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 other day I was asked by my friends in the “senior golf group” at Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club to summarize new golf rules, which will take as of January 1, 2019.

I was asked because I had taken a recent United States Golf Association (USGA) and Royal & Ancient (R&I) seminar on the new rules, which were several years in the making.

As a friendly critic, I say the seminar would have been better if two things were done: (1) There should have been a summary of the major rules issues you could encounter on the golf course, not on all of the minutia; and (2) the presentations could have focused on explaining the rules, not just using a power-point presentation to put the actual rules language on the screen, then reading the lines with only a little interpretations

For the senior men, I might not have been the best person to prepare the summary. Others at my club know more about the rules as I do.

But I took on the task and what follows is a brief summary about what I wrote.

2019 GOLF RULES EXPLANATION/The United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal & Ancient (R&I) in Europe have spent several years revising official golf rules, including reducing the number from 34 to 24 and re-writing many of the rules in more up-to-date language. Still, the rules remain complicated, which owes at least to the fact that the game is played in the outdoors, not inside a stadium or pavilion.

For regular golfers, the best approach is to get a copy of the “Player’s Edition of the Rules of Golf” (effective as of January 1, 2019.) As was the case with old Player’s Edition, it is small and can be carried in your golf bag. Order it from the USGA through its regular website.

List of Major Rules You Might Encounter (in no priority order):

• You can now leave the flagstick in the hole whenever you want – no penalty
• In a nod to the Dustin Johnson issue at the 2016 U.S. Open, if your ball or ball marker is accidentally moved on the green, no penalty
• You can now fix any mark on a green (a spike mark), not just a ball mark
• If you don’t like to play in bunkers, you can now take the ball out, with a two-stroke penalty; and removing loose impediments is allowed  [This is one of the most interesting new rules if only because a phrase in the rules about what golfers are now allowed to do in a bunker enshrines this incredible language – you are now allowed “to pound the sand in frustration or anger” after hitting a bad shot from a bunker.]
• You now have three minutes to search for a lost ball, not five
• In a penalty area (formerly called a “water hazard”), you do not receive a penalty if you happen to touch the ground inside the area as long as you don’t use your club forcefully to improve your lie
• If you damage your club in the course of play, you are now allowed to continue using the club which might no longer meet equipment standards
• When taking a drop, you now do so from knee height, not shoulder height
• If you think or know you have hit a ball out-of-bounds, a local rule, if enacted, allow you to play the ball from where it went out or back on that spot and a line to the tee, with a two-stroke penalty
• No penalty now for hitting a ball twice with one swing

One last point: Rules should not get in the way of enjoying golf. Some rules could help golfers in playing the game, but the focus, in any event, should be on enjoying the game and friendships.

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 talk in Washington, D.C. about prospects for impeaching President Donald Trump.

In fact, for Democrats, soon to be in charge of the U.S. House, it may be more than just talk. For Republicans, who knows, but it is important to add that Republicans in the U.S. Senate would have to vote to convict if the House chooses to indict. [See below for more on the impeachment process.]

Quickly, impeachment is a word not well understood these days. The bottom line is that it is essentially a synonym for indict. If the U.S. House of Representatives votes to move ahead on impeachment, it is to bring an indictment.

There will be some arguments against heading toward impeachment, especially with an uncertain outcome, not to mention the toll on the country. But, at the same time, some House members who will be in charge of the impeachment process, if there is one, appear to believe Trump’s alleged crimes are serious enough to warrant moving forward.

In a column in the Washington Post, Michael Gerson, one of the best writers going today, put it this way:

“As Mueller time approaches (a reference to the coming repot by special counsel Robert Mueller), it is likely that President Trump’s defense will consist of two phrases: ‘But that is not illegal’ and ‘But that is not impeachable.’

“It is a strategy that prevails by the lowering of standards. Because Trump did not plot election fraud directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin by Skype, and because Trump’s various crimes and misdemeanors do not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, we should consider the president vindicated. Unable to make the case for his own virtues, Trump must aver that his vices are commonplace and inconsequential.”

Gerson continues using telling words:

“…When all this evidence is stitched together in a narrative — as Mueller’s report will certainly do — the sum will be greater than the sleaze of its parts. Russian intelligence officials invested in an innovative strategy to support the election of a corrupt U.S. businessman with suspicious ties to Russian oligarchs. The candidate and his campaign welcomed that intervention in public and private. And the whole scheme seems to have paid off for both sides.

“For the rest of us, the deal hasn’t worked out so well. A deeply compromised American administration has been unable to effectively counter a direct attack on our democratic institutions by a hostile foreign government — responding to a digital Pearl Harbor with a wink and a nod. ‘This is an existential constitutional crisis,’ says historian Jon Meacham, ‘because it’s quite possible that the president of the United States right now is a witting or at least partially witting agent of a foreign power.’

“Some of us are still too shocked to process this. The United States seems to have gone from zero to banana republic in no seconds flat. But whether this transformation has been illegal, it must be impeachable — or else impeachment has no meaning.”

Consider me shocked with many others in America – not newly shocked, but continuing to be shocked by the over-the-top conduct of the nation’s president.

And, to borrow Gerson’s excellent phrase, “the sum (of what Mueller reports) will be greater than the sleaze of its parts.”

Still, it is important to understand the ins and outs of the impeachment process, even though many of us observed the process when President Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.

To gain some answers to questions, I reviewed a New York Times article that was written in mid-2017, but remains largely on point today.

What is impeachment? The Constitution permits Congress to remove presidents before their term is up if enough lawmakers vote to say that they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Only three presidents have been subjected to impeachment proceedings. Two were impeached but acquitted and stayed in office: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999. A third, Richard M. Nixon in 1974, resigned to avoid being impeached.

What is the process? First, the House of Representatives votes on one or more articles of impeachment. If at least one gets a majority vote, the president is impeached — which essentially means being indicted.

Next, the proceedings move to the Senate, which holds a trial overseen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

A team of lawmakers from the House, known as managers, play the role of prosecutors. The president has defense lawyers, and the Senate serves as the jury.

If at least two-thirds of the senators find the president guilty, he is removed, and the vice president takes over as president.

What are the rules? There are no standard rules. Rather, the Senate passes a resolution first laying out trial procedures.

“When the Senate decided what the rules were going to be for our trial, they really made them up as they went along,” avers Greg Craig, who helped defend Clinton in his impeachment proceeding and later served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama.

For example, Craig said, the initial rules in that case gave four days to the Republican managers to make a case for conviction, followed by four days for the president’s legal team to defend him — essentially opening statements. The Senate then decided whether to hear witnesses, and if so, whether it would be live or on videotape. Eventually, the Senate permitted each side to depose several witnesses by videotape.

What are the standards? The Constitution allows for the impeachment and removal of a president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But no controlling authority serves as a check on how lawmakers choose to interpret that standard, which makes it as much a question of political will as of legal analysis.

In the case of Clinton’s trial, for example, Robert Byrd, a Democrat senator from West Virginia at the time, told his colleagues that he thought Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury, but that removing him from office was a bad idea.

“To drop the sword of Damocles now, given the bitter political partisanship surrounding this entire matter, would only serve to further undermine a public trust that is too much damaged already,” he said. “Therefore, I will reluctantly vote to acquit.”

What about the 25th Amendment? Adopted in 1967, the 25th Amendment provides another mechanism for removing a president. It is geared toward dealing with a president who becomes too disabled to carry out the duties of the office, as opposed to presidential law breaking.

Under its procedures, if the vice president and a majority of the cabinet tell Congress that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the vice president immediately becomes the acting president. If the president contests that finding, but two-thirds of both chambers of Congress side with the vice president, the vice president remains the acting president for the rest of the term.

After all this, my view is that Trump deserves to be impeached in the U.S. House and convicted in the U.S. Senate. With Michael Gerson, I say “the sum of what Trump has done will be greater than the sleaze of its parts.”  So, reasonable citizens — I include myself under that label — deserve to see impeachment and conviction.

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 Department of Bits and Pieces is one of three departments I run with a free hand to do what I want to do and say what I want to say. The others are the Departments of Pet Peeves and Just saying. So, her goes with Bits and Pieces, which, among other things, means that I just want to cite the point quickly, make comments, and move on without writing a lot.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY REFORMS: President Mitch Daniels is receiving a number of plaudits these days for his initiative to reform the way the university does business with its customers – read “students.”

Among his initiatives – he is a former federal government budget director under President George W. Bush, so he knows what he is doing when it comes to budgets – are efforts to reduce the huge debt load that students often incur to complete a higher education degree.

One example is a plan to link what students owe to what they will make when they graduate.

Not surprisingly, from higher education’s ivory towers, Daniels’ initiatives have come under criticism from faculty members. This from a letter to the editor from a Michigan resident that appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

“University faculties possess an ingrained suspicion of, if not disdain for, any president who isn’t a ‘club member,’ meaning a lifelong academic. On top of being an outsider, Daniels is a conservative, a toxic mark in academia, where an entitlement mindset prevails that keeps delivering to insiders without any need for demonstrating sensitivity to ‘customer’ costs.

“More than a mere cost-cutter, Daniels has enhanced Purdue’s reputation as a top-tier university and has been a determined champion of free speech on campus. His model of leadership ought to be emulated at colleges across the country to return savings to students. Yet, despite these accomplishments, be assured most university presidents and faculty yearn for Daniels’s failure and ignominious exit.”

Comment: Daniels deserves high praise for bringing a sense of financial discipline to Purdue. His approach ought to provide lessons for other presidents around the country.

HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN DEPARTS: Outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan never explicitly mentioned President Trump in remarks to mark the end of his, Ryan’s, term. But he bemoaned the divisiveness that has been a hallmark of Trump’s relentless, bitter denunciations of his political opponents, almost always on Twitter.

“All of this gets amplified by technology, with an incentive structure that preys on people’s fears, and algorithms that play on anger,” he said. “Outrage has become a brand.”

He said combativeness “pulls on the threads of our common humanity in what could be our unraveling,” and he conceded that he didn’t know how to fix the problem.

Comment: Ryan deserves substantial credit for his three years as House Speaker, though he admits that he didn’t achieve many of his hallmark initiatives to reform entitlement spending. He came into the Speaker’s Office with a laudable record of advocating such initiatives from cogent public policy perspectives, but, when he came up against Trump and an ever-changing Republican party, he couldn’t get done what he wanted to get done. His job was a lot like herding cats.

HEALTH INSURANCE DEBACLE: A key element of the current legal fight surrounding the so-called Affordable Health Care Plan is the individual mandate, which requires Americans to acquire health insurance.

Under the original law, those who failed to comply with the requirement would have faced a tax penalty. But, in 2017, Congress passed a law that revoked the tax penalty, making the individual mandate essentially toothless.

Texas and 18 other states then sued, arguing that the revised law was still unconstitutional because of a legal principle called “inseverability” — the notion that some parts of a law are so intrinsic to other parts that invalidating one invalidates the others. Sixteen other states intervened in defense of the ACA.

Then, last week, a Federal Circuit Court judge ruled that, if the mandate was not in force, the entire law had to go down the drain.

Comment: Stupid decision! I suspect it will be overturned somewhere along the line, but the decision left health care policy in this country in limbo – again, or perhaps still.

As I wrote in a blog earlier this week, my proposal for health care reform would start with an individual insurance mandate. Without that, no insurance pool would work.

Think of it like car insurance. It you drive, you have to buy car insurance. In the same way, if you live, you should have to buy health insurance.

SPEAKING OF STUPID: Past and probable future Speaker of the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi uttered an incredible sentence when the Affordable Health Care plan was under consideration in the House she led in 2010.

Her quote: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Comment: Who knows what new bill Pelosi will want to pass without reading it.

OREGON GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Secretary of State Dennis Richardson showed up this week with a proposal that he said would avoid the need for new taxes for the 2019-21 state government budget, which will be the responsibility of Governor Kate Brown and the Oregon Legislature.

According to the Oregonian newspaper, here is a summary of Richardson’s proposal:

“If Oregon had used a web-based procurement program in the last biennium, it could have saved more than $1 billion, a state audit has found.

“The state’s purchasing system for goods and services consists of paperwork and old computer systems, which auditors said resulted in inconsistencies and “does not adequately analyze state spending data.” Of roughly $8 billion in spending per biennium, auditors said the state has data on approximately $1 billion or 12.5 per cent of the purchases.”

The auditors estimated Oregon could have saved $400 million to $1.6 billion if it had a modern procurement system in place during the 2015-2017 biennium. For example, they said, the state paid 17 different prices for one type of multifunction printer and 131 different amounts for surge protectors.

Comment: Good work by Richardson and his auditors, even as, publicly, he continues to fight a brain tumor. I continue to hope that, instead of just turning to new taxes, the state’s political leaders, including Democrats in the Governor’s Office, the House and the Senate, will look at current spending and find places to cut or operate more efficiently.

It should not be just tax and spend. It should be, review spending with a critical eye, then and only then, if a consensus can be produced, impose new taxes.

The e-government purchasing deal is exactly the kind of initiative frugal spenders ought to employ.

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. Continue reading →

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.

Links Magazine shows up again with another list of what it calls “The Top Modern Golf Courses in Scotland.”

Having had the privilege of traveling to Scotland on five occasions, I love such lists. In the case of these “Top Six,” I have played two – Castle Stuart and Macrihanish Dunes – and both were occasions to remember.

Plus, I am a great fan of golf in Scotland where, often, you face “links golf,” which means you play the golf ball close to the ground and it run out over rolling turf. Not everyone likes this style of play and, to be sure, it is far different from normal golf in the U.S. – “parkland golf” where you hit the ball high and aim for targets.

To me, a golf addict, both types are worth the effort.

Here’s how the Links Magazine article started:

“The game of golf, at least as we know it, was born on the links land of eastern Scotland over 500 years ago. While it’s now played by tens of millions of golfers around the world, Scotland is still widely known as the home of golf. It is home to iconic Old Course at St Andrews and the R&A, the site of the first Open Championship back in 1860, and the birthplace of Old and Young Tom Morris.”

Beyond the modern courses, the writer also says he want to play historic links layouts such as St. Andrews, Muirfield, North Berwick, Carnoustie, Royal Aberdeen and others.

I have had the privilege of playing each of those courses, creating memories that will last a lifetime.

There are 537 golf facilities in Scotland, according to the National Golf Foundation’s database, and approximately 90 of those were built within the past 50 years. There are some particularly good ones among them, especially those built in the past two decades or so that meld modern design touches and timeless Scottish architecture.

Here is the list of the Top Six Modern Courses according to Links Magazine.

Kingsbarns (2000)
While golf was played across the links land of Kingsbarns dating back to 1793, Kingsbarns Golf Links didn’t open until 2000, the creation of American architect Kyle Phillips. The course is roughly seven miles from St. Andrews and sits along 1.8 miles of picturesque North Sea coastline, with views of the water from almost everywhere on the course. This modern masterpiece was built on heaving terrain that’s perfect for golf and looks like it has been there for generations.

Castle Stuart (2009)
Like Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart is the vision of American developer Mark Parsinen and overlooks the Moray Firth and well-known landmarks synonymous with Inverness and the Black Isle. This Gil Hanse design was created to join iconic courses like Royal Dornoch, Nairn, and Brora as can’t-miss golf destinations in the Scottish Highlands. Along with spectacular vistas, golfers are surrounded by a rugged landscape with vast expanses of gorse, broom, heather, and sea marram.

Trump International (2012)
Golfers had to wait for the opening of this Aberdeen jewel several years longer than expected because of protests by environmentalists and landowners, but it was worth it. Martin Hawtree (whose father and grandfather built Royal Birkdale) stayed true to the tradition of Scottish links in creating a natural course that has the potential of hosting a major championship. Set amidst soaring dunes and tucked on a three-mile stretch of the North Shore coastline between Cruden Bay and Murcar Links, Trump International is an absolute visual spectacle.

[NOTE: Part of me wants to throw out this course, if only because of its connection to our goofy President Donald Trump, but, upon reflection, I include it because it is no doubt a solid course despite Trump.]

The Renaissance Club (2008)
This distinctive course built on East Lothian’s Archerfield Estate, next to Muirfield, was the first Scottish design for acclaimed American architect Tom Doak, who caddied at St. Andrews when he was in college. While little earth was moved during construction in true Doak style, there was extensive clearing from the heavily-treed 300-acre property. What remained was sandy soil, a windswept landscape and open dunes, but certain trees were also left to enhance the beauty, add to the challenge and give the course a unique style.

Machrihanish Dunes (2009)
More than 100 years after Machrihanish Golf Club was laid out by Old Tom Morris, David McLay Kidd – a Scottish architect who now lives in Oregon — built Machrihanish Dunes on neighboring dune scape that shares the same breathtaking views of the Atlantic Ocean along Scotland’s west coast. Flocks of sheep roam this rough-around-the-edges, no-frills course, which is built on pristine links land protected by the Scottish government. Kidd’s design encourages thought, creativity and imagination.

Crail – Craighead Links (1998)
The first course Gil Hanse built outside the U.S. provides a noteworthy contrast to Crail’s ancient Balcomie Links, with a treeless cliff-top course that has panoramic views of up to 100 miles. There’s a World War I pill box behind the 7^th green and “Danes Dyke,” a 1,200-year-old defensive wall built by Viking marauders that comes into play on four other holes. It’s one of several stone walls incorporated into a layout with greens that have been likened to those at Muirfield.

Other top modern Scottish courses worthy of consideration: The Castle Course at St Andrews (2008), Dundonald (2005), King Robert the Bruce – Trump Turnberry (2017), The Duke’s at St Andrews (1995), Skibo Castle – Carnegie Club (1995) and Archerfield – Fidra (2004).

So, the Links Magazine article gets my golf juices flowing, perhaps even to another trip to the home of golf.

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 have often said that, in terms of ways to receive communications, there are three types of people in this world – and, of course, this is a huge generalization.

First, there are people like me who like words.

Then, second, there are people who like charts, graphs and financial tables. Not me.

Finally, third, there are people who like photos and graphics. This is not me, but a partner in my firm excels at using graphics to tell a story. Good for him, but I do not have that particular ability.

I suppose it could be contended that, if the goal is to communicate, then you ought to be able to employ all of the three methods listed above. If so, there is more work for me.

For me, as a “words person,” all of this came to mind the other day when I read a story in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) about the forced departure of Ryan Zinke, director of the Interior Department.

Here is a paragraph from the WSJ:

“…Zinke’s departure will be one of several personnel changes in the administration as Trump enters his third year in office. On Friday, Trump announced that the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, would assume the role of acting White House chief of staff, taking the place of outgoing chief of staff John Kelly. A number of other top White House officials are also expected to leave the administration.”

Note the last sentence that I have placed in bold.

The sentence is not grammatically correct. It should be:

“A number of other top White House officials is also expected to leave the administration.”

Sounds terrible, but is is the correct word to modify the start of the sentence – “A number of other….”

If I were a language king for a day, I would change the rule to allow the modifier “are.” Or, I would write the sentence differently, such as: “Some top White House officials are expected to leave the administration.”

That’s correct. The word “are” modifies the start of the sentence with the word “some.”

Why do I care about this? Who knows?

It may be that, in retirement when it’s too cold, too rainy or two windy to play golf, I have nothing better to do than reflect on this type of minor issue.

Or, for another of my hot buttons, consider this sentence: “The committee was heavily involved in doing their business in the public meeting.”

The word “their” is wrong. The correct modifier should be the word “its.” In this case, using the right modifier does not grate on the ear, so, I say, from my position in the cheap seats, just do this one correctly.

More of these hot buttons when I find –or remember — more.

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.

On the occasion of a controversial decision by a judge in a Federal Circuit Court to declare the Affordable Health Care law unconstitutional, it is a good time to resurrect my ideas for middle-of-road health care reform.

Members of Congress are deciding what to do, either legislation to save pre-existing coverage or ask another court to overturn last week’s ruling.

I post this blog, at least in part, so a partner of mine in my old lobbying and public relations firm cannot justifiably accuse of me joining many Republicans, including those who applauded the circuitous reasoning of the federal judge, of having no ideas on health care except to say “no.”

On the contrary, I have health care reform ideas. I have these based on my 25 years as a lobbyist in Oregon where I handled major health care and health insurance issues for one of Oregon’s largest employers, Providence Health and Services.

I believe that a country such as ours, with all of its various political viewpoints, should be able to solve the health care public policy challenge. Doing so will require courage and a willingness, on occasion, to risk political repercussions.

A solution can emerge if, in contrast to the Obama Administration, the goal is to produce a program somewhere in the middle, not one adopted by only one side or the other.

As columnist Kimberley Strassel wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Republicans already agree on the general contours of a free-market proposal—one based on tax credits, entitlement reform, freer insurance markets, portable policies and fewer mandates. The internal debates are over scope and details, not approach.”

And, for me, the dutiful analyst, the key problem for Republicans is that they don’t like what should be one of the cornerstones of reform – a mandate to buy health insurance. See below for more on this.

Senior Democrats crafted the Affordable Health Care Act – it came to be called ObamaCare — in backrooms, foregoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues, much less Republicans. It was an exercise in secrecy and control.

The then and now-future Speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi, because famous for one of her quotes. “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

In other words, pass the 2,000 page health care bill, even if you don’t read it. Pelosi and her Democrat friends did just that.

It’s time for something different, a middle-of-the-road plan that takes into account perspectives from reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress – and, yes, there are still a few reasonable folks at the Capitol who are interested in more than their next election. They want to govern.

Here are what could be called my “four legs of the health care stool.”

1. It won’t be popular in some quarters, especially with some Republicans, but, first, a critical component of reform is to require all citizens to have health insurance, either by buying it if they can afford it, or by having it provided by government if they cannot.

If everyone is not in the “to-be-insured pool,” any system will collapse, much as occurred with ObamaCare. The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk. If a large pool is not insured, those who do have insurance will pay more as those without insurance inevitably run into health care needs.

Think of this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. The same policy should exist for health insurance.

2. Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan, even if government has to pay for at least part of the coverage.

As the American Enterprise Institute has written: “Health insurance is also important for financial security. The ObamaCare replacement (if there is one) should make it possible for all people to get health insurance that provides coverage for basic prevention, like vaccines, and expensive medical care that exceeds, perhaps, $5,000 for individuals.

“Those Americans who don’t get health insurance through employers, or Medicare and Medicaid, should be eligible for a refundable tax credit that can be used to enroll in a health-insurance plan. The credit would be set at a level comparable to the tax benefits available to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance plans. The subsidy would be enough to make a basic level of catastrophic coverage easily affordable for all Americans.”

3. Third, any new middle-of-the-road health coverage approach should accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

I have mixed emotions about this because, inevitably, the price of insurance will go up with the added risk of covering pre-existing conditions. Yet, there is a reasonable social consensus that people should not be penalized financially for health problems largely outside of their control.

And, many political analysts agreed that, in the recent mid-term election, fears of losing pre-existing coverage if Republicans were in charge prompted many voters to case ballots for Democrats.

4. Fourth, any new plan should allow broad access to health-savings accounts (HSA). ObamaCare pushed millions of Americans into high-deductible insurance without giving them the opportunity to save and pay for care before insurance kicks in. There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs, combined with high-deductible insurance, could be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As millions of consumers begin using HSAs, the medical-care market will begin to transform and deliver services that are convenient and affordable for patients.

American health care is teetering because it relies too much on government mandates and funding. A functioning marketplace can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

Among other things, this means that Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposal for a single payer system will – and should – crater on its own demerits. It simply will not be possible for the federal government to pay the bill for Sanders’ system or one like it.

One other feature of middle ground health care reform should rely on the fact that America offers both Medicaid and Medicare coverage. That represents a solid grounding for further reform.

If Congress and the Trump Administration move to do something different than a government, top-down ObamaCare approach, the time right to develop a system that empowers consumers to take more responsibility for their own health care and that of their families.

A political approach from the middle is the only way to achieve acceptable reform that has the potential to surmount the inevitable naysayers – and do what America should be able to do, which is to reform health care.

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 “jobs issue?” On the part of political leaders, it is a recognition that having a job is the key to many public policy questions.

I have written about this before, in two ways:

1. Politicians often belittle the idea of creating or saving jobs and it remains a puzzle to me as I believe that creating or savings jobs is critical for the health of any city, county or state – and for entire country, for that matter.
2. And, recently, some of these same political figures have criticized efforts by cities, counties and state to entice Amazon’s second HQ decision, which eventually went to the East Coast near New York. And, those political figures often don’t even recognize the jobs that would be created – in this case, 50,000 jobs – the taxes those job holders would pay.

The most recent example of this intentional oversight occurred this weekend with publication of piece by a resident of the University of Texas “Ivory Tower” for professors who have nothing to do but criticize some else’s work.

The story appeared under this headline:

The Amazon HQ2 Fiasco Was No Outlier

There’s little evidence that the economic-development incentives offered by cities and states work—except for letting politicians crow

The author wrote this:

“This (his own study) points to the open secret of economic development: Though incentives are rarely effective in changing firms’ investment decisions, they do allow politicians to attend ribbon-cutting ceremonies where they can highlight their own role in attracting a new company (or retaining an old one) and creating jobs.”

Throughout the author’s long piece, there was not one mention of the jobs that Amazon has pledged to create. And, of course, without that mention, there also was no mention of the taxes those job holders would pay – taxes that would support a variety of services, including education and public safety.

Economic development is always a controversial government program and I know whereof I speak dating to my tenure as deputy director of Oregon’s Economic Development Department, now called Business Oregon.

So, call me biased. I am.

Many in government believe the private sector should be left to its own devices in creating or saving jobs. Do so or don’t – we don’t care. Just, at the same time, contend with all government regulatios.

But, as prevalent as that proposition is – government should not be involved in economic development — the main posit of this blog is that any analysis of economic development programs ought to be full-throated and complete.

Count the jobs that are to be created or saved.

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 points strike me as I reflect on the headline to this blog.

• One is that, as Americans, we are addicted to It has become the signature emotion of American public life.
• The second is reflected in the following paragraph from a recent column by one of my favorite writers, Peggy Noonan, whose work appears in the Wall Street Journal.

“Here is my concern,” Noonan writes “Politics is part theater, part showbiz, it’s always been emotional, but we’ve gotten too emotional, both parties. It’s too much about feelings and how moved you are. The balance is off. We have been electing magic ponies in our presidential contests, and we have done this while slighting qualities like experience, hard and concrete political accomplishment, even personal maturity. Barack Obama, whatever else he was, was a magic pony. Donald Trump too. Beto O’Rourke, who is so electrifying Democrats, also appears to be a magic pony.”

So, instead of real political perspectives, we – and I know it is a generalization to use the word “we” because not all Americans fit into the box – operate out of outrage and looking for magic ponies.

Lance Morrow, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former essayist for Time, wrote recently about the outrage addiction.

“People have been mad as hell for much of the 21st century, starting roughly with the stalemated Bush-Gore election in 2000, followed quickly by 9/11. Fundamentals have been changing fundamentally: marriage, sexual identity, racial politics, geopolitics.

“Outrage flourishes also because of the rise of social media— the endless electronic brawl—and because it plays so well on our screens. Cable news draws pictures in crayon, in bold primary colors that turn politics into cartoons. On the left, ‘stay woke’ means ‘stay outraged.’ Trumpians want to ‘lock her up’ or ‘build a wall.’ Outrage is reductive, easy to understand. It is an idiom of childhood—a throwback even to the terrible twos (of childhood).”

Reflecting on good points by both Noonan and Morrow, I believe we, as citizens, we need to move beyond outrage and the magic ponies. We need to identify honest, forthright and ethical political leaders who won’t stoop, figuratively or even literally, to yelling on the street corner to attempt to get their way. And who won’t assume that anyone who disagrees with them is nuts.

We need political leaders who will pledge, once elected, to do the public’s business – to take actions designed to find, as I like to say, “the smart middle.”

We don’t need magic ponies or intentional outrage. If both continue, it is not an exaggeration to say that the future of our form of democracy is literally at stake.

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.

NOTE: This is the second of two blogs on the issue of a chief of staff to a political leader – a governor in Oregon or a president in the U.S., though mostly the former

The question in this blog headline is percolating around Washington, D.C. these days as the long-predicted has happened – the current chief of staff to President Donald Trump, military veteran John Kelly, is leaving at the end of the year.

Here is what Wall Street Journal editorial writers said about Kelly:

“…Trump hates discipline, especially self-discipline, and so he has chafed under Kelly’s regimen. The wonder is that Kelly has lasted as long as he has considering the verbal abuse he has so often taken from his boss. The chief has also taken unwarranted abuse from the Beltway political class that wants to stigmatize anyone who works for Trump, as if it would be better if the White House were run solely by the Trump family.”

The most likely successor to Kelly, Nick Ayers, chief of staff to Vice President Michael Pence, took himself out of the running in a move that appeared to catch Trump and his minions off guard.

Several names have emerged as possible Kelly successors, with no apparent front-runner. And, after all, who would want the job of trying to serve a mercurial president who conducts himself more as a carnival barker or a reality TV show host than the leader of the free world?

Smart people would demur. They are.

All this, of course, is playing out far where I live. But the “chief of staff episode” in D.C. has prompted me to reflect on the qualities of a solid chief of staff, particularly here in Oregon. My perspective has been honed in Oregon over more than 40 years involved in and around state government.

That experience gave me a chance to work for and relate to a number of chiefs of staff for governors in Oregon and I have found all of them to be effective, as well as treated with respect by the governor they served. That is critical for a position that, in effect, is the #2 state government executive, not in line of succession, but in management reach over government.

In Oregon, the person named by a governor to be director of the Department of Administrative Services also functions as “chief operating officer” for state government. Which means, for the daily routine of state management, agency directors report to the COO. The leaves both the governor and the chief of staff free to focus on major issues of management AND political leadership, not just the former.

The other day I talked about all this with my friend, Gerry Thompson, who served Governor Vic Atiyeh as chief of staff. It was for Gerry that I worked a stint as press secretary to the governor.

She said the most important credential for a chief of staff is mutual trust between the governor and the chief. Without that, no list of other credentials matters.

Here is a summary of the qualities that I find important as I look at the chief of staff position in Oregon – and it would be tough, given the current occupant of the White House, to ascribe any of these credentials to the D.C. post.

1. Knowledge of government issues and processes
2. Ability to implement the governor’s directives
3. Strength to argue with the governor about what he or she wants to do in the spirit of achieving the objective, but doing so in a better way – or even that the proposed action may not be in the state’s best interest
4. Ability to manage staff and imbue them with a sense of purpose
5. Find the balance to be in charge of the governor’s staff, but allow them to do their jobs
6. Function as the main gatekeeper in terms of access to the governor (but, according to Gerry Thompson, don’t just limit access arbitrarily; do so in a way that assures that the governor sees people he or she needs to see, not just his or her friends)
7. Ability to relate to Oregon legislators
8. Ability to translate the governor’s agenda to the public, including through the media in cooperation with the governor’s press secretary
9. Manage state government relationships with the federal government, including the Oregon Congressional Delegation
10. Handle other duties as assigned based in a relationship of mutual trust with the governor (there’s that word again – trust)

Too much to ask? Perhaps.

But I have seen the system work well in Oregon, much better than in the current Administration in Washington, D.C.

If I was governor – perish the thought, just know that I never will hold that position – I would want the best chief of staff possible to help me do my job as the state’s primary political leader.