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

At first blush, it may sound a bit juvenile.

Leaders of the Executive Branch in Washington, D.C. won’t subject themselves to questions, in public, from legislative staff.

The Members of Congress, if they were summoned to the White House or to a federal agency’s headquarters, would expect to speak to the top person – either the president or the agency director – not lower-level staff.

All of this came to mind late this week as I was reading a piece in the Wall Street Journal by columnist James Freeman. It appeared under this headline:

Nancy Pelosi Backs William Barr

The Speaker agrees that senior government officials don’t answer to staff

Freeman added: “It’s not easy keeping up with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s shifting position on the conduct of President Donald Trump. But at least for the moment the California Democrat seems to be in agreement with Attorney General William Barr on a key question regarding our co-equal branches of government.

“President Trump abruptly blew up a meeting with Democratic congressional leaders on Wednesday, declaring that he could not work with them until they stopped investigating him and lashing out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi for accusing him of a cover-up.

“After Trump walked out, Pelosi turned to other Democrats there and recounted a story about how Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt had each brought people together to solve infrastructure problems.

“Kellyanne Conway, the counselor to the president, was in the room. ‘Respectfully, Madam Speaker,’ she asked, ‘do you have a direct response to the president?

“Pelosi said she was responding to the president, not members of his staff.”

There!  The co-equal branches point.

Pelosi’s position is in direct conflict with the House Judiciary Committee where the incendiary chair, Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, wants Attorney General William Barr to submit to questions from Judiciary staff, not just elected members of the committee.

Barr, properly, said no.

In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson described the conditions set by the committee’s chair as “unprecedented and unnecessary.”

“Congress and the executive branch are co-equal branches of government, and each have a constitutional obligation to respect and accommodate one another’s legitimate interests. Chair Nadler’s insistence on having staff question the attorney general, a Senate-confirmed cabinet member, is inappropriate.

Wall Street Journal reader Greg Woods put it this way in a letter to the editor:

“Imagine for a moment that the House invites the leadership of the Senate over to discuss pending legislation. When the senators arrive, they find only staff waiting for them. They would no doubt walk out the door in a huff. The way Congress acknowledges that the Executive Branch is a co-equal branch is by following this simple rule: Staff meets with staff, and principals meet with principals.

“Nadler’s violation of this rule isn’t just an insult to Barr, it is a constitutional insult to the Office of the Attorney General, implying that Congress has supremacy over the executive branch. If Barr does meet with the Judiciary Committee, and Nadler allows a staff member to ask questions, Barr should direct a member of his staff to replace him at the table and direct that staff member to answer each question with: ‘I am not authorized by the attorney general to answer that question.’”

This resonates with me as a former member of the state government Executive Branch in Oregon. I thought then and think now that the branches ought to be – and appear to be – co-equal. The Executive Branch runs government programs and relates to the Legislative Branch.

Mutual respect. Each deserves it from the other.

Many years ago, sitting at the witness table as the deputy director of the Oregon Economic Development Department before a legislative committee, I often had to endure hard questions from legislators. No problem, as long as the goal was policy, not personality.

For me, it never got as bad as it did for one agency head, a friend. He was at the witness table where he was subjected to over-the-top negative questions, including about his personality.

At one point, he had enough. He stood at the table and said, “I don’t have to take this s_____ from anyone,” and stalked out of the room.

I was one of the agency directors in the back of the hearing room and, with others, I nearly rose to give the one who walked a standing ovation. Plus, he was credible enough that he survived the episode.

The point: Developing sound policy on pressing problems requires mutual requires branch to branch. It also requires top leader-to-top-leader contact buttressed by staff-to-staff contact.

It would be good if all of us would remember this key approach to operating in an ever-changing political world that sometimes is not marked by mutual respect, but by the politics of personal destruction.

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 post will indicate one important fact: I am old, so remembering the past is part of what I do each day.

Do you remember where you were and what you were doing during the Vietnam War? I am old enough to remember, though, in the spirit of full disclosure, I never fought in that far-off country as many of my peers did with sacrifice and distinction.

I thought of Vietnam today when I read a story in the Wall Street Journal under this headline:

Climbing Hamburger Hill 50 years after the Vietnam War’s brutal, haunting battle

It was the story of a man, Paul Shemm, who went to Hamburger Hill in Vietnam to try to understand the battle which was fought essentially for nothing – just a hill – that claimed so many lives on both sides and, thereby, illustrated, for many, the futility of war.

Here are excerpts from the WSJ story:

+ “Hamburger Hill is one of the most famous battles of the long Vietnam War. It inspired a movie and congressional hearings, symbolizing, for some, the incredible bravery of the American infantry in Vietnam and, for others, the futility and waste of the war.

+ “Where exactly on this hill had the battle been fought all those years ago? On May 10, 1969, the U.S. Army’s most decorated unit, the 3rd Battalion of the 187th Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division, known as the Rakkasans, spent 10 days taking this hill against a deeply entrenched enemy. Every year the veterans mark the anniversary of the battle in Fort Campbell, Ky., and this year it’s the 50th.

+ “’Returning to the site of an incredible battle — is a rediscovery, it is a journey to remember our friends who did not come home,’ wrote Mike Smith, 70, who was a private first class with Delta Company’s 2nd Platoon.

+ “For most of your vets, they are really emotional when revisiting the sites where they were stationed and operated,” he said, adding that some were still bitter about the war after all these years.

+ “The U.S. troops didn’t stay long, and the hill was soon abandoned, an outcome that became the focus of congressional hearings featuring Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), who called the battle ‘senseless and irresponsible.’

+ “Fifty years after the battle, Hamburger Hill, now at peace, belongs to those who fought and died there.”

This crunching story about Vietnam underlines two concepts for me:

• Take time to understand history, including wars, in the hope that doing so reinforces the futility of shooting at each other.

On this count, I wish I would have spent more time talking to my late father about his service in World War II, which could be justified on the basis of getting rid of a tyrannical dictator, Adolph Hitler, whose mission was to kill off the Jewish race. Failing to talk adequately to my father about this, though we had a great relationship, one I am thankful for every day, was missed opportunity for me.

• Make a concerted effort to honor and respect those who have served the country in wars – and that includes Vietnam, as well as the most recent conflicts in Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of my good friends in Salem these days is Ricky Love, a retired military veteran who left the service as a colonel after infantry service in Iraq and Afghanistan where he led battalions of servicemen. In war zones, he was a real leader who risked his life every day just as those who served under him did. Well done, Colonel!

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’d be much more apt to support tax increases if the Oregon Legislature would pay attention to getting the most bang for the buck out of current programs.

I could say the same about Congress, but, way out here in the West, it appears to be a useless errand.

So far, an emphasis on what I call “performance-based budgeting” is sadly lacking or perhaps even non-existent in Oregon. The best indication is that, since Senate Bill 964 passed in the 2011 legislative session (it was a bill proposed by my firm’s client, Youth Villages, that would install a performance-based system in foster care contracts), nothing – NOTHING – has happened. So, a law on the books is being ignored, with no penalty for the inaction.

In an earlier post, I argued against what I called “the three S’s” of current budget processes, which I described this way.

Supplanting: This is what occurs when new money comes into state government to fund a specific program or programs, then legislators take “general funds” out from behind the new money, thus neutering the purpose and effect of the new.

Sweeping: In some ways, this is more egregious than supplanting because, when it occurs, it violates the will of the taxpayers who provided the money in the first place.

Consider this example. What legislators have done in recent years is levy a tax on commercial health insurance premiums to create a repository of “state money” that can be used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid. To support the premium tax, legislators said the money would go to help put kids on insurance if their families could not afford it on their own.

What happened?

Without much, if any, hesitancy, legislators said they intended to “sweep” the money to fund other programs, thus not keeping faith with assurances made to taxpayers.

Sojourning: I stretch to get to this “S” as a way to indicate that, in many cases, new money “sojourns” in its intended place for only two years, if that, then becomes just general money for use wherever legislators want to deploy it. Thus, the money sojourns in its location only temporarily.

Avoiding these traps would involve something which does not occur now – transparency in budgeting processes.

Taxpayers would know where state tax money goes and whether it stays there to keep faith with the purposes for which the money was raised in the first place.

On top of this, legislators should install “performance-based budgeting” in all programs, just as was enacted in SB 964. Require managers to announce the outcomes the programs will achieve with assigned dollars and, then, if the outcomes are achieved, allow the programs to remain in place or even grow.

But, if the programs fail to achieve outcomes, give them one warning, then, if outcomes still are not produced, terminate the programs.

If the “three S’s” went away and if performance-based budgeting existed, I would be far more willing, as one taxpayer, to give state government more money for important government programs.

Now, the risk is that tax payments become “just money” and it is business as usual for government, not business designed to produce results. So, for me, no new taxes until budget processes improve.

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 may be a surprise to learn I know anything about what often is a very complicated policy subject – the use of non-compete employment agreements to make it more difficult for high-level employees of one company to jump to another.

But, I learned a lot about the policy several years ago when I represented the Oregon Association of Broadcasters (OAB) as its lobbyist at the Capitol in Salem.

All of this came to mind this week as I read a piece in the Wall Street Journal that contained these paragraphs:

“Quitting a job for a better offer is a time-tested method of securing a pay raise, improved working conditions or both.

“Now a national backlash is building against employers that make such movement harder with non-compete agreements that bar departing employees from taking jobs with industry competitors for certain periods of time. That’s good news for workers, because eliminating barriers to job-hopping could help stir the kind of wage growth workers haven’t seen since before the last recession.

“Employers have long used non-competes to protect company secrets and intellectual property, applying them primarily to high-earning professionals such as business executives, scientists and lawyers.”

Well, I don’t know about the “phrase” good news. Perhaps for some workers, but not for executives of major companies trying to protect their organizations’ future.

For broadcasters in Oregon – and me as the organization’s lobbyist –the issue arose in 2009 because the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) – a union — came to the Capitol to oppose OAB non-compete agreements.

No one knew why AFTRA showed up because it was not usually involved in Salem, but the union got support from then-Oregon Senator Rick Metsger, a former TV broadcaster who almost was able to work his will on a bill to bar non-competes.

No one, including Metsger, seemed to care about the rationale for non-compete agreements as they had been negotiated by OAB member stations.

The OAB’s rationale was this: After television and radio stations had invested heavily in promoting top talent – including television anchors – they ought to be able to protect their investment by requiring the talent to stay around at the same station, at least for a period of five years.

This made eminent sense, given the investment.

But, to legislators, fueled by Metsger, it didn’t matter.

We almost lost the battle until we proposed the following language, which, in the 2009 legislative session, made into law in the form of an amendment to ORS 653.020. Sorry, this is pretty detailed language, but, then, so is the issue.

“(c) The employer has a protectable interest. As used in this paragraph, an employer has a protectable interest when the employee:

“(A) Has access to trade secrets, as that term is defined in ORS 646.461;

“(B) Has access to competitively sensitive confidential business or professional information that otherwise would not qualify as a trade secret, including product development plans, product launch plans, marketing strategy or sales plans; or

“(C) Is employed as an on-air talent by an employer in the business of broadcasting and the employer: (i) In the year preceding the termination of the employee′s employment, expended re-sources equal to or exceeding 10 percent of the employee′s annual salary to develop, improve, train or publicly promote the employee, provided that the resources expended by the employer were expended on media that the employer does not own or control; and

“(ii) Provides the employee, for the time the employee is restricted from working, the greater of compensation equal to at least 50 per cent of the employee′s annual gross base salary and commissions at the time of the employee′s termination or 50 per cent of the median family income for a four-person family, as determined by the United States Census Bureau for the most recent year available at the time of the employee′s termination.”

Fortunately, this language recognized the specific circumstances of broadcast executives who often made huge investments in on-air talent. Why lose the benefit of that investment?

Over Metsger’s opposition, the compromise passed, saving genuine non-compete agreements, though with several conditions as listed.

Given the Wall Street Journal coverage – and the passage of bills barring non-compete agreements around the country – watch for this issue to re-emerge in future legislative sessions here in Oregon.

Further, what this shows is that, even back in 2009, many Oregon legislators couldn’t care less about perspectives from business. Today, my sources at the Capitol, lobbyists with whom I worked before retirement, tell me things are still the same, if not worse.

Many legislators, not only won’t consider perspectives from business, they won’t even listen.

At some point, probably in the next recession, which is inevitable, those “don’t consider and don’t listen” perspectives will come back around to haunt Oregon, still a state that depends on personal and corporate tax revenue to survive.

So, legislators, I say listen and consider business perspectives.

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

In this country, I would hope that Donald Trump’s outlandish conduct in office would earn him no support and he would not win, perish the thought, another four-year term in the Oval Office.

As I have posted [reviously, that may not occur unless Democrats are smart enough to nominate someone to run against Trump who can appeal to the vast middle in America. That means not heading to the far left as so many avowed D presidential candidates have done.

And it means that Democrats should not tear each other down, which, of course, is their current style. Polling says Joe Biden is up by a bunch, so the Ds go after him.

Winning also means finding a persuasive way to convince Americans that Trump does not get singular credit for economic gains. Surely, he will claim such credit.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how so many Americans – including a number of my friends – can tolerate Trump’s behavior.

• He ridicules migrants and poor people.
• He gropes women, then boasts about it.
• He lies at every turn as if he believes – which he may – that, if he says something, it must be true. [The Washington Post Fact Checker reports that Trump has passed the 10,000 mark in lies.]
• He has no respect for the norms and conventions of the Office of the President, which, for me, makes it hard to do what I have done in the past – respect the office even if I don’t respect the person who holds it. Trump has trampled on the office during his three years there.
• He ridicules anyone who has the guts to disagree with him because, of course, he is always the smartest person in any room.

Still, the “infomercial president” may find a way to come out on top unless Democrats behave more smartly than they often do.

To change the subject just a bit, but it is still on the general point, here is my definition of politics, which may indicate either or both of two things – I am of the old-school when political activity was a purposeful and substantive activity, and I have a lot of time on my hands in retirement:

• Politics should be about solving pressing public policy problems.
• Politics should be substantive…you have your ideas, an opponent his or her ideas, and you find a way to meet someplace in the middle.
• Politics should still be about the importance of a “good idea,” not just more talk.
• Politics should be respecting your opponent, even though you disagree with him or her.
• Politics should not be about calling the other side names and, figuratively, yelling on the street corner to indicate how smart and loud you are.
• Politics should be about finding the “public interest,” not just one or more special interests.

I thought of this list recently as I was under consideration for a temporary Executive Service position with the State of Oregon. I was honored to be considered, but I said no for at least one reason. Those involved in government, especially in Washington, D.C., but also in Oregon, practice the art of personal destruction.

I did not want to risk being subjected to this kind of diatribe, which, I know, in Oregon has disrupted the lives of appointed officials who were trying their besst to serve Oregonians.

Not for me.

But, if we could support a list such as the one above – or a better one if you have one — we’d have better elected officials on both sides of the political aisle, as well as better officials in appointed positions.

Too bad we cannot get back to this kind of real politics.

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 and act as I wish. Call me a dictator.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

So the Department of Just Saying is now open.

A NEW “KICKER” DEBATE: Just saying it is important to retain the “kicker” law as a hedge against government over-spending.

Almost everyone in Oregon knows what the word “kicker” means.

But, in case you don’t, “kicker” refers to a policy that returns money to taxpayers if revenue exceeds estimates by more than 2 per cent.

As a generalization, Democrats hate the kicker. They want to spend the money.

Republicans like it. They believe excess revenue should go back to taxpayers because, after all, they paid the money in the first place.

I was struck by hearing a quote from State Economist Mark McMullen who said reporting the facts about the kicker “was a terrible day for Oregon.” What he appeared to mean was that, under current law, the “excess money” would have to go back to taxpayers – and it did not appear that he liked it. Normally, state economists keep political statements to themselves; this time the economist didn’t.

Bad news, right? Well, not if you were and are a taxpayer. It is logical for you to want “your” money back.

All of this arises again because the most recent revenue forecast for the next two-year budget indicates that revenue will be up enough to produce the largest kicker rebate in history.

There actually is a relatively elegant compromise here. It is that part of the kicker rebate be salted away in a fund – a mostly untouchable fund such as the Rainy Day Fund – that can be used to help the state withstand the next inevitable recession.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS STAYING AWAY FROM WORK: Just saying that it does nothing for trust in government when public officials don’t go to work.

We had two examples of this recently.

One was when Republican senators stayed away from the Capitol in Salem for more than a week to deprive the process of a quorum necessary to conduct business. Such actions – leaving — is allowed, but, whatever the leverage being sought, it was not pretty to regular Oregonians.

The second case was when hundreds of Oregon teachers stayed away from classrooms in early May to head to Salem to advocate for more money for schools.

Senator Ginny Burdick, D-Salem, castigated Republican lawmakers for “not showing up for work” while, at the same time, supporting hundreds of teachers who did the same thing?

Seems like a double standard.

THE CONTROVERSY OVER BILL BARR IN CONGRESS: Just saying that Attorney General Barr has become a lightening rod for various members of Congress, but doesn’t deserve the slander and vitriol he is getting.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) says issues over Barr’s performance and conduct are “Mainly Blatant Partisanship.”

The WSJ says the way Congress acknowledges that the Executive Branch is co-equal is by following this simple rule: Staff meets with staff, and principals meet with principals.

Congress doesn’t want it that way as it continues to go after Barr. Members want Barr to subject himself to an inquisition from staff attorneys who, no doubt, will try to make a name for themselves before the TV cameras.

I thought Barr conducted himself with consummate Executive Branch leadership as he dealt with release of the Mueller report and as he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee where, without an responding – a very smart move – he endured slander from Senator Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.

If Barr had done what Congress wanted, he would have broken federal law. Plus, he offered congressional leaders a chance to review the full Mueller report in private – without redactions. Not one Member of Congress took him up on the offer.

NADLER GOES NUTS: Just saying that Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, continues to look like he is preening before the cameras, not doing the real work of Congress.

Here’s a description from a piece by Wall Street Journal Deputy Editor of the Editorial Page Dan Henninger:

“Democrats’ assaults on the Trump presidency roll in like the ocean’s tides. But one has landed on the beach recently that deserves to go under the microscope. It is the notion that Donald Trump is a dictator.

“Most prominently, there is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who is maxing out his 15 Warholian minutes of fame.

“When Attorney General William Barr refused to appear before the committee—after being ridiculed and slandered by Senate Democrats the day before—Nadler unloaded: ‘The very system of government of the United States, the system of limited power, the system of not having a president as a dictator, is very much at stake.’”

Henninger is right. Nadler goes over the top against Trump.

No sympathy for Trump in this corner. I say boot him out of the office in the 2020 election. Trying to impeach him before, no matter how much he deserves the process, will only strengthen his base and prompt Trumpians to give him four more years in the Oval Office.

Obtain solid legislative achievements in Congress and elect a nominee with the clout to take on and beat Trump.

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

The phrase in the headline comes to mind as we watch the continuing political squabbles in the Nation’s Capitol.

I call it “phony baloney” and believe it applies to both sides – President Donald Trump as he continues to try to lie his way out of every issue, and congressional Democrats who practice the art of going after Trump while ignoring legislative processes that could put Trump on the defensive.

Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editors, as they often do, contributed to my angst about Washington, D.C. by posting an editorial under this headline:

‘Constitutional Crisis’

Nancy Pelosi stages a phony impeachment war

Call it phony Pelosi.

To give her credit, if that is, in fact, the right word, Pelosi has risen from an object of ridicule by many Republicans, not to mention concerns in her own party, to become a relatively popular Speaker of the House – that is, if popularity resides at MSNBC and other left-of-center outlets.

Does she deserve much credit. I answer no, as does the WSJ.

From Pelosi via WSJ: “America is in a ‘constitutional crisis.’ Trump Administration officials have ‘decided that they’re not going to honor their oath of office.’ President Trump is ‘almost self-impeaching and is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice.’

“These are quotes in the last few days from Pelosi, who will soon have to hire a lexicographer to come up with new ways to say that Trump is committing impeachable offenses. How many synonyms are there for “obstruction?”

“Yet, Pelosi and House Democrats refuse even to begin a formal impeachment inquiry. If Trump is so disrespectful of the Constitution, and so in violation of the separation of powers, what are they waiting for? Trump still has 20 months left in his four-year term, so surely, if the threat is so dire, Democrats should move urgently to fulfill their sacred vow to protect the Republic?

“Unless, that is, all of this is political theater. P elosi’s rhetoric keeps getting more fluorescent precisely because she doesn’t want to impeach Trump. She knows most of the country opposes impeachment following the report by special counsel Robert Mueller that found no evidence of collusion with Russia by the Trump presidential campaign.  But millions of Democratic voters still favor it, so Pelosi needs to feed the beast at MSNBC.”

Now, let me emphasize again that I am not defending Trump. He is easily the worst president in U.S. history and it is a travesty that he remains in office. Forget the policy, for the moment; look at character. He fails on all counts.

From my usual position the cheap seats out West, I hope the Ds will not move to formal impeachment proceedings despite the fact that there are ample reasons to start.

The risk is that impeachment won’t just put Trump on defense. It will infuriate his base and prompt more of them to vote for his re-election.

What Democrats should do is two things.

First, they should do what they are supposed to do in Congress, which is to legislate. Post some achievements that, in and of themselves, could put Trump on defense.

Second – and more importantly – nominate a presidential candidate in the 2020 election who has a genuine chance to win. That cannot be a candidate who espouses left-wing trope. It needs to be a candidate who gives concerned voters a real choice in 2020.

That’s the best way to remove from the office the worst president in the history of this country.

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.

One of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) a few days ago advocating for what she called the a new brand of conservatism, which acknowledges a role for government without always adding bigger government.

Call this the philosophy of President Ronald Reagan. At least, that’s how I remember Reagan as he led the country.

However, several writers of letters to the editor of the WSJ took Noonan to task as if she was an advocate of more and bigger government.

She isn’t.  She is an advocate of better government.

Here is a sampling of what the letter writers said, with, at the end, my conclusion:

From Maryland: “Peggy Noonan calls for a new conservatism to reunite the Republican Party, but it appears to me that her new conservatism is driving the party apart and disenfranchising the silent majority of moderate voters.

“These voters simply want to focus on what Noonan refers to in her opening paragraph as ‘old conservatism.’ Many people still agree on limiting government power and entitlements, encouraging free enterprise and reducing our worrisome level of debt. Far fewer subscribe to new conservatism’s social values, many of which should be regarded as personal matters of faith rather than part of a party platform.

“Imposing a conservative social litmus test is quite apparently keeping the most qualified candidates from running on the Republican ticket. Consequently, this is keeping away moderate voters, many of whom, like myself, used to call themselves and vote Republican.”

From Alabama: “It is big government that is tearing the nation apart. When Noonan urges people ‘to spend your energies on a battle not to make government significantly smaller, but to make it significantly more helpful,’ she merely sets the stage for another round of debate on who deserves the most help, who should be forced to pay for it and which new agencies should be created.

“She asks, ‘What would a large government harnessed toward conservative ends look like?’ She should know that, to the other party, it would look like a weapon to be snatched back at all costs. As long as there is big government, we will be at each other’s throats for control of it.”

From Michigan: “It is impossible to conserve an order that is already broken, as Abraham Lincoln concluded about the Whig Party in his day. We are on the verge of a crisis that demands a new party with a vision to steer us through this crisis. That party must be committed to restoring constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government.”

From New York: “Many of the challenges we face aren’t due to an undersized government, but are the result of an increasingly polarized political atmosphere. Rather than a large government being the solution, what we truly need is bi-partisanship. Thomas Jefferson once stated big government’s true effect, ‘The course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases.’”

Now, from me out West.

I share concerns about more and bigger environment, though I readily recognize that there is an appropriate role for government.

I just think elected officials should demand more performance from government these days before supporting more government. Imagine if government programs were given specific performance requirements and, then, if the performance requirements were not met, they would be terminated.

Instead, what we have in Salem, Oregon and Washington, D.C. is support for more taxes and more government without apparent regard to producing, even guaranteeing, results from current programs.

It would be good if government performed more like the private sector. Produce results or fail.

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 defy you, even if you are a budget expert, to make sense out of the State of Oregon budget.

It is impossible.

Some contend that Oregon runs a transparent system when it comes to developing a biennial spending blueprint. I disagree.

I contend that the budget is opaque.

You cannot tell where money is going, for how long it is going and what it, the money, will fund.   That includes “general funds” (individual and corporate tax revenue), federal funds, “other funds” (money paid to state government through fees and other assessments), and lottery funds.

Still, there is at least one virtue with the budget. It is that expenses must be in balance with income.

Consider that reality for a minute and note how far away balance is in relation to the federal budget where deficit spending always results and is intended.

Let me emphasize that I do not necessarily ascribe ill intent to those who develop the State of Oregon budget, either elected or appointed officials. I just think genuine transparency is not a goal, so, of course, it is not achieved.

Other than the balanced budget requirement in Oregon, consider these budget realities in Oregon (and give me credit, if nothing else, for finding alliteration, even if it is a bit stretched on one occasion below):

Supplanting: This is what occurs when new money comes into state government to fund a specific program, then legislators on the Joint Ways and Means Committee, take “general funds” out from behind the new money, thus neutering the purpose and effect of the new.

I experienced this repeatedly when I represented hospitals and insurers for more than 20 years at the Capitol. I knew supplanting happened; just couldn’t do much about it, though I tried repeatedly.

A new example of supplanting is occurring as I write this at the Capitol. Senate Republicans are concerned that, if the business sales tax passes, providing $2 billion more supposedly for schools, money will be taken out from behind for other purposes, thus reducing the potentially beneficial effect of the new money for K-12. 

Update: In a development yesterday, Monday, Senate Republicans returned to the Capitol after reaching what they called “a deal” with Senate Democrats. It appears that the deal does not include any changes in the sales tax bill since it passed the Senate and was sent on to Governor Kate Brown. So, watch for supplanting.

Sweeping: In some ways, this is more egregious than supplanting because, when it occurs, it violates the will of the taxpayers who provided the money in the first place.

An example will make my point.

What legislators have done in recent years is levy a tax on commercial health insurance premiums to create a repository of “state money” that can be used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid.

To support the premium tax, legislators said the money would go to help put kids on insurance if their families could not afford it on their own.

What happened?

Without much, if any, hesitancy, legislators said they intended to “sweep” the money to fund other programs, thus not keeping faith with assurances made to payers.

Sojourning: I stretch to get to this “S” as a way to indicate that, in many cases, new money “sojourns” in its intended place for only two years, then becomes just general money for use wherever legislators want to deploy it. Thus, the money sojourns in its location only temporarily.

The best current example goes back to the sales tax on Oregon business.

If most of the $2 billion in new tax revenue goes to K-12 for the first biennial budget, the money will just become “fungible” in succeeding biennia.

Pardon the budget word “fungible.” It just means that the money targeted for K-12 schools won’t necessarily all go to K-12 after the first two years.

There are ways to improve this situation.

• Outlaw supplanting so new money improves programs rather than allow diversion by
• Outlaw sweeping because it violates the trust of the people.
• Be very clear about the sojourning issue – if new money becomes “just money” in the future, say that in an attempt to restore trust in government budgeting.

These are just a few of the reforms I would propose at the Capitol in Salem if I were, perish the thought, king for a day.

With such reforms, state budgeting would become, in fact, transparent.

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 a couple years now, I have pondered a perplexing question. It is this:

How can some of my friends, who are smart and “good people,” not to mention women, be so solidly in the Donald Trump camp?

He lies as a matter of course.

He ridicules almost everyone, including, incredibly, the late Senator John McCain.

He gropes women, then congratulates himself for doing so in language that is incredible for anyone, especially a president.

He disdains all of the conventions and norms of being president – without saying, I add, that conventions and norms are an end in themselves; they are not, but they are a way to illustrate the integrity of the nation’s highest political office.

So, the question nags.

As is often the case, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote a piece late this week that helps me come up with an answer.

“I am watching Washington, D.C., “ Noonan wrote, “and thinking this: We have reached a new crisis point in Donald Trump vs. the Democrats. They are speaking of contempt citations, subpoenas, executive privilege, hearings. It’s a daily barrage. The Democrats are inching closer to impeachment, at least rhetorically, perhaps actually. We’ll see how well Speaker Nancy Pelosi can dance right up to the edge to appease some in her caucus, and not over it.

“But there is such a thing as context, and the Democrats seem to be ignoring it. This is a country divided.

“Almost half the country is for Trump—truly, madly, deeply. Half is against him—unequivocally, unchangeably. There is no resolving this. Or, rather to the extent it can be resolved, it will be resolved at the ballot box. The presidential election is 18 months from now, on Nov. 3, 2020.

“Until then, people are where they are and hold the views they hold, and don’t push them too hard.

“Democrats unveil charges and accusations—the president is a liar, he’s a tax dodger, an obstructor of justice. But in a way Trump’s supporters accounted for all this before they elected him. They are not shocked. They didn’t hire him to be a good man. Their politics are post-heroic. They sometimes tell reporters he’s a man of high character but mostly to drive the reporters crazy. I have never talked to a Trump supporter, and my world is thick with them, who thought he had a high personal character. On the other hand, they sincerely believe he has a high political character, in that he pursues the issues he campaigned on. They hired him as an insult to the political class, as a Hail Mary pass—we’ve tried everything else, maybe this will work—and because he agreed with them on the issues.”

“As a generalization, Trump supporters don’t want or value upstanding character. More Noonan: “Instead, they sincerely believe he has a high political character, in that he pursues the issues he campaigned on. They hired him as an insult to the political class, as a Hail Mary pass—we’ve tried everything else, maybe this will work—and because he agreed with them on the issues.”

There, the answer.

Paint me as anti-Trump.

I value high character in political life. When you see it, you admire it.

Of course, policies have to follow character. But, without character, policy withers away into nothingness.

We could argue about policy until you know what froze over. If we did so, while respecting the other side’s viewpoints, we’d be farther ahead.

We’d be practicing politics as it is meant to be practiced. We’d be searching for compromise without goring anyone who disagreed with us.

Too bad we do not appear to be able to return to this kind of politics. Blame Trump. Blame his supporters. Blame the other side, which cannot get about the business of legislating. I do.