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 a couple days ago reflecting on the life and times of the late George H. W. Bush as he was being eulogized across the country.

Here a few more random reflections, including several great quotes that will help us remember this excellent of presidents.

• George W. Bush, the son of Bush 41, gave an emotional eulogy that could only be describe as an ode to a father he loved. He broke down once at the end of his statement.

“The best father a son or daughter could have,” Bush 43 said. “And in our grief, let us smile, knowing that dad is hugging Robin and holding mom’s hand again.”

“In victory, he shared credit. When he lost, he shouldered the blame. He accepted that failure is a part of living a full life, but taught us never to be defined by failure.”

• Arizona Senator John McCain’s state funeral was notable in part for the overt rebukes of President Donald Trump, with calls for bi-partisanship and civility. With Trump in attendance at the official service for Bush 41, those calls for bi-partisanship and civility continued, but were a bit muted.

Bush 43 biographer Jon Meacham said, “His life code, as he said, was: Tell the truth, don’t blame people, be strong, do your best, try hard, forgive, stay the course. And that was and is the most American of creeds.”

• I love a couple of the quotes from former Senator Alan Simpson who hales from Wyoming.

“He never hated anyone. He knew what his mother and my mother always knew: Hatred corrodes the container it’s carried in.”

What a great line! But not just a line – it speaks volumes about the conduct of public officials, but also about the conduct of all us in our every day lives.

• Another quote from Simpson: “Those who travel the high road of humility in Washington, D.C. are never troubled by traffic.”
• Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who served at the same time as Bush 41, came south to offer this trenchant comment.

“When George Bush was president … every single head of government in the world knew that they were dealing with a gentleman, a genuine leader—one who was distinguished, resolute and brave.”

• Wall Street Journal editorial writers used the headline, “A Show of Class” to describe the national memorial service.

“Thursday’s funeral service for George H.W. Bush was full of eloquence, humor and grace, reflecting the man and the family. The media coverage unfortunately chose too often to lament that it reflected some past era that can’t be reclaimed, as if the future isn’t in our own hands.

“But the respect you get is usually the respect you earn, and the Bush family put on a public rite of national mourning that reflected well on the character of their father and the entire Bush clan, and gave the country a moment of shared respect it desperately needs.

“The eulogies were all well struck, elaborating on the many sides of George H.W. Bush: The war heroism and ambition from biographer Jon Meacham, the personal diplomacy from Brian Mulroney, friendship and wit from Alan Simpson, and the personal reflections of the presidential son. The Bushes are sometimes derided, on the left and right as part of a failed establishment, but on Wednesday they set an example for Americans to follow.”

It’s worth remembering this excellent of presidents. His life commitment was based on service and love of family. Both traits emerged very effectively in a “Show of Class” as we laid to rest in his home in Texas.

There is no question but that we need more public-spirited citizens like Bush 41.

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 because I just completed an endurance test – a four-day rules of golf seminar in Portland sponsored jointly by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the PGA of America.

The seminar was two things:

• A solid look at new golf rules, which are scheduled to be effective as of January 1, 2019 – and, based on work done jointly by the USGA and the R & A in Europe, the number of rules has been reduced and the style of writing has been updated.
• A complicated – perhaps too complicated — look at golf rules, which, if you allow yourself to do so, can twist your brain in circles.

Another point must be added quickly. It is that golf is played on a large tract of land in the out-of-doors, so the rules are bound to be more complicated than what exists for indoor sports such as basketball or football, plus many others.

After enduring the four days, here is a summary of my wishes:

1. I wish golf rule writers would land on either “dropping” a ball or “placing” a ball. As it is, the use of the two steps can create a lot of confusion.
2. In the same way, I wish golf writers would land on two penalties – a two-stroke penalty or a disqualification penalty. As it is, there are three – one stroke, two strokes and DQ, the latter of which is related to what could be labeled a “serious breach” – which often means a code of conduct violation. If the rule writers could settle on one stroke or two, not both, those who have to interpret rules on a golf course would have a simpler process.
3. And, if I were a golf rules writer, I would revise the new policy about bunkers. Most of the time, those whose play out of a bunker are prohibited from touching the sand before a shot. Now, with the new rules, three strange actions are now possible – (a) players are allowed to lean on a club in a bunker before hitting a shot if that would help them “stay balanced,” (b) players are allowed to leave extra clubs or even their golf bags in the bunker while they play, and (c) players are allowed expressly to pound their club in the sand “in frustration or anger” after hitting a bad shot in the bunker, even that shot ends up staying in the bunker.

Stupid!

I actually find it hard to believe that the USGA and PGA have enshrined “frustration and anger” in the new rules. In Oregon, in the tournaments where I help to officiate, such behavior would prompt a serious code of conduct violation.

On the plus side when it comes to rules for bunkers, players who want to do so can now take a ball out of a bunker for a penalty of two strokes and play from that new area.

I also have a major suggestion going through the seminar. I would add a section on one of the days that could be entitled, “The Top 10 Rules Situations You Will Encounter on the Golf Course.”

That way, those into the golf rules business would be able to focus on what’s likely to occur, not the minutia of many of the individual rules. Just a thought.

Finally, I would give the USGA and the PGA credit for working together to provide information rules seminars. The two organizations could proceed separately; they have agreed to cooperate, which is good for golf.

Overall, the new rules effective in 2019 are not a wholesale change. Many of the old rules remain in place. But what the USGA and R & A have done is a step in the right direction if one goal is to encourage more play and more golfers to play.

Still, strikes me that there is more to be done on those scores.

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 you want to consider a stark contrast, just look at two presidents – former president George H.W. Bush and the current one, Donald Trump.

I suggest this on the “occasion” of the passing of President, Bush 41 as he was called.

Bush, whatever you think of his record, was a solid citizen who loved his family and his country.

Trump, whatever you think of his record, appears only to love himself, more than anything else, including his family and his country.

For my part, I thought Bush 41 came to the presidency with one of the most impressive records of anyone to ascend to the country’s highest political office.

He served as ambassador to the United Nations, chair of the Republican National Committee, envoy to China and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Then, he became vice president under Ronald Reagan, a position which set him up to run for president. He made it, but only for one term when he was ousted by Bill Clinton.

He may have lost because he was not particularly adept at the communication arts of being president.

The Clinton win appeared to be tough for Bush, not surprisingly because it’s never pleasant to lose, but he rebounded and, incredibly, even with Clinton after the Democrats’ two terms, worked successfully on a variety of philanthropic campaigns, including helping Louisiana residents cope with the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

When he left the White House for the final time as president, he followed through on a tradition, which is he wrote a letter to his successor and left it on the Oval Office desk. Except, he did with humility and personal flair. Here is what it said:

Dear Bill,

When I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago. I know you will feel that, too.

I wish you great happiness here. I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described.

There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair. I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course.

You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well.

Your success now is our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you.

Good Luck — George

As he so often does, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, who worked for Bush 43, wrote well about the elder Bush’s passing.

“Being one of the youngest Navy pilots in World War II, and blessed with longevity, George H.W. Bush was among the last of his cohort (a cohort of young Americans sharing a massive, overwhelming experience of economic depression or war) to leave us. As intelligence chief, diplomat and president, he brought to his calling a set of values that might be called patrician. He was less ‘New Frontier’ and more old-school. He rose in government on the impulse of service. He lived by high standards of decency, fair play, humility, love of family and love of country. He was relentlessly moderate in both temperament and political instinct.

“This type of ‘establishment’ code is easier to lampoon than replace. So much of what a graceless age dismisses as repression is actually politeness, compassion and dignity.”

Gerson adds that Bush’s moral sensibilities turned out to be exactly what was needed at a decisive historical moment, the collapse of the Soviet Union under the weight of its economic and moral failure. What was needed from the United States, Gerson wrote, “was patience, wisdom, steady purpose and the generosity of true power. In presiding over the breaking of nations, an excess of vision or ambition might have been dangerously disruptive. Crowing would have led to bitterness and unpredictable anger. And Bush was incapable of crowing.

“Bush’s life provides assurance that sometimes things go gloriously right. Sometimes Americans vote for a decent and honest leader. Sometimes a president finds his calling and his moment. Sometimes a good man meets a good end. And still. It is a sad and solemn task to dig the graves of giants.”

Remember, the line from Saturday Night Live – “Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.”

While a laugh line, the word “prudent” summed up Bush 41 in two syllables.

He wasn’t known for excitement or inspiration. His prudence, however, was no joke.

Imagine saying such words as prudent and service-oriented about Donald Trump? No.

Instead, he exudes no commitment to public service or, in fact, to family. He lacks prudence. He appears to parade around the White House, when he is not at his Mara Logo resort in Florida, as if he owns the place rather that being “just” its current occupant.

Trump is not capable of leading the country effectively and fairly in the face of either national or international incidents, as was the case with Bush 41 in both spheres.

As we remember Bush 41, even as his casket goes on Air Force One today to Texas for final burial, his presidency continues to receive widespread plaudits regardless of political party. Was he or it perfect? No. No one could be.

But he led with strength, integrity, compassion and humility — characteristics that define a truly great man and effective leader.

Too bad we don’t have someone with similar high qualities in the White House at the moment.

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.

Though it may seem a bit perverse, I ask the question in the headline because of what I have seen over more than 40 years dealing with the Oregon Legislature.

The fact is that, when legislators don’t want to recognize a state law, they don’t. They shove it aside and move on.

Could they be charged with breaking the law? Probably.

But, so far, with respect to the examples I cite below, no one has made such a charge.

And, if someone would proceed to do so, the initiative might not succeed because legislators could wiggle out of responsibility. Further, a good attorney probably could argue that the words in the various laws are not strong enough to enforce.

Well, I say, then scrap the laws and live with the consequence of doing so if there are, in fact, consequences.

Here are three examples of skirting the spirit, if not the letter, of Oregon laws.

FUNDING FOR OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING (OPB)

Oregon’s public broadcasting enterprise is recognized as one of the best in the country. In the spirit of full disclosure, OPB was one of my favorite lobby clients and it remains on my firm’s client roster today. So, call me biased.

ORS 354.410 says this: “The state recognizes a continuing obligation to contribute to the support of the not-for-profit organization known as Oregon Public Broadcasting. The state recognizes that a continuing financial partnership with Oregon Public Broadcasting, the citizens of Oregon and the Corporation for Oregon Public Broadcasting is essential to the preservation of statewide access to the public broadcasting service, statewide educational and public affairs programming services and broadcast services for the disabled.”

Well, guess what? This has been only a symbolic statement, not a law with any clout. To be fair, the State of Oregon did make available $3 million in lottery-backed bonding authority at my request several years ago to extend OPB’s radio and television signals to rural Oregon to make sure such areas didn’t go dark – and what’s particularly interesting is that OPB is often a treasured resource East of the Cascades.

My plea was buttressed by that of OPB’s very credible CEO, Steve Bass, who has carved out a positive reputation since he arrived here more than 10 years ago.

But that $3 million has been the extent of state financial support.

So, in the face of this law, the Legislature mostly ignored it.

HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES

There is a state law that sets up how proposed new health insurance mandates are to be considered in the Legislature.

It sounds better than it works.

The law is ORS 171.875 that requires every proposed legislative measure containing health insurance coverage mandates to be accompanied by a report that assesses both the social and financial effects of the coverage.

Areas that must be addressed in this report include the following:

• The extent to which treatment or service will be used in Oregon;
• The extent of coverage already available in Oregon;
• The proportion of Oregonians who already have such coverage;
• The extent to which lack of coverage results in financial hardship in Oregon;
• Evidence of medical need in Oregon for the proposed treatment or services; and
• The financial effect of the proposed measure, including the increase/decrease of costs of treatment, the extent to which coverage will increase treatment, the extent to which mandated treatment is expected to be a substitute for more expensive treatment, the impact on administrative expenses of the insurer and premiums/administrative expenses of policyholders and the overall impact on total cost of health care.

This is a legal requirement that seldom, if ever, was met during my tenure as a health insurance lobbyist. True, I was on the side of the insurance companies, not the pro-mandate forces.

But, still, a law is a law and should prompt compliance.

Many of the mandates might have made sense and the fact is that insurers, not being stupid all the time, already covered some of the services to be mandated. One example was mandated coverage for contraceptives.

Insurers uniformly included the coverage, but women’s advocacy interests didn’t care about that reality. They just wanted to hang a new pelt on the wall – and, to do so, they did not comply with the law outlined above…they just found the votes.

SENATE BILL 964, FOSTER CARE CONTRACTING PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE

When I represented ChristieCare, a predecessor to Youth Villages in providing services to children and youth, including in foster care, one of our major achievements was passing a bill to install a “pay-for-performance” approach in private sector contracts to reduce the state foster care caseload.

A key line in the proposed law, Senate Bill 964, was this: “Client-focused outcome measures mean objective, observable measures of outcomes for services provided to a child and a child’s family…including but not limited to measures relating to permanency.”

This became ORS 418.580 and the jury is still out on whether state agencies – especially the Department of Human Services (DHS) – have complied with this statutory requirement. The only “evidence” I can find so far is that DHS has submitted written reports to the legislature suggesting that it is complying, though the content of some of the reports I have read don’t include verification of the “pay-for-performance.” And that requirement, at least in theory, should mean that some contractors would lose their deals because of inadequate results.

And that’s all the more reason to be concerned because the foster care caseload in Oregon is intolerably high as many children in the system are not transferred out quickly and safely enough into permanent placements.

As I wrote earlier, no one is likely to accuse the legislative law-breakers of breaking laws they wrote. But, if the laws are on the books, one of two things should occur: Either (1) the law should be followed, or (2) the law should be repealed.

I suppose a third option is for legislators simply to do what they do now, which is to ignore laws they don’t like.

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.

Permit just a little crowing.

With my wife, Nancy, I have been in the California desert at our second home in La Quinta for a couple weeks now. We head home to Salem in the morning, but permit me to cite these highlights here.

Both involve golf.

The first was that, on November 27, I got my seventh hole-in-one on a golf course, this time on the course where we are fortunate to be able to play, The Palms.

If that wasn’t enough, I was playing with my son, Eric, who got to be – or had to be — my witness.

It was a 164-yard par 3 hole. Eric stepped up first and, being a much better golfer than I am, hit an 8-iron to about 20 feet, from where he would make par the hole.

As a 70-year-old golfer, I had my choice of club, too. I chose a 5-hybrid!  When the pro at The Palms heard about the shot he asked if I wanted it to be listed as a 5-hybrid when it got posted on the permanent hold-in-one board.  I said yes, absolutely, because that’s what old guys would hit on that shot!

On the tee, the ball few very well off my club and, on its track, Eric said, “Hey Dad, that looks good. In fact, it might go in.”

Wonder of wonders, when we got up to the hole, it was in the cup.

Well, it turned out that was only a secondary highlight.

During the same week, Eric played in the annual Palms Match Play tournament. He was in the Championship Flight, which was labeled the “gross flight” because players of Eric’s caliber play for a “gross” score, not a “net” score. To put a point on it, I was not in that flight.

Eric had a bye in the first round, then proceeded to prevail in three tough matches to win the flight. He played solid golf in all three rounds.

In this tournament, Eric’s win in the “gross flight” put him up against the player who had won the “pro” division, which is just that, pros who play golf for a living.

It was another good match. Eric was one down standing on the 18^th hole and, after his drive, hit a huge shot to make the green on the par-5 hole. It traveled about 230 yards in the air, about the length, for me, of a driver I hit well.

He proceeded to get down in two to even the match. So, he and the pro – Callam Davison, who just turned pro and, of all things, plays every shot cross-handed – headed off to extra holes all square.

They proceeded to halve the first two holes and then, on the third, Davison made a 20-footer for birdie to win the match. If you try to find a little solace in a loss, it would be that the winner sank a birdie to prevail.

At any rate, two significant accomplishments for the Fiskum’s in the California desert. Eric’s match play achievement was the more significant of the two because it reflects so well his skill and solid temperament on the golf course, something he has owned since he started learning the game at about age seven.

And, for a father, me, watching your son perform so well on the golf course is a memory to be treasured.

Plus, if Eric would have won what was labeled the “King of The Palms” match, he would have to don a literal king’s crown.  With that as a prize, better, I say, not to have won.

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.

Every other year, when governors propose another 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 the 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.

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 is within the spirit of the law.

• 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 governors and legislators to be “transparent” (I hesitate to use that word because the frequency of its use in government these days often means that the word has no real meaning) about their efforts to cut state budgets. Still, if real transparency exists, we’d have more useful information about how state government intends to remain within its means.

As it is, budgets for state agencies normally 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.

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.

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 was still a hospital and health insurance lobbyist, “this” debacle would make more than a little irritated.

What the “this?” As reported by KGW-TV, a story chronicles an unbelievable screw up on the part of all parts of the health care establishment.

Here are excerpts of the story.

“LA CENTER, Wash. — Ryan Hansen knew something was wrong. The 15-year old felt dizzy, his heart raced and his hip hurt when he walked. So his mother took Ryan to an urgent care in Vancouver. An advice nurse agreed that something was very wrong. Ryan needed to get to the emergency room immediately.

“Ryan’s mother, Jamie Hansen, rushed her son to PeaceHealth Southwest Medical Center. After a battery of tests, emergency room physicians surmised Ryan had some type of infection attacking his heart.

“The doctors at PeaceHealth warned they couldn’t provide the specialty pediatric care Ryan needed so they immediately ordered an ambulance to take him across the river to Randall Children’s Hospital at Legacy Emanuel in Portland.

“Before loading into the ambulance, Ryan’s mother asked the hospital staff about insurance. She knew PeaceHealth in Vancouver was in-network, but worried Randall in Portland was not covered by her health insurer.

“After a week at Randall, including four days in the pediatric intensive care unit, Ryan made a full recovery. He was sent home.

“A few weeks later the first hospital bill arrived: $112,387.

“Hansen’s insurer, LifeWise Health Plan of Washington, provided little relief. After processing the claims, Hansen said LifeWise offered to pay $15,396 – just a small portion of the total hospital bill.”

This looks like what it is – all health care establishment entities pointing figures at others, not taking responsibility for various mis-communication, or worse, outright lies.

Hansen’s case is a telling example of how powerless patients can be in the complex world of medical billing. Hospitals don’t tell patients how much they charge. Patients don’t know how much insurers will pay until they get their bills.

LifeWise and Legacy blame one another for the hefty bill, leaving the Hansen family caught in financial crosshairs.

Washington Insurance Commission Mike Kreidler has now gotten into the act. No susprise there.

“What angers me most about this case,” Kreider told KGW, “is that Ms. Hansen — who knows how the health care insurance system works – still got stuck with huge surprise bills for her son after an emergency.

Kreidler called the practice “balance billing,” which occurs when a healthcare provider bills a patient for the difference between what the patient’s health insurance chooses to reimburse and what the provider chooses to charge.

Kreidler is proposing legislation in Washington that would help protect patients from this type of surprise medical bill.

The issue – and prospective legislation – also could take hold in Oregon as the 2019 legislative session convenes after the first of the year.

As a hospital/health insurance lobbyist, I would prepare for the tough questions, which are more than warranted in response to such situations. I might even try to talk my clients into proposing legislation so as not to be caught in the lee of other proposals.

To me, as a now-retired health care lobbyist in Oregon, I would contend that hospitals and health insurers aren’t all bad, as often is contended by their opponents at the Capitol in Salem. But stories like the one KGW-TV uncovered often resonate for awhile and make it difficult to contend that one’s clients are trying to do the right thing.

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.

Recent stories about corporate behemoth Amazon and its search for a second headquarters location beyond Seattle got me to thinking about the “economic development” business.

I was heavily involved in that enterprise for the State of Oregon in the late 1980s when I served as deputy director of the Economic Development Department, now called “Business Oregon.”

Of course, we never had as a big a quarry as Amazon, with its pledge to invest about $5 billion, and to create about 50,000 new jobs in a second headquarters, jobs that would pay in the range of $100,000 each.

In Oregon, we had far smaller targets.

Should a government be involved in business recruitment? It’s an often-controversial subject.

Some believe the private sector should fend for itself without any support from government, except, perhaps, in the permit-issuing business – at least considering whether to issue one, not whether to help a business wade through the quagmire of many permitting processes.

Others believe government has an important role to play in enticing businesses to consider locating in a state, county or a city, or, in the case of existing business, encouraging expansion in the same areas.

For us in the Oregon Economic Development Department, encouraging economic development was an important government function.

We felt it was entirely appropriate to be involved in business recruitment, as long as we also emphasized helping existing businesses remain in Oregon and cope with often-intense government regulations.

The matter of government providing incentives – including tax incentives to spur location or expansion — is even more controversial.

I remember a time in Oregon when economic development officials –it was after I left the department and became a lobbyist – went to the Legislature to gain approval for a list of incentives that would, among other things, have the potential to entice Intel to expand in Oregon.

Consider what happened.

Intel took advantage of the incentives and, as a result, is now one of the largest employers in the state. Its huge investments here also ripple out to suppliers and other economic resources in and around Washington County.

Without the incentives, Intel would have gone elsewhere.

Plus, one fact often lost as critics raise their voices about economic development is the incredible benefit of the income taxes all of the employees pay – income taxes that help to finance needed services, including K-12 schools, higher education, and public safety.

In my day, when we were recruiting businesses to Oregon and aiding existing companies with expansion prospects, one of the major questions revolved around the character and quality of school systems.

Not taxes.

Of course, we helped companies analyze taxes, but it was usually more important for company executives and employees to understand schools, including perceptions of their quality – schools that would be attended by the children of employees.

Back for a moment to Amazon.

Critics of decisions by East Coast cities – New York and Northern Virginia — to attract Amazon say some officials involved in development proposals expanded non-disclosure agreements beyond what a company even requested.

Companies seeking tax breaks and other incentives often require local officials to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of economic-development deals to protect confidential, proprietary information. The secrecy is intended to avoid alerting employees, competitors and would-be land speculators of potential development, as well as to protect private company information.

If you think about it only for a moment, protecting confidential company information makes eminent sense.

One of the risks now is that legislators who know nothing about economic development other than their opposition to it will press requirements to avoid incentives.

Too bad for those jurisdictions taken out of the game.

Cities, counties and states will lose if they don’t play in the game. And they will not be able to count on the new jobs and the taxes those job-holders pay.

To economic development opponents, I say, “Look at the jobs and the taxes that flow from those jobs.” That will provide a more complete picture of the worth of the supporting economic development.

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 we reflect on just having come through another Thanksgiving Day, I hope that every day would be a day for giving thanks.

Tough aspiration, especially given the difficult conditions many citizens face these days, not to mention various plights in our country.

But, from a simple perspective, I have two thoughts to help make every day special.

1. Say thanks to someone every day

I learned this from one my mentors in state government, Fred Miller, then director of the Executive Department. He practiced the art of expressing personal appreciation to someone every day for work they had done from which he benefitted.

It was a good practice, one I have tried to mimic. If you think about it, there are lots of people you could thank because they helped you achieve an objective, or just expressed words of appreciation and hope to you in every day life.

2. Do something nice for someone every day

In addition to expressing thanks, a second act would be for you to do something nice for someone every day. There are a lot of simple tasks that would boost someone’s day.

Just two simple tasks. Neither requires much deep thought or time-consuming action. But both can be important statements for how you live your d

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 totally free hand to do what I want to do, which reminds me of “our” president, Donald Trump.

Like me, he considers himself to be a dictator, except that his assumed dictatorship applies to the entire country and perhaps even the world.

And I put quote marks around the word “our” as in “our president” because I don’t want to claim him even if, to put a point on it, “I respect the office of the president.” I don’t respect him.

So, here goes with Bits and Pieces.

From the Wall Street Journal: The vote recount, now over in Florida, has focused scrutiny again on election processes on the Democrat stronghold of Broward County.

Republicans said the delays plaguing several steps in the counting constitute wrongdoing and suggest the county elections office was guilty of fraud. The election officials said they were guilty of nothing.

The closeness of the election, lengthy recount and legal disputes have come to serve as a national reminder of Florida’s last election debacle—the 2000 presidential recount, which came to an end through intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court and left George W. Bush with a 537-vote victory, and the presidency.

Comment: My view is that, until elections are run properly, all votes from Broward County should be thrown out. That would mean that some innocent citizens would lose their franchise, but better that than to allow tainted results. Plus, the predictable and warranted outcry from the disenfranchised would help to speed needed reform.

From the Wall Street Journal: Consider this headline…”Tech Firms Should Face Thoughtful Regulation.”

Say what?

No, I am in favor of “unthoughtful” regulation. Why one of the best newspapers in the country, the Wall Street Journal, would write such a headline defies explanation.

Oh well, the Journal is on target most of the time.

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post: Both newspapers have been all over the dust-up between President Trump and CNN reporter Jim Acosta.

Comment: I wrote about this in a separate blog the other day, so I’ll just repeat briefly what I said then. Both Trump and Acosta deserve each other. Both like to preen before the cameras, seeking the high ground, if there is high ground to be sought.

Since I believe the First Amendment is not up for grabs on this set-to, I say let the two of them go at each other. No one will win and that includes all of us who depend, to some degree, on a vigilant and insightful media. To me, Acosta is not part of that, so forget him in all his preening and posturing.

The Wall Street Journal: Columnist Andy Kessler wrote the other day that, for many businesses, meetings are a means to an end. He posited that, if a result could not be achieved in five meetings, then it was not worth proceeding.

That sparked a retort from a letter to the editor writer who said this:

“We and our clients refer to most meetings as “group grope,” and our research indicates clearly that over 80 per cent of meetings involving more than three people produce nothing for improved business results. Coincidentally, when you look around the room at most such meetings this failed approach to business is revealed by catatonic stares, late arrivals, early departures, silent participants and individual grandstanding, all of which increase dramatically beginning with the second meeting on any given subject that would have been nicely solved during the first meeting with the right two to three individuals present.”

Comment: In business – or in government, for that matter — it’s easy to criticize a tendency to book more and more meetings. Meetings without clear agendas are, in fact, a waste of time.

But, if you have clear agendas, plus other disciplines such as starting and ending on time, there is a purpose to meetings. If nothing else, they spark needed, first-hand communications with staff members who will be assigned to implement any decision, so better they have context provided through meetings, not just off-the-cuff assignments.

Speaking of timeliness, one of my mentors in state government, Fred Miller, then the director of the Executive Department, held “Cabinet Meetings,” because the governor was often out-of-town or too busy with political activity to do so. I was in charge of developing the agendas for the meetings, which, given the number of state agencies – more than 100 – occurred three times a week.

A key point: Miller started every meeting on time, no matter if no one was there – or, more accurately, if compulsive late-comers were not in the room. When those late-comers arrived, it was up to them to get up to speed.

So, for me, meetings are not all bad and it is artificial to suggest that there is any magic with one meeting or five meetings. If managed well, including with clear start and end times, meetings are a means to a desirable end.

From the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post: Both newspapers gave a lot of space to the Twitter tensions between President Trump and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Trump accused some judges of being “Obama” judges when they turned thumbs down on some of his attempts to control the Mexico and California borders confronted by an “immigrant caravan.”

Roberts pushed back, saying judges had been appointed by a number of presidents, so should not be described by presidential labels.

Comment: In this coverage, I was struck by this quote.

“Despite the endless decades of rhetoric about ‘judicial activism,’ judges at the district court level are generally a timid lot when it comes to confronting presidents. Historically, they are inclined to do what former federal judge Nancy Gertner calls ‘duck, avoid and evade.’”

Why did this strike me? Well, it called to mind one of my previous blogs, which pointed out that many lobbyists like me practiced the arts of “dodging, bobbing, and weaving” – all different skills, if you think about it for a moment. All were used to stay out of useless tensions.

So, I how have another way to describe these often useful tactics: “Duck, avoid and evade.” I like my list better, but both will suffice to help avoid “friendly fire.”