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 is a “jobs issue?” On the part of political leaders, it is a recognition that having a job is the key to many public policy questions.

I have written about this before, in two ways:

1. Politicians often belittle the idea of creating or saving jobs and it remains a puzzle to me as I believe that creating or savings jobs is critical for the health of any city, county or state – and for entire country, for that matter.
2. And, recently, some of these same political figures have criticized efforts by cities, counties and state to entice Amazon’s second HQ decision, which eventually went to the East Coast near New York. And, those political figures often don’t even recognize the jobs that would be created – in this case, 50,000 jobs – the taxes those job holders would pay.

The most recent example of this intentional oversight occurred this weekend with publication of piece by a resident of the University of Texas “Ivory Tower” for professors who have nothing to do but criticize some else’s work.

The story appeared under this headline:

The Amazon HQ2 Fiasco Was No Outlier

There’s little evidence that the economic-development incentives offered by cities and states work—except for letting politicians crow

The author wrote this:

“This (his own study) points to the open secret of economic development: Though incentives are rarely effective in changing firms’ investment decisions, they do allow politicians to attend ribbon-cutting ceremonies where they can highlight their own role in attracting a new company (or retaining an old one) and creating jobs.”

Throughout the author’s long piece, there was not one mention of the jobs that Amazon has pledged to create. And, of course, without that mention, there also was no mention of the taxes those job holders would pay – taxes that would support a variety of services, including education and public safety.

Economic development is always a controversial government program and I know whereof I speak dating to my tenure as deputy director of Oregon’s Economic Development Department, now called Business Oregon.

So, call me biased. I am.

Many in government believe the private sector should be left to its own devices in creating or saving jobs. Do so or don’t – we don’t care. Just, at the same time, contend with all government regulatios.

But, as prevalent as that proposition is – government should not be involved in economic development — the main posit of this blog is that any analysis of economic development programs ought to be full-throated and complete.

Count the jobs that are to be created or saved.

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.

A couple points strike me as I reflect on the headline to this blog.

• One is that, as Americans, we are addicted to It has become the signature emotion of American public life.
• The second is reflected in the following paragraph from a recent column by one of my favorite writers, Peggy Noonan, whose work appears in the Wall Street Journal.

“Here is my concern,” Noonan writes “Politics is part theater, part showbiz, it’s always been emotional, but we’ve gotten too emotional, both parties. It’s too much about feelings and how moved you are. The balance is off. We have been electing magic ponies in our presidential contests, and we have done this while slighting qualities like experience, hard and concrete political accomplishment, even personal maturity. Barack Obama, whatever else he was, was a magic pony. Donald Trump too. Beto O’Rourke, who is so electrifying Democrats, also appears to be a magic pony.”

So, instead of real political perspectives, we – and I know it is a generalization to use the word “we” because not all Americans fit into the box – operate out of outrage and looking for magic ponies.

Lance Morrow, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former essayist for Time, wrote recently about the outrage addiction.

“People have been mad as hell for much of the 21st century, starting roughly with the stalemated Bush-Gore election in 2000, followed quickly by 9/11. Fundamentals have been changing fundamentally: marriage, sexual identity, racial politics, geopolitics.

“Outrage flourishes also because of the rise of social media— the endless electronic brawl—and because it plays so well on our screens. Cable news draws pictures in crayon, in bold primary colors that turn politics into cartoons. On the left, ‘stay woke’ means ‘stay outraged.’ Trumpians want to ‘lock her up’ or ‘build a wall.’ Outrage is reductive, easy to understand. It is an idiom of childhood—a throwback even to the terrible twos (of childhood).”

Reflecting on good points by both Noonan and Morrow, I believe we, as citizens, we need to move beyond outrage and the magic ponies. We need to identify honest, forthright and ethical political leaders who won’t stoop, figuratively or even literally, to yelling on the street corner to attempt to get their way. And who won’t assume that anyone who disagrees with them is nuts.

We need political leaders who will pledge, once elected, to do the public’s business – to take actions designed to find, as I like to say, “the smart middle.”

We don’t need magic ponies or intentional outrage. If both continue, it is not an exaggeration to say that the future of our form of democracy is literally at stake.

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.

NOTE: This is the second of two blogs on the issue of a chief of staff to a political leader – a governor in Oregon or a president in the U.S., though mostly the former

The question in this blog headline is percolating around Washington, D.C. these days as the long-predicted has happened – the current chief of staff to President Donald Trump, military veteran John Kelly, is leaving at the end of the year.

Here is what Wall Street Journal editorial writers said about Kelly:

“…Trump hates discipline, especially self-discipline, and so he has chafed under Kelly’s regimen. The wonder is that Kelly has lasted as long as he has considering the verbal abuse he has so often taken from his boss. The chief has also taken unwarranted abuse from the Beltway political class that wants to stigmatize anyone who works for Trump, as if it would be better if the White House were run solely by the Trump family.”

The most likely successor to Kelly, Nick Ayers, chief of staff to Vice President Michael Pence, took himself out of the running in a move that appeared to catch Trump and his minions off guard.

Several names have emerged as possible Kelly successors, with no apparent front-runner. And, after all, who would want the job of trying to serve a mercurial president who conducts himself more as a carnival barker or a reality TV show host than the leader of the free world?

Smart people would demur. They are.

All this, of course, is playing out far where I live. But the “chief of staff episode” in D.C. has prompted me to reflect on the qualities of a solid chief of staff, particularly here in Oregon. My perspective has been honed in Oregon over more than 40 years involved in and around state government.

That experience gave me a chance to work for and relate to a number of chiefs of staff for governors in Oregon and I have found all of them to be effective, as well as treated with respect by the governor they served. That is critical for a position that, in effect, is the #2 state government executive, not in line of succession, but in management reach over government.

In Oregon, the person named by a governor to be director of the Department of Administrative Services also functions as “chief operating officer” for state government. Which means, for the daily routine of state management, agency directors report to the COO. The leaves both the governor and the chief of staff free to focus on major issues of management AND political leadership, not just the former.

The other day I talked about all this with my friend, Gerry Thompson, who served Governor Vic Atiyeh as chief of staff. It was for Gerry that I worked a stint as press secretary to the governor.

She said the most important credential for a chief of staff is mutual trust between the governor and the chief. Without that, no list of other credentials matters.

Here is a summary of the qualities that I find important as I look at the chief of staff position in Oregon – and it would be tough, given the current occupant of the White House, to ascribe any of these credentials to the D.C. post.

1. Knowledge of government issues and processes
2. Ability to implement the governor’s directives
3. Strength to argue with the governor about what he or she wants to do in the spirit of achieving the objective, but doing so in a better way – or even that the proposed action may not be in the state’s best interest
4. Ability to manage staff and imbue them with a sense of purpose
5. Find the balance to be in charge of the governor’s staff, but allow them to do their jobs
6. Function as the main gatekeeper in terms of access to the governor (but, according to Gerry Thompson, don’t just limit access arbitrarily; do so in a way that assures that the governor sees people he or she needs to see, not just his or her friends)
7. Ability to relate to Oregon legislators
8. Ability to translate the governor’s agenda to the public, including through the media in cooperation with the governor’s press secretary
9. Manage state government relationships with the federal government, including the Oregon Congressional Delegation
10. Handle other duties as assigned based in a relationship of mutual trust with the governor (there’s that word again – trust)

Too much to ask? Perhaps.

But I have seen the system work well in Oregon, much better than in the current Administration in Washington, D.C.

If I was governor – perish the thought, just know that I never will hold that position – I would want the best chief of staff possible to help me do my job as the state’s primary political leader.

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 wonder about the future of golf, let me say this:

The future of the game relates to our commitment to encourage juniors to play the game.

On that basis, the Oregon Golf Association (OGA), one of the best state golf organizations in the country, is way ahead of the curve.

Each year, the OGA organizes a substantial set of junior tournaments under this axiom:

Our core values (Honesty, Integrity, Sportsmanship, Respect, Fun & Friendship, and Stewardship) help develop our members to become tomorrow’s leaders today. Featuring both non-competitive and competitive events year-round, Oregon Junior Golf provides countless golfing opportunities throughout the year for youth players ages 7-18.

I have had the privilege of volunteering in junior tournaments for more than five years now and I always come away from the experience with a renewed sense of pride in the character of golfers I meet.

Most of them are learning to become adults, including with the ability to greet persons older than they are, plus play golf with the right balance of fun and performance.

I often reflect back on my family’s own experience with our son, Eric, who came through the OGA junior ranks more than 20 years ago. For him, it was a great experience, one he translated into an opportunity to play golf in college for Oregon State University.

The course in Salem where we are members, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club, also emphasizes junior golf in at least these ways:

• The course is open, under the jurisdiction of the Pro Shop staff, to several high schools in the area (South Salem, Sprague), as well as to a couple colleges.
• A sprightly junior golf program is run by the Pro Shop to help introduce young children to the game. It’s great to see the kids decked out in golf gear, while trying to carry clubs on their backs.
• The club is always open to considering hosting tournaments for juniors run by the Oregon Golf Association. A couple years ago, I recruited a number of Illahe members to serve as “walking scorers” with very young players. To a person, these volunteers said they love to serve again.
• The club is considering sponsoring a program whereby, each year, it would sponsor a promising junior player or two to provide special access to the golf course when, through their families, they are not members.

The future of the game we love will fall to young people. So it makes eminent sense to foster interest by those juniors. And, as the Oregon Golf Association says, the playing experience will help these young people “to become tomorrow’s leaders today.”

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.

NOTE: This is the first of two blogs on the chief of staff issue now percolating in Washington, D.C. Part 1 focuses on Trump, who cannot find an “expert” to take the job because he has no respect for experts. Part 2 will describe credentials for a chief of staff, at least here in Oregon based on my 40 years of experience in state government.

A writer for the Wall Street Journal captured the essence of President Donald Trump’s quest for a new chief of staff. He doesn’t want anyone who is qualified for the job.

“Trump’s inability to recruit, or to even to listen to, top people has hampered everything from Trump’s foreign policy to his own legal defense. His hostility to sound advice, coupled with reliance on his frequently terrible instincts, has produced a kind of synergy (to use a newly infamous word) of incompetence in the White House and beyond: Things go wrong on the world stage, Capitol Hill or with the media.

“Trump never blames himself, instead blaming everyone else, including the people who work for him. Experts — also known as people who know what they’re doing — have had two years to observe this and have understandably become less willing to work for him. Their numbers inside the administration dwindle, lesser lights take over, more mistakes are made; lather, rinse, repeat.”

The writer was someone I have never heard of – Tom Nichols, a professor at the Naval War College and the Harvard Extension School. He is the author of “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.”

His comments about Trump as he searches for a new chief of staff strike me as right on to replace military general John Kelly who sought to bring a sense of discipline to an undisciplined place, the Oval Office under Trump.

“Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson,” Nichols avers, “found it ‘challenging’ to work with Trump after ‘coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented ExxonMobil Corporation.’ No surprise there, and Tillerson should have seen it coming.

“As an engineer who had been the steward of a major multi-national company, Tillerson must have found it jarring to take orders from someone who makes most decisions by putting his finger to the wind.”

This chaotic approach to management and governance has undermined the president’s search for a chief a position that requires — or should require — serious managerial ability, broad policy knowledge and sound political judgment.

But even outgoing chief of staff Kelly, a four-star general who shared several of Trump’s basic views and who spent a career commanding thousands, had very limited success in imposing Oval Office discipline.

Trump himself has no discipline and doesn’t want anyone to enforce it.

Accordingly, the list of people who won’t take the chief of staff job that was once among the most sought-after posts in Washington, D.C. is likely as long as the list of those who still want it.

“Trump,” Nichols writes, “has taken a nebulous resentment — that the experts are the source of ordinary Americans’ woes — and etched it into the minds of his supporters. He has succeeded in this largely by writing off his worst failures either as temporary blips or as someone else’s fault.

“Shifting blame might work, at least for a while, in politics. It is a far riskier strategy in front of a prosecutor, and it is positively dangerous during a national security or economic crisis. The president’s voters have cheered as he has smeared capable public servants and denigrated the very idea of competence. The whole country might ultimately pay the price.”

So, in the quest for a new chief of staff, Trump is acting like himself. He, in fact, probably wants to be his own chief of staff because, when he finally appoints someone, he will likely treat that person like he treated John Kelly. No respect.

Kelly tried to impose a sense of discipline in the White House and that, alone, irritated Trump who treated the Oval Office like a carnival barker’s tent. Let anyone in at all times. Let anyone say what he or she wanted to say because, in the end, it wouldn’t matter as Trump headed off for his Twitter account.

If I was Kelly, I would be glad to be leaving. And, if I was asked by Trump to take the position, perish the thought, I would yell an aggressive “no.”

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

I wrote a blog on this subject a couple weeks ago, but made a few changes to that first one, so this is another attempt to provide a better summary of my “kingly” propositions.

Every other year, when governors propose a two-year budget for the State of Oregon, I reflect on the process, which often arouses troubling thoughts about what is occurring.

I have these thoughts based on more that 40 years of dealing with such budgets, the first 15 as a state government manager and another 25 as a state lobbyist.

I report those credentials, not to indicate that I am some kind of a budget whiz. I am not. But, over the years, I learned that a state government budget was and is more than just a set of numbers. It was a way for governors to propose a set of policy formulations —formulations that would be under consideration in a legislative session for as many as six months.

So, regarding state budgets – and if I were king for day — I would:

• Require that governors propose a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” for the next biennium within current taxes, NOT new ones.

In this way, all of us would know exactly how much it would cost to operate state government for another two years, not how much it would cost if various folks paid higher taxes.

According to Oregon statutes, the deadline for producing such a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” is December 1. I suppose proposing a budget with new taxes is one way to meet the deadline. But I don’t think such an approach lies within the spirit of the law.

To be fair, a “current services” budget document is prepared separately from the governor. It is done jointly by the Legislative Ways and Means Office and the Executive Budget and Management Division, which is part of the Department of Administrative Services.

I have reviewed this document and it is very well done. I just wish it would be required to come from a governor.

• Require the same governors, if they want to propose increased taxes, to do so in a separate budget document.

In this way, we would know exactly what new, higher taxes are being proposed and what the desired new money would support. As it is, the new taxes, short of being analyzed by a few solid news reporters (one of whom is Jeff Mapes, who left the Oregonian a couple years ago and joined Oregon Public Broadcasting, which means his skills have beefed up the already strong OPB reporting staff) remain buried within budgets.

The effect is that no one really knows the rationale for the new taxes.

• Require the same governors to propose a document to indicate where they propose to cut state agency spending so budgets are not just recommended to be continued intact for two more years.

Budgets for state agencies normally – and, unfortunately — continue from one biennium to the next without much intent to assess whether the spending is achieving desired results. Or, if there is a results measure at all for government programs.

Such a test would improve the quality of what state government. Some programs are so important – important by bi-partisan consensus – that they be continued mostly intact for another two years. But, some could benefit from an intensive look, particularly on whether programs are achieving their desired result.

As I said, I would impose these requirements if I were king for a day. But I’m not, so I suspect the current approach will continue on into the future, which tends to underline another important fact: The legislature should take a hard look at spending if only because such a hard look could support for new revenue for programs like education, higher education, public safety and human services.

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

This, remember, is one of three departments I run with a free hand to do what I want to do.

So, call me a dictator. If you do, I’ll be in good company – I will be like President Trump.

Here goes.

More Words About Trump: In a column in the Washington Post, columnist David Von Drehle nails it when he writes about the president.

“The many modes of mendacity inside the Trump circle would be amusing if the team were not in possession of the nuclear launch codes. Allowing any of these people to give sworn testimony is like handing a fork to a toddler and pointing her toward an electrical outlet. Foreign policy advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, campaign operative Rick Gates, attorney Michael Cohen, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, international go-between Alex van der Zwaan, Russian fixer Konstantin Kilimnik: The list is so long, it feels like an Oscars speech. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is now in double-dutch because prosecutors say he lied when he promised to stop lying.”

Just saying: Look at the line I placed in bold. The image – “handing a fork to a toddler and pointing her to an electrical outlet” – is pretty much right on in talking about a president who is being squeezed by so many lies that impeachment is not a stretch.

A Society of Association Managers: There ought to be a law against such an association.

When I was at a conference near the Portland Airport last week, I walked past another conference in the same hotel. It was for the “Society of Association Managers.”

Think about that for just a moment. First, there are associations, which are groups of individuals interested in the same issues or the same employment categories.

Then, now with this “Society,” we have effectively an association of associations.

Just saying: Perhaps my next job can be to organize a “society of societies!” Good idea, right?

Trump vs. Tillerson: Trump and his former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson exchanged criticisms and insults last week in full public view – in Tillerson’s case, a media interview, and in Trump’s, Twitter.

Interviewed nearly nine months after being fired as Secretary of State, Tillerson attributed his clashes with Trump to differences in style and values, as well as to the president’s frustration with his, Tillerson’s, guidance.

“Part of it was, obviously, we are starkly different in our styles. We did not have a common value system,” Tillerson told CBS News. He also said Trump was undisciplined, didn’t read and didn’t like to delve into the details of issues.

Typically, Trump responded in a Twitter message saying that Tillerson “didn’t have the mental capacity needed. He was dumb as a rock and I couldn’t get rid of him fast enough. He was lazy as hell. Now it is a whole new ballgame, great spirit at State.”

Just saying: Well, I would say to Trump about his “dumb as a rock comment,” it takes one to know one.

Trump and the Military: What’s one of the differences between an Obama rally for and about the military and a Trump rally for the same? The Washington Post asked this question in a recent story. The answer: The swag.

For the Post, National reporter Greg Jaffe has said the sheer amount of things for sale outside Trump rallies is striking. Some of the items are explicitly pro-Trump, but a lot of the merchandise extends beyond the president and “screams” with brash patriotism and pro-military messages.

So, how does all this reflect on Trump, who has made a series of moves that could – read should — have alienated military veterans and supporters?

Specifically, what do veterans think about Trump’s decision not to visit soldiers’ graves at Veterans’ Day? What do they think about Trump’s criticism of those who followed a mission directive by killing Osama bin Laden, even if they didn’t “find him first,” which was not their job? What do veterans think about Trump’s decision to send troops to the U.S.-Mexican border to deal with the migrant caravan?

And, in the most telling case, what do veterans think of Trump’s criticisms of military hero John McCain?

Just saying: Trump’s deserves huge debit for the ways he has failed to honor the public service of the military and veterans, service that has helped preserve freedom in this country and, often, involved risking life.

I am a veteran, though not as worthy as many of my friends who went to war. Trump’s conduct and comments offend me.

The Best Places to Spend Christmas: This relates to a Conde Nast on-line article the other day, which purported to outline “the best places to spend Christmas.”

Just saying: For me, the choice is easy: The best place to spend Christmas is at home with family and friends.

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

Beyond the headline, another way to put this is that I have been caught in a series of Catch 22 issues relative to my health insurance coverage.

So, call it an abyss, a series of Catch 22s, or a maze. Any image works.

Remember the movie, “Catch 22” and the book on which it was based, also with Catch 22 in the title? Those involved were caught in a seemingly never-ending loop from which they could never exit. New rules always caught them.

Alas, the movie and the book revolved around important and serious aspects of war where life or death issues were at stake.

My situation was “just” health care, though, I suppose, at the extreme, good health care can be a life or death issue.

Okay, here is what happened to me, not life or death, just frustrating:

• My wife and I are covered under the Public Retirement System (PERS). I and many other PERS health recipients were told recently we had to change insurance companies by the start of 2019 (so-called Medicare Advantage Plans that go along with basic Medicare coverage).
• We had to leave our current carrier, MODA, and had two options for a change. The easiest was to transfer to United.
• We chose that option and felt we would be good, but then I encountered Catch 22 #1. The Clinic where I am served in Salem, Oregon, The Doctors’ Clinic, had decided, for some unknown reason, not to accept United coverage, even though United in the largest health insurer in the country.
• So, on to Catch 22 #2. We had to transfer to the second option, Providence Health Plan, an insurer I knew well because I was the plan’s lobbyist for more than 20 years at the Capitol in Salem.
• We made the change and I designated the person who had been providing my primary health for almost a year, Troy Nies, a physician’s assistant at The Doctors’ Clinic.
• Then, Catch 22 #3. I was told that Troy would not be an acceptable listing as a primary care provider because he did have a medical doctoral degree. He is very qualified and provided great care for me for more than a year, but no matter. No medical degree.
• Then, Catch 22 #4. I was told that I needed to find the name of the doctor to whom Troy reported and list that person on my Providence insurance card. I did. His name is Dr. Jeffrey Brown.
• I passed the name on to Providence, but then Catch 22 #5.
• I was told it might not be possible to list Dr. Brown because he “was not taking new primary care patients.” I knew that, but needed “just” his name as a supervisor to Troy who would continue to provide my primary care.

As I write this, a solution still is pending, to put the best spin on the status.

To be fair, everyone who has tried to help me through this abyss has been courteous and thoughtful. No one has argued with me.

Fine, I say. But still no solution.

It is one thing for a person like me – one who, while not an expert in insurance, has fought health insurance public policy battles for many years – to encounter this abyss. I know just enough about health insurance to be dangerous.

Plus, at the risk of boasting, I am someone who does not sit back and waits for a solution to arrive. I go after it.

By contrast, I think of persons such as my late and dear mother. She would have been lost in this maze.

I hope all of this ends soon for me. I have no need for “the abyss,” “the Catch 22s, or “the maze.” Just solve the problem in a straight-forward, logical way.

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

It is easy these days, soon after the mid-term election, to criticize those who won and prepare to take their offices, but one fact remains: We put them there.

If we want better officials to represent us, especially in Congress, as well as the Oregon Legislature, then we should elect better candidates – candidates who will quit campaigning once an election is over and get about the important business of governing.

Too often, we will vote for candidates who agree with us and we with them.

I say it would better if we would vote for candidates who would pledge to do the “public’s business,” not hew to a particular set of propositions with which we might to happen to agree.

Here is one way to describe the dichotomy.

• Many of those who support Democrats believe Republicans only know how to say “no.”
• Many of those who support Republicans believe Democrats only know how to advocate for ever-expanding government.

To some, this gives rise to the idea of a third party candidate, though such a candidate probably would not have the wherewithal, including money, or the swath of support to surmount the two major parties.

That could begin to change, I suspect, if the two parties continue to fail to act in the general public interest and earn debits for only being interested in yelling on the street corner, figuratively speaking, and remaining in power.

Consider health care.

Those on the left often appear to want a single payer system, one that would turn over health care to the government at great cost, a cost no one, including taxpayers could afford.

Those on the right often appear only to be willing to say “no” to anyone’s proposal from the left, even the near left, because it would be likely to include a role for government – and, of course, government already is heavily involved in health care through, at least, Medicare and Medicaid.

Why not use two programs, already in place, as a basis for reforming health care?

One of my partners at the firm from which I retired believes that I am one of those who supports saying “no” to any health care idea.

“No,” again I say. But this time my “no” means I don’t have magic answers about health care policy, but want those from the left and the right to get together and hammer out a compromise, often a dirty word to party partisans.

I say “produce a process that produces a product!”

What this means is that reasonable elected officials from both sides of the aisle – yes, there are some left on both sides – would go into a room with their ideas, discuss them across the table (make it a round one) and strive to find middle ground.

Then, frankly, we would not have the current Affordable Health Care, which was passed in the Obama years without one Republican vote and, despite the title, is not affordable. The then then and possible new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, famously said she hadn’t even read the bill, but wanted it to pass.

When Republicans took control of the House and the Senate in Congress, they spent more time trying to repeal ObamaCare than working to find a middle ground replacement – and they paid for that negativity at the polls.

A pox on both sides. Their conduct reflects badly on a health care public policy process.

It is only one example that should prompt us, as voters, to support better candidates – candidates who would work to find, as I continually like to call it, the “smart middle.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 have been a lot of good quotes lately, especially in relation to the passing of former President George H. W. Bush.

I was impressed with many of the comments, so, as director of this department, I choose to list some of them here, but, at least because I already have written two blogs about Bush 41, this blog won’t be limited to that subject.

• In the Texas memorial service for Bush 41, one of his grandsons, George P. Bush, delivered an eloquent eulogy when he spoke of the grandfather he knew as “Gampy.”

He described how his grandfather loved to spend time with his family, catching bluefish, tossing horseshoes, eating barbecue, tacos and tamales, and motivating his young grandchildren to go to bed each night by offering “the coveted ‘first to sleep award.’ ”

But he said he instilled his credo of “duty, honor, country” in all of the grandchildren.

“He left a simple yet profound legacy to his children, his grandchildren and to this country: service. George Herbert Walker Bush is the most gracious, most decent, most humble man that I will ever know. It’s the honor of a lifetime to share his name.”

Comment: Great comment from another Bush who puts things very well when he said, “it’s the honor of a life to share the Bush name.”

• Or, consider remarks by James A. Baker, now 88, who served Bush 41 as chief of staff in the White House and also served as Secretary of State.

“We’re here today in the house of the Lord to say goodbye to a man of great faith and great integrity, a truly beautiful human being,” Baker said. He was one of Bush’s closest friends, who was with him, holding his hand and massaging his feet, in the moments leading up to his death last Friday.

Baker spoke of Bush’s “noble character, his life of service and the sweet memories he leaves for his friends, his family, and for our grateful nation.”

At the end of his remarks, Baker became choked with emotion as he paraphrased the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, saying, “Our glory, George, was to have had you as our president and as such a friend.”

Comment: Well said, James Baker! You, too, like your best friend, devoted your life to public service.

• From Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “Given the social and demographic trends of the country, it will soon be impossible to win a presidential election with an ethno-nationalist appeal. But we aren’t there yet. Meanwhile, Trump commits political vampirism — sucking the last remaining life from a dying coalition.”

Comment: Gerson uses excellent words when he says Trump is committing “political vampirism.” If you are looking for a contrast to Bush 41, this is a huge one.

• From Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, describes, at the time of the passing of George H.W. Bush, the duplicity of the media which criticized Bush deeply and personally, then, now, has lauded his performance and style. Most of the Bush values, Henninger writes, can be found on any list of what are called—or used to be called—virtues. “It is telling that these same simple virtues are now being praised by a media that has done so much in the past 30 years to undermine them.”

Comment: Henninger, a member of the Fourth Estate himself, scores points for me when he skewers the duplicity of the media. For an excellent, though imperfect, president like Bush 41, the media goes after him because he, Bush 41, was not adept at some of the communication arts of being president. They failed to assess anything near the virtue of his even-handed leadership at a time of potential peril for this country, the end of the Cold War.

What we need in the Office of the President is someone who will conduct himself with an appropriate sense of humility and decorum. Bush 41 had it.

• I love the quote from former Senator Alan Simpson, who at the national service for Bush 41, said this: “He never hated anyone. He knew what his mother and my mother always knew: Hatred corrodes the container it’s carried in.”

Think of the excellent use of a word “corrodes. It sort of flows off the tongue, though its meaning is very specific and jarring, as indicated by this dictionary definition:  “To eat or wear away gradually as if by gnawing, especially by chemical action; to impair; deteriorate.”

Hatred does just that – in political life and in real life.  Too much to hope, I guess, that the current occupant of the Oval Office, gets it.