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.

Whatever your views of public processes, it is tough to watch the Oregon Legislature disintegrate into chaos as lawmakers grind forward, sort of, in the last third of their session at the Capitol in Salem.

Republicans in the Senate have taken their toys and gone home, meaning the Senate does not have a quorum to act. I guess I can almost understand that, if, as Republicans contend, the super-majority Democrat have shut them out of any part in deciding whether to impose a sales tax on Oregon business – one that will produce $2 billion.

But what really struck me about this was not the to-ing and fro-ing of political clowns, but the fact that the budget shenanigans underlined fact in my 25 years as a lobbyist in Oregon. The state government is so opaque as to be unintelligible even to a practiced eye.

If new money comes into Oregon – via new taxes or from federal sources – there is no way to be sure that the funds go to improve the intended programs.

In this case, Republicans believe that the $2 billion in business taxes might appear to go, as intended, to K-12 education. But, with the new money, two things could happen:

1. Members of the Joint Ways and Means Committee could take the new money, then remove general funds out from behind the new money so the $2 billion has no particular effect. In budget lingo, it’s called “supplanting” and it happens routinely.
2. Or, in new biennia after the tax is imposed, the proceeds just become “new money” with no strings attached.

All of this came to light late this week when the Oregonian newspaper wrote this:

“Legislative Republicans oppose the education funding bill awaiting a vote in the capitol but they’re proposing an amendment to enshrine it in the state constitution anyway.

“Republicans argue that there’s nothing to prevent future legislatures from diverting the new tax money in the bill for purposes other than schools and early childhood programs.”

According to the Oregonian, Senate President Peter Courtney added to Republican concerns when he testified on the tax bill at a hearing.

From the Oregonian, Courtney was quoted as saying this: “Asked at the hearing about underfunded community colleges, which get no additional revenue in the new tax bill, Courtney said the new tax dollars could ‘free up the general fund money so we can have a really strong conversation, not exclusively about the amount of money in community colleges.

“Republicans say his comments suggest Courtney would like to re-allocate money from the general fund’s education budget into other programs – using the new tax money to offset the education cuts rather than create an overall increase in classroom spending.”

In the Oregonian story, Courtney insisted that’s not what he meant.

All of this to-ing and fro-ing reminded me of my years as a health care lobbyist.

The State of Oregon would get new money ticketed for health care programs – from a federal court settlement against tobacco companies or from taxes on Oregon hospitals and health insurers – and then the money would disappear into a vast budget hole never to be seen again.

Intended to improve health care programs, but supplanting would occur. General funds would be removed from the programs after the new money arrived.

This was one more example of a failed state government budgeting process. For all those who favor the hackneyed phrase in government – “more transparency” – they ought to look at the verse: An opaque budget that will never inspire public confidence in government.

Senate Republicans have made that point this week at the Capitol. But here’s betting that’s all they have made – a point. They won’t win this budget battle in Salem.

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 headline in this blog highlights a very unfortunate fact: It appears it will take a super-human effort to rid this country of the worst president in its history.

Such is the reality of politics these days.

No matter that Donald Trump lies as part of his very nature. No matter that he smears immigrants and other poor people at every turn. No matter that he treats women with disdain and as objects.

Still, many in this country continue to support Trump, which is both amazing and confounding.

Democrats in Congress ,who should be aligned perfectly with the goal of defeating Trump, tend to give him comfort every day. One way is by espousing far-left proposals that would tear this country to shreds, making the United States a government-dependent, socialist regime.

Here’s hoping Americans who vote will see through the charade and vote for a Democrat nominee who has the leadership credentials to restore dignity to the Office of the President – and send Trump down the road, perhaps even to jail for his crimes.

What Democrats should be doing is to craft legislative achievements from the middle — achievements that have a chance to get the attention of voters who cannot tolerate more Trump, plus have little use for the “appeal-to-your-left-wing base” that describes most proposals from Democrats.

One Democrat in the U.S. House, Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, appears most days to be competing with his left-wing colleague, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for headlines, not rational policy proposals.

Here is the heading in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial that characterized Nadler’s current shenanigans:

The Pseudo-Impeachment

Democrats hold show trials rather than vote to oust the President

More from the WSJ:

“House Democrats are escalating their campaign against the Trump Administration with complaints that its resistance to Congressional requests for documents is a threat to democracy. It’s more accurate to say that Democrats are performing what amounts to a pseudo-impeachment so they don’t have to undertake a real one.

“Democrats are agonizing over impeachment because while they’re itching to do it, special counsel Robert Mueller’s report blew up their Russian collusion hopes. He also took no position on obstruction of justice while reporting a highly critical “analysis” of President Trump’s actions. Democrats now find themselves caught between a left-wing base that says they’ll abdicate their duty if they don’t impeach and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s cold-blooded calculation that it could cost their majority in 2020.”

The problem with this play-acting, the WSJ writes, “is that it has Democrats fulminating about actions that aren’t even misdemeanors, much less high crimes. Exhibit A is Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s threat (now accomplished) to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for failing to turn over the entire Mueller report to Congress.

“Yet, Barr has been as accommodating as the law allows. He made the entire report public with light redactions though he didn’t have to release any of it under the law. He has offered to allow senior Members of Congress review redacted material in private, though no Democrats have taken him up on the offer.”

If Nadler wants to continue his Mueller fixation, he should announce that he is beginning formal impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a legitimate congressional power, and at least the public would then understand what Congress is up to and could judge the effort. If Democrats really believe Trump is a threat to the Constitution, they should file articles of impeachment and have every Member vote on them.

Of course, the risk of starting impeachment proceedings is two-fold: (1) the process could work in Trump’s favor as he would claim to be an unfair target; and (2) the Senate would never go along to convict.

The better alternative would be to get about the business of legislating, as well as finding the best candidate to run against Trump in 2020 and run him out of office.

The country would be better for both efforts.

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 hope the answer to the question is the headline is the private sector.

But, increasingly, Democrats who run the U.S. House, as well as those who aspire to be president, appear to believe that the key to economic growth is government – more government.

Now, I emphasize that government is not all bad and, clearly, government plays a role in helping to produce economic gains.

But if you listen to contenders for president on the left, they believe that everything rides on government – Medicare for All, free college tuition, forgiving student loan debts, repatriation for past misdeeds, and a so-called “Green New Deal.”

I have been “biden” my time for Joe to run.

I mean Joe Biden. I have various questions about his long record of public service, but it is at least a “long record” that includes his time as U.S. Senator and vice president. If experience matters when you make a hire – and I believe it does – Biden has an enviable record.

Given other alternatives among Democrats seeking the nation’s highest political office, Biden is a breath of fresh air. He has not veered so far left as to be off any normal political spectrum. He has not adopted the wacko-left policies of Senators Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren and, at least so far, he has not preened for TV cameras as Senator Kamala Harris has done.

So, I hope he stays in the middle and, thus, presents a viable alternative to the worst president in U.S. history, Donald Trump.

That said, the U.S. economy is thriving under Trump, though much of the reason for growth cannot and should not be ascribed to Trump’s credit, especially given his China tariff actions late, which have driven the stock market into a major retreat.

Still, he will take credit for economic gains and it will be up to candidates like Biden to contend they’ll boost the economy, too.

In April, the U.S. added 263,000 jobs, notching a record 103 straight months of job gains and signaling the current economic expansion shows little sign of stalling.

The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.6 per cent, the lowest since 1969. The official unemployment rate has been at or below 4 per cent for more than a year.

Hiring was strong across most sectors with especially large gains in business services (76,000 jobs added), construction (33,000 jobs added) and health care (27,000 jobs added).

Meanwhile, the economic model under President Barack Obama and Biden, effectively shared by all Biden’s current Democrat rivals, is that government primarily should guide the economy.

An emerging story line of the campaign is that against Sanders’s socialism or Warren’s regulatory militancy, Biden offers a moderate, center-left alternative.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Obama’s term was, to borrow a Biden-esque phrase, the most left-wing presidency in our lifetime, with the vice president, unfortunately, happily in tow. It represented the idea of the private economy as a zero-sum abstraction whose only utility is to create revenue that gets extracted by the government and administered as benefits to the public. For modern Democrats, the private economy has become basically a strung-up piñata.

“The Obama administration imposed an unprecedented array of regulations on every sector of the U.S. economy—finance, energy, telecommunications, health care and on and on.

“Across eight years of Obama’s presidency—during which he and Biden gave speech after speech about helping the middle class—the economy grew annually by about 2 per cent.”

The current growth rate is more than 3 per cent.

I hope Biden will hew more to the center as he runs for president. The center is where the private sector produces economic gains and government does its part to make economic gains possible in the spirit of not taxing everything and everyone and not imposing regulation after regulation.

I argue for balance, which is becoming harder and harder to achieve in a political system that is more oriented to appealing to bases than to the public interest.

I hope Biden continues to hew toward the center.

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 is one of three departments I run with a free hand to do as I wish, which means, forgive the thought, that I am a bit like Donald Trump as he “runs” the presidency — no sideboards.

The other departments I run are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

The Department of Just Saying is now open.

Example #1: Just saying that Nancy Pelosi as U. S. House Speaker is not the leader we deserve.

Here’s how the Wall Street Journal put it, with tongue at least partially in cheek:

“Doing her best to raise the level of civility in Washington, Nancy Pelosi called William Barr a liar on Thursday. The House Speaker even accused the Attorney General of committing a ‘crime’ when he testified to Congress about a memo he issued outlining the main conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

“The Speaker says the AG lied last month when he said he didn’t know what members of the special counsel’s team were referencing when they complained his memo didn’t accurately portray their findings. Barr said he didn’t know, but that ‘they probably wanted more put out.’

“At most this is a small evasion. Barr had talked to Mueller, who had told him nothing in the AG’s summary was inaccurate and was unspecific in his objections beyond wanting more of his report released. The AG should have anticipated that Mueller’s March 27 letter to him would leak, but he didn’t lie about its contents.

“The real reason for Mrs. Pelosi’s slander is what else said the last time he was before Congress. He said that spying on a political campaign was a ‘big deal,’ that he thought the FBI did spy on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that he intends to find out what happened and why. Democrats want to intimidate him to drop this or discredit him before he can release his findings.”

Example #2: Just saying that Representative Jerry Nadler, Democrat from New York, should get about the important business of legislating, not trying to hang Attorney General William Barr.

Again, here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it:

“The congressman from New York has been itching to get Donald Trump almost from the day he was elected president. Alas, just as Nadler finds himself in a position to do it—as House Judiciary Committee chairman he has jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings—special counsel Robert Mueller dropped a report that found zero evidence of collusion with Russia. With no crime to cover up, what would the president have been obstructing?

“But like a crooked sheriff in a low-budget Western, Nadler is determined to go on with his hanging—even if it’s not the guy originally planned. Which explains what the committee’s ranking member, Georgia’s Doug Collins, characterizes as a ‘deluge of perverse demands’ Nadler has made on Attorney General William Barr: That he submit to grilling from lawyers instead of Members of Congress; that he release grand-jury testimony; and that he comply with an artificial deadline or be held in contempt of Congress.”

Example #3: Just saying that Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat from California, better get her act together if she intends to compete for the presidency on the D side.

Again, from the Wall Street Journal:

“The reviews are in, and Senator Kamala Harris’s performance during Attorney General William Barr’s testimony last week was a hit! ‘Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck,’ Vanity Fair announced. The only problem with her made-for-TV performance is that Harris’s questions were absurd—so vague or weird that they perplexed the attorney general.

“Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone, yes or no?” she asked. Barr stared at the ceiling and twirled his pen deliberatively. He said he was struggling with the ambiguity of the word ‘suggest,’ but he could just have easily have pointed to the two occurrences of the broad term ‘anyone,’ as well as the vagueness of the topic of the prospective ‘investigation.’ Something related to the Mueller report? Maybe, but her phrasing leaves that open.”

As a person who operates from the center – all right, perhaps just a bit right of center – I think we need better leaders on both sides of the aisle in Washington, D.C.

For one thing, with the Mueller report now open to anyone in a lightly-redacted form – and its conclusion, for better or worse, depending on your point-of-view — it is time to get on with the business of legislating, not trying to create collusion where Mueller could not find any.

With no underlying crime, there would be no obstruction and I say this, not to whitewash Trump, but to contend that he should be held to account for what he has done and said, not for vague obstruction notions.

Kick him out of office by beating him at the polls in 2020. To do that, Democrats will need to find leaders better than Pelosi, Nadler or Harris.

Bring on centrists who will pledge to restore dignity and character to the highest office in the land, the presidency, as well to Congress where many issues lie on the cutting room floor as everyone investigates everyone else.

**********

Because the Department of Pet Peeves is not open, let me add this pet peeve, plus my solution to it based, of course, on my intelligence and creativity.

My pet peeve is that, when you buy a new garden hose, there always is a “this doesn’t kink-up factor.” Of course, the moment you get it home, it kinks up.

Not, I report, with a metal hose. We have bought two and, wonder of wonders, no kink!

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 time I read about health care single payer proposals, such as from socialist candidate for president Bernie Sanders, I cannot help but think of this TV advertising line:

“I want it all and I want it now.”

The ad is for some goofy offering – Grubub on-line that will make food deliveries to your house.

Sanders wants to make the same kind of delivery. You can have all the health care you want and you can have it now.

At least that’s true until you look at the details of what Sanders and others are proposing. For one thing, no one want so talk about the cost of the “have it all and have it now” proposition, which goes into the billions, if not trillions, of dollars and would require huge tax increases.

That doesn’t bother Sanders and his ilk because they love spending other people’s money.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) put it this way this week in a headline on an editorial:

The Burdens of BernieCare

Congress’s budget gnomes tip-toe around single-payer’s reality

The editorial went on:

“Bernie Sanders sells Medicare for All as a simple idea: ‘You will have a card which has Medicare on it, you’ll go to any doctor that you want, you’ll go to any hospital that you want.’ So, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided a public service last week by describing, albeit in thick and cautious bureaucratese, what it would really take to float BernieCare.

“Democrats asked CBO to lay out some parameters of how to set up single-payer, hoping to elude analysis of any one bill in Congress. The latter would carry political accountability—and a price tag. Instead CBO walks through ‘key design components and considerations’ in a report that aims to bore and deploys the word ‘could 209 times.

According to the WSJ, the CBO report acknowledges, for example, that a transition that includes moving 160 million people from employer-sponsored coverage to single payer would be “complicated, challenging, and potentially disruptive” to health care and the economy.

“Further,” WSJ continues, “the Sanders Medicare for All bill would ban private coverage that competes with government. CBO notes dryly that single-payer proposals often prohibit private insurance because ‘some high-income people might prefer to purchase substitutive insurance that offered more generous benefits or greater access to providers.’

“And you can’t go to any doctor you want if government isn’t paying providers what services really cost. The point of Medicare for All is to cut reimbursement rates to Medicare levels, which government can now set so low only because private commercial reimbursement rates are so much higher. Cutting reimbursement rates would ‘probably reduce the amount of care supplied and could also reduce the quality of care,’ CBO says.”

The CBO does not wade into the details of what all this would cost, though it admits “government spending on health care would increase substantially.”

Honest private estimates suggest it would take at least a doubling of individual and corporate taxes to fund Medicare for All. Proponents say the country will save money through lower administrative costs, which CBO says may materialize. But the real savings would have to come from where the money is: Cutting payments to doctors and restricting care.

Another way to describe Sanders’ apparent motivation is that he wants voters to believe he is offering a free lunch. You’ll get what you want and you’ll get it now – so, he says, vote for me.

But voters should know Sanders is promising miracles when what he’ll deliver is poorer care for everyone.

My fervent and continuing wish is that people of goodwill and good intent on both sides of the political aisle – yes, there are a few left – would get together, figuratively, around a round table and hammer out health care public policy from the middle.

Is there room for improvement in what is now offered? Absolutely. From the left — spend all you have and more. From the right, throw up roadblocks to any new proposal. Neither will do the trick.

What we need is a commitment to find the smart middle, which is, to be sure, well nigh impossible in the current environment.

Too bad!

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

A stupid question you may say.

Or, an artificial one.

Or, one not deserving a moment’s thought in a society plagued by serious problems.

Or, who cares?

Well, I do – care that is.

The question was contained in the on-line version of Links Magazine, which I received this morning. It followed another Links column touting the mental gymnastics of remembering all of the golf courses you have played in your life.

That column was based on a total – 750 golf courses – posted by Links editor, George Peper, one never to be reached by others, including me.

But, I took Peper’s challenge and, with help from my wife and daughter, came up with 180 courses.

If was a fun exercise, not because of the number, but because of all the memories that flooded back.

As for the question to name the best course you’ve never played, I have two.

One is Augusta National, the venue in Georgia where The Masters Golf Tournament is played every year. I have been there once – to watch, not play – and I suspect that’s all I’ll ever do again, given the intense difficulty of playing on that historic venue.

So be it.

My second best course not played would be Pebble Beach in California, which I might play if only because it is on the West Coast where I live. Of course, I’d have to stomach the $500+ cost for a round there.

The Links article listed other courses where more famous golf folks than me would like to play. Relating to the list below, I have had the privilege of playing in two of the locations mentioned – Royal Dornoch in Scotland, which remains one of my very favorite golf courses in the entire world, and the four (soon to be five) courses at Bandon Dunes on the South Oregon Coast.

Here are some of the listed courses.

Gil Hanse
Course Architect

“I’m chasing Swinley Forest, the heathland course outside of London. Harry Colt referred to it as his ‘least bad course’ and he built some great stuff so it must be really special.

Jay Monahan
PGA Tour Commissioner

“Lahinch. We took a family trip in 1991 and on the back end of it we were going to play Lahinch and Ballybunion. We were five so I sat out and my mother, father, and two brothers played it.

Mickey Wright
LPGA Hall of Famer

“The only course I wanted to play but didn’t get to was Pine Valley. I was told women were not allowed. Had no problem with that at the time, but heard it was a wonderful and difficult course.

Greg Norman
Two-time Open Champion and course architect

“Believe it or not, I have never played Pine Valley. As Pine Valley has never hosted a major professional event and I have never spent a significant amount of time up north, I simply have not had the opportunity to play.

Suzy Whaley
President, PGA of America

“Olympic Club. I’ve always wanted to play it.

Mike Keiser
Golf course developer

“Royal St. George’s Golf Club in England, with Augusta National running a close second.

Brad Faxon
Champions Tour/Fox Sports

“I get asked some version of this question a lot and what I always say is if I go through any top 100 list the first course I get to that I haven’t played is the one I’m dying to see. Currently on the world list it’s Royal Dornoch in Scotland.

Pete Bevacqua
Former PGA CEO and current NBC Sports President

“I’d love to take a trip out to Bandon Dunes. I’ve heard so many great things from so many people and I’ve had several invites and opportunities to go, but it just has never worked out and it’s something I look forward to doing at some point.”

Jim Nantz
CBS Sports anchor

“The Old Course at St. Andrews. Walked it many times as a fan, including four Open Championships. Seen every inch of the mother ship—but outside the ropes, never inside. I’ve actually played it dozens of times…in my mind.”

Jim Furyk
U.S. Open Champion/Ryder Cup Captain

“Sand Hills. I’m fascinated that they built it for only $1 million, and I’m a fan of anything Coore & Crenshaw does.”

Dottie Pepper
LPGA/CBS Sports

“Muirfield in Scotland. I’ve covered the Open Championship there, but I’ve never played it and it’s my favorite walk in golf.”

Annika Sorenstam
LPGA Hall of Famer and course architect

“My course would be Royal County Down because I’m a big fan of links golf.

So, in the spirit of Links Magazine, where is the best course you’ve never had a chance to play?

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.

FACT #1: The Washington Post Fact-Checker – imagine, just for a minute, having that job – reports that President Donald Trump has told his 10,000^th lie.

FACT #2: Senator Mazie Hirona, D-Hawaii, went on a tirade in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, calling Attorney General William Barr a liar (call it slander) multiple times over four minutes of what she no doubt thought was her glory.

For Trump, he lies as a basic nature. He doesn’t think twice about it. In fact, he probably thinks that, because he says something, it is true.

As a citizen in this country, you cannot believe a thing he says, which is a sad commentary on the state of the presidency.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I traveled to Woodinville, Washington to see my daughter and two grandchildren. At one point, we attended my granddaughter Kate’s class where she gave a report on President Rutherford B. Hayes.

She said historians usually rate him as the worst president in U.S. history.

Well, Hayes may now be the second worst.

As for Hirona, in the Judiciary Committee hearing, she earned the nickname Senate Republicans have given her – Crazy Mazie.

In addition to a blistering monologue in the hearing – no surprise that she won instant plaudits from the left for her harangue and gave AG Barr no chance to respond – Crazy Mazie told Barr he should resign.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (Republican-South Carolina) accused Hirona of slandering Barr “from top to bottom,” and told her to stop talking.

She did, barely.

As a public official, Barr has no standing to sue Hirona for slander, but I wish he could. He was slandered.

What do these two incidents show?

Unfortunately, they show that politics in this country has dipped to new lows. And the fault lies with many, if not most, public officials on both sides of the aisle.  They want to advance themselves and slander those who don’t agree with them.

I say a pox on both sides and it’s time for us, as voters, to elect centrist officials who can lead this country with skill and distinction, not to mention the ability work together to solve pressing public policy problems.

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 spent a portion of one morning this week watching U.S. Attorney General William Barr appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Why do I feel a sense of, well, duty, to write again about Barr? Isn’t there already enough to-ing and fro-ing about him and his conduct? Probably. But I like to add my notions to the mix if only because I do not have much else to do in retirement.

To summarize, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were out to trap Barr. Republicans tended to treat him with at least a bit of respect.

But, for me, this was the bottom line: Barr is a consummate Executive Branch official. He is smart. He is savvy. He is schooled in the law.

But does he believe too much in “executive authority” as contended today in a column by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post?

I don’t think so.

The fact is that Barr does not work for Congress. He relates to Congress.

And that is a key distinction, one not accepted by most Democrats who want Barr to follow their orders.

Do I say this in some misguided notion to protect President Donald Trump?

I answer with a resounding NO.

However it happens – through impeachment, then conviction, or through the ballot box in 2020 – I want Trump out of the White House. He has no respect for the office and tries to lie his way out of any situation, a further indication that, for Trump, being president is more about an infomercial for his brand, whatever that is, than respect for the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, I hold Barr in high regard.

So does the Wall Street Journal. No surprise there. And, also, no surprise that the Washington Post disputes that notion, suggesting that Barr destroyed his reputation this week.

Gary Conkling, a partner in the firm I retired from, CFM Strategic Communications, does not agree with me. I have not asked if I could cite his reasoning, but, because his blog on this subject is on the record, I have no problem with including his language, as long as there is attribution – so I attribute this.

Conkling writes:

“The sharp backlash to the press conference held by Attorney General William Barr prior to the public release of the Mueller report is evidence of the serious peril of spinning a story.

“Whether you agree or disagree with the findings of the special counsel’s investigation in Russian election meddling and potential collusion by the Trump campaign, it is hard to disagree that Barr’s summary of the report didn’t square with language in the report. That dissonance led to instantaneous criticism that Barr tried to spin the report’s findings in a positive light before anyone had a chance to read it.

“The result was a day-long drip of media reports and blogs detailing the gap between Barr’s summary and Robert Mueller’s findings. Critics said Barr acted more like Donald Trump’s defense attorney than the US attorney general. House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler issued a subpoena to obtain the full, un-redacted Mueller report. Calls for Trump’s impeachment grew louder.”

Conkling is wrong.

All Barr did was write a quick description of what he saw in the Mueller report. He tried to check it in advance with Mueller declined to review it perhaps so he could criticize it afterwards.

Barr took this approach, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, release of the full report could take weeks, given the need to redact portions of it for four reasons – to protect grand jury reports (under the law), to protect intelligence sources, to protect the vigor on ongoing prosecutions, and to protect the reputation what he called “un-charged third parties.”

The fact is that Barr did his job. Did he, as Conkling suggests, engage in “spin.”

Yes, everyone in public life does, if the definition of spin is saying something which is better than saying nothing or trying to say everything.

A certain kind of spin is detestable – providing only certain facts that support your cause and putting those who disagree with you on the defensive. Look only so far as Congress to find the best (read, worst) spinners.

Don’t look at Barr.

What you see when you see or hear him is a consummate public official who has a clear understanding of the public interest.

Barr, as a public official, is not subject to regular slander laws. But, if he was, he ought to sue Senator Mazie Hirona, D-Hawaii. At the Judiciary Committee hearing, she treated Barr with contempt, calling him a liar and scoundrel without giving him any chance to respond.

Smartly, when Hirona was done with her harangue, Barr held his tongue. There was no need to say anything, given how Hirona had impugned what was left of her own integrity, if there was anything left at all.

For me, all of this involving Barr and the Mueller report is an illustration of a tension all the time these days – the one between the Executive Branch on one hand and the Legislative Branch on the other.

Legislators, both in Washington, D.C. and, for me, in Salem, act as if they want to manage programs and, when they don’t get their way, they chastise executives, often in public.

Am I biased? Yes. I worked in the Executive Branch in Oregon for many years and always believed that we ran programs and related to the Legislature, not reported to legislators in some kind of management sense.

Barr is an excellent representative of the Executive Branch, one of the best appointments President Donald Trump has made – which is, I guess, not saying much because Trump has made a slew of bad appointments.

Now, two footnotes:

1. Imagine this. What if Matthew Whitaker, the former acting AG, was sitting on the witness stand this week. It would have been far different. He would not have known what to say or how to behave.
2. I may have made this point previously, but, in the hearing this week, Barr answered some questions with one word answers – often just “no” or “yes.” That must have frustrated some questioners who wanted him to go on at some length, to fall into traps. His conduct reminded me of the late Montana U.S. Senator Mike Mansfield who was famous for one-word answers – often “nope” or “yup.”

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 the life of me, I cannot figure out why so many elected officials want to impose new taxes BEFORE taking reasonable and intentional steps to force current government programs to produce results.

• We see the trend in Congress where Democrats in the House and Senate want you and me to pay more, with no heed to a return on current investments.
• We see the trend in the City of Portland where Commissioner Chloe Eudaly is researching ways to raise an additional $50 million for city programs, by raising taxes. [To that end, according to the Oregonian newspaper, the city’s top revenue official provided Eudaly with an analysis of seven possible tax increases, including a personal income tax on Portland’s top earners, a soda tax and higher property taxes.]
• And, we see the trend in the Oregon Legislature, as evidenced by the list below.

Four big tax increases are likely to pass in Salem in the next couple months.

1. Gutting mortgage deductions (HB 3349)
2. Imposing 16-cent gas tax (HB 2020)
3. Abolishing “kicker” tax refunds (SJR 23)
4. Imposing a $2 billion business sales tax (HB 3427)

Tax #4 got a big boost this week when the Oregon Business & Industry organization signed up for the tax after weeks of negotiations. The new money is supposed to flow to K-12 schools in Oregon, which could be one reason why some business interests, but not all, have signed up for it – and those that have not may be preparing for a public vote if the legislature passes the tax. [Nike already has put $100,000 in a political action committee to prepare to fight any anti-tax initiative.]

My notion is that one key step should precede any new, higher taxes. It should be an intentional effort by elected officials to demand better performance from current programs.

One way to achieve this would be to enact sections in all state program laws that impose performance measurements on the programs. As is the case in golf – forgive the analogy, but I am a golfer — if the programs don’t meet the measurements, they would be given one warning, and then, if failing a second time, they would be terminated.

As a lobbyist back in 2011, I tried this on behalf of one of our firm’s major clients, Youth Villages. The section in Senate Bill 964, which became ORS 418, pertained to private sector foster care programs, including those operated by Youth Villages.

Either they would perform or be gone.

Here’s the section of law.

“Requires a program to demonstrate successful child-drive outcomes when compared to alternative placement options and long-term cost savings. Bases termination or renewal of a contract on demonstration of the factors described above.”

What happened?

Nothing.

Legislators ignored the performance clause in the law as if it didn’t exist. So did members of the Executive Branch agency that was involved, the Department of Human Services. Now, eight years after passage of the bill, it stands as just words on paper.

The clause should have been implemented, not as a magic answer to Oregon’s foster care crisis, but as one step to improve situations for Oregon’s children.

This is just one of several examples I could cite of a law being on the books, but not enforced – or, probably, not even recognized.

So, to repeat, one of my reform proposals for the Legislature would be to enact specific performance language for all government programs before trying to convince the public – including me and other centrists — that new taxes are warranted.

Such performance measurements make sense at the federal level, too, but, given the huge sense of dislocation and distrust there, better to use this reform in Oregon.

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’s incredible to write the phrase in the headline.

We have a president who lies as a matter of instinct. It doesn’t matter what the subject is. Donald Trump lies about it.

Lying is second nature to him.

So, the lies are so frequent that no one – not those on the right or left – can trust him for truth and honesty.

Here’s the way Washington Post editorial writers put it this week:

“As President Trump zoomed past a lowly personal milestone — his 10,000th false or misleading statement in his 27-month-old presidency, according to The Post Fact Checker — he let fly a series of whoppers on a subject that logic would suggest he’d be better off leaving unremarked: Family separation.

“The president, whose own administration imposed and then rescinded a systematic policy of wrenching migrant children from their parents, with no protocol in place to reunite them, now poses as a paragon of compassion that ended cruel laws in place before he took office. This is false.”

Ten thousand lies!

These days, as he faces a re-election fight, Trump will be taking credit for the positive state of the country’s economy.

But he deserves almost no credit for the result. Economic growth has happened despite his absolutely unconventional approach to the nation’s highest political office. Or, according to a recent Washington Post poll – if polls matter at all these days – many in this country believe a positive economy only benefits those at the top, not middle or low-income America.

For me, character matters in public officials.

Trump has none.

I hope someone will rise up for the 2020 election and appeal to those in the middle who want productive, honest action from government officials at all levels.

And that includes a continuing focus on building a strong economy