Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The point of this blog is to say that my wife and I have an American flag draped on our back yard deck.

Why?

Because we want to respect the country – our country – and to honor those who have defended us in numerous wars around the world.

Not because we favor Donald Trump.  In the strongest possible words, NO!

Trump and his ilk have somehow managed to capture the flag and wrap their arms around it as if they believe in America. 

They don’t.

There is no better way for me to make this point this morning than to reprint a column by Rick Reilly that can this morning in the Washington Post. 

Reilly is good with words and his is good this time around as I say he speaks for me and many other Americans who treasure the flag for its real meaning, not the fake Trump-infected meaning.

Here is Reilly’s column.

*********

Since when does Donald Trump own the American flag?

As I’ve discovered, flying Old Glory makes people assume you support Trump.

Error! Filename not specified.

I’m not easily flabbergasted, but the other day my flabber got good and gasted. I was riding my beach bike, the one with the 2-by-3-foot American flag flying off the back. I fly it because I … (a) love my country and (b) love my spine, and the flapping flag means fewer cars flatten me.

 hear a honk. That’s when a guy on the passenger side of a white 4×4 Ram truck leans out and yells, “Yeah! Go Trump!”

Go Trump? Me? He can’t be yelling that at me. I look around for somebody in a MAGA hat or a T-shirt with Trump’s mug shot, but there’s nobody. And that’s when it hits me.

This guy thinks I’m a Trumper.

Why else would I be flying an American flag?

Then, a week later, it happens again, only in reverse. I’m riding when a woman leans out of her green Subaru and hollers, “F— Trump!” and flips me off. She’d seen the flag and figured the same thing as the guy in the truck.

This lady thinks I’m a Trumper.

Which brings me to a question for Friday — Flag Day: When did the American flag become another Trump property?

And if the former president doesn’t quite own it, he has definitely co-opted it. Nowadays, if you see a jacked-high pickup with four American flags, you either honk proudly or move three lanes away. There’s a house on my block with a giant Trump flag hanging from the roof. Do you ever see a Biden flag? Me neither, not once. Online, you can find dozens of American flags for sale with Donald Trump’s name or face on them. Good luck finding one with Biden’s.

Presidential candidates have always been glad to wrap themselves in the flag, of course. But with Trump, it has never looked more like a Hollywood prop. Trump doesn’t care about the flag any more than he cares about being a Republican. What he cares about is how he looks holding it.

I was with Trump one time, 20 years ago, when he kept mis-introducing me as “the guy who runs Sports Illustrated” or “this guy owns SI!” I just worked at the place. When I asked him why he was lying to people, he said, “Sounds better.”

Trump loves the flag, like the Bible, because it looks better. The American flags flying at his properties are about the size of a Denny’s. He actually cuddled up to a flag at a conservative conference in 2020 and mouthed, “I love you, baby.”

He’s yuuuuge on the flag, but puny on what it stands for.

Serve your country in the military? Uh … no.

Obey the law? No, no, 34 times no.

Free speech? Big no. Trump says that if reelected he would retaliate against media “criminally or civilly.”

But what really makes me eat bees is that Trumpers aren’t just kidnapping the flag — they’re abusing it, too. MAGAs are flying the flag upside-down. Like the one that flew over the Alitos’ house. That used to be a seafaring sign that a ship is in distress. Now it’s a sign that the brain is.

In video of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, an Arkansas trucker picked up an American flag on a pole and beat a cop with it. Bash the Blue.

There’s also a Jan. 6 video showing the invaders yanking down the Star-Spangled Banner and putting up a Trump one. And Colin Kaepernick taking a knee was treasonous?

For a lot of Americans, the flag has become a symbol of Trump misogyny, Trump bigotry and Trump wannabe president for life. Which means, for Democrats like me, flying an American flag on your house is akin to bringing your neighbors anthrax brownies. Flying a flag puts you in the pickup truck with an Oath Keeper. You can see why. During the 2020 election, a phalanx of trucks flying American flags and Trump flags tried to run a Biden campaign bus off the road.

The Stars and Stripes were here 169 years before Trump was born, and they’ll be here long after he’s gone. I say it’s time to take the flag back. And so does the Biden campaign, judging by the Democratic National Committee’s recent ad for him — it’s just called “Flag.”

The American flag belongs to 336 million of us, not just the 46.9 percent of the electorate that went for Trump last time around. More than 81 million Americans voted for Biden in 2020. The more of us flying the flag from our porches and cars and, yeah, bikes, the less it seems as though Trump helped Betsy Ross sew it.

“Go Trump”? Great idea. Go, Trump, as far away as possible. But leave the flag.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The place where I play most of my golf – Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon – again made GolfWeek magazine’s  ist of “top private golf courses” in each state.

It was the second time in a row that Illahe made the list for Oregon, an honor I think it deserves as it stands among other solid courses in Oregon, such as Portland Golf Club, Columbia Edgewater, and Waverly.

As GolfWeek put it:

“No matter where you live or where you want to play, these tabulations by our Golfweek’s Best Rater Program offer something for every golfer.”

How does GolfWeek come with its “best in golf” lists?

It relies on the perspectives of more than 800 raters around the world.  They are golfers who play the courses and rate each layout based on 10 criteria, with each offering its own 10-point scale.

Raters then offer one overall rating of 1 to 10, which is not cumulative based on the 10 criteria.  An average of those overall ratings is calculated to create an annual score for each layout, allowing Golfweek’s Best to rank courses. 

It is worth noting, GolfWeek says, that there are no perfect 10s.  Only eight courses around the world with enough qualifying votes to appear on our top lists in 2024 are rated above a 9.  An average rating above 8 indicates an incredible golf course.  Anything above a 7 is worth traveling great distances to experience.  Courses with an average rating of 6 to 7 are probably the best course in most cities.

Here, from GolfWeek, is a summary of the rating qualifications.

1. Routing

How well the holes individually and collectively adhere to the land and to each other. 

2a. Integrity of design

The extent to which the existing holes either conform to the original design intent or, for those courses that have been renovated, the extent to which the holes embody a character that is cohesive rather than fragmentary.

2b. Quality of shaping (

The extent to which course construction creates design elements that fit in well and provide a consistent look or sensibility. 

3. Overall land plan 

Ease of integration of all built-out elements with native land including course, clubhouse, real estate, roads, native topography and landforms. Extent to which land plan facilitates long views of surrounds and/or interior views of property. 

4. Greens and surrounds 

Interest, variety and playability of putting surfaces, collars, chipping areas and greenside bunkers. 

5. Variety and memorability of par 3s 

Differentiation of holes by length, club required, topography, look and angle of approach. 

6. Variety and memorability of par 4s 

Range of right-to-left and left-to-right drives and second shots required, as well as spread of length, topography and look of the holes. 

7. Variety and memorability of par 5s 

Variety of risk/reward opportunities on tee shot; how interesting the second shots are; variety of third shots required. 

8. Tree and landscape management 

Extent to which ornamentals, hardwoods, conifers and other flora enhance the design and playability of a course without overburdening it or compromising strategic flexibility and agronomy. 

9. Conditioning and ecology 

Overall quality of maintenance, discounting for short-term issues (weather or top dressing); extent of native areas; diversity of plant life and wildlife. 

10. “Walk in the park” test 

The sense of the place as worthy of spending four hours on it.

So, with all this, my favorite course in the world, makes the private course list for Oregon!  Good.

When I talked with Illahe’s head pro about this rating result, he offered another interesting perspective.  He said that, if you asked pro golfers around Oregon for their ratings (not just amateur raters), Illahe would rank in the top five private courses in the state.

That said, I think I’ll go out and play golf again – now.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I now open one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

This time, it’s the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

FROM JESSIE WEGMAN:  Wegman, a member of the New York Times editorial board, wrote an excellent column the other day on the felony convictions of presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Without reviewing the entire piece, here is one of best sentences Wegman wrote:

“Donald Trump considers himself to be above the law even as he threatens to wield the law against his enemies if given the chance.”

Nothing more needs to be said, though I will add this.  Besides convictions on 34 criminal violations, Trump also stands guilty of this – duplicity.

FROM AARON BLAKE:  In the Washington Post, political analyst Aaron Blake, wrote this:

“Taking a step back, Trump’s tactics are familiar to those who study fascism.  ‘Fascism encourages contempt for democrat institutions, particularly elections, and the rule of law,’ the Public Leadership Institute explained in a 2022 essay. 

“Instead, it calls on the majority group to turn over power to a strongman and his lieutenants, while glorifying the use of violence in support of fascist myths and goals.’”

There, Blake says it – Trump is a Fascist.  He wants all the power.

Blake adds:  “…every conspiracy theory must occasionally be fertilized.”  So, Republicans set about doing that last Tuesday (in a hearing they called in the House to rail against Trump’s guilty verdicts).

FROM FRANK BRUNI:  In the New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni wrote this this:

“Trump’s a bona fide felon now.  Back in 2016, it was somewhat easier for Americans itching to cast a protest vote to see the vilest of Trump’s behavior and the most vicious of his remarks as theatrical provocations, as a flamboyant show of defiance that wouldn’t amount to all that much.  

“The line between mischief and malice could be blurry, at least if you didn’t care to look closely.

“Eight years later?  There’s nothing blurry about Trump. There’s no mistaking or minimizing the Nazi echoes in his talk of immigrants poisoning the blood of the country or his reference to his critics on the left as vermin.  There’s no shrugging off his invitation to Vladimir Putin to invade NATO allies who didn’t pay their dues and his pledge to use the presidency to take revenge on his enemies.”

FROM DANA MILBANK:  The columnist, Miltank, wrote under this headline:  “As Biden rallies the free world, Trump serves a higher cause – himself.”

Milbank continued:

“In Phoenix, at his first post-conviction campaign rally, Trump portrayed a dark and desperate America.

“The 80th anniversary of D-Day provided the contrast that should define the election.

“President Biden went to Normandy and spoke about American greatness.  Donald Trump went to Phoenix and ‘a ‘very sick country.’

“In France, Biden rhapsodized about ‘the story of America’ told by the rows of graves at the Normandy America Cemetery:  ‘Nearly 10,000 heroes buried side by side, officers and enlisted, immigrants and native-born, different races, different faiths, but all Americans.’

“In Phoenix, Trump, invoked the racist ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory, saying Biden had orchestrated an ‘invasion’ at the border as part of ‘a deliberate demolition of our sovereignty’ because ‘they probably think these people are going to be voting.’”

All four commentators are right.  Now, who do you want vote for later this year?

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Remember back in the day when Donald Trump tried to make hay by advocating that authorities lock up Hillary Clinton?

I do.

Now, Trump could face the same call because he has been convicted of 34 felons.

That’s right, 34.  He is a felon.  So, lock him up.

Of course, he doesn’t care.

And, believe this – he actually tries to capitalize on that status to raise money from the MAGA crowd who believe he is a victim.

Well, to me, he is not a victim.

All of us, instead, are victims, given his proclivity, even as president, to break the law and contend that such action is what makes him and America great.

Washington Post analyst, Jennifer Rubin, wrote in the Washington Post this week about Trump’s new status.  This was the headline: “The best argument to lock up Trump:  Merchan must protect the judiciary.”

“Seasoned legal minds differ on whether felon and former president Donald Trump should receive prison time for his conviction on 34 counts. However, considering the context of Trump’s crimes and his propensity to threaten judges, juries and witnesses, significant prison time is the only punishment that fits the crime and this convict.

“Trump’s crime of falsification of business records is considered a Class E felony — the lowest-level felony, punishable by up to four years in prison. Punishment for each count would run concurrently, so the maximum would be four years, not 136 years.

“In addition to the gravity of the offense, the factors weighing most heavily in favor of a significant prison sentence are Trump’s conduct and character. It is not ‘simply’ that Trump has multiple civil judgments against him (e.g., sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, inflating his property values and misusing charitable funds), or that he spearheaded a violent insurrection to overturn an election, or even that his conduct resulted in multiple contempt citations in Merchan’s and Justice Arthur Engoron’s courtrooms.  

“In this case, character and conduct also encompass how Trump treats the criminal justice system.

“From that perspective, imprisonment may be the only effective penaltybecause of Trump’s defective character.  Chump-change fines for contempt during the trial did not slow him down.  So long as he remains at large, with unfettered access to social media, he poses a threat to the people he attacks and the judicial system he maligns. Incarceration is the only means of holding Trump accountable for his wholesale attacks on the rule of law that continue to this day.”

COMMENT:  Rubin makes good points, though, I suspect, in the end, Trump will escape with a fine (he won’t care how much) and perhaps home confinement in a way that will allow him to continue campaigning.

I’ll give Ruth Marcus from the Post the last word here.

“Reasonable people can differ about the wisdom of prosecuting Donald Trump.  Reasonable people can differ about the justice of the guilty verdict in the Manhattan hush money case against the former president.

“But we are not dealing with reasonable people in the Trump-fueled reaction to his conviction on 34 felony counts.  We are dealing with dangerous people — and a dangerous assault on the rule of law in the call for state-level officials to launch revenge prosecutions and the threat of federally directed retribution against President Biden and other Democrats if Trump returns to power.

“This is so unhinged it is tempting to ignore it as overheated bloviating. That would be a mistake.  The individuals inciting this prosecution-as-payback approach sit at Trump’s elbow.  And they appear incapable of grasping the essential flaw in their reasoning:  That, even assuming the basest partisan motives on the part of Trump’s pursuers, the proper response is to retaliate in kind.”

So, if Trump wins, the anti-democracy approach will continue.  Round up anyone who disagrees, Trump says, and put them in jail.  Sounds like a puppet regime, which is exactly what Trump wants.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

If I would have been smart – how many times in life have I said that? – I would have added a key point yesterday in a blog I wrote about my support for changing a golf rule, divots in fairways.

The point would have been this:  The late professional golfer Payne Stewart had bad luck with his ball coming to rest in a fairway divot during the 1998 U.S. Open at The Olympic Club, then again a year later in the Open at Pinehurst.

This stands as the hallmark of the need to change the unfair golf rule.

Of course, Stewart didn’t like what happened either time.  But, what do you do?

Official golf rules say, “live with it.”

When the “divot problem” happened again at Pinehurst, Stewart was ready for it the second time around because he had practiced on how to escape from such a predicament.

Here is the way golf writer Lee Pace put it in a story I found through Mr. Google:

“Payne Stewart made a remarkable personal metamorphosis over the 1990s.  Always a graceful and talented performer on the course, Stewart, as a young tour pro, wasn’t universally embraced away from the course as his somewhat bratty, churlish ways rubbed many he encountered the wrong way.

“A variety of circumstances and lessons conspired over the 1990s to soften and smooth the edges, and the 42-year-old Stewart who came to Pinehurst for the 1999 U.S. Open was significantly more humble and likeable than the one who won the 1991 Open at Hazeltine.”  Or, I add, almost won at Olympic in 1998.

“That evolution of Stewart, Pace writes, “is perhaps best illustrated in the story of the divots of Olympic 1998 and Pinehurst 1999. 

“Stewart enjoyed a four-shot lead to begin the final day of the ’98 Open in San Francisco, but he was two-over on the front nine and his lead had shrunk to two shots over Lee Janzen by the time he reached the tee of the par-four 12th hole.

“Stewart hit a good drive but encountered a bad break — his ball landed in a divot made earlier in the week and subsequently filled with sand and tamped down by course maintenance workers.

“Stewart and his caddie took a little extra time to examine the lie and contemplate the shot, then Stewart hit his approach from the divot into a greenside bunker.

“USGA official Tom Meeks had been clocking Stewart’s shot and told him, as Stewart walked to the green, that he had taken too long and that Stewart was being issued a slow-play warning.  

“Stewart was stunned and aggravated.  Unsettled by the divot and the warning, Stewart made two consecutive bogeys, fell out of the lead and opened the door for Janzen to rally from behind for the win.”

Given what happened, Stewart said something with which I agree — there should be relief when a good drive in the fairway lands in a divot.

Then, in 1999 at Pinehurst, the same thing happened to Stewart – a drive in a divot.  He was ready for it and played well from that divot to win the Open title, but the bottom-line point is the same:

Even if golfers demonstrate the ability to hit out of a divot in the fairway, a good drive should not be punished in that way.  Just as occurs on a green where there are ball marks and spike marks, give golfers relief in the fairway.  A free drop out of the divot without penalty.

It’s the fair and right action to take.

Payne Stewart’s experience in the 1990s is one of the best illustrations on this change in golf rules – and I wish I would have cited it yesterday.  It’s not too late today.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

One of my favorite golf magazines – Links – came up this month with a good story, citing 10 golf rules that it said should be changed.

I didn’t agree with all its recommendations, but, for one, a solid yes.

This:  “Relief from Divots/The Rules of Golf grant relief from many kinds of abnormal ground conditions — including by way of Rule 13.1c(2), which allows a player to repair ball marks and spike marks on putting surfaces.

From Links:  “The rules look to strike a balance between the longstanding tradition of playing the ball ‘as it lies’ and fairness, and in the case of this rule, they indicate that on greens, such relief is warranted.  But no such relief is offered in the case of a ball coming to rest in a divot, which is manifestly inconsistent.”

My vote – again a solid yes.

It is a condition – the unlucky bounce that, even for a good drive, ends up in a divot – always strikes me as patently unfair.  So change it.

One other major rule change for me is this:  Re-write Rule 12, which makes a number of ill-conceived comments about permitted actions in bunkers.  One of these, incredibly, says it is “allowable to strike the sand in anger and frustration.”

Say what? 

If a golfer did this in Oregon Golf Association sponsored events where I often volunteer, he or she would get a “code of conduct” penalty.

There is absolutely no reason for this to be included in the Rules of Golf.

Drawing on the Links Magazine article, I list below all the rules it advocates changing – but just by title without all the detail.  And, then I add my agreement or disagreement.

1. Limit of 14 Clubs/the magazine wants to allow as many or as few as a player wants:  Disagree. 

2. Relief from Divots:  Agree.

3. Relief in Bunkers…if your golf ball is in areas not previously raked:  Agree.

4. Stroke and Distance Penalty for Loss of Ball or Ball Hit Out of Bounds:  Disagree.

5. Three-Minute Time Limit to Find a Lost Ball…by adding more time:  Disagree.

6. Ball Embedded by Someone Stepping on It:  Agree.

7. Interference from Boundary Objects…if your ball comes to rest in bounds but in a position where the boundary fence interferes with your stance or swing, there is no relief, but it should be granted:  Agree.

8. Use of Distance-Measuring Devices – allow them:  Agree (though I don’t know that allowing such devices would necessarily speed up play).

9. Rules for Relief from Penalty Areas…to provide consistency:  Agree

10. Pace of Play Rule:  Either throw this out or enforce it…I vote for the latter.

There it is.  Enough.  With that, I am heading out to play golf…again.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Back when I was a lobbyist in the State of Oregon, there would have been a major event last week for me and my firm’s clients.

This:  State government economists appeared before a joint legislative committee to unveil the latest quarterly forecast of tax revenue available for the state in the next “biennium,” an unusual word that means the next “two years, 2025-27).”

This time, during what lobbyists call “the interim between legislative sessions in Salem,” few paid much attention.

For me, a new revenue forecast always was a critical development for at least two reasons:

1. How much money is available sets the stage for the ONLY decision lawmakers in Oregon must make as they meet in a regular legislative session — approve a new two-year spending plan for such issues as health care, higher education, K-12 education, and public safety (including state [police and prisons].

• The predicted total also sets the stage for another major decision —  how much to spend and how much to raise in taxes, if any of the latter.

I remember many days when, along with a bevy of other state lobbyists, I waited impatiently in the hearing room for the next revenue forecast to be made public. 

During various recessions, the event was even more critical because state legislators would begin to understand how much they had to cut in state government, many of which were important to citizens.  Decisions about what to cut are often more difficult than decisions about what new spending makes sense.

As for the U. S. economy, here’s what state economists said:

“…it remains in an inflationary economic boom, albeit one that has cooled somewhat over the past year and a half.  Real GDP is growing above potential.  Ongoing employment and income gains allow households to spend even as prices are rising faster than the Federal Reserve’s target.

“Given the strong economy, the Fed has yet to cut interest rates.  The outlook indicates the Fed will begin to reduce interest rates late this year, only after further slowing in inflation is seen in the data.”

As for the outlook in Oregon, the economists added:

“The Oregon economic outlook remains solid, but this cycle has been different.  The state’s topline population, employment, and income growth is in the middle of the pack across all states.

“However, the economic outcomes for individual Oregonians have been noticeably stronger than the nation.  While still lower than the U.S., Oregon’s per capita income and average wage are at their highest relative point compared to the nation in decades.

“A record share of working-age Oregonians have a job.  And the state’s labor force participation rate has risen the second most across all states.

“The major economic forecast change is a larger U.S. population due to increased international immigration.  This boosts the national employment, income, and spending forecasts.

“The Oregon population forecast remains essentially unchanged, and Oregon is not a major port of entry for international immigrants.  As such, the local impact of the U.S. forecast changes is smaller.  That said, a larger U.S. economy boosts non-wage Oregonian income, like investments and proprietors’ income, as local firms sell more goods and services into that larger customer base elsewhere in the country.”

So, lawmakers will have more to spend for the 2005-27 biennium when they return to Salem next January.  This is a summary of the projections:

• About $533 million more in the “general fund” arriving from individual taxpayers, which sounds like a lot, but only up about 1.6 per cent from the last forecast.
• About $588 million in corporate tax revenue for the “general fund,” up about 26 per cent from the last forecast, with most of the increase due to federal tax policy changes.
• Almost the same projection of lottery revenue as the last forecast – lottery revenue goes to education, economic development, and other specific purposes outlined in state law – so functions just like the “general fund”…another bucket of money.

This means the 2025 Legislature is not likely to face major debates over tax increases, even if some Democrats – that party is likely to remain in charge in both the House and Senate – would like to have such debates.

Instead, the basic issue will be what it always is:  How to allocate state revenue and work to assure that spending will achieve what it is supposed to achieve, a tough task given the reality that expenditures and revenue must be in balance.  No deficit spending.

That’s a key distinction from the federal government where deficit spending always occurs.

One more issue is just around the corner for Oregonians.  Current Oregon law requires legislators to return money to taxpayers if revenue is more than 2 per cent over previous projections.  This has come to be called “Oregon’s kicker law.”

In the past, some legislators have said they don’t like the law, so have tried to repeal it.  To no avail.

It is popular – many Oregonians what their “kicked back” money.

Enough for now because, in retirement, I am heading to the golf course, not to review more tax and spending detail.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The question in this blog headline has two answers:

1. If you look at Donald Trump, now a convicted felon, the answer is “no” – a clearcut no.

• If you consider politics generally, the answer should be “yes” – a clearcut yes.

At least to Trump, and those who follow him blindly, character is not an issue.  If it was, they wouldn’t follow Trump.

I say all this the day after Trump was convicted in a New York Court of delivering hush money to a porn star to avoid information about his tryst becoming a negative part of his presidential campaign.

This headline appeared in the Washington Post in a column by Ruth Marcus:  “No matter what he says, Trump is a felon.”

So, as I have done, consider politics 10, 20 or 30 years ago. 

Would it be possible for a person with the following records ever win election?

• A person who was a reality TV show host, with no public service experience
• A person who said it was easy to grope women
• A person convicted of rape
• A person who expresses his disdain for American military heroes, including the late John McCain
• A person who glorifies Hitler as a model, despite the fact that Hitler organized the largest mass murder in history — killing six million Jews
• A person who hates immigrants, calling them “vermin” and “a poison on this country” (though all of us either are immigrants or come immigrant stock)

Ten, 20 or 30 years ago, that person would never have had a chance to be elected to a public office.

Then comes Trump.

Not only are the facts above true of Trump, he revels in those facts, calling them attributes as he threatens to make America into a dictatorship, with him at the top in the same way another of Trump’s heroes, Vladimir Putin, rules Russia.

It may be tempting for some Trump followers, even in the aftermath of his felony convictions, to say they don’t like his opponent, Joe Biden.

But whatever Biden’s faults – and there are some – none even remotely approach Trump.

So, I intend to vote for Biden.

And, I’ll give the New York Times the last word this morning as it wrote:

“In a humble courtroom in Lower Manhattan on Thursday, a former president and current Republican standard-bearer was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.  The jury’s decision, and the facts presented at the trial, offer yet another reminder — perhaps the starkest to date — of the many reasons Donald Trump is unfit for office.”

Perspective From the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Under this headline – “Not Even Portlandia Wants a Progressive Prosecutor” – the Wall Street Journal went on record lauding the decision by Multnomah County residents to vote for a new prosecutor.

Nathan Vasquez, a lead prosecutor in District Attorney Mike Schmidt’s office, beat his boss by a wide margin.

By the Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman, here is what the article said:

“It wasn’t all that long ago that people talked about Portland, Oregon, in terms of craft beer and music rather than chaos and mayhem. That was of course before the city and the state began testing the outer limits of social policies deemed “progressive,” which has turned out to be the most deceptive label in the history of politics.

“The ironic adjective now stands for a descent into human degradation, and it seems Portland voters have had about all the degrading policy experimentation they can stand.

“Earlier this year the state of Oregon reversed its trendy and tragic embrace of drug decriminalization.  Now in the Portland area voters have tossed a prosecutor who just wasn’t that into prosecuting.”

Here is way Oregonian reporter Noelle Crombie described the change:

“Nathan Vasquez, a career Multnomah County prosecutor, has defeated one-term incumbent District Attorney Mike Schmidt.

“’The voters have made it clear that they are ready to take our county in a new and safer direction,’ Vasquez said in a statement to The Oregonian/OregonLive.

“As DA, he said he is ‘dedicated to fulfilling my campaign promises.  I am committed to ending open air drug dealing and drug use while helping connect individuals to treatment, to rebuilding the broken relationships between the DA’s office and the community, and to ensuring that victims are the number one priority of my office.’”

More from the Wall Street Journal:

“Portland’s degradation accelerated in 2020 when new D.A. Schmidt decided not to prosecute various offenses committed by leftist protesters.  This week voters made it clear that their aspiration is for city streets to be peaceful, not mostly peaceful.

“Now there’s new cause for optimism and no doubt a few draft microbrews are being raised in Portland as residents hope for a safer and more vibrant community.”

As is often the case, the Journal’s Freeman has no trouble pontificating from his post in the East.

He doesn’t always provide context, which he would say isn’t necessary.  But, this time, Freeman has a point, buttressed by the Oregonian’s reporting.

Vasquez will set a new direction for the District Attorney’s Office in Oregon’s largest county.

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT CRYSTAL APPLE AWARDS IN SALEM-KEIZER   Perspective from the 19th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.   Leave it naysayers to advance untrue allegations about what otherwise would a great event in Salem-Keizer – Crystal Apple Awards, which honor great teachers.   Salem Reporter set the record straight, as if often does these days, displaying solid journalism under the leadership of Les Zaitz, a former top-level reporter for the Oregonian newspaper.   Here’s the story:   “Just days after layoffs at schools were announced, the community gathered at the Salem Convention Center to honor school employees.

“The annual Crystal Apple Awards ceremony has become a hot ticket in town. One reason is the red-carpet treatment the nominees get, complete with cheering sections, signs, and photography.

“A few readers questioned the cost.  Given deep school budget cuts, they wondered how the Salem-Keizer School District could find money for a gala.

“It didn’t.  The event is hosted by the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce and the McLaran Leadership Foundation.  Tom Hoffert, the chamber’s chief executive officer, explains.

“’It is managed like each of our events in partnership with our generous sponsors,’ he wrote to us in an email Friday. ‘The district does not pay a sponsorship fee or any monetary amount to either the Salem Chamber or the McLaran Foundation.  The event is 100 per cent funded by the generosity of our sponsors and ticket sales.’”   There!   The facts.   Too bad for the early negative perception.  At a time when teachers need all the help they can get, naysayers deserve debit, while Salem Reporter deserves credit.