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.

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 suspect that few people will care about how I feel about President Donald Trump as he crosses the mid-point of his first term in the Oval Office.

But, for those few who do care, my view is that Trump has been a disaster because he ignores nearly all of the conventions of being the free world’s leader.

Conventions aren’t bad. If that is all you do as president – observe the conventions – that is bad. But, if conventions are a means to an end in which you achieve some of your objectives in politics, good. If, by observing the conventions, you express your priorities, as well as oppose those who disagree with you without intentionally establishing those disagreements as personal, good.

Trump observes none of these important conventions:

• If you don’t agree with Trump, he’ll label you stupid, often in harsh, over-the-top words.
• He builds resentments, capitalizing on those resentments, to assert that he always knows best.
• If you happen to be in a room with Trump, know that he always thinks he is the smartest person there regardless of issue or subject.
• If you hear Trump talk – or read his tweets, his main method of communicating – you will likely hear at least one non-truth per minute. [The Washington Post has estimated that Trump tells at least 15 lies per day, so it is clear truth doesn’t matter to Trump.]
• If you work for Trump, but don’t operate as a yes-person, you’ll soon be fired – often, as we have seen recently, the act of firing occurring via a Trump tweet, not a personal conversation.
• If you care about government processes that produce a product – one of my favorite phrases – then you will be disappointed by Trump who always flies by the seat of his pants. No observable process. Normal political conventions be damned.

Okay, if you care about policy results, through whatever conventions, if any, Washington Post columnist Mark Thiessen produced this list of Trump accomplishments in 2018. Unfortunately, Thiessen uses the word “he” to refer to Trump as if he alone deserves singular credit – which is what Trump usually wants, but does not deserve.

Here’s the list:

• He has secured the release of 19 people, including 16 Americans, from foreign captivity.
• He delivered for the “forgotten Americans.”
• He worked with Democrats and Republicans to pass important legislation.
• He has ushered in a golden age for women in the CIA.
• His push to expand domestic energy production bore fruit.
• In the six months after the Singapore summit with North Korea, he has made no concessions to Pyongyang.
• He struck Syria again and eliminated the last vestiges of the Islamic State’s physical caliphate.
• He’s continued his tough line with Moscow.
• He pulled out of Obama’s disastrous Iran deal and reimposed crippling sanctions on Tehran.
• He stood by Brett M. Kavanaugh and even in the worst moments never wavered.

A day later, Thiessen listed these disappointments in the most recent Trump year.

• His comment about “sh—hole countries” blew up negotiations for a deal that would have given Trump his border wall.
• His offensive tweets continued to undermine his presidency.
• His misuse of power turned critics into martyrs.
• He drove away suburban voters and caused the GOP to lose control of the House.
• His graceless handling of Sen. John McCain’s funeral was a new low.
• His handling of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder harmed America’s moral standing.
• His news conference with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki was an embarrassment.
• His policy to separate migrant children from their families at the southern border was an avoidable tragedy.
• His planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan is a gift to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
• His pullout of all U.S. troops in Syria will take America’s boot off of the terrorists’ necks.

Again, Thiessen gives ALL the credit – or debit – to Trump. The truth is that the debit should go to Trump AND the minions who simply take his orders as if they are God-given, which, again, is what Trump wants.

In Trump’s first two years in office, there are, indeed, some accomplishments. But, often, the way Trump gets things done, without much presidential character, mars the results.

If you are incoming U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, you decide, for some reason, to prepare an opinion piece criticizing the president you will need to find a way to work with over two years leading up to the next presidential election.

Here is what Romney wrote:

“To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”

As we enter a new year, develop your reflections on the guy in the Oval Office.

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 cannot help but start the new year with a collection of words from Dave Barry, a humorist who, this time, has prepared a “2018 Year in Review” for the Washington Post.

If you want to have a few laughs over “stuff” in 2018, skim Barry’s piece in the Post.

To save you from that full errand, here is a collection of his prescient comment on the past year.

“We can summarize 2018 in two words,” Barry says: “It boofed.”

“We’re not 100 per cent sure what ‘boofing’ is, despite the fact that this very issue was discussed in a hearing of the United States Judiciary Committee. All we know for certain about boofing is that it is distasteful and stupid.”

“What made this year so awful?” Barry asks. “We could list many factors, including natural disasters, man-made atrocities, the utter depravity of our national political discourse…” Instead, we’ll cite one event that, while minor, epitomizes 2018: The debut of “Dr. Pimple Popper.” This is a cable TV reality show featuring high-definition slo-mo close-up videos of a California dermatologist performing seriously disgusting procedures on individuals with zits the size of mature cantaloupes. You might ask, ‘Who on Earth would voluntarily watch that?’ The answer, in 2018, was: MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. That is the state of our culture. We can only imagine what new reality shows lie ahead. We would not rule out ‘Dr. Butt Wiper’ or ‘People Blow Their Noses Directly Onto the Camera Lens.’”

So, here’s more from Barry:

• As you recall, we, as a nation, spent all of 2017 obsessing over 2016: The election, the Russians, the emails, the Mueller probe, the Russians, the Russians, the Russians. … That was all we heard about, day after soul-crushing day, for the entire year.

So when 2018 finally dawned, we were desperately hoping for change. It was a new year, a chance for the nation to break out of the endless, pointless barrage of charges and countercharges, to move past the vicious, hate-filled hyper-partisan spew of name-calling and petty point-scoring, to end the 24/7 cycle of media hysteria, to look forward and begin to tackle the many critical issues facing the nation, the most important of which turned out to be……the 2016 election.

• World tensions rise when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un states that he has a nuclear missile launch button on his desk. This leaves U.S. Commander in Chief Donald Trump with no viable military option but to fire up his Random Capitalizer App and tweet, “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger and more powerful one than his,” thereby leaving no doubt as to which leader is more secure regarding the size of his button.
• The intellectual level of the national discourse soars even higher when it is reported that, during an Oval Office meeting on immigration reform, the president referred to some poorer nations as “s-holes.” This upsets many people, especially the frowny panel-persons of CNN, who find the word “s—hole” so deeply offensive that they repeat it roughly 15 times per hour for a solid week. Washington is consumed by a heated debate over what, exactly, the president said; the tone and substance of this debate are reflected in this actual sentence from a Washington Post story: “Three White House officials said Senator David Perdue and Senator Tom Cotton told the White House that they heard ‘s—house’ rather than ‘s—hole,’ allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend.” (This is known in legal circles as the “s—house defense.”)
• In non-s—hole news, the residents of Hawaii experience an exciting Saturday morning when they receive the following message on their phones from the state’s Emergency Management Agency: “BALLISTIC MISSLE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.” Hawaii’s governor, David Ige, is quickly informed that it’s a false alarm but 17 extremely tense minutes go by before he gets the word out on social media. Asked later about the delay, he says — we are not making this quote up — “I have to confess that I don’t know my Twitter account logons and the passwords.” This statement arouses powerful feelings of longing among high-level Trump advisers.
• The fiasco leads to the resignation of the head of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, who immediately accepts a position as director of pet transportation for United Airlines.
• With yet another government shutdown looming, Congress, whose irresponsible spending practices have put the nation on the road to fiscal disaster, faces a choice. It can either:

1. Continue to spend huge amounts of money that we don’t have, or
2. Not.

After much late-night drama, Congress agrees on a compromise deal under which it will continue to spend huge amounts of money that we don’t have. This display of leadership solves the budget problem permanently until March, when Congress will once again tackle the complex problem of government spending.

• In domestic sports, the Eagles defeat the Patriots to win their first Super Bowl, and huge crowds of joyous Philadelphia fans celebrate by destroying downtown Boston.
• Secretary of State Rex Tillerson learns that President Trump has fired him when, during an official visit to Africa, he is ejected from his State Department plane at 35,000 feet.

No, seriously, Tillerson learns of his firing via a presidential tweet which says: “Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service!” So mid-air ejection would actually have been more dignified.

• Speaking of incompetence: Congress averts yet another government shutdown by passing, with President Trump signing, a bill under which the government will — prepare to be shocked — spend a truly insane amount of money that it does not have.
• Meanwhile President Trump, faced with — among other problems — a continuing immigration crisis, increased Russian aggression in Syria and a looming trade war with China, launches a barrage of assault tweets at what is clearly the biggest threat to the nation: Amazon.com. Trump is forced to back down when the retail giant threatens to suspend the White House’s Amazon Prime membership and cancel delivery of a large order placed by the Defense Department, including six nuclear submarines, two aircraft carriers and a missile defense system with a five-star average rating from other nations.
• The biggest story by far is the wedding of American ex-actress Meghan Markle to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, who is in the direct line of succession to the British throne behind Prince Louis of Cambridge, who is behind Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, who is behind Prince George of Cambridge, who is behind Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, who is behind Charles, Prince of Wales, who is 70, but any year now could get his shot at becoming the anachronistic ceremonial figurehead of one of the world’s most second-rate powers. With the stakes so high, the media giddiness level soars to Defcon 1; the wedding cake alone gets more media coverage than Africa and global climate change combined.
• In entertainment news, Roseanne Barr sends out a tasteless, idiotic tweet and immediately has her network show canceled, thereby illustrating a key difference between being a sitcom star and being president of the United States.
• In other domestic news, Sen. Chuck “The Human Bandwagon” Schumer, citing studies showing that every living American adult except Mitt Romney has tried pot, introduces a bill that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level and “create a massive bureaucracy tasked with wasting millions of dollars on things like bong-safety regulations.”
• Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announces his decision to retire, creating an important opportunity for the nation’s political leaders to demonstrate that, although the public might have a low opinion of them as a group, it is nowhere near low enough.
• Meanwhile Seattle becomes the first major U.S. city to ban plastic straws and utensils in all restaurants. San Francisco, sensing a threat to its status as front-runner in the Progressivelympics, responds by banning food and beverages in all restaurants.
• In a coordinated nationwide response to Trump’s repeated attacks on the press, sternly worded editorials rebuking the president are published in more than 300 newspapers with a combined editorial-page readership estimated at nearly 14 people. For his part, CNN’s Jim Acosta courageously confronts White House press secretary Sarah Sanders over this issue, despite the very real risk that he will have to feature himself prominently in his report on this harrowing incident.
• In business news, Apple becomes the first publicly traded U.S. company to be worth $1 trillion, thanks to its shrewd business model of constantly coming out with costly new products that require costly chargers that are completely different from all the costly Apple chargers you already have, and sometimes spontaneously mutate overnight in such a way as to require even newer and costlier Apple chargers.
• Washington is atingle with a level of excitement that can only result from a clash of two high-voltage personalities: Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both having served in the Senate since shortly before the Big Bang. The committee holds two hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the second devoted to explosive allegations contained in a letter that was delivered back in July to Feinstein, who, what with one thing and another, failed to mention it until September.

1. The senators have no idea what, if anything, actually happened.
2. Nor do they care.
3. The truth is utterly irrelevant to them.
4. They all decided long ago how they were going to vote, based entirely on political calculations.
5. Given exactly the same testimony but different political circumstances, every single senator would passionately espouse the position diametrically opposite the one he or she is passionately espousing now.

• The nation braces for what political analysts agree will be the most important mid-term elections since the dawn of time. Voters prepare for the big day by binge-watching Netflix, because regular TV has turned into a gushing sewer of political attack ads apparently created by and for dimwitted 4-year-olds.
• For their part, the Democrats appeal to voters with a three-pronged message:

Prong One: The Democrats are the party of fairness, diversity and inclusion.

Prong Two: Anybody who disagrees with the Democrats about anything is Hitler.

Prong Three: But more racist.

• The election goes smoothly, except of course in Florida, which should seriously consider outsourcing all of its government functions to a competent organization, such as Montana. As usual the most confused county in Florida is Broward — often called “the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency of counties” — which to this day is not 100 per cent certain how it voted in Dewey vs. Truman.
• Meanwhile the ongoing saga that is “The Jim Acosta Story, Starring Jim Acosta as Jim Acosta” takes a thrilling turn when Jim gets into a dramatic struggle with a White House intern over a microphone.
• In business news, Amazon, after a much-publicized nationwide search, announces that it will locate new headquarters in Arlington, Va., and New York City, in return for tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and replacement of the Statue of Liberty with a 340-foot-tall statue of Jeffrey Bezos naked.
• Meanwhile in a devastating blow to the U.S. humor industry, Michael Avenatti announces that he will not run for president. His departure narrows the potential Democratic field to pretty much every Democrat politician ever, including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, somebody called “Beto” and the late Hubert Humphrey, all of whom believe Trump will be vulnerable in 2020, as confidently predicted by the many expert political observers who also confidently predicted Hillary Clinton’s presidency.
• All this happens as congressional Democrats prepare to take control of the House of Representatives, where they plan to implement an ambitious agenda focused on the No. 1 concern of the American people, which of course is …The 2016 elections!

Once again, Barry knocks it out of the park. Good to have a little humor at the expense of political figures who conduct themselves as if they are the most important people in the world.

Better for them to heed the words of incoming U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, former candidate for president of the United States. He wrote this in a piece in the Washington Post:

“To re-assume our leadership in world politics, we must repair failings in our politics at home. That project begins, of course, with the highest office once again acting to inspire and unite us. It includes political parties promoting policies that strengthen us rather than promote tribalism by exploiting fear and resentment. Our leaders must defend our vital institutions despite their inevitable failings: A free press, the rule of law, strong churches, and responsible corporations and unions.”