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.

Long-time political commentator Fred Barnes posited the notion in the headline in a column written for the Wall Street Journal as he analyzed the tussle in Congress to repeal and/or replace ObamaCare.

He said, “Republicans are playing it (politics) poorly. They have one more chance in the Senate to repeal and replace ObamaCare —possibly their last hope for a victory.”

On the other side, he suggested that “Democrats are performing like a well-coached team. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has all 48 members of his caucus on board with saving ObamaCare at all cost. It’s been a successful strategy.”

Barnes may be right.

Republicans ran in several elections on a pledge to get rid of ObamaCare, which is mostly a new federal entitlement with all that implies in the difficult to make any changes. There is always someone who will lose federal largesse.

Then, with it comes to the repeal and replace deed, Republicans look disorganized, which used to be a charge leveled at Democrats.

To buttress his team analogy, Barnes writes this:

“This is an example of why legislative success depends on operating as a team. You don’t abandon your team just because you don’t get everything you want (or want left out). You hold your nose and vote for an imperfect measure, sometimes merely because it’s politically beneficial and better than the alternative.

“This is especially true in dumping ObamaCare. The Republican alternative is a more free-market health-care system in which people can buy the insurance they want, not what government requires.

“Sticking with the team makes that possible. But too many Republicans aren’t comfortable as team players. To them, it’s shady and unprincipled to vote for something about which you have serious doubts. Democrats are more realistic and less persnickety, so they’re better at uniting.”

Consider these examples of Republicans going their own way, not the team way:

* Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky opposes the Senate bill because it leaves too much of ObamaCare in place. But the alternative is to leave all of it in place.

* Senator Dean Heller of Nevada feels the bill’s Medicaid reforms would hurt thousands of his state’s residents and jeopardize his re-election in 2018. But preserving ObamaCare would hurt millions nationwide, not to mention his prospects for winning a second term.

* Senator Susan Collins of Maine says the bill won’t “fix the flaws” in ObamaCare. But the alternative would lock those flaws in place, probably forever.

“Messrs. Paul and Heller and Ms. Collins are playing politics as if it’s an individual sport, like golf, boxing or gymnastics,” Barnes says. “In the Senate, only a team can win.”

Now, a critic of this team proposition could say that forceing members to play as a team means they would have to eschew their own, individual values and accept a consensus. Yes, but if, in this case, that’s what it takes to make good on a clear campaign promise – getting rid of a federal entitlement, ObamaCare – I say, play like a team.

Accept the good and the possible instead of angling only for the perfect.

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

It’s always difficult to rate a regular session of the Oregon Legislature, especially in the immediate aftermath of a sometimes-controversial six-month run in Salem.

Plus, how one feels about a session may depend, at least in part, on where you stand on the political spectrum.

In the case of the 2017 session, which just ended Friday, Democrats were in charge in both the House and Senate, so, predictably, they lauded their achievements.

Republicans, from their position in the minority, not surprisingly, were less positive.

Consider these quick comments after adjournment:

Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem: “The first session of the 79^th Legislature has ended. It has not been easy. Things have been said and done that will leave wounds. That is sad. There are the times when working together is not favored. Beating the other guys is all that matters it seems.”

Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day: “Republicans have a great deal to be upset with this session, but we should be proud we were able to stop not only the hidden sales tax, but also the illegal 41 percent tax hike on small businesses, even those with less than ten employees.”

House Minority Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte, a member of the Legislature since 2011, said this year was the “most political, partisan and divisive session I’ve ever been through.” This was a session of, he said, of missed opportunities to save money and what he called Democrats’ “faked commitments” to fiscal prudence.

Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland: “Looking back on one of the most challenging sessions in recent memory, I am proud that we were able to accomplish some monumental tasks. We balanced the budget, in spite of a $1.4 billion shortfall between available resources and the amount it would take to maintain the current service levels.”

From my place in the cheap seats and based on a 25-year run as a state lobbyist that ended more than two years ago, I do not owe allegiance to either side, nor did I work the Capitol for the past six months. So, I come up with what I have the lack of modesty to label a “dispassionate rating,” which is more art than science.

I give the legislative session a B-.

Part of the context for giving a B- grade is what I learned from my boss, Fred Miller, at the Oregon Executive Department more than 20 years ago. Fred said that one of the easiest things to do is criticize or even be cynical about the legislature. Don’t do it, he advised.

What if you had 90 friends and had them sequestered in one building in town, then asked them to make tough decisions? It wouldn’t always look pretty, nor would all of the decisions be made in a timely fashion.

The same is true of the 90 persons we elected to represent us in the legislature, plus the governor and for other statewide office holders (Attorney General, Treasurer, Secretary of State, Labor Commissioner).

Still, with all of this in mind, I provide the following rationale for my B- rating.

On the positive side, the most noteworthy achievement was passing a $5.3 billion compromise transportation-funding package that will help to fix roads and bridges, as well as finance mass transit. In such a package, a true compromise, many observers will find aspects to like and aspects to hate. But, Democrats and Republicans came together, finally, to fund transportation improvements.

On the negative side, legislators were unable to find middle ground on an admittedly tough issue – finding the balance between cutting the underfunded Public Employee Retirement System on one hand and imposing higher taxes on Oregon corporations on the other hand.

It wasn’t for lack of trying. Under the leadership of Portland area Democrat Mark Hass, legislators tried for months to find a way through the thicket. In the end, they failed. Critics say they only postponed the inevitable.

Depending on your view, another development, while critical, could be either positive or negative. It is a continuation of taxes on hospitals and health insurers, which produces money in state “general fund coffers.” In turn, that money is used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid and the money comes home to Oregon.

It will be used to keep funding the costs of thousands of low-income citizens on Medicaid rolls.

But, as I have said in previous posts, there is no way to ensure that all of the money goes to health care programs. Some of it could be diverted to other purposes, such as K-12 education.

For those assessing the 2017 legislative session, the reality of not being able to guarantee health care investments, plus the questionable policy of taxing a narrow band of payers to fund a societal responsibility, could push the health care tax deal into the negative category.

For me, though, if I had been elected to the legislature – perish the thought — I would have pointed out the questionable public policy aspects of the tax, then voted for it. It was a compromise worth supporting.

Finally, it’s too early to tell for sure if there will be bruised feelings after this session. In a way, there always are, but, often, those feelings evaporate with the passage of time.

Still, there was one bad sign at the end of the session – bad with respect to traditional protocols. Usually, the House and the Senate open their double doors at the back of their chambers before the final gavels fall and do the deed together, watching from the east and west of the “People’s Building.”

This time, fed up with the alleged lack of movement in the House (which some said was a reflection of tension between Senate President Courtney and House Speaker Kotek), the Senate left about three or four hours before the House gaveled down. Observers hadn’t seen such a breach of protocol for many years.

That leaves the question: Will the tension continue or will it lesson with the passage of time? Those who want middle ground policy achievements should hope for the latter.

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

I have thought a lot about this issue lately as we have watched dysfunction and disagreeability mark our national and state public policy debates.

Perhaps this is one effect of having elected an immature, dysfunctional person, Donald Trump, as president. During his campaign and his election, political debate has done nothing but degenerate into personal attack.

We no longer expect public policy results. We expect dysfunction.

While we watch the national political system slide into mediocrity, Democrats and Republicans at the State Capitol in Oregon have done better than their “colleagues” in the Nation’s Capitol, but still appear to dislike each other personally, a fact that has blocked a number of otherwise-attainable public policy achievements 

So, perish the thought, but if I was ever elected to public office, here are traits I would hope would mark my service and, if you read them closely, you will note that, in some ways at least, they use different words to make the same point.

Put simply, we need mature leaders who will work for the public good, not their own aggrandizement, especially not just their own next election.

• The ability to work to find middle ground

This ability is too often missing in our political system. Persons get elected to espouse their own principles, which is understandable and appropriate on one hand, but which can get out of hand on the other.

If standing on principle means there is no middle ground, that is a prescription for what we have seen — stalemate and dysfunction. It’s like folks yelling on a street corner just to make sure their own views are known; they don’t care about others.

It takes a special person to espouse middle ground. And, it even takes more supreme qualities to be a person who can lead others to middle ground solutions.

It should be added that, despite apparent dislike for each other, Democrats and Republicans in the Oregon Legislature found way toward middle ground on a few issues in the still-current legislative session. However, they could not do so on the biggest issue – a balance between budget cuts, especially with regard to the Public Employee Retirement System, and increased corporate taxes.

On the positive front, legislators appear poised to pass a transportation funding package. It is a compromise, so no one will like all parts of it, but it does the job of providing new resources to fix roads and bridges, and fund mass transit.

• The ability to assure that your word is your bond

If this is not true, you are sunk as an elected official. So, mean what you say. And say what you mean.

If you say something once, then have to change your mind based on new information, report the change, an action which will buttress your own credibility.

I found this to be true during my career as a lobbyist and it should also be true for elected officials.

• The ability to disagree agreeably

This used to be a phrase to describe the Oregon Legislature. It was a “citizen legislature” – still is, I suppose – where elected officials with lives outside the Capitol knew how to stand for something, but avoid denigrating those on other sides.

In many ways, the phrase these days could be “the ability to disagree disagreeably.”

[As Donald Trump might tweet, astride his habit of using only small words, often inexactly, “Not nice.”]

• The ability to emphasize your own principles without denigrating others

This is another way of making a similar point, but I include this to indicate that there is nothing wrong with having principles and standing by them if you are an elected official. But, standing on principle should not be the last word. It should be a means to the end of finding agreement with others in order to make progress on achieving public good.

This is, put simply, the ability to see issues from other perspectives, not just your own.

• The ability to handle the public responsibility with an air of humility, not exalted ego

It’s not possible to write about this point without confirming that Donald Trump is the antithesis of this trait. To him, everything is personal. It seems he cannot operate without taking offense.

I found this quote on the Internet the other day:

“Our country was founded on the principle that the ultimate power of government rests in the people. The lesson is clear. Elected officials are not important people. What is important is that they represent the people.

For just a minute, think about that. If those who represent us conducted themselves as if they were serving us – yes, representing us – consider how much better our government would be.

The elected official who best illustrated this humble trait was the last Republican governor of Oregon, Vic Atiyeh, for whom I had the honor of working. One of his favorite sayings, was this: “The issue is not who gets the credit for doing good work. It is doing the good work itself.”

To Victor – he allowed those of us who worked for him to call him by that name, though I usually resorted to just calling him “governor” – this was critical. He led Oregon during tough times economically and he did so with an unusual combination of skill and humility, not worrying about who got the credit.

My reciting of the marks of good public officials tends to add up to one point: We need mature and reasoned public officials who will lead us and make solid decisions in our behalf. And, when we see the good traits, we ought to admire them and keep those good folks in office working for ALL of us.

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.

Last Sunday was as good day, a day apart from worrying about what President Trump was going to do next, whether Congress would adopt a new health care plan, or when the Oregon Legislature would adjourn.

It was a day to walk along the Metolius River in Central Oregon, one of Oregon’s great treasures.

During my career as a state lobbyist, all I had to do to hear about the Metrolius was get time with Senator Betsy Johnson, a Democrat from Scappoose. She was raised in Central Oregon and had then and has now a sacred spot in her heart for the Metolius. You could hear thje cracks in her voice as she talked about the area that was a special part of her childhood.

From our vacation home in Black Butte, it is only about five miles to Camp Sherman, a small town along the Metolius, which is marked by a general store, an iconic church, small cabins, and a great restaurant, the Kokanee Café.

When we arrived at Camp Sherman, our first stop was near a small bridge over the Metrolius where, on occasion, you can see several kinds of trout swimming by, though it’s difficult because their color blends in with the rocks in the water.

Across the bridge, we then took a river-side trail that heads north for about a mile. Along the way, my wife, Nancy, stopped every few feet to take photos of wild flowers, of which there appeared to be more than 15 varieties.

On the trail, we didn’t see one person fishing, which is interesting, given that the Metolius is known as as a great trout fishing stream. Still, in the area where we were, the fishing has not been great in recent years, perhaps because it is pretty accessible, a standard most veteran fisherman eschew because they want more remote areas where they might have the only line in the water.

Along the way, we came across two meadows, resplendent in a cacophony of color. Like a well-trained symphony, the grass kept time with the beat of music we almost could hear. Even the weeds marked the beat.

We thought might see a deer or two in those meadows, but the graceful, beautiful animals remained behind the scenes, perhaps lying around in the shade to escape the 80 degree sun.

As we walked, we marveled at creation. And that was after listening the day before to a recording of a sermon preached many years ago by my wife’s late father, Neil Fraser. In that sermon, delivered at the church where I grew up in Portland, Neil said one of the best evidences for God is creation itself.

It is easier to believe that God created the marvelous panoply of flowers, water, sky and wildlife than to suggest that it all happened by chance.

As an aside, through the marvel of recordings, it was good to hear Neil prove again that he was very good at describing God and scripture in such a compelling way. A great man ahead of his time!

Well, after a couple hours along the Metolius, we arrived back at our car and drove the few miles to Black Butte for another great evening under the sun in Central Oregon.

Here, drawn from the Internet, is a little more history on the Metolius.

It is a tributary of the Deschutes River which flows north from springs near Black Butte then turns sharply east, descending through a series of gorges before ending in the western end of the Lake Billy Chinook. The unincorporated community of Camp Sherman lies astride the southern end of the river, a fact we knew well as we walked that river-side trail.

The Metolius River is fed by numerous springs and creeks along its route.

The headwaters of the river are art Metolius Springs where the river emerges from two clusters of springs at the base of Black Butte. Water flows to these springs from the drainage basin around Black Butte Ranch.

The River flows 28.6 miles from Metolius Springs through the Deschutes National Forest emptying into Lake Billy Chinook and ultimately the Deschutes.  The upper 11.5 miles of the river are popular for catch-and-release fishing, waterwater rafting, picknicking and camping. The lower 17 miles are on the boundary of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation and flow by “a primitive area where motorized vehicles are not allowed.”

The Metolius River was officially designated a National Wild and Scenic River in 1988.

But, don’t take my word for all of this. Make your own trek to Central Oregon and see the Metolius for yourself.  It’s worth the trip to see one of God’s beautiful creations.

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 of my favorite columnists – Michael Gerson from the Washington Post and Peggy Noonan from the Wall Street Journal – got me thinking about a fanciful notion.

It is this. Republicans and Democrats in the nation’s capitol could work together to produce a better health care fix than either could do on their own.

If it were to happen, call it good government.

If it does not happen, call it bad government.

Here’s the way Noonan put it in a column that ran over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal:

“Here again is our big wish: that both parties join together and produce a fix. It would no doubt be ungainly and imperfect, but it would be better than the failing thing we have. And Americans, being practical, will settle, for now, for better.

“The GOP’s donor class would likely hate the eventual bill, as the Democratic Party’s nihilist left, which wants no compromise, would hate it. But their opposition would suggest to everyone else the bill must be pretty good.”

Noonan also skewered former President Barack Obama for getting this country into the ObamaCare mess.

“Every president until Barack Obama knew this (the need for bi-partisan action). He bullied through ObamaCare with no Republican support, and he did it devilishly, too, in that he created a bill so deal-laden, so intricate, so embedding-of-its-tentacles into the insurance and health systems, that it would be almost impossible to undo. He was maximalist. His party got a maximal black eye, losing the House and eventually the Senate over the bill, which also contributed to its loss of the presidency.”

Noonan makes a point I have made before, which is that, once a government entitlement is in place, it is almost impossible to remove it. The Rs are trying now, but every media story focuses on who will lose with the reform.

So, has the time come for Democrats to work with Republicans on a fix? And for Republicans to work with Democrats. I say yes.

Democrats would have to tamp down their egos to say, yes, ObamaCare doesn’t work and we know we need to work with Republicans to put in place a better health care system.

Republicans would have to demonstrate real leadership, not the kind that holds sway by telling the Ds to get lost and wait for the Rs to do the deed that they think needs to be done. In other words, shed egos and lead.

Mr. Gerson got it right the other day when he wrote about three traits that should be hallmarks of a democracy – civility, compromise and moderation.

“Civility is not weakness. It is the native tongue of a successful democracy. What Stephen Carter calls “civil listening” allows people who are opponents to avoid becoming enemies. Civility prevents dehumanization.

“Compromise is not surrender. It is the lubricant of a successful democracy. What Jonathan Rauch calls “a cardinal virtue” allows for incremental progress on difficult issues such as health care. It is a moral principle that elevates progress on the common good above ideological purity.

“Moderation is not indecision or centrism (as important as political centrism may be). It is the mode or mood of a successful democracy. What Aurelian Craiutu calls a “difficult virtue for courageous minds” puts an emphasis on reasonableness, prudence and balance. It is a principle rooted in epistemological modesty — a recognition that no one possesses the whole truth.”

Consider that last phrase. No one possesses the whole truth. If elected leaders would have that kind of self-effacing attitude, imagine what could be done. The issue would be developing solid policy, not worrying about who gets the credit or the debit.

Too, many of us, as voters, would have to change the way we view those who are elected. No longer would we be able to judge them by a selfish standard – “what can they do for me” or “how well do they stand by their guns and tell the other side to get lost.”

We would judge them by the standards of civility, compromise and moderation.

In that way, we would not have to join former presidential candidate and military general Colin Powell who, when he thought about running for president, said that he would not do so because “he bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

It would be possible actually to trumpet the virtue of civility.

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

This department is one of three where I serve as director. No one tells me what to do and I have full and complete authority for actions.

So, here are more good quotes worth remembering, along with my cogent comments.

Michael Gerson in the Washington Post:  “A constitutional convention held in 2017 would likely fail. It is sobering to think that the American political system, at this point in history, would probably be too divided to reproduce itself. Who would want to face primary voters after being identified with a “great compromise”?

As most of the founders envisioned it, the constitutional order flies with two wings. The first is the system of separated and balanced powers. The second is a set of public virtues — such as civility, compromise and moderation — that turn the mob (which they feared) into citizens.

“Civility is not weakness. It is the native tongue of a successful democracy. What Stephen Carter calls “civil listening” allows people who are opponents to avoid becoming enemies. Civility prevents dehumanization.

“Compromise is not surrender. It is the lubricant of a successful democracy. What Jonathan Rauch calls “a cardinal virtue” allows for incremental progress on difficult issues such as health care. It is a moral principle that elevates progress on the common good above ideological purity.

“Moderation is not indecision or centrism (as important as political centrism may be). It is the mode or mood of a successful democracy. What Aurelian Craiutu calls a “difficult virtue for courageous minds” puts an emphasis on reasonableness, prudence and balance. It is a principle rooted in epistemological modesty — a recognition that no one possesses the whole truth.

“These values are crucial to self-government, and it would be nice if those who govern would speak up for them once in a while, without embarrassment or apology. And oh, yes, us too.”

Comment: Mr. Gerson is one of the best columnists writing today. He doesn’t just take the latest gaffe from some politician and write his column for the day. No. He reflects on the art of politics, often injecting a spiritual tone into his writing.

This time, his quotes on civility, compromise and moderation are worth remembering. They are the bedrock for what is missing today – good government.

From Wall Street Journal editorial writers:  “Well, sure, but how? (regarding health care decisions in the Nation’s Capitol). Reaching these goals requires hard policy choices on which the parties are philosophically divided. Democrats want to stabilize markets with more taxpayer money and federal rules. Republicans want to deregulate markets and let insurers offer more plans that better suit the variety of insurance consumers. Democrats want to expand Medicaid to cover ever-more Americans. Republicans, or at least most of them, want to put Medicaid on a budget to provide better coverage to the neediest.”

Comment: The editorial underlines a point which is becoming more obvious every day. Elected officials in Washington, D.C cannot reach agreement on such a fundamental issue as health care. The disagreement started with ObamaCare and has continued through various failed Republican attempts to repeal and replace what has been described, irritatingly so, as “the signal Obama achievement.”

For my part, I say a pox on both houses. Let’s just move to a single payer system and get it over with, which is what many liberals want anyway.

From Daniel Henninger in the WSJ:  “Barack Obama rendered Congress moribund with little outcry from voters. The Obama error was his predictable left-wing overreach with extralegal decrees like the Clean Power Plan, which failed a court challenge before the D.C. Circuit.  To succeed as president, Mr. Trump has to show he can govern, and it looks like that may require separating himself from a Republican Party disabled by a permanent blocking minority with no interest in governing.  At the level of domestic politics, successful presidential governing means not much more than enabling and attaching oneself to an improving economy, as the impeached but popular Bill Clinton proved possible.”

Comment: Former President Obama took office saying he would promote a new era of cooperation and compromise in Washington, D.C. He did just the reverse. When he couldn’t get his way with Congress, he used the Executive Branch to do what it was not intended to do, which is to make laws. 

Now, President Trump appears to be creating the same problems as Obama, governing – not to mention tweeting – by himself, so much so that the Wall Street Journal’s Henninger says he may just, in effect, end up divorcing himself from the Republican Party. 

From Karl Rove in the WSJ:  “Mr. Obama sold the Affordable Care Act with well-formulated falsehoods. ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,’ he said repeatedly, and ‘if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’ The law would ‘cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.’ It would ‘bend the cost curve’ for health care, he said, without adding ‘one dime to the deficit.’ None of this was true, and Mr. Obama must have known that.

“So did he address these failings in his Facebook post? Of course not. The former president changed his talking points for ObamaCare. “Women can’t be charged more for their insurance,” he bragged—but the GOP proposal doesn’t alter that policy. “Young people can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26,” he said—but Republicans would leave that in place, too. “Contraceptive care and preventive care are now free,” Mr. Obama added—except taxpayers actually pay for them with levies on, among other things, hospital stays, medical devices and insurance policies. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama shoved his broken promises down the memory hole.

“The danger for Republicans lies in not acting, which would allow Democrats to brag about all the imaginary terrible things they prevented from happening. The danger for Democrats comes if Republicans act and then voters see that the dreadful outcomes liberals predicted never come to pass (as happened with welfare reform). Victory will go to the active, not the timid. Your move, Senate Republicans. Don’t blow it.”

Comment: Many will discount Mr. Rove’s commentary because of his allegiance to the Republican Party, but, if nothing else, he is right on this point – Obama promised more than ObamaCare ever delivered – and his quotes early on where just simply not true.

WSJ news story on health care reform:  “Supporters of Mr. Cruz’s plan say people who don’t need a specific benefit shouldn’t have to buy it—for example, men should not be required to buy policies that include maternity services.  Others dismissed such arguments, saying men are involved in pregnancy also. ‘Women don’t get pregnant without sperm,’ Sen. Bill Cassidy (R., La.) said drily.”

Comment: All I can say is point made.

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

For me, this week provided a solid and favorable glimpse at Salem’s medical services arrangements.

The occasion was a procedure – labeled “heart surgery” – to extract a combination pacemaker/defibrillator that I had in place for about five years. For some reason, the device malfunctioned, causing no specific problems other than that it didn’t work. So, it was turned off externally.

That sparked a new question. Should it be removed to avoid infection in and around the heart?

The consensus from three cardiologists was yes, remove it.

So, I scheduled the procedure and the story from there is nothing but successful.

Here is a quick summary, which I provide in order to indicate that medical services are alive and well in Salem, even as health care public policy issues nationally create nothing but confusing headlines.

• My regular cardiologist, Dr. Kevin Thompson from Oregon Heart Center in Salem, referred me on to a specialist to consult about the extraction procedure.
• That specialist was Dr. Ashit Patel from Cascade Cardiology, also in Salem. [In a very credible move, all cardiologist service offices in Salem collaborate to refer all device extraction procedures to Dr. Patel. That approach avoids unnecessary duplication.]
• The procedure was set for Tuesday, June 27, and, in a bit of surprise to me, I was treated at Salem Health as, specifically and totally, a “heart surgery patient” with all that implies relative to surgery preparation. Not just a routine extraction. Full preparation. Enough said.

But the point, a good one, is that, in this type of procedure, something could go wrong, so that meant full preparations, plus a heart surgeon standing by in the operating suite in case his services were necessary. They weren’t!

Everything went well and I have nothing but plaudits for all of those involved – Dr. Tompson’s office; Dr. Patel’s office; the anesthesiologist’s offce (Dr. Christopher Aldrich); the surgery reception folks at Salem Health; the surgery preparation nurses at Salem Health; the operating team led by Dr. Patel; and the surgery recovery nurses at Salem Health.

Each individual operated with total professionalism and courtesy.

For those who question whether our state’s or country’s medical services work, my answer is yes. And, to say that, I draw on my recent experience, with great gratitude to all of those involved.

And that includes my wife, daughter, son who were on hand and supportive through the entire process (not to their mention spouses and three grandchildren).

Now, the remaining challenge for me is to get through a two-week recovery period so I can get back on the golf course!

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 a reminder, this department is one where I serve as director and where I have full and complete authority to manage it as I see fit.

That said, there are more good quotes to note, along with my response.

From Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker:  “We tend to forget, too, that Trump is a professional bluffer. We keep thinking he’s the president of the United States. That’s his title, but his identity is Donald J. Trump, television star, celebrity wheeler-dealer, a man who grabs what he wants. Everything he says or does should first be considered in this context.  Poor Comey. Burdened with seriousness, he wore a black tie to a circus.”

Comment: Parker is right to call Trump a “professional bluffer.” One never knows whether Trump is telling a lie or making up stuff. It’s tough for those of us who care about good government to watch him make a mockery of the process.

From a Wall Street Journal Editorial:  “The left’s reflex is that, if something is good, then the government ought to provide it, and some conservatives are falling into the left’s political trap. As we’re learning the hard way this year with ObamaCare and Medicaid, once an entitlement is in place it is nearly impossible to repeal. Middle-class taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay higher taxes to finance family leave for the employees of Wall Street giants.”

Comment: The language on a new entitlement is on target. When one exists, even one as flawed as ObamaCare, every effort to improve it recedes to the background as nearly everyone focuses on who will lose government benefits. Anecdotes prevail over policy.

To be sure, there is a lot wrong with the new effort by Republicans in Congress to follow-up on their campaign promises to repeal ObamaCare. Chief among the debits is a backroom process that rivals what originally happened when Democrats were in charge, and with Barack Obama, put the entitlement in place. Still, the bottom line is that it is almost impossible to change an entitlement.

From another Wall Street Journal editorial:  “The Senate bill is imperfect, but it includes many conservative policy victories that have long been Republican goals. It’s not too much to say this is a defining moment for whether the GOP can ever reform runaway entitlements. If Republicans fail, the next stop is single payer.”

Comment: Agreed. The move to repeal and replace ObamaCare is a test of Republican leadership ability in Congress. I wish it were possible for Republicans to work with Democrats to do the deed, but collaboration is not possible and everyone on both sides shares the blame.

From the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger: “’Cultural appropriation’ is the sort of thing someone like me gets paid to absorb so other people can keep their heads clear. Among the phrase’s various uses, it means that the representative of one culture isn’t allowed to use the images or traditions of another culture unless the second culture gives its permission. Got it?

“The art world has recently had several cultural-appropriation controversies, which get covered with eye-opening theoretical nuance by New York Times culture writers. Minneapolis’s Walker Art Center agreed to dismantle and ultimately burn a sculpture by a white artist after some members of the Dakota Nation objected.

“People like Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred think they are making a reasonable accommodation (when they ask the Washington Redskins to remove the nickname). But you can’t. The exterminating left will pocket any concession and roll forward toward the next target. Agree to delete Chief Wahoo or burn one uncomprehending artist’s sculpture as cultural misappropriation, and centuries of Western art will be heading to the furnaces or basements, with complicit museum directors holding the door open.

Comment: There is a rationale for political correctness in society today if the motive is to underline the need to avoid unintentional or even unknowing racism. Call it sensitivity. But, if the motive goes beyond that – if, as Henninger writes, “the left will pocket any concession and roll forward toward the next target” – then things are out of whack.

From professional golfer Jim Furyk:  “I forget what famous pro said this:  You never really have it.  You just borrow it for while.  Just when things are going well and you’re hitting it great — it’s almost like you get this feeling of invincibility— that’s when it bites you in the ass.”

Comment: I end with this dealing with something far less serious than government action – or inaction. All of us who are golfers are always trying to “find it” – which means a good swing that can repeat, even under pressure – but, even if we have it for a time, we lose it. Furyk, who appears to be heading to the golf hall of fame, with one of the strangest swings in golf history, has it right. Playing good golf is a transient affair.

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.

If you read this blog, you know that I am advocate for finding middle ground in political debates, not just trying to get your way at all costs.

Call it the “art of compromise.”

But compromise is, as the word implies, difficult. It requires both sides – or all sides – to give up something to get something. It’s tough stuff and no one necessarily likes the outcome. Plus, the lack of purity makes it easier for anyone to criticize the result.

Consider two recent examples, both in the area of health care policy.

In Oregon, legislators and the governor, driving toward the finish line in the current legislative session (which occurs, by law, on July 10), found a compromise on health care. It was not a new compromise; in a way, it had been in effect since 2003, but it had to be re-enacted.

The “it” was to impose taxes on hospitals and commercial health insurers, get the revenue into state coffers, and use the money to garner increased federal matching funds under Medicaid, the program which used to be targeted toward low income single women and children, but now has been expanded to include “the working poor.”

The taxes suffer from several public policy deficits, the main one of which is that, once all of the money (both special taxes and federal matching funds) arrives in state coffers, there is no way to assure that it ends up funding health care programs. Some of it is diverted to other programs, especially K-12 education.

Could I prove that? No. But no one can prove the reverse either.

What was passed in Salem is actually the definition of compromise. It is the best that could be done under the circumstances and, thus, I would have tempered my concern about bad policy and voted for it anyway — if, perish the thought, I had been elected to the legislature.

As for the second example, consider the ObamaCare health care replacement proposal set for a vote soon in the U.S. Senate.

Here’s an excerpt of what Wall Journal editorial writers published:

“The bill is an imperfect compromise between moderate and conservative Republicans, and it makes pains to accommodate different interests and the Americans, states and businesses that have adapted to ObamaCare over the years. The center-right nature of the details means the Senate won’t be ushering in some free-market utopia. But the reform is a major improvement over the U.S. health-care status quo that will worsen if the bill fails.

“Republicans have campaigned across four elections against ObamaCare, and now Americans will see if they have the courage of their professed convictions. Conservatives must determine if progress that is politically feasible is preferable to impossible ideological purity, and moderates must defend policy substance from the distortions of critics.

“The Senate bill is imperfect, but it includes many conservative policy victories that have long been Republican goals. It’s not too much to say this is a defining moment for whether the GOP can ever reform runaway entitlements. If Republicans fail, the next stop is single payer.”

Note the question: “Is progress that is politically feasible preferable to impossible ideological purity?”

I answer yes.

If elected officials in Salem and Washington, D.C. would adopt this approach to political decisions – settle for the imperfect instead of bidding against all odds for the pure — we’d all be better for it.

This would require that we, as voters, credit those who represent us for finding middle ground. That’s tough because, these days, many Americans prefer purity and then take it on elected officials when they don’t get what they want.

Plus, the fact is policy decisions from the middle would be better than extremes on either the conservative or liberal ends of the spectrum.

And this footnote: As I have argued with a colleague about health care issues, I have focused on the legislative process that produced both ObamaCare several years ago and the Republican replacements. Both occurred behind closed doors and the drafts were circulated only days before a voting deadline. Neither was – or is – a testament to solid public policy ma

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.

Now that the 2017 legislature has passed and sent to Governor Kate Brown legislation to continuing imposing taxes on hospitals and commercial health insurance premium payers, it is a good time to raise questions about these tax policies.

In fact, they are not so much tax policies as an expedient means to an end.

Before I go on, let me offer this caveat. I represented Providence Health System (including its health insurance arm) when the taxes started in 2003 and I was involved in various extensions of them over the years. Though I am now retired (as noted in the introduction to this blog), I am surely not a dispassionate observer.

There are several substantial problems with these taxes. Let me enumerate them from my admittedly biased viewpoint.

1. The health care taxes constitute questionable tax policy

On the theory that solid tax policy would be based on taxing the widest range of payers, not singling out a single group and imposing a patently unfair penalty, these taxes do not pass that test. To me, the income, property and sales taxes represent fair policy, though, of course, there always will be tussles over the balance among the taxes and the size of each.

2. The health care taxes are designed to garner federal matching funds

The rationale for these taxes is not straightforward. Rather, it is to accumulate cash in order to use that state cash to garner Medicaid matching funds from the federal government. Most states are engaging in this approach, which sounds like a scam, but is legal, even as it increases federal spending.

3. There is no way to guarantee that the health care tax proceeds will go to fund health care programs

This is one of my major contentions about the taxes. From two combined sources, hospital/health insurance taxes and federal matching funds, the money comes to state coffers and is considered just that – money.

The way this works is that legislative leaders, with staff, retire to a backroom where there is a white board. Then, they write revenue sources on that board – (1) “general funds” (personal and corporate income taxes), (2) lottery funds, (3)special tax funds (such as the hospital and health insurance taxes), and (4) federal funds. And, then, they simply allocate the money to the various spending priorities, which tend to break down in this order – K-12 education, higher education, cops and prisons, and social services.

When all that is said and done, legislators then consider what they should have considered first, which is where money is supposed to go based on the reasons why payers have sent it along to government.

Thus, there is no way to assure that the health care money actually goes, in total, to health care programs; some of it is diverted to other programs.

4. It doesn’t make sense to turn private health insurance companies into tax collectors

Under this tax scheme, commercial health insurers have to become tax collectors. They bill their policyholders for a tax surcharge, then have no assurance that the money goes where they tell their policyholders it goes.

5. There is no way to cut a deal with the governor and the legislature and count on that deal to hold

I have dealt with this issue since 2003. Those of us who have sat at the table or helped those who did have reached an unfortunate conclusion: Any deal with the governor and the legislature lasts only until the next emergency, real or imagined. Then, the public officials are very willing to go back on the deal and, in only one case, has a public official owned up to the change. That was Senator Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, who expressed regret about the reversal.

Let me add that there are real emergencies – forest fires, floods, higher-than-expected welfare caseloads, etc. – which must be dealt by the legislature and might even require fund diversions. It’s just that, if health care funds are diverted to new purposes, there ought to be a way to announce that new deal publicly.

That’s enough for now. I suspect the new taxes will become law – again. There may be a short-term rationale for the taxes. Without them, given other legislative priorities, thousands of low income Oregonians would lose health care coverage under Medicaid.

So, if I was a legislator voting in Salem this session, I would take two actions: First, I would express misgivings about this tax increase expedient, and, then second, I would most likely surmount those misgivings and vote in favor of the taxes on the strength of this axiom: In legislative law or “sausage-making,” as it sometimes called, you seldom have your way in an imperfect setting.