favorite course in the world, Royal Dornoch.

In St. Andrews, Peper and his wife found a new way of life – for life generally, as well as for golf.

Here are a couple of telling excerpts from his book, with my comments:

THE PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND: “I’d come to learn that St. Andrews was full of kind, thoughtful, caring folk. People who dropped by your home with flowers for no apparent reason, who invited you for drinks on the spur of the moment, who offered to pick up your cleaning or walk your dog or water your plants. And I also realized that these people lacked nothing in the way of intelligence; rather it was I who lacked a few things – things like patience, an active interest in others, and a willingness to make sacrifices. St. Andrews had begun to teach me lessons I would never have learned in New York.”

My wife’s parents, when they were in their youth, emigrated from Scotland. They met in the U.S. and were married here, producing three children, one of whom is my wife – a great, good fortune for me.

We have had the distinct privilege of traveling together to Scotland on five occasions and, yes, golf was involved – including at St. Andrews where, beyond golf, the Old Course is closed on Sundays and becomes a park for anyone who wants to go for a walk hard by the North Sea.

Speaking of the Scottish people, one of my distinct memories occurred when my wife and I were walking around a small Scottish town looking for the bed-and-breakfast where we would stay. We came upon a Scot gentlemen out for his own walk.

As we passed, he did not acknowledge us, but we decided to stop and ask directions.

He responded – sure, he said, this is where you want to go.  But, then, in what illustrated the selflessness of the Scottish people, he went on. Follow me, he said, and he led us three blocks to our destination.

My wife told me that the Scottish people often come across as distant and aloof, but, if you need help, she told me, they’ll go out of their way to provide it.

In this case, I saw this sacrifice personally, just as Peper often did at St. Andrews.

THE MEANING OF GOLF IN SCOTLAND: “Someday I hope to bring my grandchildren to Scotland – not to show them what golf is, but to show them what golf isn’t – that it isn’t $200 million resorts and $200,000 membership fees, that it isn’t six-hour rounds and three-day member-guests, that it isn’t motorized buggies, Cuban cigars, and cashmere head covers. It’s a game you play simply and honorably, without delay or complaint – where you respect your companions, respect the rules, and respect the ground you walk on. Where, on the 18^th green, you remove your cap and shake hands, maybe just little humbler and little wiser than when you began.”

I reflect on this Peper paragraph and know that I have experienced the same incredible camaraderie of golf, both in this country and in Scotland.

The issue isn’t always what you scored in a round, though, as Americans, we (including me) pay more attention to that than do the Scots. The issue is the friendships you make and cement through golf.

Like Peper wrote, “remove your cap and shake hands, maybe just a little humbler and a little wiser than when you began.”

I get to experience this kind of golf here in the U.S., which means I have learned lessons by having the privilege of traveling to the “homeland of my wife” and translating Scot memories to the U.S.

I want to go back.