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 fI 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 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 – and 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 Scottish 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 this is where you want to go, he said. But, then in what illustrated the selflessness of the Scottish people, he went on. Follow me, he said, and he led us three blocks away 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 kind of 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 sane 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.”

I want to go back.

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 the spirit of full disclosure, I am writing again on a topic I lobbied for nearly 25 years at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon – health care. That does not disqualify from writing, but it is appropriate to emphasize what, for me, is a credential.  Second, my blog this time is based, at least in part, on reporting by the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and Gallup polling organization, all closer to the action in Washington, D.C. than I am.  So credit where credit is due.

**********

So, what does a socialist do when more than $32 trillion for free health care for all is not enough?

He – in this case, Bernie Sanders — decides to make his plan for a government-run health system bigger and more expensive.

In the Wall Street Journal, columnist James Freeman writes, “Sanders is the kind of socialist who demands $32.6 trillion from taxpayers to alter their medical care and then misleads them about the imagined benefits. But that description now seems unfair since the 2020 presidential candidate has decided to shove the price tag significantly further north.”

The Associated Press continued:

“Sanders is raising the stakes of the ‘Medicare for All’ debate by expanding his proposal to include long-term care, a move that is forcing other Democrat presidential candidates to take a stand on addressing one of the biggest gaps in the U.S. health care system.”

The original Sanders “Medicare for All” plan would end all private health insurance, as well as government programs like Medicare, and replace them with a new government medical system.

People of any age could qualify if illness, injury or age limit their ability to perform at least one “activity of daily living,” such as bathing or dressing, or one or more “instrumental activities of daily living,” such as managing money or taking prescribed medications. There would be no income or assets tests to qualify, and no co-pays or deductibles.

Of course, by going so far left, Sanders is drawing other Democrat 2020 presidential contenders along with him. All of them want to create the government-run health care system that would break the federal bank in two ways.

First, it would squeeze other spending priorities, including various national security programs. Second, it would just to be too expensive on its own.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Sanders also has decided that packaging his government-run health care with an abolition of traditional energy production at a cost that may run about $90 trillion over ten years is not enough.

The new long-term care plan, plus the energy plan, could make Sanders the $100 trillion man in terms of the amount of other people’s money he’s willing to commit to his agenda.

Notice the phrase: “Other people’s money.” Sanders has no limits on how much of that money he wants to spend.

So, how will Sanders’ health care for all for free fare among voters, especially those who don’t spend time attending Sanders’ political rallies?

The Wall Street Journal reports that a Morning Consult poll last month showed declining support for government-run health care.

When Gallup asked people in 2018 to rate the quality of the health care they received, most said it was excellent or good. Many people are consistently satisfied with the access they have and with their doctors.

Further Gallup poll results showed that 54 per cent prefer a health care system based on private insurance, while 40 per cent prefer a government-run system. When the Kaiser Family Foundation asked people about some arguments made for a Medicare for All plan, 60 per cent said they would oppose it if it required most Americans to pay more in taxes.

Finally, WSJ writer Freeman adds that “Some voters may find it endearing that, like other Marxist revolutionaries, Sanders doesn’t seem to particularly care whether a broad democrat consensus favors his policy agenda. But they should understand that he is promising to tax and spend tens of billions of dollars to expand the quantity of government services.

“Whether or not they call themselves capitalists, Democrats at every income level now have a chance to consider what the Sanders agenda will do to the quality of patient care.”

True. For my part, I continue to wish that elected officials interested in public policy, not perceived political advantage, would get around a table – yes, make it a round table – and craft health care policy from the middle.

What we don’t need is more ObamaCare when only Democrats voted for the then-president’s health care plan.

We also don’t need the Republican plan, which is essentially no plan at all, but just an attempt to oppose ObamaCare.

Where is the smart middle in a country that should be able to find a better way to mix government programs and private sector efforts to develop improved health care. We deserve that kind of approach to improve what already is a decent system.

So, by preparing to decide how to vote next year, I advocate telling Sanders and other big government proposers to take a hike.

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.

Last night, I watched part of the movie, All the President’s Men, as it appeared on the television for who knows, the hundredth time.

What I watched caught my attention, for I was re-living a huge part of my past – and probably yours – the Watergate scandal.

To persons many these days, Watergate is just a name from the past. Not a reality. No problem, for time passes. But, for me, Watergate is a bit like the Vietnam War, a reality of my past that conjures up a huge dose of memories, both good and bad.

Without the Washington Post’s huge journalistic to uncover the Watergate scandal and the cover-up, who knows – we might never have known the extent of the poison in our political system, a poison that engulfed the White House and brought down President Richard Nixon (for good reason, I add). It also meant a number of his cronies spent time in jail.

For me, the movie conjured up these images:

• First, to put a positive spin on the movie, it chronicled solid journalism by the Washington Post. It’s something we don’t see today as many newspapers are dying, as some media outlets gravitate toward entertainment and controversy for their own sakes, and as the rise of social media often doesn’t even equate to solid journalism, if to journalism at all. Too bad. The Washington Post’s enterprise is worth noting, if not repeating.
• Second, Watergate captured our attention because we had no particular experience, at that time, with a government run amok. Guess what is happening today? The crimes of Watergate appear tame in comparison to what we see routinely out of the Trump Administration, as well as some unholy members of Congress. Scandal is part of our daily ritual of watching “news,” or what passes for news these days.
• Third, can we, as Americans, help to produce an honest, no-crimes-allowed political system in this country? I don’t know, but it is worth the effort in order to save this country’s political system from ruin.

And, based on what we see every day, that’s actually what is at stake – the future of our political system.

On the right, if that is where he actually is, President Trump violates political norms and conventions every day, perhaps even every Twitter-laden moment. Some of his actions constitute alleged crimes. Can we survive his indiscretions and his crimes?

On the left, can we tolerate far left radicals, including several who are running for president in 2020, who want to turn America into a socialist country?   Free health care for all. Free college for all. Re-build all buildings in this country according to some kind of “green new deal.” Bar businesses from being involved in politics.

Both right and left extremes portend ruin for this country.

All of this suggests that, when I notice that All the President’s Men is on TV again, I’ll watch the whole thing. It’s worth reflecting on our history to avoid simply repeating it again.

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.

There was big news this week regarding the 2020 presidential race when, presumably, Donald Trump will seek re-election and as many as 20 Democrats will run against him.

One of the possible D contenders, former New York mayor Michael Blumberg decided to pass on the race. He could have been a formidable candidate, if only because of his own money. But he said he couldn’t run based on the left-wing Democrat platform.

His decision could result in an increased chance that retired Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz will decide to run as a third-party candidate.

Here’s the way the Washington Post put it yesterday in its “Daily 202” column:

“In Dallas last night, Howard Schultz seized on fellow billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s decision not to run for president as a fresh rationale for his own likely bid.

“The retired Starbucks CEO cited the former New York mayor’s announcement as validation for his theory that the ideological gulf between the two major parties will be so wide in 2020 that an independent candidate like him just might be able to prevail.

“’The Democrats are pushing an agenda that is extremely so far left that, in my mind, it’s very close to a socialistic agenda,’” Schultz said at Southern Methodist University. ‘You saw today that one of the great mayors in modern history … decided not to run for president.’”

It appears that Blumberg looked at the Democrat platform and realized that, as a centrist, he probably could not convince enough Democrats that he could live by the wacko left wing proposals.

He was reported to be close to jumping in, but he concluded his path to the Democrat nomination was too narrow to be worthwhile.

“I believe I would defeat Donald Trump in a general election,” Blumberg said. “But I am clear-eyed about the difficulty of winning the Democrat nomination in such a crowded field.”

His pro-business centrism – including opposition to stricter regulations of Wall Street and support for a stop-and-frisk approach to criminal justice – would certainly have caused him countless headaches in his quest to become the party’s standard-bearer.

“Some have told me that to win the Democratic nomination, I would need to change my views to match the polls,” Bloomberg wrote.

“It’s not who I am, nor do I think it’s what voters want in a leader.”

So, back to Schultz.

Promoting his new book, “From the Ground Up,” on the college campus that houses George W. Bush’s presidential library, Schultz was asked, according to the Washington Post, whether he worries about being a spoiler.

“I think,” he was reported to have said, “that same question could be asked of the Democrat Party if they put up a candidate that is emblematic of a level of socialism. I think it’s better than 50-50 odds that President Trump would get re-elected. I don’t think the American people want to embrace an economic environment in which socialism is going to rule the day.”

The Post said the crowd of about 1,000 people, including many students, applauded. “However, however, however,” he continued, “the other side of that is I do not believe that President Trump should be re-elected.

“In fact, I believe he should be fired. My view is that there are millions of lifelong Republicans – based on the president’s character and leadership qualities, or lack thereof – who would not go into the voting booth and vote for a Democrat resembling a socialist but might, just might, have an interest in a person who is independent and who is not beholden to either party.”

Count me in that number.

I have grown very weary of Trump’s character flaws – flaws he emphasizes with every passing moment.  He has no shame.  He doesn’t tell the truth, so there is no way to judge his performance in office other than to cringe at what he does and says. He criticizes in very harsh terms anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

At the same time, the Democrats are not much better. The 2020 standard bearers are so left of center that they cannot even be found on a political spectrum. The same is true for the D who gets most of the ink these, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

Free health care for all? Yes. Free college for all? Yes. Re-build every structure in the United States according to some kind of new “green standard?” Yes.

Give me a candidate with solid character who will lead this country with distinction and verve. That could be Howard Schultz.

One of my friends accused me the other day of promising in the last presidential election of pledging to vote for neither candidate on the basis that neither inspired trust and confidence. If I voted for a third party, would that mean I was throwing away my vote?

Perhaps. But in the spirit of wanting something better for my country, I am prepared to do so again.  Conscience matters more than party affiliation.

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.

Remember the acronym ACA?

In federal government parlance, it stood for the Affordable Care Act, which was the label put on the so-called “health care reform” proposal from President Barack Obama – which weren’t affordable at all.

But that’s a story for another time.

Today, I use the ACA to stand for the “Affordable Course Act,” a proposal from my friend, George Peper, the editor of Links Magazine.

Is George Peper really a friend of mine? Well, perhaps not in any personal sense.

But I have followed Peper’s writings on golf from his days as editor of Gold Magazine, to his move to Scotland to become a member of St. Andrews Links Trust, which enabled him to play the seven courses there, including the Old Course, to his move back to the U.S. to edit Links.

In Scotland, the flat he and his wife bought and remodeled sat right near the 18^th hole on the Old Course.

Peper chronicled all this in a book, Two Years in St. Andrews, At Home on the 18^th Hole, which captured my imagination as I read it more than once. One of the my pipe dreams is to do what Peper did, which was to live on the Old Course, or, perhaps more possibly to do what another golf writer, Lorne Rubenstein, did when he stayed for four months near my favorite golf course in the world, Royal Dornoch, to the far north in Scotland.

Golf in Scotland? Yes. Many times yes. Setting foot on the Old Course, Royal Dornoch or many other courses in Scotland is a pure privilege to tread where golfers of old invented the game we love to play.

In a column in this month’s issue of Links Magazine, Peper advocates for his “Affordable Course Act” with this paragraph: “When I am appointed Golf Czar, my first order of business will be to address the games three big weaknesses – its glacial pace, extortionate expense, and damnable difficulty – and I will do so with my signature decree: The Affordable Course Act.”

Peper than goes on to outline three planks in his ACA platform:

• Each ACA course will have a USGA Pace Rating of no more than 240 minutes. [This means the course will be navigable by a group of four players, whether in carts or on foot, in four hours or less.]

As an aside, I sent an e-mail note to Peper last evening suggesting that he take a look at The Palms where I have the privilege of playing in La Quinta, California. The guideline there is to play in three and one-half hours and no one has a problem doing so.

• Each ACA course will have an average of green fee of $100 or less. [Peper would allow a bit higher fee on weekends and in peak season, but such fees will be balanced, he contends, by lower charges during the week and off-season.]
• Each ACA course will have a maximum USGA Slope Rating of 135. [And, be aware, that’s from the very back markers. The regular tees should check in at closer to 130 or less.]

Peper closes his piece with this:

“Thanks goodness once czardom is conferred on me, I’ll get this done for the good of golfkind. I recognize, however, that my coronation may not be imminent, so I hereby magnanimously offer my ACA formula and specs to all course owners, developers, and architects in the fervent hope that they’ll step up and do the right thing.”

Again, Peper scores well in what he writes — even of under par, to use a golf analogy. For the good of the game of golf, the proposals are worth considering, especially if we want to see the game grow.

For me, beyond The Palms in California, I have the privilege of playing at Illahe Hills Golf Club in Salem, Oregon. Over my 30-plus years at Illahe, it always has been easy to play in four hours or less.

So, it may be true that Illahe already meets the three ACA planks advocated by Peper.

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 asks a question that only someone preoccupied with golf rules detail ever would consider.

That’s me.

For some reason, I like to focus on the rules, which are both complex and difficult to understand. And I write that even though the rules, effective as of January 1, 2019, have been updated, which means the number of rules has been reduced and the language has been brought into more current lingo.

Still, the rules are complex, if only because the game is played outdoors on acres of land in contrast to other sports played in a stadium or pavilion.

So, backstopping? What is it?

It is when one player hits a ball near the hole, then, upon agreement with the next player to hit, leaves the ball in its place to help the second player.

This appeared to occur a week or so ago in a women’s professional golf tournament in Thailand when Ariya Jutanugarn hit a chip shot near the hole, then the next player, Amy Olson, motioned Jutanugaran to leave her ball in place.

Olson then hit her chip and her golf ball hit the first ball and stopped about three from the hole when, on its own, it would have gone an estimated 15 feet farther.

GolfWeek writer Geoff Shackelford published a piece a few days ago under this headline:

Rise of ‘backstopping’ drives at integrity of golf

He went on:

“Golf has an integrity problem and doesn’t even know it.

“Look at the blissful ignorance of fist-bumpers Amy Olson and Ariya Jutanugarn after colluding at the Honda LPGA Thailand.

“Jutanugarn pitched close to the hole from just off the 18^th green, prepared to go mark or tap in, but looked at Olson. The world No. 1 put on the brakes upon getting a signal of some sort from Olson that she was ready to play with Jutanugarn’s ball resting by the hole and she agreed to leave it there.

“You know, because it’s the last green and Olson’s got things to do and places to be.

“The balls collided and Olson’s lousy chip went from 15-20 feet by, to three feet from the hole. Birdie.

“As past backstopping incidents have all made clear, pro golfers are rarely in a hurry except when one of their peers leaves a shiny white ball somewhere around the hole. After all, they’re just trying to grow the game by playing faster. When it suits their needs.”

Some other writers have not been as harsh as Shackelford. They have reported that at least Olson did not even know about the rule – it is #15.3a in the official golf rule book – and she was only trying to speed up place of play.

LPGA rules officials consulted with Olson and Jutanugarn after the incident and agreed not to penalize them.

Shackelford demures:

“The incident is a breach of rule 15.3a, where beefed up language in golf’s new rules addressed backstopping with a two-stroke penalty option.

“The key language appears written for just the LPGA duo:

In stroke play, under Rule 15.3a, if two or more players agree to leave a ball in place on the putting green to help any player, and the stroke is made with the helping ball left in place, each player who made the agreement gets two penalty strokes. A breach of Rule 15.3a does not depend on whether the players know that such an agreement is not allowed.

For example, in stroke play, before playing from just off the putting green, a player asks another player to leave his or her ball that is near the hole, in order to use it as a backstop. Without knowing this is not allowed, the other player agrees to leave his or her ball by the hole to help the other player. Once the stroke is made with the ball in place, both players get the penalty under Rule 15.3a.

Backstopping, Shackelford reports, started many years ago at Riviera Country Club’s par-4 10th hole. The tiny green had its fringes lowered and players found themselves playing from greenside bunker to bunker. Out of empathy or time concerns, PGA Tour players started leaving balls in the vicinity of, but never in front of, the hole.

The practice, Shackelford continues, eventually started happening on other holes with a few high-profile examples, most notably Tony Finau rushing to hit a buried lie bunker shot that successfully hit a ball, stopped closer to the hole and saved him a stroke that cost Chesson Hadley and Phil Mickelson six figures in the 2017 Safeway Open.

“The practice should have come to an end in June, 2018 when 2017 PGA Champion Jimmy Walker admitted to leaving his ball down as a backstop for players he likes and thinking nothing was untoward about that.”

Interesting background, but, for me, the bottom line is this: Unless the players themselves admit to “backstopping,” there is no way to prove intent.

That was the case with Olson and Jutanugarn and, for a game where players often call penalties on themselves (in contrast to sports like basketball and football where players do not demonstrate that kind of class), you have to rely on the honesty of players.

If not, then do away with all golf rules and let the players continue as they choose.

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.

Opinion writers are going to both ways on former Donald Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s testimony this week before a congressional committee.

Some say he painted President Donald Trump further into a corner as he, Cohen, relayed information that could constitute high crimes by Trump.

Others say Cohen’s testimony was supposed to be “bombshell,” but bombed in the sense of not providing new, clear-cut evidence Trump’s crimes, though the cancelled check showing a hush-money payment to a call girl could rank as a campaign contribution violation, and, thus, a crime.

For me, the most telling moment was when Cohen said Trump never expected to win the presidency and was treating all of the campaign as “another infomercial,” one that would elevate his Trump brand.

If true – and it strikes me that it is – no wonder Trump doesn’t know what to do in office. When he arrived against all odds in the Oval Office, he was ill-prepared to take on the most powerful political position in the world. Nor, while occupying the office, he is not known for trying to increase the level of his preparation, preferring to fly by the seat of his pants

Here’s the way opinion writer Petty Noonan put it this morning in the Wall Street Journal:

“Cohen implied the president’s Russian policies are not and never have been on the up-and-up: ‘Trump knew of and directed the Trump-Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign, and lied about it. He lied because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real-estate project.’

“Cohen said he came to see the president’s true character: ‘Since taking office he has become the worst version of himself. . . . Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation—only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Trump would often say, the campaign is going to be the greatest infomercial in political history. He never expected to win the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The campaign—for him—was always a marketing opportunity.’”

Or, this from Washington Post writer Karen Tumulty who makes the same point:

“Of all the things that President Trump’s former personal lawyer revealed in his remarkable day of congressional testimony Wednesday, the one that shed the greatest light was this: Trump never expected — or even really wanted — to win the 2016 election.

“Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation — only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Trump would often say, this campaign was going to be the ‘greatest infomercial in political history.”

Those who watched Cohen’s seven-and-one-half hours of testimony could come to a conclusion that Trump is guilty of various crimes. I agree.

But, without coming to a conclusion on those alleged crimes, what was very clear was Trump is an idiot. He treated the presidential campaign as an “infomercial,” not a process designed to put someone in the White House with the character to perform well, regardless of political party affiliation.

For me, character matters for “our” president.

And, guess what? All of us lost as Trump continues to star in his own infomercial. Cohen made that point very well this week and I hope Cohen’s comments will continue to resonate as we head toward the 2020 elections…unless impeachment arrives first.

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 contrast for you:

• According to the Wall Street Journal, Democrats “are going bold,” heading toward the 2020 presidential election, so much so that they even are risking significant splits in their ranks.
• Again, according to the Wall Street Journal, many states – including some led by Republicans — are offering tax cuts or tax rebates to citizens as the economy continues to percolate along in those states, if not nationally.

These developments, technically unrelated as they are, illustrate two very different views of government.

Democrats tend to want more government, even if that heads toward socialism and makes citizens subservient to big government

Republicans tend to want less government, believing that tax money “belongs” to the payers, so should be directed to specific, results-tested programs or turned back to taxpayers.

Here is more information on the two issues.

THE DEMOCRATS, according to the Wall Street Journal:

“Tear down the border wall. Pay slavery reparations. Upgrade every building in America. Tax the assets of rich people. Pack the Supreme Court with four new liberal judges.

“The newest class of Democrat presidential candidates has been swinging for the fences in recent weeks by embracing or entertaining a head-snapping list of policy ideas that were either rejected or ignored by the party’s previous standard-bearers.

“In the first months of the nomination race, big plans and audacious ideas have so far proved more attractive than pragmatism and caution, even as candidates have carefully avoided committing themselves to all the legislative details of the “Green New Deal” climate change proposal or upending the 150-year-old structure of the nation’s highest court.

“Oh, it’s impractical. Oh, it’s too expensive. Oh, it’s all this,” Senator Cory Booker (Democrat-New Jersey) told voters on his maiden trip to Iowa this month when asked about the plans promoted by House liberals to fight climate change. “If we used to govern our dreams that way, we would have never have gone to the moon.”

Some Democrat leaders agree that candidates need to be careful not to say anything now that could haunt them in the general election, if they become the nominee.

“There’s an old sports term, ‘leading with your chin’ — which is not a good idea,” said James Carville, a Democrat strategist who helped run Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, which was decidedly centrist. “You need to be cognizant that whatever you do leading up to the general will follow you.”

THE REPUBLICANS, according to the Wall Street Journal:

“State finances are enjoying flush times and some states are sending that bounty back to taxpayers.

“Arkansas this month lowered its top personal income-tax rate by 1 percentage point to 5.9 per cent and South Carolina has proposed an income tax rebate to all residents who file returns. In Florida, the governor has proposed lowering property and sales taxes. The givebacks come even as all three states proposed increased spending on education and other priorities.

“Ten years after the recession, many states have the choice of what to spend revenues on rather than what programs to cut. The National Conference of State Legislatures found in a fall survey that 48 states expected to meet or exceed their revenue expectations.

“At the same time, states are continuing to put away more money in their rainy-day funds which can be tapped during recessions. Between fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2018, those funds grew nearly $33 billion in total according to the National Association of State Budget Officers.”

So, how about Oregon?

Well, I am no longer at the State Capitol in Salem as a lobbyist, so I am not as close to budget and tax issues as I once was, but I do track subjects in the Legislature just because – I guess – I am a political junkie.

There is absolutely no chance the Oregon Legislature – where Democrats are in charge by super-majorities in both the House and the Senate – will consider tax cuts. They want higher taxes on a variety of payers.

It appears the “new money,” if it arrives, would go primarily, and separately, toward K-12 education and health care, both worthy goals. But, for me, there has not yet been enough discussion about whether the taxes should be paid and, if the new money exists, how it could be used to the best advantage.

Democrats are in charge in Salem, so it follows that they should be able to follow their own logic. I just hope they go deep on the pros and cons of tax spending issues.

Plus, it is likely that Oregon’s s-called “kicker law” – it specifies that, when taxes exceed estimates by more than two per cent, the money should be returned to payers – will kick. No idea yet whether the kicker will be allowed to work, though it might be a heavy lift to change it.

One proposal is to re-direct the money into the “rainy day fund,” which, to me, makes some sense.

Yet, the re-direction should only happen if the action occurs in public with a solid rationale behind it.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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.

Those who know me know that I, for some unknown reason, like golf rules, including writing about them from time to time.

Perhaps the reason is that I have time on my hands in retirement.

This blog reports more recent rules issues.

A RULES CONTROVERSY FOR THE LPGA: It always seems that there are new rules controversies. Such was the case over the weekend in an LPGA tournament in Thailand.

American player Amy Johnson and Thailand playear Ariya Jutanguarn were involved in a situation on the 18^th green that prompted a lot of to’ing and fro’ing over rules.

What happened as that both players missed the green. It was then Jutanguarn’s turn to play first and she hit a good chip shot to about three feet from the pin. Then, instead of waiting for Jutanguarn to mark her ball, Johnson motioned her that she would hit her chip shot first.

The Johnson shot hit Jutanguarn’s ball and came to rest about two feet from the hole when, otherwise, it probably would have gone 15 to 20 feet past the pin.

The incident, which was caught on TV, prompted questions about whether Johnson was guilty of violating a golf rule (15.3 in the new golf rule book), which bars what has come to be called “backstopping.”

Here’s what the rules says:

“If two or more players agree to leave a ball in place on the putting green to help any player, and the stroke is made with the helping ball in place, each player who made the agreement gets two penalty strokes.”

LPGA tournament officials met with both players after their round and decided there was not an intent to violate the rules. Johnson especially said she was interested in speeding up pace of play. So, no penalty.

Tough to decide whether “backstopping” has occurred or not. But the rule is in place for a reason and the best that can said this time is that an intentional decision was made that there was not a violation.

As an aside, Johnson played recently at The Palms where I play in La Quinta. She did well, posting a course record for women from the white tees.

RICKEY FOWLER VIOLATES A RULE: Fowler is one of my favorite golfers and I am glad he won the recent tournament in Arizona.

This time, in Mexico for another major tournament, he committed a rules violation, one he readily admitted. He hit a bad shot, actually a shank, that went out-of-bounds. Then, to compound his error, he took a drop in the wrong way and did so fast enough that even his caddy did not see the error.

Fowler dropped from shoulder height, the old standard, rather than the new knee-high standard. He played on without correcting his mistake, so incurred another one-shot penalty.

I tend to agree with his assessment after the fact. While not opposing the penalty, Fowler suggested that rules should allow a drop anywhere between shoulder and knee. For golfers like Fowler, who have dropped from shoulder height for more than 25 years, making the new adjustment can be tough under the pressure of a major event.

Fowler suffered another unfortunate rules situation as he won the Arizona tournament a couple weeks ago. He hit a ball into the water just over a green, then took a drop in the proper way. As he walked up to the green to survey his next shot, the ball moved on its own back into the water. Another penalty.

That should not have been the case. My view is that he should have been allowed to drop again, no penalty.

AND MORE ON SLOW PLAY: Several of my on-line golf magazines have written lately about the continuing problem of slow play in golf – as I did a week or so.

Initially, I was motivated by the often agonizingly show play of J. B. Holmes, who went on to win the Genesis Open at Riviera. He is becoming known as THE major violator of slow play issues, often rivaling another very slow player, Bryson DeChambeau.

Holmes doesn’t care about the moniker.

He has been seen plumb-bobbing a two-foot putt and, repeatedly checking his green-reading book before getting around to making his next stroke, even a very short one.

Five-hour rounds? They are becoming commonplace on the PGA Tour and, until someone does something about the problem – penalty strokes? – nothing will change.

I have a few ideas, as I have mentioned in previous blogs. The one with the most potential is to mimic the European Tour’s experiment with a shot-clock on the back of a golf cart for each playing group. One result of failing to play in the allotted 40 seconds after you arrive at your ball gets a warning; the second gets a penalty stroke.

Until tournament and rules officials get the attention of tour players, slow play will continue unabated. And, unfortunately, slow play often works against one of the objectives of most golf advocacy organizations — growing the game.

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.

Yesterday, I mentioned the stupidity of new Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as she congratulated herself and other far right wackos for prompting Amazon to backtrack on its plans to build a “second headquarters” near New York.

The plan would have resulted in 25,000 new jobs – perhaps up to 40,000 — and an estimated infusion of more than $25 billion to the New York area economy, not to mention the construction and other jobs associated with Amazon’s decision to build another headquarters.

I said yesterday that Ocasio-Cortez deserves what she gets, with is no new jobs in an area in or near her congressional district.

Well, Washington Post columnist Mark Thiessen, went even farther in a piece with this headline:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate — and that’s a danger to America

Thiessen continued:

“The left complains that conservatives are ‘obsessing’ over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today’s Democrat Party — and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

“Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazon promised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon’s departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses — restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts — that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon’s withdrawal.”

Thiessen makes a key point about Ocasio-Cortez total inexperience, if not stupidity. She thought that, because Amazon would not be getting incentives worth in the range of $3 billion, the money could instead go to liberal programs she favors.

Of course, that is not true and her perception illustrates how stupid she is.

“We were subsidizing those jobs,” she is reported to have said. “Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire more teachers. We could fix our subways. We could put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to.”

No, you can’t, Thiessen counters. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon’s money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue.

Beyond that key point and rather than selecting Thiessen quotes to emphasize, let me just reprint much of his piece.

**********

As New York Mayor Bill de Blasio explained the Amazon deal would have produced “$27 billion in new tax revenue to fuel priorities from transit to affordable housing — a nine-fold return on the taxes the city and state were prepared to forgo to win the headquarters.” Unlike Ocasio-Cortez’s imaginary $3 billion slush fund, that is real money that actually could have been used to hire teachers, fix subways and put people to work. With Amazon leaving New York, that $27 billion leaves with it. Genius.

Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to understand that by helping to drive Amazon away, she did not save New York $3 billion; she cost New York $27 billion. There is a difference between having bad ideas and not grasping basic facts. Reasonable people can disagree about whether New York should have offered Amazon $3 billion in tax incentives — or anything at all — to build its headquarters in the city. But that is different from not understanding that New York is not writing a $3 billion check to Amazon.

Sadly, Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t learn from her mistakes. She made the same kind of error in December when she tweeted, “$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.” But, as Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood told The Post, “DoD hasn’t received $21 trillion in (nominal) appropriated funding across the entirety of American history.” Once again, Ocasio-Cortez did not grasp that the Pentagon did not have a magic pile of $21 trillion in cash sitting in a vault somewhere.

Her economic illiteracy matters because she is the principal author of the Green New Deal, which has been endorsed by most of the leading Democrat candidates for president. From this unschooled mind has sprung the most ambitious plan for government intervention in the economy since Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s train pulled into Petrograd’s Finland Station.

If Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t understand how tax subsidies work, how can she be trusted to plan the federal takeover of the health-care, energy and transportation sectors of our economy? Think she and her allies have any idea how to, as her now infamous talking points put it, upgrade or replace “every building in America” . . . or replace “every combustible-engine vehicle” . . . or connect every corner of America with high-speed rail . . . or replace all fossil-fuel energy with alternative energy sources — all in 10 years’ time? Apparently, they think we just have to find all the magic pots of cash the government is hiding.

When this kind of ignorance is driving policymaking in Washington, America is in profound danger. Amazon left New York because Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow democratic socialists created a hostile environment in the city. And if Ocasio-Cortez has her way, Democrats are going to do to the rest of America what they just did to New York.

**********

I’ll give Wall Street Journal columnist the last word on the Amazon deal – or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the “undeal:”

“The story’s over but it doesn’t stop hurting. Twenty-five thousand jobs lost, maybe 40,000 when all is said and done, and of all kinds—high-tech, management, white-collar, blue. All the construction, and the signs and symbols of a coming affluence: the streets lit bright, the sidewalks busy, shops and restaurants humming, hiring. The feeling of safety you have when you pass doorways on the street at night and can hear laughter and conversation on the other side.

“This is not just ‘a loss,’ it is a whole lost world. And it is a watershed event for my town. After Amazon’s withdrawal no major American company will open a new headquarters here for at least a generation. No CEO is going to do what Jeff Bezos did, invest all that time and money, do all the planning, negotiating and deciding, only to see it collapse in bitter headlines because the politicians you’re making the deal with can’t control their own troops, and because, in the end, it is summoning a humiliation to do big business in a town whose political life is dominated by a wild and rising left.”