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 is hard to keep the department closed given all the good quotes lately.

So, without apology – which is something I never have to do as the supreme director – here is another list of good quotes worth remembering.

From political comedian Bill Maher:  “Trump is not becoming more hinged.”

Comment: It is hard for me to agree with Maher as he repeatedly skewers everybody who has the temerity, like me, to espouse conservative views from time to time — albeit centrist conservative views for me. Still, Maher sometimes says something worth remembering, as he did this time.

From one of my favorite Wall Street Journal columnists, Daniel Henninger:  “Whatever once fastened the doors of people’s minds to something secure and stable has become unhinged.”

Comment: There’s that word again – hinged or, in this case, unhinged. Henninger has it right that, in today’s political environment, it is becoming more and more difficult to attach your mind to something secure and stable. My only retort is that it is possible to attach yourself to personal religious convictions. For me, that is being a Christian which sustains me every day.

From law professor Kenneth Starr as new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch prepared for a ceremony officially to take his seat on the Court:  “At his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch called Scalia (Antonin Scalia, whom he replaced) a mentor who reminded us that words matter — a judge’s job is to follow the words that ARE the law, not replace them with those that aren’t.”

From letters to the editor columns in the Wall Street Journal, under this headline…Civil Politicians Are a Lot Less Attractive to the Media; the lack of civility described in politics is fed by the media, and leadership from the media is needed as much as from the politicians:

In the letters from Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, and Stamford, Connecticut, these words:

“The lack of civility described in “Civil Discourse in Decline: Where Does It End?” (Capital Journal, May 30) is fed by the media, and leadership from the media is needed as much as from the politicians, who merely see what the media wants and play to it. This is hardly something new. Since the years of William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce, media attract the demagogues they need for sensationalism and sales. If a leader actually tried to push civility, what media outlet would report such boring news?

“Once a measure of acceptable behavior was how one would feel if it was printed in the headlines in the local newspaper. We seem to be well beyond that.”

Comment: The letter writers have it right. The media often foments more controversy as it focuses on that – and not on substance. Ever wonder why those who demonstrate or protest get their faces and signs on television? It’s because editors believe that draws audiences. I say enough. Just as we need reasoned and reasonable people in public office, we need editors who act in reasoned and reasonable ways in what they choose to cover.

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.

You may know that I currently serve as director of two departments – the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

I have just appointed myself to direct, with complete and unfettered authority, a third department.

It is the Department of Too-Strange-To-Believe Developments.

So, as the Department opens for the first time, here are two strange developments.

MERKLEY FOR PRESIDENT: CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?

The lead item – one that, for me, would be the lead in every opening of the department – is that Senator Jeff Merkley is thinking of running for U.S. President. Yes, U.S. President!

Now, I think I’ve heard everything, even after having to exist with all sorts of strange goings-on with current President Donald Trump.

CNN actually is reporting that Merkley, the junior senator from Oregon – emphasis on junior — is harboring thoughts of running for the nation’s highest political office.

That this appalls me is based on several years of lobbying Merkley while he served in the Oregon Legislature. I never lobbied a legislator who illustrated more of a “holier-than-thou” approach than Merkley did.

Just as one example, he would never let any of us lobbyists buy him a drink or lunch to talk about the state’s business. He feared we would want something in return.

No. What we wanted – let me say, what “I wanted” — was just consideration for a point-of-view other than his own.

Frankly, it offended me that he thought I – and others like me – would be so low as to expect favors in return for a simple lunch or a drink. All we wanted, in the press of legislative business, was time to talk and share perspectives.

The result was that Merkley didn’t know as much as otherwise could have known about what others thought. His loss.

In Congress, where he serves because he unseated Republican Gordon Smith when he was not favored to do so (a sad result for Oregon), Merkley has continued the “I know more than you do” persona.

Perhaps that is why it apparently crossed his mind that a presidential run is not beyond his reach.

For my part, I hope it is.

WHAT BILL MAHER SAYS

It’s difficult for me to cite this political comedian as a source for anything – given that he is, In fact, a comedian working for laughs — but, down here in Palm Springs where I am writing this, I had nothing better to do than to watch his TV program last night.

And, he said something that strikes me as very true – a strange development in itself as he works, mostly, to skewer folks who have the will to function as conservatives, thus differing with his liberal persona,

What he said was this.

Rather than focusing on the “he said/she said” type of issue in the current scandal over Russia’s alleged involvement in the U.S. election, we should focus instead on the basic question: What did Russia do and how did the country do it?

Better to focus on the issue and ask the question, “Are We Safe?”, than to focus on intrigue and innuendo in a set of developments that continue to capture time and attention in Washington, D.C.

For once, I agree with Maher.

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 former Executive Branch official in Oregon, it may seem strange for me to raise questions about whether administrative officials go too far.

Still, I do, if only because of actions, especially during the Obama Administration, when the former president specifically and intentionally went around Congress to work his will.

Defenders of Obama no doubt will say he circumvented Congress because it would not work with him and, to a degree, they are right. But, for a person such as Obama who came into office saying he would lead a new era of cooperation with the Legislative Branch, his conduct was over-the-top.

It also would be possible to contend that, before long, so will President Donald Trump’s conduct be beyond the pale of executive-legislative cooperation. It probably is already there.

I was reminded of all of this by a Wall Street Journal piece last weekend by editorial writer John Tierney who reviewed a book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful, by constitutional scholar Phillip Hamburger.

Here is an excerpt of what Tierney wrote:

“Sometimes called the regulatory state or the deep state, it is a government within the government, run by the president and the dozens of federal agencies that assume powers once claimed only by kings. In place of royal decrees, they issue rules and send out ‘guidance’ letters like the one from an Education Department official in 2011 that stripped college students of due process when accused of sexual misconduct.

“Unelected bureaucrats not only write their own laws, they also interpret these laws and enforce them in their own courts with their own judges. All this is in blatant violation of the Constitution, says Hamburger, 60, the constitutional scholar.

I add that what happens in the Nation’s Capitol happens in Oregon, as well.

President Obama was perhaps the offender. He openly boasted of his intention to bypass Congress:

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” he said.

Unable to persuade a Congress controlled by his own party to regulate carbon dioxide, Obama did it himself in 2009 by having the Environmental Protection Agency declare it a pollutant covered by a decades-old law.

Similarly, the Title IX legislation passed in 1972 was intended mainly to protect women in higher education from employment discrimination. Under Obama, Education Department bureaucrats used it to issue orders about bathrooms for transgender students at public schools and to mandate campus tribunals to adjudicate sexual misconduct—including “verbal misconduct,” or speech.

Going back to my own experience in the Executive Branch in Oregon, now more than 25 years ago, I remember that, at the then-Department of Human Resources, we set about to propose administrative rules that would, admittedly, go beyond specific legislative authority.

We did so because we wanted to avoid the hassle of dealing with legislators who would not have the time or inclination to get into the details of complicated public policy.

Was that right? No, I answer today.

By contrast, in the Governor’s Office where I served as press secretary to Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh, we respected the legislative process, perhaps, at least in part, because the governor had come out of that process to win the state’s highest political office.

In a more recent example, Republican members of the Oregon Senate Rules Committee raised questions about Governor Kate Brown’s appointment of three new members to the Environmental Quality Commission.

The Rs said that, while they appreciated the qualifications of the three nominees, they understood the governor was intending to go around the legislature to enact new air pollution regulations. They wanted legislative action first to set the parameters of administrative action.

In all of this, are there ways to curb administrative usurpation of legislative prerogatives?

Yes, according to the Wall Street Journal writer, Mr. Tierney.

One would be to make government officials financially accountable for their excesses, as they were in the 18th and 19th centuries, when they could be sued individually for damages. Today, they’re protected thanks to “qualified immunity,” a doctrine Mr. Hamburger, the university scholar, thinks should be narrowed, even though there is almost no chance administrative officials, in Washington, D.C. or Oregon, will be held to such an account.

“One does have to worry about frivolous lawsuits against government officers who have to make quick decisions in the field, like police officers,” Hamburger admits. “But someone sitting behind a desk at the EPA or the Securities and Exchange Commission has plenty of time to consult lawyers before acting. There’s no reason to give them qualified immunity. They’ll be more careful not to exceed their constitutional authority if they have to weigh the risk of losing their own money.”

Another way to restrain agencies would be to require them to submit new rules to Congress for approval instead of imposing them by fiat. The president of the governor here could also order at least some agencies to resolve disputes in regular courts instead of using administrative judges, who are agency employees. Meanwhile, Congress could reclaim its legislative power by going through regulations, agency by agency, and deciding which ones to enact into law.

Finally, being able to recognize administrative over-reach is an inexact science. Often, most of us are too occupied with our every day issues to pay enough attention, unless, as in the Obama era, the excesses were so, well, excessive.

“Administrative power is like off-road driving,” Hamburger says. “It’s exhilarating to operate off-road when you’re in the driver’s seat, but it’s a little unnerving for everyone else.”

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.

Why, you may ask, do I feel compelled to comment on this, given that there has so much coverage of the tension between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey, not to mention that I live 3,000 miles away from the fray?

Well, I don’t.

Feel compelled, that is. I just want to participate in my usual way – by writing something, which helps me to think more clearly. About a national issue that, no doubt, will continue to dominate the political debate for weeks.

So, here goes – and I will do so in the way of proposing answers to questions, not producing a narrative.

• Did Trump Commit Obstruction of Justice?

Probably not, though smarter legal minds than me will be rendering their verdicts.

Writing in the Washington Post, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and a contributing editor at National Review, put it this way:

“James B. Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee will no doubt embolden those who believe we already know enough to conclude that President Trump obstructed justice by leaning on the then-FBI director to halt a criminal investigation of Michael Flynn. But nothing Comey said alters the fact that this claim remains fatally flawed in two critical respects: It overlooks both a requirement for corrupt intent and the principle of executive discretion.

“The arguments for presidential obstruction here tend to omit the statute’s most important word: ‘Corruptly.’ Not every form of interfering with an investigation, or even the closing down of an investigation, is felony obstruction. Only corrupt ones. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused not only acted intentionally but also with an awareness that actions violated the law.

“This is important because the president is the chief executive. We like to think of law enforcement as insulated from politics, and we certainly aspire to politics that does not undermine the rule of law. In our system, however, it is simply not the case that law enforcement is independent of political leadership. The FBI and Justice Department are not a separate branch of government. They are subordinate to the president. In fact, they do not exercise their own power; the Constitution vests all executive power in the president. Prosecutors and FBI agents are delegates.

“That means that when they exercise prosecutorial discretion, they are exercising the president’s power. Obviously, the president cannot have less authority to exercise his power than his subordinates do.”

• If not obstruction, then what?

Good question. My answer is that President Trump has acted stupidly. This is either because he is a newcomer to national politics or because he doesn’t care, so he avoids, in a ham-handed way, the normal protocols of handling power in the Nation’s Capitol.

In the Wall Street Journal, columnist Gerald Seib wrote this:

“A basic set of rules for surviving and thriving in the nation’s capital—well understood by Washington veterans—would include: Don’t make an enemy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, keep potential enemies inside the tent and, above all, remember that it usually isn’t the action but the appearance of a cover-up that brings real trouble.”

Trump understands none of this. He ran and won as an outsider. Now he tries to continue the outsider façade, but cannot in the ways of Washington, D.C. He ends up compromising his own agenda. His ego rules. He is always the most important person in the room. He tweets off the top of his head. He behaves like what he is, which is a narcissist.

• Who is the hero here, Trump or Comey?

To that, I answer neither.

Here is the way Kimberly Strassel put it in a Wall Street Journal column:

“Mostly he (Comey) pronounced on what is—and is not—proper in any given situation: When handling investigations, interacting with the president, or releasing information. By the end, something had become clear. Mr. Comey was not merely a player in the past year’s palaver. He was the player.

The Wall Street Journal goes on: “Comey describes an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. The police powers of government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director musty resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover.”

I add that, if I had been president – perish that thought, by the way — I would have fired Comey, too. Even as FBI director, he should not have conducted himself as an independent actor on his own stage. He fouled up matters involving the private e-mail investigation of Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, as well as relationships with the new president.

The fact is that the FBI director reports to the attorney general first, and then to the president.

• Who benefits from all of this over the last days?

My answer is no one. Some will say that Comey came off looking like a hero, which, I suppose, is what he intended by his appearance. Others will say that Trump escaped, at least so far, any notion of criminal conduct.

To me, both looked like what they are, in very different ways – consumed by their own egos to the detriment of the country. We face huge issues these days – reforming health care, reforming national tax policy, re-building roads and bridges, and many others. They fall into the abyss of interpersonal conflicts that benefit no one.

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.

Kudos to legislative leaders here in Oregon for holding a “Legislative Prayer Breakfast,” the first in six years.

Here’s hoping the Prayer Breakfast becomes a tradition.

I say that because, whatever your religious convictions, it makes good sense to stop the hustle and bustle of politics and pause to express the need for guidance from a higher power.

For me, that higher power is Jesus Christ, with whom you can have a personal relationship, as I do. For others, it may be different. And, to be sure, the Prayer Breakfast had an ecumenical touch of sorts with prayers from a Muslim and a Rabbi.

I say good.

I had the privilege of being asked, albeit in my retirement, to co-host a table at the event. It was an honor to be asked and to comply.

The legislative leaders who deserve praise for resurrecting the Prayer Breakfast are:

• House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland
• House Minority Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte
• Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson, D-Gresham
• Senator Tim Knopp, R-Bend

Notice the bi-partisan character of the leaders, a fact which sent a solid message that this was not just another political event, but something more solemn and sacred.

On May 25, these legislators and many of their colleagues gathered at the Salem Convention Center for the breakfast event. More than 250 guests were there to support the need for divine guidance.

The keynote speaker for the event was Paul Young, an author who self-published a book in 2007, The Shack, which became a best-seller and was turned into a movie.

The title of the book is a metaphor for “the house you build out of your own pain,” according to Young who appeared at the Prayer Breakfast at the invitation of Representative McLane, a personal friend. Young has told a radio talk show host that The Shack “is a metaphor for the places you get stuck, you get hurt, you get damaged…the thing where shame or hurt is centered.”

He wrote the book especially for his children, though it obviously has reached many more than just his own family.

In that sense and apart from the spiritual message Young intended, his remarks were especially appropriate for a crowd aware that, only a few blocks east of the Convention Center, legislators were locked in a place “where they were stuck and could get hurt.”

One hopes that, by spending a few minutes in contemplation and prayer, legislators will find a way to stand on their principles, bridge gaps and reach agreement on tough issues without denigrating each other. That would be a sweet taste in today’s politics, which often are based on antagonism and acrimony.

Admittedly, the Prayer Breakfast was an event. But, if the spirit lives on, it could become something more.

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

“It” was a small event. “It” didn’t generate many headlines. Many people didn’t even know “it” occurred. But, “it” did underline a failure of the Oregon Legislature two years ago.

The “it” was a small earthquake. In earthquake measurements, it was only a magnitude 3. It hit last week about two miles west of Interstate 5 In the Woodburn area. Still, despite it’s small size, the quake went about 14.8 miles deep.

Now, about the mistake. After moving for several years to safeguard the State Capitol – the “People’s Building” — from an earthquake, legislators failed to reach agreement on doing the deed in 2015.

The result? If a major quake hits, the State Capitol could be in ruins.

That may sound like an overstatement, but, in a quake about 15 years ago, the “gold man” at the top of the building, a major landmark in Salem, came within seconds of toppling down. The quake did damage to the murals on the walls, requiring more than a year of restoration. Plus, the internal infrastructure at the Capitol suffered damage, in part because it is so old in the first place.

Due to the major quake, legislators created a task force to look at what to do if there was another major event. The group worked for a couple years and came up with a plan and even went to the extent of working with legislative leaders to take bids from contractors that could do the work, including architecture, design and construction.

The company that won the construction contract, JE Dunn, did so after a stiff and fair competition. JE Dunn was then and is now a CFM Strategic Communications client. It is a national company with a base in Oregon and substantial experience in retrofitting state capitol buildings in various parts of the country.

[It is appropriate to note this CFM involvement because I am a partner emeritus in the company and played a role in representing JE Dunn until my retirement at the end of 2014. So, I have a bias.]

In the 2015 legislative session, lawmakers couldn’t reach agreement on bond allocations to finance Capitol restoration, plus another important priority — retrofits for a number of K-12 schools in the state. Bond funding would have been entirely appropriate as a way to finance the project, just as borrowing money is a way to buy or remodel your house.

Failing to do the deed stands as a major mistake, one that turned its back on years of work, plus commitments from companies willing to take on the job of helping to re-build the “People’s Building” for the benefit of all Oregonians – and to retain an important historical landmark in the state’s capitol city.

Every time there is an earthquake in the region, even a small one, “it” underlines the legislature’s failure.

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.

Despite the best efforts of certain legislative leaders — Senator Mark Hass, D-Beaverton, for example — lawmakers in Salem have not found the key to new tax policy.

Time is short.

By language in Oregon’s Constitution, legislators must adjourn their regular session by July 10 at the latest, a deadline which does not leave much room to craft the political compromise to allow new taxes – presumably with some spending cuts – to be adopted.

The Oregon Education Association (OEA) added to the difficulty last week when it filed an initiative that, if approved, would ask voters to raise corporate taxes.

Never mind that legislators are at work in Salem trying to craft a compromise.

Never mind that, last fall, voters turned down what the Oregonian newspaper called “the mammoth Measure 97” – and it fell by a huge margin.

I have no idea what political calculus drove the OEA to head to the ballot at this time. It would have been smarter for the union to have waited until the end of the legislative session and, if an agreement was not reached, then head to the ballot.

But, no surprise here. The OEA does not consult with me to frame its political agenda.

The OEA’s proposed initiative could raise as much as $1.75 billion annually for K-12 and higher education through a corporate tax that would be assessed based on companies’ sales.

The teachers union is also filing a second initiative that would make it easier for the Legislature to raise corporate taxes to pay for education. To pay for education in some circumstances, the OEA proposes to remove the current requirement for a three-fifths super-majority in the Legislature to increase taxes.

“Parents and students are fed up with having the third largest class sizes in the nation,” Hanna Vandering, president of the Oregon Education Association said in a press release that was quoted in the Oregonian. “Having strong public schools is an Oregon value, but you would never know by looking at the Oregon legislature. These ballot measures seek to put the power back in the hands of the people, not the powerful business lobbyists that control Salem.”

Also, according to the Oregonian: “The union is among the financial supporters of Our Oregon, the political nonprofit behind Measure 97. That initiative would have raised more than $3 billion annually, but it went down to defeat in November after a bruising campaign that was the costliest ballot battle in Oregon history.”

Meanwhile, the Joint Ways and Means Committee (it writes the overall State of Oregon budget) approved and sent to the floors of both houses an $8.2 billion K-12 budget proposal for 2017-19. That sparked the usual “it’s not enough” howls from the OEA and other self-styled advocates for K-12 education.

“We’re at a crossroads,” Senator Hass said last week. “We have a choice to do nothing because it is too hard. We have a choice to do some tried and true short-term changes, tax increases. And third, we have a choice to reform our system that will add a measure of stability and reform I think is the key.”

Hass is right about the crossroads. There are only a few weeks left in this regular legislative session, which has prompted some to speculate that a special session in late summer or early is in the offing.

What’s happening here is what has been happening in the last few years in Oregon – a deadlock over state spending and taxes, which illustrates that legislators cannot find middle ground.

Too bad, because middle ground is where the best policy solutions lie.

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 two I run with complete authority. What this department does – in other words, which quotes are included – is entirely my responsibility.

In this case, the quotes I have included this time, with my comments, were just too good to pass up.

So, here goes.

From the Wall Street Journal:  “The White House also wants to reform programs that have ballooned during the Obama years and effectively become a guaranteed national income. The budget cuts $193 billion over 10 years from food stamps, mainly by letting states impose a work requirement; $72 billion from the Social Security Disability Insurance program; and $12.5 billion by requiring a Social Security number to receive the earned-income tax credit or child tax credits.

“The left says this ‘guts the safety net,’ as if the measure of success is how many more people government can make dependent on government. Some 44 million Americans now receive food stamps, 16 million more than in 2008—despite eight years of economic growth and a 4.4% jobless rate. One reason the Obama economy grew so slowly is that millions of workers left the labor market, and getting them back and working would lift GDP.”

Comment: This points out a key problem with reforming ObamaCare. Once an entitlement is in place, it is almost impossible to change it. Someone will always point to anecdotes about how certain individuals are adversely affected.

From The Atlantic magazine: “News organizations should consider the kind and amount of coverage devoted to terrorist acts: Unfortunately, the very act of publicizing an act of terrorism cannot help but advance the ends of terrorists, who try to generate as much media attention as possible to stoke fear.”

Comment: Great point. The same holds true for demonstrations on the Capitol steps in Salem. Those who participate want media coverage and reporters, some with cameras, usually oblige. Would be interesting if such demonstrations – or, in the quote above, incredible acts of terror – did not generate so much media coverage. Too much to hope for? Yes.

From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Nonetheless CBO says 14 million fewer people on net would be insured in 2018 relative to the ObamaCare status quo, rising to 23 million in 2026. The political left has defined this as ‘losing coverage.’ But 14 million would roll off Medicaid as the program shifted to block grants, which is a mere 17 per cent drop in enrollment after the ObamaCare expansion. The safety net would work better if it prioritized the poor and disabled with a somewhat lower number of able-bodied, working-age adults.

“The balance of beneficiaries ‘losing coverage’ would not enroll in insurance, CBO says, ‘because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.’ In other words, without the threat of government to buy insurance or else pay a penalty, some people will conclude that ObamaCare coverage isn’t worth the price even with subsidies. CBO adds that ‘a few million’ people would use the new tax credits to buy insurance that the CBO doesn’t consider adequate.

“The problem with this educated guess about enrollment is that CBO’s models put too much confidence in the effectiveness of central planning. The nearby table shows CBO’s projections about ObamaCare enrollment, which were consistently too high and discredited by reality year after year. CBO is also generally wrong in the opposite direction about market-based reforms, such as the 2003 Medicare drug benefit whose costs the CBO badly overestimated.”

Comment: The CBO estimates are important, at least from a media perspective, even though the Wall Street Journal editorial indicates that the analysts at the CBO are often wrong and usually underestimate the affect of free market forces. The office is inclined to support more government regulation, which is not what is needed if health care is to be reformed effectively – unless, of course, you are a believer in a government-run, single-payer system.

From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal: “One thing Mr. Trump did right while overseas was to stay on message. During his trip the president had one powerful theme a day. He stuck to prepared remarks and generally did not create controversies or send tweets that would overshadow his agenda. Take his stop in Saudi Arabia. There the president called on leaders of Muslim nations to ‘drive out’ Islamist terrorists in their midst.

“Mr. Trump’s tone abroad was often ‘presidential,’ a quality that’s difficult to describe but that you know when you see it. The first lady’s dignified presence helped as well.

Comment: The chances that Trump will stay on message are nearly nil. He will say – or tweet – the first thing that comes to his mind, no matter how much damage it does to his agenda or his standing as president.

Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal: “The Trump presidency is on three parallel tracks: the Trump tweet track, the Trump-Russia track and the Trump policy track. What lies beyond the horizon is either a successful presidency or a train wreck. As always, the choice of which track is in the hands of Engineer Trump.

“The cauldron of new media—which operates now on about a 10-minute news cycle—has boiled down Washington into pure political extract. The details of public policy, Mr. Trump’s or anyone else’s, disappear into the vapors. What’s left has become a kind of political crack, and the Trump tweets only feed the habit. Every ‘fake news’ tweet does nothing but take the media’s delirium higher.

“In the new world of synthesized politics, policy substance exists only as a walk-on character in the melodrama. Would anyone notice if they reversed the White House reporters sitting in front of Sean Spicer and the White House reporters in front of Melissa McCarthy on “Saturday Night Live?”

Comment: As usual, Henninger is right…on two counts: (1) Noting that the chance for a successful presidential administration lies mostly in Trump’s hands, and (2) Slamming the media for its focus on controversy and drama, not policy.

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 two I run with complete authority. What this department does – in other words, which quotes are included – is entirely my responsibility.

In this case, the quotes I have included this time, with my comments, were just too good to pass up.

So, here goes.

From the Wall Street Journal:  “The White House also wants to reform programs that have ballooned during the Obama years and effectively become a guaranteed national income. The budget cuts $193 billion over 10 years from food stamps, mainly by letting states impose a work requirement; $72 billion from the Social Security Disability Insurance program; and $12.5 billion by requiring a Social Security number to receive the earned-income tax credit or child tax credits.

“The left says this ‘guts the safety net,’ as if the measure of success is how many more people government can make dependent on government. Some 44 million Americans now receive food stamps, 16 million more than in 2008—despite eight years of economic growth and a 4.4% jobless rate. One reason the Obama economy grew so slowly is that millions of workers left the labor market, and getting them back and working would lift GDP.”

Comment: This points out a key problem with reforming ObamaCare. Once an entitlement is in place, it is almost impossible to change it. Someone will always point to anecdotes about how certain individuals are adversely affected.

From The Atlantic magazine: “News organizations should consider the kind of amount of coverage devoted to terrorist acts: Unfortunately, the very act of publicizing an act of terrorism cannot help but advance the ends of terrorists, who try to generate as much media attention as possible to stoke fear.”

Comment: Great point. The same holds true for demonstrations on the Capitol steps in Salem. Those who participate want media coverage and reporters, some with cameras, usually oblige. Would be interesting if such demonstrations – or, in the quote above, incredible acts of terror – did not generate so much media coverage. Too much to hope for? Yes.

From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Nonetheless CBO says 14 million fewer people on net would be insured in 2018 relative to the ObamaCare status quo, rising to 23 million in 2026. The political left has defined this as ‘losing coverage.’ But 14 million would roll off Medicaid as the program shifted to block grants, which is a mere 17% drop in enrollment after the ObamaCare expansion. The safety net would work better if it prioritized the poor and disabled with a somewhat lower number of able-bodied, working-age adults.

“The balance of beneficiaries ‘losing coverage’ would not enroll in insurance, CBO says, ‘because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.’ In other words, without the threat of government to buy insurance or else pay a penalty, some people will conclude that ObamaCare coverage isn’t worth the price even with subsidies. CBO adds that ‘a few million’ people would use the new tax credits to buy insurance that the CBO doesn’t consider adequate.

“The problem with this educated guess about enrollment is that CBO’s models put too much confidence in the effectiveness of central planning. The nearby table shows CBO’s projections about ObamaCare enrollment, which were consistently too high and discredited by reality year after year. CBO is also generally wrong in the opposite direction about market-based reforms, such as the 2003 Medicare drug benefit whose costs the CBO badly overestimated.”

Comment: The CBO estimates are critical, even though the Wall Street Journal editorial indicates that the analysts at the CBO are often wrong and usually underestimate the affect of free market forces. The office is inclined to support more government regulation, which is not what is needed if health care is to be reformed effectively – unless, of course, you are a believer in a government-run, single-payer system.

From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal: “One thing Mr. Trump did right while overseas was to stay on message. During his trip the president had one powerful theme a day. He stuck to prepared remarks and generally did not create controversies or send tweets that would overshadow his agenda. Take his stop in Saudi Arabia. There the president called on leaders of Muslim nations to ‘drive out’ Islamist terrorists in their midst.

“Mr. Trump’s tone abroad was often ‘presidential,’ a quality that’s difficult to describe but that you know when you see it. The first lady’s dignified presence helped as well.

Comment: The chances that Trump will stay on message are nil. He will say – or tweet – the first thing that comes to his mind, no matter how much damage it does to his agenda or his standing as president.

Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal: “The Trump presidency is on three parallel tracks: the Trump tweet track, the Trump-Russia track and the Trump policy track. What lies beyond the horizon is either a successful presidency or a train wreck. As always, the choice of which track is in the hands of Engineer Trump.

“The cauldron of new media—which operates now on about a 10-minute news cycle—has boiled down Washington into pure political extract. The details of public policy, Mr. Trump’s or anyone else’s, disappear into the vapors. What’s left has become a kind of political crack, and the Trump tweets only feed the habit. Every ‘fake news’ tweet does nothing but take the media’s delirium higher.

“In the new world of synthesized politics, policy substance exists only as a walk-on character in the melodrama. Would anyone notice if they reversed the White House reporters sitting in front of Sean Spicer and the White House reporters in front of Melissa McCarthy on “Saturday Night Live?”

Comment: As usual, Henninger is right…on two counts: (1) Noting that the chance for a successful presidential administration lies mostly in Trump’s hands, and (2) Indicting the media for its focus on controversy and drama, not policy.

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.

Republicans in Congress, especially in the House, are learning a tough, but old lesson: It is almost impossible to get rid of a government entitlement program once it is in place.

Led by House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republicans have tried to make good on a campaign pledge to get rid of ObamaCare, the still-relatively-new health care entitlement started under former President Barack Obama.

The effort is in the process of coming to grief, underlining the old problem of changing entitlements.

Anecdotes about who is losing coverage dominate the political debate no matter how hard public policy wonks like Ryan try to underline the dispassionate rationale for change.

The near failure of the Republican plan has prompted some observers to contend that the only answer is a single payer system, a government-run, government-financed entitlement that would go even farther than ObamaCare.

In fact, California is moving in that direction.

According to Wall Journal editorial writers, “this proves the truism that the liberal solution to every government failure is always more government.”

Many on the left, the Journal continues, “championed single-payer in lieu of ObamaCare’s regulations and subsidies, but in 2010 the program lacked enough support among Democrats in Congress. But with premiums soaring and insurers fleeing the Affordable Care Act exchanges, progressives are now trying to pivot to achieve their longtime dream.”

The California bill reflects the left’s ideal – or, without using political terms, something we all would like if paying for it wasn’t an issue: Free care for everyone for everything.

Patients would be entitled to an essentially unlimited list of benefits, including acupuncture and chiropractic care, as well as “all medical care determined to be medically appropriate by the member’s health care provider.” Patients could see any specialist without a referral. Co-pays and deductibles and charging premiums would be prohibited.

Thus, there would no restraint on health-care use and costs. Patients could get treated for virtually any malady by any physician at no cost.

But even paradise has a price. In California, the Senate committee considering the single payer bill pegged its cost at $400 billion a year, which is likely a conservative estimate since analysts assume utilization rates close to those for Medicaid in which patients lack access to many specialists. About $200 billion could be re-allocated from other government health-care programs including Medicaid and Medicare, though this would require federal waivers. The rest would require higher taxes.

A $200 billion tax hike in California would be equivalent to a 15 per cent payroll tax, which would come on top of the current 15.3 per cent federal payroll tax. The Senate staff analysis estimates that “between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of the payroll tax revenues would represent a new tax on employees, not likely to be offset by higher wages.”

One danger for taxpayers in the other 49 states is that California liberals will drag ambitious Democrats elsewhere to endorse a single-payer system if they want to compete for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Plus, for those of us in Oregon, public policy proposals often move north and south along the West Coast, so it will be only a matter of time before Democrats here have a single payer bill under consideration.

Okay, so, if not a single payer system, then what?

Well, if I was in charge of health Care policy, I would have five planks in my reform platform.

1. Require all citizens to have health insurance. [As I’ve written before, think of it this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. The same policy should exist for health insurance, though it will be difficult for many Republicans to stomach this mandate.]
2. Provide a catastrophic health insurance plan for those who cannot afford regular insurance and who need a lower-cost option. Call it what it is, which a “high-risk pool.”
3. Accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.
4. Allow broad access to health-savings accounts.
5. Save as much as possible of the joint federal and state Medicaid program as a way to provide government-financed care for low income citizens.

Will these proposals solve all of today’s health care problems? Of course not. But they will go a long toward removing incentives for a single payer system, which, frankly none of us can afford, especially if we to preserve funding for important priorities such as K-12 education, higher education, and public safety.

Just ask Californians as they contemplate huge tax increases to fund government health-care-for-all.