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 United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal and Ancient (R & A) have developed new golf rules effective with the start of the 2019 year.

Good news. But the two golf-ruling bodies missed a bit on the new bunker rule (Rule #12).

Perhaps I am showing a bit of immodesty by deigning to critique the new rules, but, still, the language in the bunker rule perplexes me.

As the summary below indicates, the new rule is not all bad. But, including this statement – you are now allowed “to strike the sand in frustration and anger” – is weird.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the two excellent golf associations – they govern the game of golf around the world – would allow such a phrase to be included.

My friends at the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) told me that, if a player in an OGA tournament was seen “striking the sand in frustration and anger,” that player would receive either a two-stroke bad-conduct penalty or be disqualified.

All of this came to mind for me this morning as I read an article in my on-line edition of the Global Golf Post (GGP).

According to the GGP, the following is not allowed in a bunker – and all prohibitions sound familiar for those of us who try to avoid the sand, but sometimes reach it:

• Grounding your club immediately in front of or behind the ball
• Making a practice swing that touches sand
• Touching the sand in making a back swing
• Taking any other action purposely to test the condition of the sand

Also, according to the GGP, the following is now allowed in the sand:

• Putting clubs down in a bunker
• Touching the sand accidentally
• Raking the bunker to take care of the course
• Striking the sand in anger and frustration

And, one other major change has been ruled by the USGA and the R &A. It is that, if you are in the sand and don’t want to hit your next shot from there, you are now allowed to remove your ball from the bunker and drop it outside the bunker on a line between where the ball was and where the hole is.

To do this, you would take a two-stroke penalty, which could strike some amateur golfers as welcome relief from a bunker.

The fact that I am focusing on this will strike some as strange. It indicates two things: (1) I love golf and love focusing on the arcane rules of the sport, which exist in substantial detail if only because the game is played outdoors on large tracts of land, not inside a stadium or pavilion; and (b) I don’t have much else to do in retirement.

So, if you are in bunkers as you play golf, take advantage of the new rules and, as pro golfer Sergio Garcia did a week ago in a tournament in Saudi Arabia, feel free to “strike the sand in anger and frustration.”

Seriously, learn to play out of the sand so you are not tempted to take the two-stroke penalty to get out.

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.

Many of us in Oregon – elected officials, appointed officials and lobbyists alike – have been down the health care policy road many times.

We took that road to do what many other states did not do, which was to reform health care, not by a major re-write, but by incremental steps that improved the landscape. Many of the steps of progress occurred under the leadership of former Oregon governor John Kitzhaber, an emergency room physician by training.

Kitzhaber was good at the policy development process, though he tended to sully many of his solid achievements by the way he left office under a cloud a few years ago.

Well, health care policy – or at least a new proposal – made headlines in Salem last week.

Nearly 40 members of the Oregon Legislature introduced legislation, Senate Bill 770, which, they said, “would set the stage for universal health care in Oregon.”

There is little doubt but that the claim is overstated. As always, the devil will be in the details.

SB 770 would create a board and set up other components the proponents contend are necessary to establish the so-called “Health Care for Oregon Plan” to provide universal coverage throughout the state.
“Health care is a basic human necessity and it should be a right,” said Senator James Manning, D-Eugene, a chief co-sponsor of the bill. His definition of health care as a right has been proposed many times in the past, but never passed at the Capitol because, for one reason, the cost would be out of sight.

“We all need health care, and you can’t survive without it, “Manning added as he stated the obvious. “We’ve got to make sure that we get universal health care set up in Oregon so that none of us go bankrupt or die just because we get sick and don’t have health insurance.”

High-sounding and attractive words. I don’t know Senator Manning – he arrived in Salem after I retired – but I suspect he is genuine in his interests.

Among other provisions, SB 770 sets eligibility requirements for “Health Care for Oregon Plan.” According to a news release from the proponents, “those include being an Oregon resident, but those living outside the state who are employed full-time in Oregon also can use the program, if they pay into it. Immediate family members and dependents of qualifying individuals also will qualify, as the bill is written.”

During my 25 years as a state lobbyist, I focused on health care as a representative of various health care interests, especially Providence Health & Services, one of Oregon’s leading health care providers (which also has platforms in five other states).

One of my conclusions: Developing solid health care policy is VERY difficult.

Here are some of the important features of any new health care policy drive – features that would mark the difference between just words like “health care for all” and the fact of real improvements in providing increased health care services.

1. The first requirement is leadership from legislators with the chops to bring competing interests together to find middle ground. Though I have been gone from my lobby gig for a couple years, leadership does not strike as a frequent skill at the Capitol these days.
2. The second requirement is that right people need to be “in the room” to hammer out thoughtful proposals. For me back in the day, the best legislator at this was Neil Bryant, a centrist Republican from Bend who had the wherewithal to ask – read, demand – the right people to be in the room, plus tell those who did not want to compromise to stay away. Of course, whatever emerged from what was called “a work group” would have to pass public muster in public on the floors of the Senate and the House, as well as in the Governor’s Office.
3. The third requirement is implied above. Those in the room had to be willing to compromise – to give on some points, and to get on some other points. That’s the definition of compromise. No one side wins. Many today believe that compromise involves one capitulating to the other. No. It’s middle ground.
4. The fourth requirement is that there should be a focus on cost. Often, those on the left avoid considering costs believing that government should pay the bill, even though that means all of as taxpayers will be hit in our wallets.
5. The fifth requirement is that there should be a focus on methods by which citizens gain access to health care. And that means going back to cost issues, as well as assuring that there are enough qualified providers to do the job.

Instead of just uttering high-sounding phrases designed to make headlines, I wish legislators at the Capitol would focus on making new law that works, or, if they are not able to do so, avoid passing something based on just words and not meaningful action.

Too much to expect? Probably.

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.

If I have told this story before, forgive me.

But, for me, the following account says volumes.

The issue occurred back in the late 1980s when I worked as press secretary for Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh. At the time, the Atiyeh Administration was interested in doing what it could to help Oregon businesses save or create jobs.

Perhaps the help would involve aiding businesses travel through complex government permit programs.

Or, in major cases, it might involve deciding whether to offer businesses – such as, for example, Intel Corporation – tax abatement programs that would enable the job creation. Of course, though some question such offers, the good news is that, once created, new job-holders would begin paying taxes to support important public services.

The Atiyeh Administration commitment led to an interest in publishing annual job retention or creation totals. So, as press secretary, I got a report from the Oregon Economic Development Department and prepared to release the information to the public and the media.

As I contemplated the task, I lost sleep over whether the report was accurate and would stand up under scrutiny from the media. I double-checked it, then released the information. There were no questions about the accuracy of the numbers we provided.

Now, for the second part of the story, which relates to the Trump Administration and how he or it releases information. Accuracy does not appear to part of the decision about what to release or how to frame the administration’s vaunted success.

All of this made its way heavily through the recent State of the Union address, or, as I have called it, the “State of Disunion” address.

As reported by the Washington Post’s “Fact-Checker” column, here are just a few of the cases when Trump inflated numbers, reported them out of context, or told downright lies:

“We have created 5.3 million new jobs and importantly added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs.”

Trump often inflates the number of jobs created under his presidency by counting Election Day, rather than when he took the oath of office. There have been almost 4.9 million jobs created since January 2017, of which 436,000 are manufacturing jobs.

“Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades.”

Wages rose 3.1 per cent from December 2017 to December 2018, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account. That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in December 2008.

But adjusted for inflation, wages for all workers grew 1.3 percent from December 2017 to December 2018, making the increase only the largest since August 2016, according to the Labor Department.

“Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps.”

About 3.6 million people (not nearly 5 million) have stopped receiving food stamps since February 2017. But experts say the improvement in the economy may not be the only reason for the decline.

Several states have rolled back recession-era waivers that allowed some adults to keep their benefits for longer periods of time without employment. Reports have also suggested immigrant families with citizen children have dropped out of the program, fearing the administration’s immigration policies. Moreover, the number of people collecting benefits has been declining since fiscal 2014.

“Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in half a century. African American, Hispanic American and Asian American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.”

This is all in the past. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rate had increased to 4 per cent in January. The unemployment rate in December had no longer been at a 49-year low, but an 18-year low. Now it was merely the best since the beginning of 2018.

“More people are working now than at any time in our history — 157 million.”

This is a pretty meaningless statistic. The U.S. population is growing, so of course more people would be employed.

“We virtually ended the estate, or death, tax on small businesses, ranchers and family farms.”

This is an enormous stretch. Trump often claims he saved family farms and small businesses by gradually reducing the federal estate tax. Reducing the estate tax primarily benefits the wealthy. The estate tax rarely falls on farms or small businesses, since only those leaving behind more than $5 million pay it. According to the Tax Policy Center, nearly 5,500 estates in 2017 — out of nearly 3 million — were subject to the tax. Of those, only 80 taxable estates would be farms and small businesses.

“We have unleashed a revolution in American energy — the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world.”

The notion that “a revolution” in energy began under the Trump administration is wrong. The United States has led the world in natural gas production since 2009. Crude oil production has been increasing rapidly since 2010, reaching record levels in August 2018.

“And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy.”

The United States has exported more energy than it has imported since 2015. Trump overstates the impact of his energy policy.

“Tens of thousands of innocent Americans are killed by lethal drugs that cross our border and flood into our cities, including meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl.”

Most drugs come into the United States across the southern border with Mexico. But a wall would not necessarily stanch the flow, as much of these drugs are smuggled through legal ports of entry or underground tunnels. Trump mentioned meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl, but leaves out that the death toll from drug abuse is mostly attributable to prescription and illicit drug overdoses, which claim more lives than cocaine and heroin overdoses combined.

“All Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before.”

As a raw number, this was correct in December (it dropped slightly in January), but it mainly reflects the increasing size of the U.S. population. The number of overall workers is also at a high. The more relevant figure — the labor participation rate of women — is not at a record high. It stands at 57.5 per cent, well below the 60.3 per cent reached in April 2000.

I’ll stop there, though the Post carried a number of additional examples of Trump fact-checking lapses.

I know the parallel to my situation in the Oregon Governor’s Office is a stretch, given the huge differences between a state policy on job retention or creation and federal policies governing international relations or the state of the country’s economy.

Still, if you listen to Trump, then check the accuracy of his statements, you end up believing he inflates, tells partial truths, or tells no truths. The reality appears to be that many politicians inflate or lie to be able to tell a better story. Not just Trump.

So, as always, I advocate for better leaders who tell stories straight and appeal to Americans on the basis of what they have done and the solid character traits underlining their actions.

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

At first blush the phrase sounds great. Medicare for All. Who wouldn’t want more health care coverage?

But, upon reflection, the phrase is just that – a phrase without much detail about what it really means.

To many Democrats using the phrase, it means a fully government-run health care system that, among other things, would do away with private health insurance. Senator Kamala Harris, as she announced her campaign for president in 2020, relied heavily on Medicare for All because, like most on the left, she apparently believes the phrase will appeal to voters.

Disregard the price tag. In fact, don’t even mention the word price.

Several letters to the editor in the Wall Street Journal appear to understand that much more needs to be known before confirming support or opposition to Medicare for All. They were writing in response to piece the other day by Karl Rove that questioned the underpinnings of the new, proposed government program.

Here is a collection of points from the letters to the editor that appeared under the following headline and tag-line – and note that the letters are not just from opponents; they are from real citizens who want more information:

Let’s Think Through ‘Medicare for All’ First

It would be grossly unfair to the tens of millions of employees who have supported Medicare over decades to suddenly give it to those who have not paid anything into it.

Letter #1: Karl Rove (in the op-ed that ran in the Wall Street Journal January 31) doesn’t note that a very high percentage of those now receiving Medicare have paid for it up to 53 years through their FICA payroll deductions The payroll deduction is now a combined 2.9 per cent for employees and employers with an additional 0.9 per cent (for employees only) on wages above $200,000. Retirees continue to pay for it through a deduction from their Social Security benefits. It would be grossly unfair to the tens of millions of employees and tens of thousands of employers who have supported Medicare over decades to suddenly give it to those who have not paid anything into it.

Voters would be irate as well as terrified of the new sky-high taxes to cover the cost.

Charles Larson, Naples, Florida

Letter #2: Would you be in favor of a “Medicare for all” plan if it increased your taxes by 5 per cent? What if it also increased your wages by 15 per cent because your employer would no longer need to pay for your health insurance?

Pollsters can obtain any result they want by manipulating the survey questions. The fact is no one can accurately analyze the costs and benefits of a Medicare-For-All plan because the details of such a plan haven’t been worked out.

Would it, for example, replace Tricare, the current government health plan for military members and their families?

How would Veterans Affairs services fit in?

Would such a plan result in the extinction of private insurance companies or would they be allowed to participate, as they do now, by offering Medicare Advantage plans and managed-care Medicaid plans?

The proposal must first be described in detail so that its elements can be included in the analysis.

Robert Sommers, Ph.D., Jacksonville, Florida

Letter #3: Medicare is an 80/20 system, with the patient responsible for 20 per cent of the costs, which could be thousands of dollars for major surgery. Further, Medicare pays 80 per cent of what it considers reasonable and appropriate fees for medical services.

If the approved Medicare rate is less than what the provider charges, providers can refuse Medicare patients.

Medicare pays the doctor’s charge for your physical exams, but not the hundreds of dollars for diagnostic tests that determine if you have diabetes or high cholesterol. To protect yourself from some of those uncovered costs, you can buy a Medicare supplement insurance plan for hundreds of dollars a month, assuming such plans are still permitted under the Democrats’ proposals. Highlighting the individual costs of government-rationed health care, which it will be, will give voters a more realistic sense of the personal costs of these proposals before they vote.

Peter Coffey, Madison, Connecticut

Letter #4: Rove doesn’t explain why a single-payer equivalent of Medicare For All in Canada, Britain and other countries is affordable. He concludes by suggesting the 2020 election is a choice between “democratic socialism and free enterprise.” Democratic socialism exists happily side by side with free enterprise in countries such as Denmark. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Carl Eriksen, Indio, California

Letter #5: Rove claims that 10 years of Medicare for all could cost $32 trillion but neglects to mention current health-care outlays are $3.5 trillion annually now. In 2017, only 56 per cent of Americans had employer-provided health insurance—$19,600 is the national average for family plans and $6,800 for individuals.

Want to pay $20,000 a year with a $7,500 deductible for a family plan on a $65,000 salary or do you want an all-in plan where the costs are actually shared by all Americans? Give me the latter.

Richard Mertens, West Lafayette, Indiana

What these letters illustrate is that not much is really known about the catch-phrase, Medicare for All.

How would the new government program work? Could private insurance exist in any form? How much would the new program cost?

And, to borrow a phrase from former president Barack Obama as he advocated for his, “Affordable Health Care Act,” could you keep your doctor if you wanted to do so?

Who knows the answers to any of these questions? Before moving ahead on such a big-government programs, we ought to have the best possible answers. Then, with the answers, let the chips fall where they may, though I would hope that reasonable officials would work together to get the answers and make the final decisions on bases other than the sound of catch-phrases and perceptions from pollsters.

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.

For those who chose to watch the State of the Union address by President Donald Trump (I did, I admit), it could properly have been called “the State of Disunion.”

We saw a vivid display of what I call “the two Trumps.”

One reaches out to Democrats and Republicans, asking for joint work on major public policy issues facing this country.

The other Trump is one who practices what he said he decries, which is “revenge, resistance and retribution.” Those are just what he does nearly every day.

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat in the accustomed seat behind Trump, she was on camera as much as Trump was. It appeared she conducted herself with appropriate decorum most of the time, though she must have thought Trump was talking out of both sides of his mouth as he called for cooperation and conciliation, two traits he rarely, if ever, illustrates from day to day.

While I thought Pelosi conducted herself well in a hot seat, the Washington Post said “she smirked or shook her head, making her disagreement plain.” And, at one point, the way she clapped for a Trump line became an Internet sensation, for many observers believed she was ridiculing Trump, not applauding him.

And, as for the definition of the word compromise, it is not one side giving in totally to the other side. It is two sides working together to find the smart middle. Both sides give and get so that, often, the resulting compromise is not liked totally by all who produced it.

Trump, Pelosi and their crowds would do well to understand the real definition of compromise.

The clearest partisan moment of Trump’s 82-minute speech came when he warned the only thing that can stop the country from flourishing would be “foolish wars, politics or ridiculous partisan investigations.”

Putting aside the irony of Trump — who wanted to hire a private investigator to unearth Barack Obama’s birth certificate and encouraged chants of “Lock Her Up” referring to Hillary Clinton at his campaign rallies — making such a critique, it was also heard by many Democrats as a not-so-veiled threat for them to back off.

Guess what happened the next day in response? House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-California.) announced that he was pursuing a wide-ranging congressional probe into Trump’s ties with Russia, ranging from “Russia’s election interference to the question of whether foreign governments have leverage over Trump, his relatives or associates.” Schiff told reporters that he and other Democrats “were not going to be intimidated or threatened” by Trump.

So, how did Trump respond when hearing about Schiff’s plans? By reverting to his normal style of name-calling, referring to the nine-term congressman “a political hack who’s trying to build a name for himself” and calling it “presidential harassment.”

While some Republican elected officials and commentators lauded the State of the Union as being “presidential,” for Trump it appeared to be just another short episode in his day. One day he says one thing. The next day he says another thing that completely contradicts the first.

It’s the way he is and anyone who watched the State of the Union address this week saw the two Trumps.

It is impossible to rely on what he says. What he says could be true, I suppose, but usually he engages on one of three tactics – inflating statistics to make them reflect well on his performance, taking statistics out of context, or just downright lying.

Here’s are just two examples as pointed out after the speech by the Washington Post Fact-Checker column:

Trump said, “Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in half a century. African American, Hispanic American and Asian American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.”

Fact-Checker reports that this is all in the past. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that the unemployment rate had increased to 4 per cent in January. The unemployment rate in December had no longer been at a 49-year low, but an 18-year low. Now it was merely the best since the beginning of 2018.

The African American unemployment statistic has been in existence for less than 50 years. It reached a low of 5.9 per cent in May 2018, but had risen to 6.8 per cent in January. The Hispanic American unemployment statistic has been in existence for less than 50 years. It reached a low of 4.4 per cent in 2018, but had risen to 4.9 percent in January. The Asian American statistic has been around for less than 20 years. And while it reached a low of 2.1 percent in May 2018, it rose to 3.2 percent rate in January.

Trump also said, “More people are working now than at any time in our history — 157 million.”

This is an essentially meaningless statistic. The U.S. population is growing, so of course more people would be employed.

Overall, the Washington Post called Trump’s State of the Union a “dissonant” speech, suggesting that he appeared “to seek unity while depicting ruin.”

Here’s how the Post story began:

“President Trump confronted a split Congress for the first time Tuesday night by delivering a dissonant State of the Union address, interspersing uplifting paeans to bi-partisan compromise with chilling depictions of murder and ruin.

“Calling the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border ‘an urgent national crisis,’ Trump again called on Congress to approve construction of his long-promised wall — and argued that without the physical barrier, working-class Americans would lose their jobs and grapple with dangerous crime and overcrowded schools and hospitals.”

I suspect we are going to be stuck with two more years of Trump, unless the investigations he derides put him out of office first.

For me, there have been some policy gains during the Trump Administration, if only because, with a Republican in the Oval Office, there is less emphasis on big government to solve every perceived problem.

One commentator I read this morning called the State of the Union address “a masterpiece—for Trump’s purposes.” “Two chaotic years into his term,” the writer said, “Trump appeared presidential for seemingly the first time and dramatically advanced his chances for re-election in 2020.”

“On Tuesday Mr. Trump enlarged the public’s idea of himself and his presidency, and in proportion diminished his enemies. That was his most effective stroke on Tuesday night: To make the left seem to be lost in irrelevant obsessions and guilty of misinterpreting—falsifying—America and its values.”

Right? Not sure. But does Trump get at least some credit for some of the perceived gains that have occurred in the first two years of his term? A reasonable answer is yes, but he often obscures even the gains by his own over-the-top rhetoric and the ridicule he piles on top of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

More to come.

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 weekend, separated by half a world away, there were two fascinating developments on the golf course.

At least fascinating, if you love golf as I do.

And, as I write this, I am still reflecting on last night’s State of the Union address, which, of course, to me, is of lesser importance than golf. So I won’t write about it yet.

In one case of a fascinating development, pro golfer Rickie Fowler defeated his demons on a course in Scottsdale, Arizona, that had his number in the past. Plus, he was able to surmount incredible obstacles and win the tournament after a golf rules fiasco that would have thrown most of us – though we, obviously, are not pro golfers – into a funk.

In the other case, Spanish golfer Sergio Garcia displayed his passion in a very abnormal, over-the-top way. He wreaked havoc on a number of greens in a tournament in Saudi Arabia, so much so that tournament officials had no choice but to disqualify him, a very severe penalty in the world of professional golf.

There was no video of the damage Garcia did to an estimated five greens, but players behind him noted that he scuffed up greens with his shoes and his putter. They complained, which resulted in the DQ.

The only video available was of Garcia in a bunker. After he hit a bad shot out of the bunker, he was shown taking it out on the sand by swinging angrily several times sending sand flying. He was irritated at a lie he had in the bunker, the character of the sand in the bunker, or both.

But guess what?

Under the revised golf rules, which were effective as of January 1, 2019, Garcia’s action in the bunker was entirely within the rules.

Here is what is stated in golf rule 12:

“The following actions are allowed in a bunker…striking the sand in frustration and anger.”

Well, it’s stupid to have this phrase in the official golf rules, but that’s exactly what Garcia did on camera.

So, that was not the reason for his penalty. His petulant attitude on several greens did the deed.

In the rules case involving Fowler, he hit a bad shot over a green and into water. He then took a drop on a hilly area heading into the water and the ball came to rest. But, as he and his caddy headed up to the green to get a look at what the ball might do when he would hit a chip shot, the ball started moving on its own and plopped back into the water.

Fowler looked surprised, but re-dropped and hit his next shot. It went 30 feet past the pin and, then, to his credit, hemade the putt for a three-over seven.

Most of us probably would have walked in after such a situation. And, to me, as one who follows golf rules – know that, in retirement, I have nothing else to do – the best approach would be to change the rules so that a dropped ball that comes to rest, but then heads into a hazard, would not incite an additional penalty. Just re-drop.

These two developments – Fowler in Arizona and Garcia in Saudia Arabia – speak volumes about the attitude of both golfers. Fowler doesn’t over-react to unfairness on the golf course. He surmounts it. Garcia shows the bad side of his passion.

So, kudos to Fowler who remains good for the game, including as young people follow him on the golf course and might even grow to love the same as he does.

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.

Based on what I have read in several major newspapers and what I have heard from friends, I think I am part of a national consensus that:

Believes the Super Bowl was a major yawner and that the Super Bowl ads weren’t much better.

As I watched the game Sunday, my first thought was that it was not up to the excitement of the PGA Tour golf tournament where one of my favorite golfers, Rickie Fowler, surmounted various demons to emerge on top.

Then, the Super Bowl started.

I could hardly stay awake. It’s not much fun to watch a defensive football game, no matter how good those defenses were in the eyes of a football expert. Not me. I was waiting for just a bit of offense.

So, if the game left something to be desired, perhaps the ads – the cost was $5 million per minute – would provide a bit of solace, as is often the case as companies make the investment to reach a huge audiene.

No.

From Pepsi, to Bud Light, to Audi, I thought all of the ads were yawners.

The best, I thought, came from Microsoft. The ad was called “We All Win,” and chronicled the company’s commitment to make its Xbox product available to persons with physical disabilities, especially children. It achieved that through something called an “Adaptive Controller.”

In the ad, Microsoft focuses on kids talking about their gaming experiences.

Kathleen Hall, corporate vice president of brand, advertising and research, said “the Xbox Adaptive Controller helps the children enhance their gaming experience and compete in new ways. What better message for a premiere sporting event?”

The Adaptive Controller was announced in July and came out in September. It costs $100, and, thanks to ports on the back, can be customized for specific uses. In the ad, for example, you see one kid using it with foot pedals to operate the buttons or triggers he might need to use.

“No matter how your body is or how fast you are, you can play,” another kid says.

Kudos to Microsoft for investing in the ad and for providing at least highlight in an otherwise “snooze Super Bowl.”

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. 

As a golfer, if you think about what might be the hardest tee times in golf, Augusta National Golf Course, the annual site of the Masters’ Golf Tournament, could come to mind.

Or, you might think of Pebble Beach in California where, if you could get a time, the green fees would be in the range of $500, enough for many golfers to say they’d rather watch TV golf at Pebble than to pay the high fee.

Well, from my perch here in the California desert, one of the toughest tee times is at The Palms where I play my winter golf.

A tough tee time, you might ask, when I play at The Palms all the time. There is a catch.

The Palms does not schedule tee times. Those who play – members like me, as well as guests – don’t get tee times. The pros at the course work you in off the first tee when you show up at the course.

It’s part of what the course calls, without much modesty, the place where “golf purists play.”

Pure golf, as defined at The Palms, says there are not tee times and that you play your 18-hole round in less than three hours and 50 minutes. That’s usually tough to do in the desert where golf rounds at resort courses often stretch to about five hours.

But do these “pure” expectations give The Palms a feel as only place for the elite? No.

It’s easy, without tee times, to play and I have found the membership, to a person, to be friendly and welcoming.

All of this about tough tee times came to mind this morning as I read a story in my on-line edition of Links Magazine, which appeared under this headline:

5 OF THE HARDEST TEE TIMES IN GOLF

The writer, Graylin Loomis, started his piece with these two paragraphs:

“Some of the most exclusive courses in the world are also the most famous. Think Augusta National, Cypress Point, Shinnecock Hills, and others. Thanks to ‘best lists’ and hosting major championships, those courses are well known even if extremely difficult to get on.

“But then there’s another level of exclusive courses—those so restrictive you likely don’t even know they exist. They may be on private estates or open only to the owner’s family and friends. Or they have deliberately small memberships and no plans to open the doors.”

Loomis cited five such clubs.

Ardfin:  The rocky terrain and expanses of peat bogs of Scotland’s inner Hebridean islands make them perfect for whisky but a tough place for a golf course. That didn’t deter Australian hedge fund manager Greg Coffey, who purchased 12,000 acres on the isle of Jura and had Bob Harrison build a course along the picturesque coastline. Since its completion in 2018, rumors have flown regarding outside access and whether Coffey will ever bring on members. For now, he seems happy to have the place to himself, tough news indeed since by all accounts Harrison built a stellar course on a very difficult and beautiful site.

Cherokee Plantation:  Cherokee Plantation, located in Yemassee, S.C., dates back to the late 1600s when it was established via royal grant. In the late 1990s the property was purchased by British entrepreneur Peter de Savary and he established a private club on the site. The club was initially limited to 50 shareholders, but word is there are only around two dozen members and no plans to grow. The first U.S. design by Brit Donald Steel, it has no out-of-bounds, but live oaks and Lowcountry wetlands border many of the holes. The very few members also can enjoy hunting, fishing, hiking, and other activities befitting a Southern-style estate.

Congaree Golf Club:  Our business is to know when new courses are being built, so it was a shock when a course opened near LINKS HQ that few in the industry knew of. When I visited the Ridgeland, S.C., property, I asked the director of golf how they’d kept it under wraps: “We worked very hard to keep it that way.” Billionaires Dan Friedkin and the late Bob McNair hired Tom Fazio to build a links-y sand-based course on a 2,000-acre southern plantation. Instead of members the club has “ambassadors,” all of whom are powerful figures that support the philanthropic efforts of Congaree (centering around young people and education).

Ellerston Golf Club:  A photographer I know visited Ellerston and was asked prior to teeing off to sign a non-disclosure agreement, agreeing not to take any photos or share any details from the day. It’s that private. Located on the estate of the late Australian media mogul Kerry Packer north of Sydney, the course was designed by Greg Norman and Bob Harrison. The designers were able to build anywhere on the 70,000-acre site and they chose an undulating area with a fast-moving stream that’s incorporated into many of the holes. Very difficult, it’s often ranked among the top 10 in Australia.

Golf de Morfontaine:  Should Morfontaine be on this list? Located in northern France, the club has a membership numbering in the hundreds (although when it opened in 1913 it was the private playground of the 12th duc de Gramont). Yet it’s still one of the hardest tee times in the world, particularly for Americans, who don’t often mingle with France’s golf illuminati. Also, Morfontaine is the highest ranked course on this list, often appearing among the world’s top 100. If you’re one of the lucky souls who gets to visit, you’ll find a charming heathland course, Grand Parcours, designed by Tom Simpson and renovated recently by Kyle Phillips. There’s also a Simpson-designed nine, the Valieres, that many visitors say is the most enjoyable nine of the day.

For my part, I’d like to find a way to play all of those hard-to-get-a-tee-time courses, though, frankly, I have not heard of them until this Links Magazine article – which may be exactly like the courses want it.

Probably won’t get to travel far and wide to these courses, but still find it fun to contemplate doing so.

I’ll just have to settle – very willingly, I add – to play The Palms here in La Quinta, as well as my home track in Salem, Oregon, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club.   At the latter, there are tee times.

Great venues, both.

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.

Karl Rove asked this question in a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal.

I answer yes based, at least in part, on some of the statistics Rove provides.

Now, I know some will question Rove’s perspective because, in the past, he was a political consultant who helped get George Bush get elected, then served in the White House. Frankly, that experience doesn’t bother me; I consider it to be a credential, though there is little question that he still operates right of center.

What does bother me is the rationale from the left – perhaps even the far left from those who favor socialism over capitalism – as they make a case for a fully government-run health care system.

I don’t favor such a government-run system based on my 25 years as a private sector lobbyist in Oregon, which included representing several private health care enterprises.

To come up with improved health care policy, I also favor a bi-cameral, bi-partisan process at the Capitol in Salem – a process that takes all sorts of good idea from the left and the right and molds those ideas into a consensus product from the middle.

In Washington, D.C. that has not happened to the discredit of both parties. The Affordable Health Care Act, one of President Obama’s major achievements, passed without one Republican vote. Then, to retaliate, Republicans spent several years trying to tear down the act. No one tried to improve overall health care policy from the middle.

In Oregon, I believe a solution from the middle is still possible, though this blog will focus on federal issues.

Here is a summary of the points Rove makes to raise questions about Medicare for All:

• Democratic presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris made her party’s left-wing base happy this week. But in doing so, she might have made Democrats less attractive to general-election voters.  In a CNN town hall Monday, Harris endorsed “Medicare for All.” Pressed about whether the proposal would abolish private health insurance, the California senator breezily declared, “Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on.” After Republicans jumped on her for this policy’s radicalism, a Harris adviser said the attacks were “good trouble” for her.

• A January 14 Kaiser Family Foundation poll seems at first glance to support that view. It found 56 per cent of Americans favor “a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare for All, where all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan,” compared with 42 per cent who opposed the idea. Thirty-two percent strongly oppose it, roughly matching the 34 per cent who strongly favor it.
• Yet, these results come before this deeply flawed policy gets scrutinized and picked apart. Medicare for All becomes less popular when people hear more about its possible effects. Support dropped to 37 per cent, with about 60 per cent opposed, when respondents were told it would “eliminate private health-insurance companies” or “require most Americans to pay more in taxes.” Support fell to 32 per cent when respondents were alerted it would “threaten current Medicare.” And it crashed to 26 per cent if those polled heard it would lead to “delays in people getting some medical tests and treatments.”
• Names matter, too. A November 2017 Kaiser poll found that, without mentioning negative effects, “Medicare for All” drew a 62 per cent favorable rating. But labeling the same idea “single-payer health insurance” dropped support to 48 per cent. Calling it “socialized medicine” produced a nearly even split, 44 per cent favorable to 43 per cent negative.
• Medicare for everyone may sound good to voters at first. But after sustained reflection—and Republican attacks—it will likely be soundly rejected. Most Americans do not want to surrender control of their health-care decisions to an impersonal bureaucracy in Washington.
• Just wait until Republicans raise questions about how much single-payer health care will cost. In an analysis last summer, Charles Blahous of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center pegged its price tag at $32.6 trillion over the first decade. The total federal budget for this fiscal year is only $4.4 trillion.
• Congressional supporters of the plan fear that nearly doubling the federal budget could sink their proposal. That’s why Senator Bernie Sanders, the father of Medicare for All, refuses to say how much it will cost. One of the plan’s principal cheerleaders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calls fiscal concerns “puzzling.” She told Jorge Ramos on Univision last November, “You just pay for it. We’re paying more now!” The following month, she tweeted that two-thirds of Medicare for All could be paid for by cutting wasteful Pentagon spending. The total Pentagon budget is about $700 billion.

In a column this morning, Wall Street Journal writer Holman Jenkins put his finger on one of the main notions from the left on Medicare for All – that, if it works for Scandinavia, it can work for us.

The problem, Jenkins contends, is that Scandinavian countries may have excellent medicine because they import innovations that wouldn’t be developed and proven if the U.S. weren’t developing them.  So there is free-riding in the Nordic system after all.  On us.

So, what is the future of Medicare for All?

The rush by Democrat presidential candidates to embrace free government-run health care — and measures like “free” college, guaranteed jobs and universal basic income—may make the 2020 election a contest between promise-them-anything Democrat socialism and free enterprise. The stakes don’t get much higher than that.

And, as for me, I vote for free enterprise.

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’s a lot of confusing information these days about what I’ll call “the lobby game.”

Much of it comes from publicity about bad actors, especially at the federal level who don’t play the game marked by honest and ethical conduct. Usually the reverse. They are in the game to get what they can — and policy and even politics be damned.

When that happens, the media goes nuts, reporting all of the misdeeds with major headlines and, at least to a degree, the reporting may be appropriate, given the depth of the misdeeds.

Such a focus, of course, obscures the reality that most lobbyists work hard and honestly to represent clients before elected officials and government agencies. That’s what I tried to do in Salem for about 25 years as a private sector lobbyist, preceded by 15 years working for state government where one of my responsibilities was to represent the agency where I worked before the Legislature.

All of that said, this blog posits a range of credentials, which I think are traits of solid lobbyists at the State Capitol in Salem.

But, first, let me provide a quick definition of what a lobbyist is, definitions which I used with my late mother to help her understand what I did for a living.

I had three definitions to explain my role as a lobbyist.

• The first was that I was like an attorney. I had a client or clients and my courtroom was the State Capitol. My client paid for my services, usually pursuant to a contract where I pledged to do the work of lobbying and the client pledged to cover the cost.
• The second was that I was like a trader on a busy commodity-trading floor. I had compete to get attention against a host of others who wanted to make their views known.
• The third was that I was like a salesperson. In my case, I was selling ideas, not, for example, a house or a car. I was looking for those who might accept or endorse those ideas.

Let me go on now to a list of important credentials and I will do so by using one of my favorite tactics to organize large bodies of information – the Top 10 List made popular by late-night entertainer David Letterman.

3. Know your audience: This is important for anyone in the sales game. You don’t need to change your basic proposition, you just need to tailor your approach to the audience.
4. Take time to understand where someone lives, where that person works (if he or she has a job outside the legislature), why he or she ran for office, and why he or she won. Answers to all of those questions will help to develop the sales-pitch to prompt them to consider the points you advocate on behalf of your client.
5. Persevere to achieve an outcome: Consider the long legislative session in Oregon to be a marathon, not a sprint. Work hard to achieve objectives for your client. Be at the Capitol early every day. Stay late. For you never know when you will get an opportunity to make a solid impression on a legislator or an Executive Branch official.
6. Don’t just try to win or avoid losing; be open to middle ground: This is critical because lobbying for clients should not just be a win-or-lose proposition. There is middle ground to be sought, which is the very definition of politics in the first place. In today’s lobby game, many will want to produce wins and losses as the primary objective. As a good lobbyist, don’t.

Recognize one of my pet phrases: “What goes around comes back around.” It is a saying meant to indicate that you, as a lobbyist, may disagree with a legislator on one issue on one day, but agree on an issue on the next day. It pays to understand this reality of process at the Capitol in Salem. Don’t make an enemy one day and try to win the person as an ally the next.

5. Respect the process: It can be easy to assume that the legislative process is only designed to be just that – a process with no product. But the process exists for a reason – good government, which, in Oregon, includes public notice of meetings, public meetings themselves, and on-line copies of all pieces of legislation available to members of the public. Plus, there is a process by which bills are considered in the House and the Senate and, then if a bill passes, it goes on to the governor. Lobbyists should be familiar with and respect the process.

Further, there are ins and outs in the process. Know them. You can use legitimate process variations to achieve objectives for your client. As an example, when our firm was trying to pass a bill to require insurance companies to cover environmental damages to property (yes, that should have been a given, but many insurance companies were reneging on what could be considered their obligations), our bill failed to move in the Oregon House. So, I headed over to the Senate to find a bill with an appropriate “relating clause” (the first words in any bill that limits what it can include, even by amendment). With the help of the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I found one and asked for our insurance regulatory language to be “stuffed” into that bill. The Senate chair agreed. The bill passed the Senate, then after a close battle, ended up passing on the House floor and the governor signed it.

6. Maintain your credibility: Maintaining credibility by action and style is critical for any lobbyist. If you lose credibility, you will no longer be effective. For instance, if you convey a point, then have to change your position, explain the change to all who heard you the first time, and the correction will enhance your credibility.
7. Recognize the importance of ideas: As you help your client decide whether there is an “ask” in the Legislature, don’t forget that, as the process works in Oregon, good ideas still matter. If you can translate your idea into a story – perhaps with interesting graphics that illustrate your point of view – good. Stories about good ideas are a solid way to drive your point home to legislators who may not have a lot of background, understandably, in the subject area your client espouses.
8. Don’t accept clients when you disagree with their views on the basis of principle: This was one of the keys to my 25 years as a state lobbyist. My firm did not accept clients when we disagreed with those clients based on principles. There was no way we could speak for such a client.

As examples, we never represented pro-tobacco interests, pro-abortion interests, pro-homosexual interests or pro-gun interests. Didn’t. Couldn’t.

9. Communicate as much with your client as with legislators and agency officials: Clients need to understand the context of the Legislature and they are likely to get most of that context from you. So keep in touch with them.
10. There is no replacement for solid ethical, honest behavior as a lobbyist. Those you are lobbying should be able to respect you and your word. I like to say that a lobbyist’s favorite axiom should be, “my word is my bond.”

What follows could be #11, but I’ll stick with 10 and make this a conclusion. Good lobbyists are ready to tout their successes and explain their failures in communications with clients at the end of a legislative session. I often used the tactic of a “Top 10 List” to summarize work over the previous six months, as well as to set the stage for the next session.