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.

From my perch in the cheap seats out West – and based on both my daily consumption of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post (note my even-handedness by reading from the right and the left) – I want to endorse two ways to end the stupid government shutdown.

Plus, I’ll make a few other comments to describe how to get out of the current debacle.

1. First, find a private company to make a $5.6 billion donation to the Trump White House for the express purpose of building “Trump’s Wall,” at least another part of it.
2. Second, send bills to Trump to re-open the government, but expect that, under the Constitution, Trump will allow the bills to become law without his signature, a tactic which would enable him to continue extolling his virtue to Trumpians.

Good ideas? Who knows?

As for #1, there may be some legal questions about such a private sector donation and, to be sure, I have not reviewed the legal issues.

And, when I ran this fanciful notion by my brilliant wife, she said would could have been obvious to me, which is that such companies (or individuals, if there were to be such) would rather see such a large sum go to a worthy charity, not Trump who is surely not worthy.

Trump, of course, would consider himself to be a “worthy charity” and he could donate what’s left in his own foundatioin to build the wall.

As for #2, Trump probably would eschew such a process, believing that, as always, he has to win at all costs.   But, if he were to allow a bill or bills to come law without his signature, he could claim victory – a victory of sorts.

He fancies himself a strong deal-maker, so such a deal might not pass muster with him.

A Washington Post opinion piece described the “no signature passage” this way:

“There’s a better way out of the standoff, one that would let both the president and Congress end the shutdown without betraying their political constituencies.

“When it comes to legislation passed by Congress and sent to the president, the framers of the Constitution provided three options: The president can sign it, in which case it becomes law. The president can veto it, in which case it fails, unless Congress overrides the veto. Or a bill can become law through presidential inaction. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution lays out the president’s role in legislation, including this provision: “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he signed it.

“The new Democratic-led House of Representatives has already passed a series of bills that would end the shutdown and punt more contentious decisions about border security to future negotiations. The legislation is nearly identical to bills passed in the Senate before Christmas — “exactly, word for word” the same, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) hasn’t brought them up for a vote, saying there’s no point in passing bills Trump won’t sign.

“But McConnell could bring the House spending legislation to the Senate, and if it passed there, the president could allow it to become law in 10 days without shouldering the potential political liability of appearing to endorse it.”

A third approach – there is enough ongoing commentary on it without me adding any thoughts – is for Trump to declare a national emergency and re-allocate existing funds in government agencies to build the wall.

But, to repeat what I have said before, the most elegant way out of the current shutdown stalemate, would be for the president and Democrats to find middle ground.

The Wall Street Journal has described this elegant solution, which rests on the notion the political leaders in a democracy (you may wonder if we have any smart ones left) work to develop solid compromises.

“The obvious deal is for Democrats to provide border money to Trump in return for legal status for ‘Dreamer’ immigrants and others like Haitians on temporary visas facing deportation soon. But neither side has showed any interest in such common sense.”

So, with any solution, especially the latter elegant one, it is time to end the shutdown.

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 golf magazines, Links, came up with an insightful look at major golf industry trends.

Here is a summary of those trends with my comments.

Gambling on Golf

Recent legislation has opened the path for sports betting, with deals already signed in most of the major sports. Golf leaders, including PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan, have made it clear that golf will be no different.

The PGA Tour has tapped IMG Arena, a sports betting service and content hub, to distribute official Tour scoring data for media and betting use. Fantasy golf may have stirred interest in such data, but viewers having a little skin in the game takes that interest to another level. The Match between Tiger and Phil was the first to include statistical data to showcase the real-time odds of a players winning a hole or pulling off a certain shot, while promoting sponsor MGM Grand.

Comment: Not my favorite trend. But, while I won’t participate, I guess there is no need to impose my values on others.

New Distribution Platforms for Golf Coverage

According to the National Golf Foundation, 22 million people watched streaming coverage of a golf tournament in 2017, and more than 1-in-4 Americans (age 6+)—82 million people in total—consumed some form of golf media in 2017. Our golf consumption habits continue to change, and that won’t stop in the foreseeable future. New ways to consume golf media are on the way.

PGA Tour Live is now part of the NBC Gold subscription offering while the PGA of America signed a deal to be part of streaming service ESPN Plus. With the availability of tournament-specific mobile apps, a growing presence of digital content, and expanded hours of tournament coverage, live streaming is on the rise.

With the PGA Tour’s domestic network and cable TV deals expiring in 2021, the future landscape for golf’s media engagement across multiple platforms soon could look very different than we currently know it.

Comment: No problem here. On occasion, I see stories that indicate that golf is losing players and watchers. The media influences above indicate almost the reverse.

Another trend is that, when Tiger Woods plays in a tournament, the gate and the TV stats go up. No problem with Tiger playing, but his participation doesn’t drive my interest.

Smart Technology in Golf Clubs Goes Next Level

While media companies and betting houses present data from professional players, other companies are working to gather yours. On-course data has long been the missing ingredient for club fitters and instructors because it is tough to gather, but that’s no longer the case thanks to products like Cobra Connect irons with built-in sensors from Arccos Golf, the tracking performance system.

Kudos to Cobra Golf for creating a first-mover advantage, but look for Arccos to expand its built-in availability in 2019. While it hasn’t been announced yet, retailers who’ve already placed orders say that Ping and TaylorMade will be the next equipment makers to do so, and they won’t be the last. Arccos’s Tom Williams says the company is rapidly expanding to the point that it predicts in 2020 more than half of all new golf clubs will have Arccos sensors as a standard feature. The sensors capture hundreds of data points throughout the round that can be used for instruction, strategizing, and more. The Arccos Caddie system uses that data in conjunction with artificial intelligence to suggest how to play each hole on any given course. The system knows your typical misses, your strengths, and more. The company says new users who log 10-plus rounds in a year showed a 3.79-stroke improvement in handicap.

Comment: I consider myself to be a “feel players.” If the clubs and my swing feel right, good. I don’t need much high-level technology to be able to play well and have fun on a golf course.

For those who like and/or benefit from technology, the built-in sensor capability probably seems like a God-send. I imagine one golf pro who will use the new technology immediately is Bryson DeChambeau. He plays golf like an engineer and, while his process looks awkward on the course, it is hard to argue with his recent success.

The Return of the Short Course

In September, architect Tom Doak announced he was taking the short movement in a different direction. Sedge Valley, the fourth course in Sand Valley’s resort lineup, will measure 6,100 yards with a par of 68. On the private side, Desert Mountain will soon open an 18-hole par-3 course, named Seven in recognition of being the seventh course at the Scottsdale, Arizona-based residential-golf community. It will join other recent openings such as nine-hole par-3 layouts L’il Wick at Wickenburg Ranch Golf & Social Club and The Harmon Course at The Floridian.

Course architects and developers closely track the costs to maintain golf courses based on their length and, as you’d expect, it’s tough to be profitable with longer courses when you factor in labor, fuel, water, and more. Add that a younger generation doesn’t want five-hour rounds and short courses become even more attractive.

Comment: A good development, I think. As I have gotten older, I have become a believer in the Jack Nicklaus “play it forward.” Doing so is always possible on most golf courses, if you can get past the label of the forward tees being “women’s tees.”

They aren’t. They are tees for golfers like me who don’t hit the ball as far as we used to.

Shorter courses will help offset two of the golf’s problems – (a) courses built mostly for length, and (b) that fact that many young people are now drawn to the game because of the time it takes to play.

Beware the Golf Retail Giant Otherwise Known As Amazon

After several years of market correction, the surviving golf retailers are starting to rebound, due in part to equipment-makers cutting back on their streams of non-stop club launches. But the golf retail landscape is still shifting, and, like all of the retail industry, there is about more pain ahead. Credit Suisse estimated 8,640 U.S. stores across retail closed in 2017, and as many as 25 per cent of U.S. malls will close by 2022. The elephant in the room is Amazon.

In 2018, Golf Datatech released a study of the overall effect of Amazon on the golf equipment and apparel markets. It found that the golf sector is being effected much the same as other consumer products by the e-commerce giant, and especially so by Amazon Prime members.

Expect even more competition on price as companies start or continue selling directly to consumers through websites to cut out the middle.

Comment: I don’t buy golf equipment on-line. Perhaps just due to my age. I like to gain the feel of a club before buying and, fortunately for me, I have the opportunity to do so at my home club in Salem, Oregon.

Further, I like the idea that golf retailers appear to be cutting back a bit on continual launches of new clubs and golf balls.

For me, when I upgraded several years to an Epic driver from Callaway, I feel in love with the club which game me more distance off the tee. So, I stayed with the Epic (which is still in my bag today) even as, for some reason, Callaway came out with a new driver, the Rogue.

Overall, the Links Magazine story indicates that there are some solid new trends in golf – trends that can counter, at least in part, other stats that indicate that interest in golf is dying.

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

As the Oregon Legislature begins its long session later this month, one major issue is squarely on the table: Impose higher taxes on business.

Governor Kate Brown has built increased taxes into her “Recommended Budget for 2019-21.” And those who lead the Legislature are likely to go along, if, for no other reason, than Democrats are in charge everywhere – in the Governor’s Office for another four years, in the Oregon House by a super-majority margin, and in the Oregon Senate again by a super-majority.

And Democrats tend to believe that there is always room for new taxes.

Super-majorities in both the House and the Senate mean the now-in-charge Democrats can pass tax increases without trying to round up any Republican support.

But let me make this additional point, a critical one from the standpoint of fairness. Many Democrats in Oregon are solid elected officials. They may operate from the left of center, but that doesn’t mean they are all wrong or all bad, as long, I say, as they don’t move to the far left.

And, I would add that the far right is as bad as the far left. Both extremes are mostly interested, figuratively, in yelling on the street corner to illustrate how important they think they are without much regard for what is in the public interest.

For me, one question is whether the Democrats now in charge in Oregon will be able to answer a key question before they act: Is there a role for government in this public policy issue, one that warrants renewed spending and a tax increase?

Reasonable elected officials should be able to answer “no” to that question, at least on occasion. And, of course, a “yes” answer might be the correct one, as could be the case, for example, in new spending for K-12 education, though I believe the new spending should follow a critical look at the existing schools budget.

Answering “no” once in awhile to the question about a government role would add heft to the answer “yes.”

If lawmakers were to decide to tax businesses, they ought to consider the “cost” of those new taxes. In many cases, businesses would have to scrap plans to create new jobs – new jobs where the holders of those jobs would pay taxes to fund government.

I was struck last month when analysts at the Legislative Fiscal Office and the Budget and Management Office of the Department of Administrative Services jointly released a set of budget predictions for the 2019-21 biennial budget.

They suggested that revenue based on current taxes would mean the state would fall more than $600 million short of being able to balance the budget without spending cuts or new taxes.

The skeptic in me wondered if the set of budget predictions was meant to support the need for tax increases.

That skepticism was buttressed by a paragraph in an Oregonian story that appeared a few weeks ago.

“State law and Oregon’s Constitution require balanced budgets. Governor Kate Brown is scheduled to release her proposal for the next state budget on Wednesday morning. Unlike the budget estimate issued Monday, Brown’s plan will likely include revenue increases from a combination of tax and fee increases and might also include spending cuts.”

First, as it turned out on December 1, 2018, the biennial budget recommendation from the governor did include more than just spending. It included revenue increases from a combination of new taxes and new fees.

Second, the Oregonian said that the governor’s budget recommendations “might also include spending cuts.” Frankly, it was difficult to see immediately where those cuts had been proposed, though they might be imbedded deep in individual agency budgets – so the point is that they could exist.

For what my view is worth from the cheap seats – and this view is the product of nearly 40 years of dealing with budgets from my days as a state government manager, as well as a lobbyist – I would prefer a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” that did not include either tax increases or spending cuts.

It would be a document from the state’s leading elected official that showed what the cost of government would be for another two years if government continued to operate in a business-as-usual fashion.

Then, with that as a base, a second document from the governor would include recommendations for tax increases, including the size of the increases, who would pay them, and where the money would go – and, of course, from a gubernatorial leadership standpoint, WHY the tax increases were necessary.

A third document, again from the base of what government would cost for another two years, could outline spending cuts to assure that it was not just, without a critical eye, business-as-usual.

All of this would come into focus late in any long legislative session when lawmakers have to do what state law and the Oregon Constitution require: Produce a balanced budget by the end of the legislative session and the start of a new biennium.

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.

Two voices – one old and one new – emerged yesterday to discuss the government shutdown, which is heading into its third week.

In a way, I hate to write about the shutdown again because the debacle in Washington, D.C. strikes me a couple of kids saying they will take their toys go home unless they get their way.

What is not happening is mature, real world negotiations over competing priorities. Both sides want to win the public relations/political battle as opposed as to striking a deal that, almost whatever its elements, would be in the best interest of the country compared to the shutdown.

The old voice belonged to Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite columnists who writes for the Wall Street Journal. The new voice belonged to U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw who won a seat in the House from Texas.

Worth noting what both of them had to say.

From Noonan: “Those of us who are not politicians agree that neither party has really wanted to solve the problem. Both played it for their own gain, cynically, as if they weren’t even invested in this place. They should be ashamed.

“It was not in the interests of the Republican Party to address the border problem because that might leave them open to charges they were driven by questions of race and color. Also their major donors didn’t mind illegal immigration, which was good for business. It’s always convenient when you see things the donors’ way! The affluent and powerful in America enjoy feeling liberal and are uninterested in how poor Americans view chaos (as a threat—America is all they have; they don’t have two passports and a share on a plane) and jobs lost to cheaper labor.

“Democrats never intended to control the border because they think doing nothing marks them as the nonracist party, the compassionate, generous party that Hispanics will see as home. They would reap the electoral rewards in a demographically changing country. They will own the future! Their big donors too opposed border strictness. They don’t think about security a lot, even after 9/11. I think it was Murray Kempton who said Republicans are always hearing the creak of the door at night. It’s true. Democrats are less anxious about security. It’s fair to point out they tend to be more affluent and have the protections money can buy. Their fearlessness is not bravery but obliviousness. They off-load anxiety onto Republicans, who are always mysteriously eager to take it up.”

Noonan is write. No one really wants to deal with the problem. They just want to upstage the other side.

On to Representative Crenshaw: “This whole debate is a classic case of one side attacking the other’s worst arguments instead of seriously addressing the actual proposal. Democrats need to stop assuming we are talking about a contiguous 2,000-mile wall. Republicans know that’s not practical. The budget’s small allocation of $5.7 billion that President Trump has requested would build 234 miles of wall. It’s a start.”

Crenshaw uses his military credentials to discuss important real-world aspects of the wall, points left out of most discussions.

But Noonan and Crenshaw, with different views, both speak like adults. They want the created crisis to end.

The best way to achieve that would be for adults – whomever they are – to get in a room (yes, make it a room with a round table) and find middle ground.

As the Wall Street Journal has put it, give Trump money to build “his wall” and give the Democrats legal status for the “dreamers.” Simple. Both sides win.

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 couple days after national TV addresses by three persons who fancy themselves as “political leaders,” this blog could be about shutdown politics again.

No.

Wall Street Journal editorial writers had it right when they wrote this:

“The obvious deal is for Democrats to provide border money to Trump in return for legal status for Dreamer immigrants and others like Haitians on temporary visas facing deportation soon. But neither side showed any interest in such common sense on Tuesday. Back to your regularly scheduled political morass.”

Instead of more on the stupid shutdown, I write today about a different subject.

When you hear or see good words that convey a stout image, you realize that it is not the number of words you use, but how you use them that counts.

Consider this quote from former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:

“… the problem with socialism is that you always run out of other people’s money. The trouble with resisting socialism is that until the money runs out, free-spending progressive policies are remarkably seductive. Their appeal comes from what economists call lying prices: Advertised prices that don’t reflect the full cost of what you’re buying.”

Kudos to Thatcher.

In only a few words, she skewers all those who believe that more government will answer every problem – but the real “problem is that you always run out of other people’s money.”

Look no farther than avowed socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders, who, no doubt, is burnishing his credentials for another run at being president.

He says he wants at least two things by taking “other people’s money.”

1. He wants a so-called “Medicare for All” program that would bankrupt the federal government bank, even though that “bank” always prints new stuff when it runs out of the old.
2. He wants a plan for the government to pay the cost of higher education for every individual.

As such ideas generate buzz – probably not from another left wing candidate, Senator Elizabeth Warren — from many others on the left — remember Thatcher’s sound advice:

“Pretty soon you run out of other people’s money.”

I wish I would have been as smart as Thatcher to use those few words so well.

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.

Call it what you will, we, as Americans, were treated last night to a debacle.

On one side, was President Donald Trump speaking from the Oval Office and asking Americans to support his plea for a wall to separate Mexico from the U.S. – a wall that wouldn’t do much of anything, except exist.

On the other side, were two harsh-looking Congressional leaders from the left – new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Both looked list parents upset with their child – Trump.

Nothing new was said last night.

Point-counterpoint. He said – she said. One good – or bad – turn deserves another.

And, a key word in the current debacle – compromise – was hardly uttered by either side. True, Trump did use the word, but I have no idea about what he means. To him, compromise may be giving him all that he wants.

As Wall Street Journal editorial writers put it:

“The obvious deal is for Democrats to provide border money to Mr. Trump in return for legal status for Dreamer immigrants and others like Haitians on temporary visas facing deportation soon. But neither side showed any interest in such common sense on Tuesday. Back to your regularly scheduled political morass.”

I was fortunate last night. I didn’t watch the “show.”

But I did read the Washington Post this morning to get two takes on the national “addresses,” if you could call what was said “addresses.”

From Post columnist Marc Thiessen:

“The president did not unilaterally declare a national emergency. Instead, he called for compromise and said, ‘To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife, whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?’

“He was, in short, presidential.

“Democrats insisted on equal time, which is highly unusual for presidential addresses other than the State of the Union. It was a mistake. In contrast to Trump, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer came across as small and intransigent.”

Or, this counterpoint from another Post columnist, Jennifer Rubin:

“The only thing surprising about President Trump’s address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night was how totally unnecessary and un-newsworthy it was. Trump did not declare he was reopening the government. He did not issue an “emergency” declaration. He did not even offer any new arguments for a border wall that voters say they don’t want for a crisis that doesn’t exist. Instead, he delivered a weak, unconvincing promise to sit down with Democrats. Never has he looked so helpless and small.

“In short, the president snookered the networks into giving him free time to commune with his base. They should not make that mistake again.”

Make your own decision about this continuing debacle in Washington, D.C. I have tendered my own view by using the word “debacle.”

My fond hope – probably not to be realized any time soon – is that juveniles now in charge in the Nation’s Capitol would begin acting like mature adults.  Find middle ground.

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.

There is a lot of grist for this mill these days if only because the federal government shutdown is in its third week.

That, of course, provides “opportunities” for many to comment, from the left and from the right. The reality is that no one wins the political battle over blame in a shutdown.

All of the parties – President Trump and his minions on one side and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her dutiful servants on the other side – look like what they are, which are juveniles not up to the challenge of leading this country.

That said, this, remember, is one of three departments I direct with a free hand to operate as I see fit. The two others area the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Just Saying. Items below could fit in any of the three departments.

I lead with the shutdown.

From the Washington Post: Trump administration officials are making an urgent case that the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border has reached a crisis level, laying the groundwork for President Trump possibly tp declare a national emergency that would empower him to construct a border wall without congressional approval.

With the federal government partially shut down amid his stalemate with Congress, Trump will attempt to bolster the administration’s position Tuesday by delivering a prime-time televised address to the nation from the Oval Office — the first of his presidency. He will then travel Thursday to visit the nation’s southern border.

“There is a humanitarian and national security crisis,” Vice President Pence told reporters Monday, a line that he and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen repeated several times. Pence also said he expected attempted crossings by undocumented migrants to “dramatically increase” as winter gives way to spring.

Such a move would be a fraught act of brinkmanship at the dawn of a newly divided government, sparking a firestorm with House Democrats and certain challenges in federal courts. But Trump believes forcing a drastic reckoning by executive action may be necessary given the Democratic resistance and the wall’s symbolic power for his core voters, officials said.

Comment: Remember my basic point: Nobody wins a shutdown. If Trump conjures up an “emergency powers” resolution – as he might do in a nationwide TV address tonight — he will just play into the hands – and politics – of Pelosi who is likely to respond in court, as well in the court of public opinion through more investigations of Trump.

From the Wall Street Journal: Margaret Thatcher famously said the problem with socialism is that you “always run out of other people’s money.” The trouble with resisting socialism is that until the money runs out, free-spending progressive policies are remarkably seductive. Their appeal comes from what economists call lying prices: advertised prices that don’t reflect the full cost of what you’re buying.

When prices lie, people make bad choices—especially when they think something is free. Take rush-hour commutes. We jump in our cars hoping for a quick trip only to find the streets clogged; with access priced at zero, demand exceeds supply. Absent a price signal to encourage carpooling or other alternatives, we creep, beep and waste huge amounts of time and fuel. Transportation consulting firm Inrix tallied up the cost of this waste in a study last year, calculating that $305 billion of value was burned in traffic across the U.S. in 2016, with the typical Los Angeleno wasting more than $2,800.

For many politicians, lying prices are actually a goal. Policies that set dishonest prices or fudge budgets can fuel the growth of government and lure voters leftward. Senator Bernie Sanders and his socialist followers use such sleight of hand to obscure the vast costs of proposals for “free college” and “Medicare for all.”

This from a summary of Sanders’ plan: The spending figure for Sanders amounts to 10.7 per cent of GDP in 2022 when the plan kicks in and then up from there. National defense—routinely derided as too expensive and wasteful—is a mere 3 per cent of GDP today. And brace yourself: Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.

Comment: The Wall Street Journal is right to emphasize the sham of inaccurate costs as left-wing Democrats, led by Sanders and would-be president Elizabeth Warren, campaign for ever-more government spending. Remember, there is no free lunch.

Perhaps the most egregious example of fake pricing comes from the Sanders’ “Medicare for All” program. It would literally break the federal bank, but Sanders could care less as he touts his socialism.

From Wall Street Journal editorial writers: House Democrats are up and running, and their first bill is instructive. Couched as an anti-corruption and good-government measure, it is really an attempt to silence or obstruct political opponents.

A central part of H.R. 1 is “campaign-finance reform,” no surprise given the progressive fixation with money in politics, which oddly turns to mist when Tom Steyer or Mike Bloomberg are spending. The House bill requires some advocacy groups to publicly disclose the names of donors who give more than $10,000, even if the groups aren’t running ads that endorse candidates but merely inform voters about the issues.

Comment: No surprise here. The Ds, under Pelosi, produce their first bill while being in charge of the U.S. House. It is not a solid piece of public policy. Instead, it aims to get-even with the Rs.

More from the Wall Street Journal: “Democrats profess to be upset with Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib for daring to say in public about Donald J. Trump what they all think in private: “We’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the mother—.”

Apparently, the Michigan freshman hasn’t been around long enough to know that Democrats are supposed to pretend that impeachment is a solemn legal matter rather than a political exercise. She also made the mistake of using foul language in a video that went viral, not that she’s apologizing for a word of it. But give her credit for showing the public the reality hiding behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s wait-and-see pretense.

Comment: It would no surprise if House Ds moved to impeach the president. In fact, on occasion, given Trump’s over-the-top approach, impeachment might even be warranted. But the Tlaib language mimics the kind of talk that usually comes from Trump.

Remember, impeachment is indictment, not conviction.  Acting on an indictment, if the House chooses to move, would be the province of the Senate, which is not likely to convict no matter how much Trump might deserve it.

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

As legislators return to the State Capitol in Salem for another legislative session, it is a good time to post a reminder about the questions lawmakers should ask as they consider any new, proposed piece of legislation.

I wrote yesterday about my proposal for reforms for the Legislature that would have a chance to produce better law, one of which would be to require all legislative committees to be bi-cameral. Won’t happen, but based on the strength of one committee that includes members of the House and the Senate – the Joint Committee on Ways and Means – the idea is worth trying.

Now, I add the list of key questions, which are frequently ignored as legislators consider the thousands of bills that are introduced every session in Salem.

While not magic answers, asking and answering these questions would produce better government.

So, here they are:

What is the specific problem for which a proposed policy or action is deemed to be the solution?

This question is seldom raised or even discussed. Yet, it should be. Too often, the introduction of a bill is done for just that reason and none other – getting it printed. Legislators then tell constituents they have acted on their behalf. Action, in this case, is just getting a bill printed and that process alone costs thousands of dollars of staff time.

Is there an appropriate role for government to play?

This is an even more basic question that tests another often-ignored issue: Whether there is the role of government? Government should not insert itself into every issue. So, the best answer to this question could be no. It rarely is.

If there is a role for government, what does the state expect to get for the money it spends? In other words, what is the expected return on investment?

Return on investment often is a foreign concept in the halls of the legislature. But the concept should be considered in the sense of subjecting government programs – old ones and new ones – to a key test: What results do they achieve? If they don’t produce results, they should be discontinued.

How will government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state or the country depends to fund government?

This, too, is seldom discussed, at least at the initiative of legislators. Lobbyists for some consumer groups raise the question. So do lobbyists for business. But both often fall on deaf ears. Yet, legislators rely on taxpayers to help keep government afloat.

If legislators are committed to moving on a bill, they should at least consider if there would a better way to act than originally proposed.

If elected officials would ask and answer these questions with a constructively critical eye, we’d see better results 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.

To give the new U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi her due, she did rise to the top level in the House a second time.

In doing so, she surmounted concerns by some in her Democrat party that she was too old and too old-school to be in the top job. That concern came from, among others, a number of new Members of Congress who were interested in new leadership and, on the campaign trail, had pledged not to vote for Pelosi.

Didn’t matter.

In view of her second ascension, the Washington Post labeled her the most influential woman in politics these days. I suspect Senator Elizabeth Warren didn’t like that characterization as she, too, wants to be preeminent.

On policy, Pelosi owes her speakership to the left and she will tilt that way. She did face a revolt on the left over a rules change to impose “pay-as-you-go budgeting,” which liberals think will hamstring their spending plans.

Under Pelosi’s tenure, one certainty is the end of pro-growth legislation. The trend will be toward higher taxes, more regulation and more harassment of business. The new House rules have already cashiered “dynamic scoring” that forced the Congressional Budget Office to think about how a proposal affects the economy.

Dynamic scoring isn’t some GOP effort to prove taxes “pay for themselves,” but a tool that informs lawmakers of economic costs and trade-offs and can improve policy.

True to past form, on the first day of Pelosi’s new term as Speaker, she prompted the House to pass several bills she said were designed to stop the government shutdown. She knows President Trump won’t sign the bills because there is no money for “his wall,” or at least not enough to appease him.

Appeasing Trump, frankly, is more difficult every day because he doesn’t negotiate like most conventional presidents. There is a new floor every day until he gets what he wants.

As for Pelosi’s spending bill, here is what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: “I’ve made it clear on several occasions, and let me say it again: The Senate will not take up any proposal that does not have a real chance of passing this chamber and getting a presidential signature. Let’s not waste the time. Let’s not get off on the wrong foot, with House Democrats using their new platform to produce political statements rather than serious solutions.”

In her second stint as Speaker, don’t expect, the Wall Street Journal says, “a new era of progress in Washington, D.C. Fair warning. The main Democrat goal will be investigating, not legislating.”

Further, from my post in the cheap seats out West, I have this perspective on the government shutdown. It is this: Other than at least a limited concern for federal employees, I am not sure that a wide range of citizens is worried about the shutdown.

That includes critics of government who tend to believe that government is too big anyway.

Of course, the shutdown is starting to have real downsides that will have a direct affect even on government critics. So, I say, cut a deal. Just arrive at the middle between Trump’s demand for $5.6 billion and the House’s proposal for about $1.5 billion.

Pelosi should display real leadership and work to produce this kind of deal in the middle instead of just playing off Trump, though, on the other hand, he deserves all the derision he gets.

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

As the next legislative session starts in Salem in a matter of days, I have come up with a list of reforms that would make the legislative process more open to the public.

And, who knows, the reforms might even produce better law.

I suggest these reforms based on my 25 years as a state government lobbyist, plus my 15 years before that as a high-level manager in state government. In some cases, I may have mentioned one or another reform in past blogs. This time, I put all of the reforms together.

Reform #1: Make every legislative committee a JOINT COMMITTEE.

The example for this is the current Joint Committee on Ways and Means, the entity responsible for preparing a balanced state government budget for the next two years.

The joint character of the effort – joint in terms of membership by both Democrats and Republicans, as well as by members of the House and the Senate – means that legislators have no choice but to work together earlier in a legislative session to achieve consensus.

Think how much time and effort could be saved by requiring the otherwise faint notion – working together.

All other legislative committees are organized in “one house,” not two, so most compromises on major issues do not occur until late in the session.

Reform #2: Require the governor and the legislature to prepare a “current tax” budget for the next two years.

As it is now, governors now produce a “recommended budget” which often includes new taxes, not state spending based on current taxes.

If it were up to me, I’d require a “no-new-taxes” budget so it would be clear how much government would cost for another two years if legislators did not do anything – no new taxes, no new spending cuts.. I’d require this, first, from a governor, then expect the same from the legislature through its Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

Reform #3: Require the governor and legislators to draft specific plans for new taxes they want to impose, including those who would pay the new taxes, what the new money would fund, and WHY those who will be asked to pay the new taxes should accept that reality. 

Under current approach, new taxes are buried in the overall budget and, though the come up for consideration in the House and Revenue Committees – yes, separate, not joint, committees – the rationale for the new taxes is often understated, if stated at all.

Plus, in the upcoming session of the Legislature, Democrats are in charge everywhere – in the Governor’s Office, by a super-majority in the House, and by a super-majority in the Senate.

So, those in charge do not have to round up any Republican votes. They just have to hold their super-majorities.

Reform #4: Require the governor and legislators to prepare a specific plan for the cuts they would propose to make in state government so it is not just business as usual for another two years.

This final reform – listing specific spending cuts – does not get the profile it should in a legislative process. In this blog, I am not advocating for specific cuts; I am just saying that the governor and the Joint Ways and Means Committee should spend more time adjusting state spending.

A by-product of this type of effort could be that it would generate more support for tax increases if it was patently clear what those proceeds would fund.

Oregon has earned a reputation over the years for having a legislature that is generally committed to doing it business in the light of the day. Hearings on bills are always advertised in advance. If committees might take action in a meeting, that, too, would be advertised in advance. If legislators have conflicts of interest, they are expected to announce those conflicts in advance and, if the conflict is direct enough, they might even recuse themselves from voting.

All of this is better than what occurs in Congress where it is hard to follow the process through to a conclusion. And, with some lack of modesty, I suggest that the reforms I have outlined above would make a decent law-making process in Oregon even better.