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 lawmakers in Oregon head for Salem soon for the 2019 “long legislative session,” it is a good time to repeat advice I have given earlier – a list of questions elected officials should ask before they move ahead on any individual piece of legislation.

The four questions listed below are ones frequently ignored as legislators consider the thousands of bills 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, when you add up totals for thousands of individual bills, costs thousands of dollars of staff time for the attorneys who draft all bills.

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,” though, of course, “yes” is a justifiable answer, as well. But, the question is rarely asked or answered.

If there is a role for government, what does the state expect to get for the money it is spending? 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.

In fact, in social services law in Oregon, the first instance of the use of the return on investment notion in private contracting law occurred in the 2011 legislative session when lawmakers passed and the governor signed Senate Bill 964, now ORS 418.190-195.

It requires programs that contract with state government on foster care issues to produce results or lose the contracts.

In terms of full disclosure, I was the prime advocate for the bill on behalf of my firm’s client, Youth Villages, which said on the record that it would be happy to compete for government contracts under the new policy if it were to be enacted.

At the time, I would have hoped that the officials at the Department of Human Services would support the proposition because, if nothing else, it would help end contracts that were not performing effectively. But, no, we were able to pass the proposition only over the objections of the agency.

How will government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state 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.

I like what Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, wrote in a Wall Street Journal piece several years ago.

“We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise.  We have to let them compete.  We need to let people fight for business.  We need to let people take risks.  We need to let people fail.  We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions.  And, we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

         “That is what economic freedom looks like.  Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or to do nothing.  People understand this.  Freedom of speech, for example, means that we have to put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular.  We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.       

         “But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles or growth and loss, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

         “Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedom through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations.  We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it.  We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws.  We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved.  Each time, we demand, “Do something…anything.”

Using good words, Bush was advocating a posture that said government always should assess the effect of its actions on private citizens, often allowing those citizens to rise, not be confined by excessive government regulation.

Asking and answering the questions I have outlined above, with the spirit of the Bush quote as a backdrop, would go a long way toward creating appropriate limitations on the role of government, both in Oregon and nationally.

It also would make government better. So, I say to legislators as they arrive in Salem after the first of the year, ask the right questions and don’t be afraid to answer logically and honestly! Doing so will benefit all of those who depend on government “to get it right.”

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

One reality I have never understood and will never understand is the disdain with which President Donald Trump treats military service personnel, including genuine American heroes.

It appears he thinks they are the enemy.

Hard on the heels of Veterans’ Day, Trump has gone nuclear again.

This time, he lofted substantial criticism of former Seal Team Six commander, retired Admiral Bill McRaven, suggesting that McRaven should have caught Osama Bin Laden sooner.

Of course, the fact that it was not McRaven’s job to find Bin Laden didn’t matter to Trump who, as usual, avoid facts and context. It was McRaven’s job, once Bin Laden was located by the Central Intelligence Agency, to do what he did, which was lead the effort to rid the world of this terrorist.

Leon Panetta who was CIA director during the bin Laden raid and later served as secretary of defense, said Trump owed an apology to McRaven and to all of those in the military and intelligence agencies who played a role in tracking down bin Laden and carrying out the risky raid into Pakistan. He called Trump’s remark “patently ridiculous.”

On top of that, McRaven also led Seal Team Six to capture former Iraq leader Saddam Hussein.

For these and other demonstrations of true, expert and sacrificial leadership, McRaven deserves the country’s thanks, not derision from the president.

Trump didn’t care about his sleights of McRaven. They only came on top of other slams against the military, which Trump, at least on paper, leads as commander in chief.

Other examples:

• Incredibly, Trump criticized the late Senator Jon McCain because he, Trump, said he respects military service personnel “who don’t get captured.”
• Incredibly, on the most recent Veterans’ Day, Trump failed to participate in ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery to mark the service of those who died defending the country. What did he say? That he was “too busy.”
• Incredibly, Trump has sent thousands of active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out those participating in what he calls a “caravan.” The fact that Trump’s initial action came shortly before the November 6 mid-term election struck a number of observers as nothing more than a political stunt.

All of this makes even less because Trump never served a minute in the military. Selfless service to his country was not in his makeup. Never was. Never will be.

As a narcissist, it’s all about aggrandizing himself at the expense of others.

My views are that, (a) Trump owes the late Senator McCain an apology, even though McCain will never hear it in person…his family will: (b) Trump owes McRaven an apology, though he, Trump, will never offer it; and (c) Trump should visit Arlington National Cemetery if only to reflect on the sacrifice and service of so many which, irony of ironies, have benefited Trump and others who live and work in a free society.

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 I write this, I am sitting in La Quinta, California where, yes, more golf is on my agenda.

But between golf games, I have had some time to reflect on developing a wish list for the Oregon Legislature where I plied my trade as a lobbyist for more than 25 years.

It is easy to have a wish list from the cheap seats, but that’s all it is – a wish list, not something I have to support in the hallways at the Capitol.

So, here goes:

• I wish legislators would find a way to get about the business of governing instead of reverting to the normal gambit, which is to begin campaigning for election immediately. It is a problem that dogs the Oregon Legislature, but is even more prevalent in Congress. And that’s what produces gridlock and acrimony.
• I wish legislators would find a way to make the tough decisions about the role of government, including the decision that, no, this or that new issue is not appropriate for government action.

At the bottom of this blog, I repeat the basic questions I believe legislators should ask before they take action on individual bills. It is appropriate to list these questions again as lawmakers plan to return to Salem after the first of the year.

• I wish legislators would find a way to trim state government spending before they immediately support new taxes. Because the Democrats have super-majorities in both the House and the Senate, increasing taxes will be very tempting, especially because the Ds can do what they want to do without enticing any Rs to join them. Spending control is not a goal.

Instead, state agencies develop a new two-year budget proposal based on the last one. There is seldom, if ever, a process to consider whether the initial two-year budget should be continued for another two years. That’s not spending control.

• I wish those who lead the Legislature would find a way to prod more movement toward meeting in the middle – perhaps not the exact middle – on a variety of public policy issues. That’s often where the best solutions lie anyway. The trouble, of course, is that those who lead the legislature belong to the party in charge, so their goal is often to support their party, not to prod action toward the middle.

Permit me to two examples.

1. Back in 2011, the legislature was evenly split down the middle in both houses. There were 30 Democrats in the House and 30 Republicans. There were 15 of each in the Senate. The split made for better policy decisions because legislators had no choice but to find middle ground.
2. Another reform – I know it has very little, if any, chance of being enacted – is to form joint committees on every issue in Salem, not just on the budget, where the joint committee is called Joint Ways and Means. It counts as members both Ds and Rs, as well as both representatives and senators. Do the same for other committees.

In this case, there is a requirement in the Oregon Constitution that the budget must be in balance, so there is no choice other than to do the deed. Such a constitutional requirement doesn’t exist in other areas – health care, transportation, environmental regulation, public safety and others. But, while the House Speaker and the Senate President would never tolerate wholesale joint committees, the idea still makes sense from the perspective of driving legislators toward compromise. Legislators would have to spend ALL session working together to produce consensus.

Enough. From the cheap seats, I have no doubt that I will think of more grand reform ideas, even if none of which have a chance to be enacted. For now, I’ll leave it here, with the addition being what appears below – questions legislators should ask before they act.

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

Is there an appropriate role for government to play?

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

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

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 don’t say this every often, but the Wall Street Journal got it wrong the other day. At least I hope the normally credible newspaper did.

Perhaps it’s presumptuous of me to question work by what is a very competent group of journalists which helps to earn the Journal’s moniker as a leading, if not the leading, national newspaper.

The editorial said: “the House Minority Leader’s first and only job of a House minority is to become a majority.”

Perhaps part of that is true. For a leader in the minority, moving to majority status is always a key part of the task. But “the first and only job?” No.

Another job is to function as what we used to call the “loyal opposition,” meaning that those in the minority in our democracy can contribute to the development of solid policy from their position on “the other side of the political aisle.”

Of course, in this case, this requires that Democrats, now in power, spend a moment listening to Republicans. It is likely they will not and will justify their deaf ear to how they believed Republicans treated Democrats when the Rs were in power.

So, again, we have the never-ending “one bad turn deserves another” problem. The goal is to get even, not to get stuff done.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that House Republicans “are about to discover the pain of irrelevance,“ which also may be true.

“The last player chosen each spring in the National Football League draft is referred to as Mr. Irrelevant for his small chance of making a team roster in the fall. An analogy in politics is House Minority Leader, so congratulations to Kevin McCarthy on his selection Wednesday to lead House Republicans in 2019. He’s Rep. Irrelevant.”

The closest the Journal gets to advocating a policy role for minority Republicans – call it “governance” – is when it suggests Republicans “can play important roles in defending Trump Administration officials, when warranted, against Democratic excess.”

I think there is more, but the “more” will require both the Ds and the Rs to dispatch campaigning for governing.

In all of this, I’ll bet one person who is glad to be leaving the mess in Congress is outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan. He performed, the Journal says, “the thankless duty of being trashed by back-benchers in safe seats and Never Trumpers from the moral high ground of the bleachers.”

His time herding cats in the House meant that he could not deploy his obvious skills in major policy formulation, something he cultivated when he came into office, but had to leave behind when he got there. He also had to contend with President Trump, another thankless task.

As always, my interest in the coming Congress is whether those who won – and those whose party lost – can get about the business of governing, not campaigning. It’s easy to be pessimistic about this, but, still, I prefer to hold out at least a faint hope that American democracy can work.

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.

Most of the questions about conducting fair and verifiable elections have swirled – again – around Broward County, which has an troubling history when it comes to running elections.

But, as a point of interest, as fairly minor issue has just emerged about the election in Oregon, which has tended to boast about a national reputation for fair process.

Given the continuing mess in Broward County, which dates back to the controversy over the razor-thin presidential election in the early 2000s involving George Bush and Al Gore, not to mention the current controversy over a U.S. Senate seat and the race for governor, I’d take one simple, straightforward action: Negate the entire election in Broward County.

Throw out the ballots, all of them. If you cannot trust the county to run a fair election, give election process managers the heave-ho. By extension, I admit this would take away the voting franchise for thousands of citizens, but better that than to allow a tainted election to stand.

It would be the right thing to do for at least two reasons. First, it would throw out the tainted election. Second, it might get the attention of local officials – especially if there would be new ones running future elections who need to make huge improvements to preserve voting rights for citizens – fair and accurate voting results.

I have no idea whether throwing out all the votes would help the Democrats or Republicans. Frankly, I don’t care because preserving election processes is a higher goal.

I was aghast the other day when some Democrats in Congress suggested that election problems in Broward County stemmed from the fact that Congress did not appropriate enough funds to help counties run elections. Say what?

If Congress tried to help counties in the U.S., no one could afford the cost.

And, what about all of the county officials around the country who rely on their wherewithal, as well as state dollars, to run elections fair and square?

Back to Oregon.   A sweeping Democratic victory on election day wasn’t enough to prevent a post-election headache for one of Oregon’s most powerful party operatives and her Portland lawyer.

Here’s the way the Oregonian wrote about the debacle. “Becca Uherbelau, executive director of Our Oregon, and Steve Ungar, the group’s counsel, have until Wednesday to explain to state regulators why they turned in nearly 100 ballots the day after the Nov. 6 election deadline. The Secretary of State’s Elections Division opened an investigation after it received a complaint from Tim Scott, director of the Multnomah County Elections Division.

“Uherbelau and Ungar turned in the box of ballots on Nov. 7, preventing them from being counted in the mid-term election.

“Defend Oregon, a political action committee affiliated with Our Oregon, apparently gathered the ballots in an aggressive and legal get-out-the-vote effort. Canvassers went door to door asking residents if they needed or wanted assistance delivering their ballots.

“Scott said in his letter to the state that Defend Oregon handed in other boxes of ballots in time to be counted. The one box had apparently been overlooked until Wednesday.

“Defend Oregon apologized in a written statement. ‘We take voting and the right to vote very seriously at Defend Oregon, and so we were disheartened to learn that late on Election Day campaign staff failed to follow established ballot collection protocol,” the organization said. “When Defend Oregon learned of the mistake the next day, we immediately turned the ballots in to officials at the Multnomah County Elections office. We are deeply sorry for this mistake and breach of trust.’”

Reasonable people – I am one, by the way – can understand how it would be possible for operatives Oregon to misplace a box of returns and deliver them late.  Simple human error and, after all, ”only” 100 ballots were delivered late.

What cannot be understood is how Broward County can continue to flout election law. I say out throw out all the ballots there and appoint new officials to oversee elections.

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.

Appearing, of all places, on Saturday Night Live, incoming Member of Congress Dan Crenshaw made a compelling case for a new way of behaving, both in Congress and in life.

First, before describing his “new way,” here’s just a bit of background.

Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, was wounded in Afghanistan, enough so that he lost one eye and wears an eye patch.

During the recent mid-term election, Saturday Night Live comedian Pete Davidson thought he would take a jab at Crenshaw. He mocked Crenshaw’s appearance — “he lost his eye in war . . . or whatever.” Then, Davidson added that Crenshaw looked like a “hit man in a porno movie.”

Too far? Yes.

SNL got a huge number of texts and other social media message condemning Davidson’s brazen, not comedic, comments.

That prompted SNL producers to invite Crenshaw to appear on the show to set the record straight. With some misgivings – the format was not one made for him – Crenshaw eventually agreed.

So, on to Crenshaw’s “new way.”

In a Washington Post piece, Crenshaw adds: “…I also could not help but note that this was another chapter in a phenomenon that has taken complete control of the national discourse: Outrage culture. It seems like every not-so-carefully-worded public misstep must be punished to the fullest extent, replete with soapbox lectures and demands for apologies. Anyone who doesn’t show the expected level of outrage will be labeled a coward or an apologist for bad behavior. I get the feeling that regular, hard-working, generally unoffended Americans sigh with exhaustion — daily.

“Was I really outraged by SNL? Really offended? Or did I just think the comment about losing my eye was offensive? There is a difference, after all. I have been literally shot at before, and I wasn’t outraged. Why start now?”

Crenshaw added, perceptively, I think, that “there are many ideas that we will never agree on. The left and the right have different ways of approaching governance, based on contrasting philosophies. But many of the ultimate goals — economic prosperity, better health care and education, etc. — are the same. We just don’t share the same vision of how to achieve them.”

Crenshaw asks how we live together in this world of differing ideas?

“For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun.

“Similarly, people too often attack not just an idea but also the supposed intent behind an idea. That raises the emotional level of the debate and might seem like it strengthens the attacker’s side, but it’s a terrible way to make a point. Assuming the worst about your opponents’ intentions has the effect of demonizing their ideas, removing the need for sound counter-reasoning and fact-based argument. That’s not a good environment for the exchange of ideas.

“When all else fails, try asking for forgiveness, or granting it.”

Imagine if Crenshaw’s ideas took hold in Congress. We’d have a better Congress, one intent on doing the public’s business, not on ridiculing the other side, no matter the subject – and ridicule that focuses on the person, not the ideas.

Maybe, Crenshaw says, “we should all try to work toward restoring civility to public debate.”

There’s that word again – civility. I agree with Crenshaw — let’s add that dimension to our public policy debates – not left, not right, but civil.

And, this footnote: Of course, a new way of behaving in Congress won’t matter much if – or when – Donald Trump continues acting like a buffoon, lobbing huge criticism of anyone who doesn’t agree with him and displaying his narcissist credentials. Note to Crenshaw and others in Congress – ignore Trump.

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

The statement in the headline may come across as a bit gruff, but, in this day of political name-calling, it is likely to be true.

Not my wish. My prediction.

There is at least one notable required exception to this prediction for gridlock and disagreement. It is this:

The Oregon Constitution requires legislators to develop a balanced budget before they leave the Capitol at the end of any legislative session.

Note the word “balance.”

Most of us don’t associate the word with what happens in Washington, D.C. as Members of Congress develop a budget. What’s more, they don’t always develop an approved budget, which balances revenue with expenditures.

In Oregon, the word balance means that revenue must equal expenses. Must.

After a legislative session, when lawmakers are ready to leave Salem about late June or early July, the two-year budget they leave behind must be in balance.

This is achieved, among other things, by creating a joint committee to work all session on the budget. It is called the Joint Committee on Ways and Means and, in this case, the word joint means two things – that both Republicans and Democrats sit on it, and that membership includes both representatives and senators.

Usually, legislative committees are tied to one chamber, either the House or the Senate. They may have members of both parties, but not both chambers.

With Joint Ways and Means, the implication is that smart legislators – yes, there are some left – take all session to work on the budget, not just the last few weeks when tempers are short and pressure is on.

A few years ago, my friend, then Oregon House Speaker Larry Campbell, threatened to split the Joint Ways and Means Committee into one House committee and one Senate committee. All that would have done is postpone the inevitable – approving a balanced budget in accord with the State Constitution.

The good news is that Campbell’s threat never became reality and he probably realized it was a foolhardy move.

My view is that creating more joint committees – Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate members – would be one way to assure that legislators work together to find middle ground. Of course, you also might have to consider imposing a constitutional requirement to reach agreement on issues beyond the budget, which, admittedly, would be very difficult.

But something must be done because, at the moment, apart from the balanced budget requirement, the Oregon Legislature is heading down the road to becoming like Congress – in two ways. One is that those in charge – in Oregon, the Democrats are in charge everywhere – impose their will on the other side, often without even the barest form of consultation.

For an example – this time in Congress — look at the Affordable Care Act, commonly called ObamaCare. It passed without one Republican vote, which one of my friends would say shows that Republicans only know how to say “no.” For me, what it shows that the party in charge imposes its will.

The second implication for Oregon is that those who win election usually start running for re-election as soon as they get into office. There is a permanent campaign, with little, if any, support for the business of governing.

My idea – joint committees on all issues, not just the budget – won’t be enacted, but I suggest it because, as I wrote earlier, something must be done. Otherwise, we’ll face an Oregon Legislature that functions much like Congress that would not good for anyone.

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 exclamation in the headline pertains to a great weekend for me, one from which I just returned, but the memories will stay with me for a lifetime.

I had the privilege to head up to Woodinville, Washington at the request of my 10-year-old granddaughter, Kate, to be part of a grade school assembly where she, as an officer in her class, played one of the leading roles in a program to honor the nation’s veterans.

I am one, though I “only” served for six years in the U.S. Army Reserve, which my friends with more distinguished military service records said still counts for veteran status.

When your granddaughter asks for a favor, you don’t say no!

So, I was glad to head up north for what I assumed would be a relatively routine weekend. But, then, I encountered surprise after surprise.

Here’s a rundown:

• When I arrived at Wellington Grade School, my granddaughter said she wanted me, as a veteran, to join a parade with her to go into the gymnasium. We joined about 50 other veterans and their families to parade into the gym to thunderous applause, as we introduced ourselves and provided connections to a student at the school.
• Kate then proceeded to join two other students to serve as masters-of-ceremonies for a very impressive event, the most impressive one I have seen at any grade school in too many years of life to mention.
• Every student in the school participated in the assembly, often joining their voices in song to honor America.  The longest serving veteran at the assembly, by the way, was a gentleman whose service dated back to World War II. For me, it was back to the Vietnam war era, though as reservist, I did not go in-country in what was a devastating war, one from which many persons my age, including several personal friends, have never fully recovered.
• The large crowd in the gymnasium stood as one when a color guard from the University of Washington ROTC program presented the colors, marching in lockstep down the floor to plant the American flag. While everyone stood, a number of veterans in uniform saluted.
• In song after song over the next hour, the students expressed their allegiance to America. My wife and I could not help but notice that many of the students were children of immigrants, which tempts me to make a political statement or two, but, for now at least, I’ll refrain in order to emphasize the impressive character of a student body acting as one to honor America and those who served.
• After the assembly, another surprise for me. Along with my wife, Nancy, and my daughter, Lissy, we visited Kate’s class. The teacher there, Jeff Booth, was more than impressive. I have only seen one person in my life – my daughter-in-law, Holly Fiskum – who is able to work so much magic with grade schoolers.
• After reading parts of a book to the class, with entertainment-level diction and huge vocal expression, which had the students spellbound (me, too), Jeff asked me to come up and sit in the “hot seat.” Not knowing what was about to occur, I took my place and the class proceeded to sing happy birthday to me in two languages – English and Spanish. [Yes, my birthday was on November 2.]
• Jeff then proceeded to ask me about my military service. His question gave me an opportunity to emphasize, not my own service, but how important it is or all Americans – young and old alike — to consider volunteering in service to your country – either in the military or in life. As an aside, my granddaughter is vice president for philanthropy for her class, a role that asks her to lead various helping-hand services. A great learning experience for all the students.
• One of the students in the class nearly brought me to tears when, as I was leaving, he brought me a spontaneous gift – a drawing he had made with his own hand. Clearly, a keepsake for me!

I came away from the weekend experience with a renewed appreciation and respect for those who work in our classrooms, as well as for the students who, with a wonderful, Pied-Piper-like teacher, appear to eager to learn.

I also came away with huge appreciation for the commitment of students and teachers alike to express their love for America a day or two ahead of Veterans’ Day – and particularly to those men and women alike who have sacrificed to serve.

That’s one great weekend!

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 exclamation in the headline pertains to a great weekend for me, one from which I just returned, but the memories will stay with me for a lifetime.

I had the privilege to head up to Woodinville, Washington at the request of my 10-year-old granddaughter, Kate, to be part of a grade school assembly where she, as an officer in her class, played one of the leading roles in a program to honor the nation’s veterans.

I am one, though I “only” served for six years in the U.S. Army Reserve, which my friends with more distinguished military service records said still counts for veteran status.

When your granddaughter asks for a favor, you don’t say no!

So, I was glad to head up north for what I assumed would be a relatively routine weekend. But, then, I encountered surprise after surprise.

Here’s a rundown:

• When I arrived at Wellington Grade School, my granddaughter said she wanted me, as a veteran, to join a parade with her to go into the gymnasium. We joined about 50 other veterans and their families to parade into the gym to thunderous applause, as we introduced ourselves and provided connections to a student at the school.
• Kate then proceeded to join two other students to serve as masters-of-ceremonies for a very impressive event, the most impressive one I have seen at any grade school in too many years of life to mention.
• Every student in the school participated in the assembly, often joining their voices in song to honor America.  The longest serving veteran at the assemblyu, by the way, was a gentleman whose service dated back to World War II. For me, it was back to the Vietnam war era, though as reservist, I did not go in-country in what was a devastating war, one from which many persons my age, including several personal friends, have never fully recovered.
• The large crowd in the gymnasium stood as one when a color guard from the University of Washington ROTC program presented the colors, marching in lockstep down the floor to plant the American flag. While everyone stood, a number of veterans in uniform saluted.
• In song after song over the next hour, the students expressed their allegiance to America. My wife and I could not help but notice that many of the students were children of immigrants, which tempts me to make a political statement or two, but, for now at least, I’ll refrain in order to emphasize the impressive character of a student body acting as one to honor America and those who served.
• After the assembly, another surprise for me. Along with my wife, Nancy, and my daughter, Lissy, we visited Kate’s class. The teacher there, Jim Booth, was more than impressive. I have only seen one person in my life – my daughter-in-law, Holly Fiskum – who is able to work so much magic with grade schoolers.
• After reading parts of a book to the class, with entertainment-level diction and huge vocal expression, which had the students spellbound (me, too), Jim asked me to come up and sit in the “hot seat.” Not knowing what was about to occur, I took my place and the class proceeded to sing happy birthday to me in two languages – English and Spanish. [Yes, my birthday was on November 2.]
• Jim then proceeded to ask me about my military service. His question gave me an opportunity to emphasize, not my own service, but how important it is or all Americans – young and old alike — to consider volunteering in service to your country – either in the military or in life. As an aside, my granddaughter is vice president for philanthropy for her class, a role that asks her to lead various helping-hand services. A great learning experience for all the students.
• One of the students in the class nearly brought me to tears when, as I was leaving, she brought me a spontaneous gift – a drawing she had made with her own hand. Clearly, a keepsake for me!

I came away from the weekend experience with a renewed appreciation and respect for those who work in our classrooms, as well as for the students who, with a wonderful, Pied-Piper-like teacher, appear to eager to learn.

I also came away with huge appreciation for the commitment of students and teachers alike to express their love for America a day or two ahead of Veterans’ Day – and particularly to those men and women alike who have sacrificed to serve.

That’s one great weekend!

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

In the aftermath of an often-angry mid-term election, it’s hard to know what’s next for health care policy directions, even though many election prognosticators suggested that results turned on health care issues.

Over the last few days, I have engaged in interesting, not to mention friendly, discussions with a friend of mine who favors a single payer system. I don’t because, if nothing else, I believe such a system would bankrupt the country, or, at least, bankrupt other important federal responsibilities.

Does that mean nothing can be done? No.

There is much that can be done, but one of my notions, in the aftermath of the election, is that not much is likely happen in Congress where leadership will be split between Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate.

Plus, we’ll be stuck for at least two more years with a buffoon in the White House.

I wish reasonable minds in Congress – yes, there are some – could get together to craft an approach from the middle. Not Obamacare, which garnered only Democrat votes when it passed several years ago. Not the Republican alternative because there wasn’t an idea other than overturning ObamaCare.

Given all this, when I suggested to my friend that federal inaction would leave room for state initiatives, he was skeptical. Here is what he wrote in an e-mail to me:

“You and I know this cannot be solved at the state level. It has to be imposed by Congress to have the leverage and mandates required for a successful scheme. Universality is not just a desired feature, it is an absolute must to work. Wish it could be resolved locally but I think that is a fool’s mission.”

Point made.

But, still, I hold out hope that legislators in a state like Oregon could develop something useful. The state has a tradition of finding middle ground on various health care issues, though the main leader, former governor John Kitzhaber, is no longer in the game, at least from the standpoint of holding a public office.

As an aside, there have been reports that Kitzhaber is trying to get back into the health care policy game, not by holding public office, but by making health care speeches, though usually not in Oregon. My view is that, if he were to insert himself more directly into the Oregon debate, he would turn off many who believe, at best, that his time has passed.

If true, that leaves room for other leaders to emerge.

With the Democrats in super-majority control of both the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate, it is not clear that leaders will define health care as a major issue. One wag suggested this will be true because the Ds will be more interested in passing new, higher taxes than crafting policy in such areas as health care.

I say, who knows?

But, while this may be plowing some old ground, I add that I have thought about the health care debate in the past and wanted – both then and now – to have ideas to drown the accusation that centrists like me have nothing to propose. So, here goes.

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.

Without everyone 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.

Think of this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. While the analogy could break down, 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.

As the American Enterprise Institute has written: “Health insurance is also important for financial security. Any plan 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, to put a point on it, controversy over pre-existing conditions roiled many recent election races for seats in Congress. Many Ds alleged that Rs were out to leave those with pre-existing conditions out in the cold. It wasn’t necessarily true, but with political advertising, truth is a feeble goal.

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.

While I am not advocating this specifically as part of my proposal, I believe consideration also should be given to deregulating the market for medical services.

As I wrote above, HSAs will empower the demand side of the market, but suppliers need freedom from overly-aggressive regulation to provide packages of services better tailored to individual needs, not government mandates.

Hospitals and physicians should also be allowed to sell access to their networks of clinics, oncology services, and inpatient facilities as an option to be used in the event a patient is diagnosed with an expensive illness.

American health care is teetering because it relies too much on governmental mandates and funding, a problem that would be exacerbates by a single payer system along the lines of what socialist senator Bernie Sanders is advocating.

A functioning marketplace, with even-handed federal government oversight, can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

Well, that’s my opening gambit. If my wife read this, as she often does, she would add another proposal…this: Every citizen who owes taxes should pay those taxes, which, like the expanded insurance pool option, would help to fund real health care reform. By “everyone,” she includes the current occupant of the Oval Office and, at the moment, knows whether he pays taxes or, at least, how much he pays.

So, I say let the health care debate begin – both in Salem and in Washington, D.C.