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.

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.