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.

Governor Kate Brown complied on December 1 with a state law requiring governors to produce what’s called a “Recommended Budget” for the next two-year period. It includes both spending and new taxes.

But, there is a better way for governors like Brown to underline what they believe to be the necessity for new money. It would be to submit a budget based only on current tax rates, not new taxes. That would show the depth of cuts necessary to live within current means.

In a Salem Statesman-Journal front-page article early in December, this is how Brown described her recommended budget for 2017-19:

“The budget includes significant cuts at a level I find absolutely unacceptable. This budget is a short-term solution, nothing more.”

In what the governor announced, she followed a script favored by her predecessor John Kitzhaber who always produced a “recommended budget” pinned to new taxes. In fact, according to the Statesman-Journal article, Brown built a total of $897 million of new taxes into her budget recommendations.

Included are increased taxes on tobacco and liquor worth $74 million, eliminating a specific business tax break known as “the partnership pass through,” thus boosting revenues by $117 million, and turning taxes on hospitals into what Brown called “true taxes,” which means hospitals and insurers won’t get their money back after paying taxes.

A bit of background on the hospital tax: Originally, the tax, negotiated first in 2003, was meant to generate state revenue that would be used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid. When the increased money arrived in Oregon, hospitals would be paid back for the taxes and the “extra” would be used to improve health care programs for low income Oregonians.

Most states were engaged in this legal matching funds scheme. But, now, the original deal hospitals cut with the governor and legislature has been turned on its head. It could become a straight tax, which will mean an increase in costs for hospitals that then will have no choice but to pass on the increased costs to consumers.

Beyond all this, the challenge the governor and legislative leaders will face in the 2017 legislative session is how to bring business and labor together to find a middle-ground compromise on new taxes, especially after the bruising battle at the polls where the business community came together as never before to kill the onerous tax on sales.

Governor Brown, along with House Speaker Tina Kotek, endorsed that tax (Ballot Measure 97), so it could be contended they have some damage to repair with the business community. If businesses are smart, they will wait for entreaties from Brown, Kotek and other leaders to become involved. Meanwhile, they should hold their own private counsels to determine if there are tax increases business could tolerate to fund important government programs.

The elephant in any room where there is such a budget discussion will be the “PERS problem.” That is the fact that the Public Employee Retirement System is underfunded to a substantial degree and any wide-ranging budget and tax compromise will have to include a PERS fix, which won’t go down easily with public employee unions.

Incredibly, Brown took the stage at the Business Summit last month to appeal to business leaders “to find new revenue.” She made the plea without any assurance of her own involvement, which, given Ballot Measure 97’s defeat, is a little like asking the winning team to forfeit its victory.

The current “Governor’s Recommended Budget” could have represented a solid starting point for a reasoned discussion of taxes and spending in the 2017 legislative session.

Instead, it doesn’t contribute much to what needs to be a real debate over the future of state government’s services to Oregonians.

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

The headline makes the point that the department is open again. I am the director. I don’t report to anyone. I just name the pet peeves at my whim.

So, here goes.

I WISH TRUMP WOULD STOP TWEETING: When I attended the swearing-in ceremony for Oregon’s new treasurer, Tobias Read, he said that it seldom is possible to render sound judgments on complicated public policy issues in 140 characters.

Well said.

My wish is that Donald Trump would stop tweeting. The tactic should be beneath him in his role as president, if only now as president-elect.

And, one more point on tweets…next.

I WISH THE MEDIA WOULD BE MORE DISCREET IN COVERING TRUMP’S TWEETS: Not everything Trump tweets is news, so reporters and editors should show more even-handed discretion. Don’t just tumble to the Trump goal, which is to usurp the news cycle, if there is a cycle any more.

As a former journalist, my view is this: Since it is likely that Trump will continue tweeting, take note of what he says via that medium and then do real stories on the subject he raises, not just stories that he is tweeting again.

In other words, use the tweets as pegs for news stories. But do the stories themselves using sound journalistic standards and judgments.

New York Times media critic Eric Wemple put it this way in his column this week: “Journalism is a classic craft that does not need new strategies to manage its fundamental work. Report, report, report. That’s how one major newspaper is approaching Trump, as its six-person White House detail is the largest it has ever deployed to this beat. The Washington Post also has a six-person deployment, and Politico has seven, the largest in its decade-long history. More resources to cover a president-elect that deploys falsehoods and misdirection at every turn — that’s called a strategy.”

CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS: We are witnessing another chapter in a long book – confirmation processes for persons named by a president or a president-elect to head a federal agency. Similar processes exist at the state level in Oregon for those named to head state agencies.

Call me stupid or poly-annish, but I think the focus of these confirmation processes should be on whether a nominee has the experience and credentials to manage a particular agency, not on whether the nomine agrees with the views of a particular senator who may be asking the questions.

In fact, if a Republican president or president-elect nominates someone, it is likely that person will not hold the same positions on issues as Democrat members of the Senate. Further, a case could be made that they should not; they don’t work for the Senate; they work for the president.

One of the recent examples went even farther down a dead-end road. This time, Republican Senator Marco Rubio from Florida – yes, Republican — was not pleased with answers provided by Rex Tillerson who has been nominated by Republican Donald Trump to be Secretary of State. Rubio was not pleased because Tillerson did not share all aspects of his, Rubio’s, bias against Russia, including whether Vladimir Putin was a “war criminal.”

Tillerson, properly, I contend, declined to provide a yes or no answer to the question until he had more information, but also came me across as an official, if confirmed, who would be appropriately skeptical of Russia’s motives.

Here’s the way Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan put it in a column this week: “Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson came across as distinguished, calm, informed. In intense questioning, Senator Marco Rubio was strangely, yippily hostile. ‘Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?’ Mr. Rubio pressed. ‘I would not use that term,’ Mr. Tillerson replied, blandly, but with an expression that allowed you to imagine a thought bubble: You can mess with me, son, but it won’t end well for you. In the end, Mr. Rubio did Mr. Tillerson no harm and himself no good.”

Rubio’s focus should have been on whether Tillerson is qualified for the job, not whether he agreed with him on tough issues about which there can be many views.

Beyond the confirmation process, columnist Ruth Marcus notes that the Trump administration’s first Cabinet meeting should be a very interesting affair. On issue after issue — Russia, the border wall, the Iran nuclear deal, climate change, torture, NATO — she writes that Trump’s nominees have diverged from his stated positions. “So, she continues, “whose views will prevail? Could Trump’s secretaries help save Trump from himself — and the country from Trump? Will they offer a sobering dose-of-reality therapy for the reality TV president?”

And this footnote. Soon we’ll see a confirmation process for a U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Here, based on seeing past Court confirmation processes, the focus will be whether the nominee agrees with a questioner, not whether he or she is qualified for the court seat. No way to avoid this, I guess.

DEMOCRATS IN OREGON SHOVE REPUBLICANS ASIDE: Democrats are in charge of nearly all aspects of government in Oregon – the House, the Senate and the Governor’s Office. They lead 35-25 in the House and 18-12 in the Senate and they hold the Governor’s Office.

Republicans in the House are complaining that Democrat leaders there are giving the Rs short shrift in dividing up the committee assignments for the 2017 legislative session. Sure, the Ds are in charge and they get to assign committees, but as the Oregonian opined this week, Democrats “should court Republican support anyway for reasons far beyond bi-partisan bragging rights. First, the problems of educational mediocrity, a massive budget deficit and the lack of affordable housing cut across Oregonians – from urban Democratic precincts to Republican strongholds – and those elected to represent them deserve a hand in shaping policies to meet their constituents’ needs.”

Further, the Oregonian used a telling phrase by saying that “good legislation is not created in an echo chamber.” My pet peeve is that those in charge, in this case, the Democrats, usually overplay their leadership hand – yelling in the echo chamber, if you will – rather than getting about the business of finding real solutions to real public policy problems.

Here’s hoping that all parties in Salem will end up being able to find middle ground. It will take reasoned leaders and followers, not those who shut out the other side.

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

The headline makes the point that the department is open again. I am the director. I don’t report to anyone. I just name the pet peeves at my whim

So, here goes.

I WISH TRUMP WOULD STOP TWEETING: When I attended the swearing-in ceremony for Oregon’s new treasurer, Tobias Read, he said that it seldom is possible to render sound judgments on complicated public policy issues in 140 characters.

Well said.

My wish is that Donald Trump would stop tweeting. The tactic should be beneath him in his role as president, if only now as president-elect.

And, one more point on tweets…next.

I WISH THE MEDIA WOULD BE MORE DISCREET IN COVERING TRUMP’S TWEETS: Not everything Trump tweets is news, so reporters and editors should show more even-handed discretion. Don’t just tumble to the Trump goal, which is to usurp the news cycle, if there is a cycle any more.

As a former journalist, my view is this: Since it is likely that Trump will continue tweeting, take note of what he says via that medium and then do real stories on the subject he raises, not just stories that he is tweeting again.

In other words, use the tweets as pegs for news stories. But do the stories themselves using sound journalistic standards and judgments.

New York Times media critic Eric Wemple put it this way in his column this week: “Journalism is a classic craft that does not need new strategies to manage its fundamental work. Report, report, report. That’s how one major newspaper is approaching Trump, as its six-person White House detail is the largest it has ever deployed to this beat. The Washington Post also has a six-person deployment, and Politico has seven, the largest in its decade-long history. More resources to cover a president-elect that deploys falsehoods and misdirection at every turn — that’s called a strategy.”

CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS: We are witnessing another chapter in a long book – confirmation processes for persons named by a president or a president-elect to head a federal agency. Similar processes exist at the state level in Oregon for those named to head state agencies.

Call me stupid or poly-annish, but I think the focus of these confirmation processes should be on whether a nominee has the experience and credentials to manage a particular agency, not on whether the nominee agrees with the views of a particular senator who may be asking the questions.

In fact, if a Republican president or president-elect nominates someone, it is likely that person will not hold the same positions on issues as Democrat members of the Senate. Further, a case could be made that they should not; they don’t work for the Senate; they work for the president.

One of the recent examples went even farther down a dead-end road. This time, Republican Senator Marco Rubio from Florida – yes, Republican — was not pleased with answers provided by Rex Tillerson who has been nominated by Republican Donald Trump to be Secretary of State. Rubio was not pleased because Tillerson did not share all aspects of his, Rubio’s, bias against Russia, including whether Vladimir Putin was a “war criminal.”

Tillerson, properly, I contend, declined to provide a yes or no answer to the question until he had more information, but also came me across as an official, if confirmed, who would be appropriately skeptical of Russia’s motives.

Here’s the way Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan put it in a column this week: “Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson came across as distinguished, calm, informed. In intense questioning, Senator Marco Rubio was strangely, yippily hostile. ‘Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?’ Mr. Rubio pressed. ‘I would not use that term,’ Mr. Tillerson replied, blandly, but with an expression that allowed you to imagine a thought bubble: You can mess with me, son, but it won’t end well for you. In the end, Mr. Rubio did Mr. Tillerson no harm and himself no good.”

Rubio’s focus should have been on whether Tillerson is qualified for the job, not whether he agreed with him on tough issues about which there can be many views.

Beyond the confirmation process, columnist Ruth Marcus notes that the Trump administration’s first Cabinet meeting should be a very interesting affair. On issue after issue — Russia, the border wall, the Iran nuclear deal, climate change, torture, NATO — she writes that Trump’s nominees have diverged from his stated positions. “So, she continues, “whose views will prevail? Could Trump’s secretaries help save Trump from himself — and the country from Trump? Will they offer a sobering dose-of-reality therapy for the reality TV president?”

And this footnote. Soon we’ll see a confirmation process for a U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Here, based on seeing past Court confirmation processes, the focus will be whether the nominee agrees with a questioner, not whether he or she is qualified for the court seat. No way to avoid, I guess.

DEMOCRATS IN OREGON SHOVE REPUBLICANS ASIDE: Democrats are in charge of nearly all aspects of government in Oregon – the House, the Senate and the Governor’s Office. They lead 35-25 in the House and 18-12 in the Senate and they hold the Governor’s Office.

Republicans in the House are complaining that Democrat leaders there are giving the Rs short shrift in dividing up the committee assignments for the 2017 legislative session. Sure, the Ds are in charge and they get to assign committees, but as the Oregonian opined this week, Democrats “should court Republican support anyway for reasons far beyond bi-partisan bragging rights. First, the problems of educational mediocrity, a massive budget deficit and the lack of affordable housing cut across Oregonians – from urban Democratic precincts to Republican strongholds – and those elected to represent them deserve a hand in shaping policies to meet their constituents’ needs.”

Further, the Oregonian used a telling phrase by saying that “good legislation is not created in an echo chamber.” My pet peeve is that those in charge, in this case, the Democrats, usually overplay their leadership hand – yelling in the echo chamber, if you will – rather than getting about the business of finding real solutions to real public policy problems.

Here’s hoping that all parties in Salem will end up being able to find middle ground. It will take reasoned leaders and followers, not those who shut out one side.

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 has been almost 30 years ago that U.S. President Ronald Reagan, while in Berlin, uttered his now famous line:

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Today, we are contending with the reverse. Someone, no less than President-Elect Donald Trump, wants to build a wall. The purposes, I suppose, are similar in some ways to the Berlin Wall.

According to the History Channel, back in 1961, the official purpose of the Berlin Wall “was to keep Western fascists from entering East Germany and undermining the socialist state.”

This time, with Trump, the purpose is to bar Mexicans from entering the U.S, where, beyond being, in some cases, illegal, they could undermine our economic state.

And many Americans seem to be saying, “please, build this wall.”

Retired Marine General John Kelly, who supervised U.S. operations in Latin America and is now the director-designate of the Homeland Security Department, says he has long shared Mr. Trump’s concerns about border security.

But, in his confirmation hearings this week, he told Congress that, if the U.S. built “a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf Mexico,” it would still need to be backed up by border patrols and technology. He said border security hinges on building stronger partnerships in Latin America.

“A physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job,” General Kelly told the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “It has to be really a layered defense.”

So, in the tale of two walls, one was torn down about 30 years ago and another is poised to be built.

My view is that General Kelly was dead-on when he made the point that effective border security hinges, not on building barriers, but on building stronger personal relationships with other countries, especially in this hemisphere, but also around the world.

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.

Even as members of the House and Senate, not to mention the incoming Trump Administration, debate health care reform, it strikes me as a logical time to suggest my own framework for reform.

I do so, not because I will have any role in the effort, but because I want to have a response when those who support ObamaCare suggest that ObamaCare opponents have nothing to say about replacing that government-dominated system.

I also believe that a country such as ours, with all of its various political viewpoints, should be able to solve a challenge such as health care. A solution can emerge if, in contrast to the Obama Administration, the goal is to produce a program somewhere in the middle, not one adopted by only one side or the other.

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

What might undo Republicans isn’t policy so much as politics. This is where they’d do well to reflect on all that President Obama did wrong. Long before ObamaCare cratered on the merits, it had failed in the court of public opinion—because of both the manner and the means by which it became law. The first test for Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration is whether they prove foolish enough to repeat those obvious mistakes.

Senior Democrats crafted ObamaCare in backrooms, foregoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues—much less Republicans. It was an exercise in secrecy and control.

It’s time for something different, a middle-of-the-road plan that takes into account perspectives from reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

So, borrowing, in part, ideas from the American Enterprise Institute, not just my own notions, here are what could be called “four legs of the health care stool.”

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

Without everyone in the to-be-insured pool, any system will collapse, much as occurred with ObamaCare. The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk.

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

2. Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I wrote above, HSAs will empower the demand side of the market, but suppliers need freedom from overly-aggressive regulation to provide packages of services better tailored to individual needs.

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

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

As Congress and the Trump Administration move to do something different than a government, top-down ObamaCare approach, now is the time to develop a system that empowers consumers to take more responsibility for their own health care and that of their families. A political approach from the middle is the only way to achieve acceptable reform.

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

The question posed by this headline has crossed my mind lately as we have watched a variety of developments in national public policy. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to know whether what you read or see is real or whether it’s all contrived to make a certain point, to sow confusion or to breed discord>

A few examples:

FAKE NEWS: With the proliferation of social media sites – not to mention the millions of Americans who appear to rely on such sites — all of us have been affected by a relatively new phenomenon – fake news. What can you believe these days? Who knows?

TWEETING: Incoming President Donald Trump is a master at the so-called art of saying something in 140 characters or less – and, frankly 140 characters is not enough to convey the very real complexity of the issues on which Trump feels a need to comment. Further, are his tweets “news?” Journalists disagree on the answer.

SPINNING: Depending on how you define the term, there may be nothing wrong with spinning. If it’s an attempt to put the best face on an issue, no problem – it’s what all of us do in everyday life to explain the situations or issues we face. But, if it’s more these days – putting a knowingly fake spin on public policy developments – then it is done for reasons other than accuracy or context.

CREATING NEWS: A cousin of spinning, this is the attempt by various politicians to create events in an effort, not necessarily to move a proposed policy forward, but to get their names in various media – the general circulation media or, more likely, social media.

PUNDITRY: This is a class of commentators that always has existed, but has emerged to a greater degree lately, especially with the rise of social media platforms which don’t exercise the same degree of editing than would, say, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal (to name two publications that are, respectively, left and right of center).

BLOGGING: I don’t mean to criticize this form because, this very piece, my piece, is an example of blogging. I don’t have an editor or even, most of the time, a reviewer. So, like other bloggers what I write and how I write is up to one person – me.

Of course, my stuff is imminently accurate and in context, but the same cannot necessarily be said of all bloggers. They say what they want to say often without regard to accuracy or context.

So, in the face of these and other questions about news accuracy, how do all of us behave so as not to react to untruths or just read what supports our own point of view?

My view is several-fold:

1. All of us should read enough material from various sources so as not to believe any one is the epitome of accuracy and context in and of itself. For me, this means that every morning, besides the local, in-Oregon media outlets, I read at least portions of three newspapers –- the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

2. All of us should set out to talk with family, friends, colleagues and neighbors who might not share our particular point of view. That way, we consider other perspectives. The risk is that, without various viewpoints, where we happen to sit dictates how we happen to think.

3. All of us should be appropriately skeptical of various social media outlets where writers are only trying to steer us to their point of view rather than to provide accuracy and context. Their bias drives what they write and say.

4. All of us should believe that we, as individuals, do not have a corner on truth. We should be open to other perspectives even if we hew to a basic set of personal convictions.

So, read and view on, but, I say, do so with disciplined eyes, ears and minds.

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

Seems many news organizations are making lists of top stories for 2016 as that momentous year turns to 2017

So, to join the fray, in the spirit of David Letterman, I have composed my own Top 10 List of pubic policy stories in 2016. Here goes.

1. MAJOR TAX MEASURE GOES DOWN

For me, the top story had to be the selfish effort by public employee unions to propose a major tax on sales – not profits – that would go to polls in November as Ballot Measure 97. Fortunately for Oregon, the over-the-top tax went down to a major defeat. But that has not stopped the unions; they are proposing an even larger tax hike in the 2017 Oregon Legislature.

2. POLITICAL LEADERS FAIL TO FIND MIDDLE GROUND ON TAXES

In a related development, Oregon’s political leaders – Governor Kate Brown, House Speaker Tina Kotek and Senate President Peter Courtney – failed to bring unions and business to a negotiating table to avoid the tax measure. In fact, both Brown and Kotek endorsed Measure 97. For me, this failure to display political leadership struck me as almost as important as the tax itself.

3. DEMOCRATS HOLD POWER IN SALEM

Governor Brown won her own two-year term in the Governor’s Office and Democrats retained majorities in both the House and Senate, though with one vote short of a super-majority in the House, which means it will be tougher for Ds to pass tax increases on their own motion. A good question is how the Ds will use their power in the 2017 legislative session and early signals are there may be continuing tensions with Rs who believe the Ds have shut them out of important committee slots.

4. REPUBLICAN WINS STATEWIDE OFFICE

This doesn’t happen often in Oregon, so it is important to note that Central Point Republican Dennis Richardson, a former legislator, pulled off the feat by winning the Secretary of State’s Office against a well-funded Democrat. Richardson says he hopes to use the Secretary of State’s audit powers to improve state government, but his first two staff appointments raised eyebrows because the individuals had been involved in previous, high-profile state government controversies. Other than Jack Roberts, a Eugene Republican who won the State Labor Commissioner job, Richardson is the first statewide constitutional office holder since Governor Vic Atiyeh some 35 years ago.

5. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PLAN FAILS

Another deficit to lay at the feet of Oregon’s political leaders is the failure to find middle ground on what nearly everyone agrees is necessary – an approach to fund improvements in Oregon’s roads and bridges. Attaching other stuff to the road-bridge funds was its downfall.

6. HEALTH CARE POLICY RECEDES

Perhaps it should not be a surprise given the fall from power of Oregon’s “health care governor,” Dr. John Kitzhaber, but health care policy issues have remained in the background for almost the entire year.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS ON THE RISE

As Oregon health care policy formulations receded, the opposite was true of heath insurance premiums – they went up as ObamaCare came home to roost in Oregon and other states. Every Oregon health insurance company but one is proposing double-digit rate increases for the individual market in 2017, with two of the biggest players — Moda Health Plans and Providence Health Plans — both seeking to raise rates by nearly a third. Seven of the 12 insurers in the small-group market are also seeking increases, albeit smaller than those in the individual market.

8. STATE AGENCY MISMANAGEMENT

Many governors would have had difficulty surviving a list of state agency management blunders – chief among them huge foster care problems in the Department of Human Services (DHS). However, Governor Brown survived them and even won re-election. [A footnote: Governor Brown’s appointment of veteran state agency manager Clyde Saiki as head of DHS is a solid step, one that is likely to put the agency in a far better position.]

9. REPUBLICAN LEADERS REMAIN IN PLACE

Even though Republicans were not able to cut much into Democrat control of the Legislature, they kept their two leaders in place – Representative Mike McLane and Senator Ted Ferrioli who both hail from Eastern Oregon.

10. EARTHQUAKE RETROFITTING: A FAD, NOT A COMMITMENT

Even as residents in Salem and elsewhere were asked to focus on taking steps to survive earthquakes, policymakers retreated on steps to prepare the State Capitol and school districts for the problems. Even Senate President Peter Courtney, who had been an advocate for retrofitting the “People’s Building,” the State Capitol, retreated in the face of opposition from House Speaker Tina Kotek. So, zero progress on this major public policy issue.

FOOTNOTE: And, in a result that almost made my Top 10 List, Beaverton legislator Tobias Read won a hard-fought State Treasurer race, thus setting up what could be a later run for governor. Back in college, he said being governor would interest him. Of course, several years hence is an eternity in politics, especially if, on the D side, Governor Brown runs again as she could do for a regular four-year term and new Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler continues to perform well in public office. And, who knows which Rs will emerge for the state’s top political job.

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.

Just after I posted a blog this morning – one indicating my disgust with President Barack Obama and his Administration – I read the following piece in the Wall Street Journal written columnist by Bret Stephens.

It does a more complete job than I did in outlining the failed Obama Administration, especially internationally. Therefore, I am posting it to make sure others get to read it.

********

Obama’s Fitting Finish

In the list of low points in U.S. foreign policy, the betrayal of Israel ranks high.

By Bret Stephens

Dec. 26, 2016 6:36 p.m. ET

Barack Obama’s decision to abstain from, and therefore allow, last week’s vote to censure Israel at the U.N. Security Council is a fitting capstone for what’s left of his foreign policy. Strategic half-measures, underhanded tactics and moralizing gestures have been the president’s style from the beginning. Israelis aren’t the only people to feel betrayed by the results.

Also betrayed: Iranians, whose 2009 Green Revolution in heroic protest of a stolen election Mr. Obama conspicuously failed to endorse for fear of offending the ruling theocracy.

Iraqis, who were assured of a diplomatic surge to consolidate the gains of the military surge, but who ceased to be of any interest to Mr. Obama the moment U.S. troops were withdrawn, and only concerned him again when ISIS neared the gates of Baghdad.

Syrians, whose initially peaceful uprising against anti-American dictator Bashar Assad Mr. Obama refused to embrace, and whose initially moderate-led uprising Mr. Obama failed to support, and whose sarin- and chlorine-gassed children Mr. Obama refused to rescue, his own red lines notwithstanding.

Ukrainians, who gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994 with formal U.S. assurances that their “existing borders” would be guaranteed, only to see Mr. Obama refuse to supply them with defensive weapons when Vladimir Putin invaded their territory 20 years later.

Pro-American Arab leaders, who expected better than to be given ultimatums from Washington to step down, and who didn’t anticipate the administration’s tilt toward the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate political opposition, and toward Tehran as a responsible negotiating partner.

Most betrayed: Americans.

Mr. Obama promised a responsible end to the war in Iraq. We are again fighting in Iraq. He promised victory in Afghanistan. The Taliban are winning. He promised a reset with Russia. We are enemies again. He promised the containment of Iran. We are witnessing its ascendancy in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. He promised a world free of nuclear weapons. We are stumbling into another age of nuclear proliferation. He promised al Qaeda on a path to defeat. Jihad has never been so rampant and deadly.

These are the results. They would be easier to forgive if they hadn’t so often been reached by disingenuous and dishonorable means.

The administration was deceptive about the motives for the 2012 Benghazi attack. It was deceptive about Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s service record, and the considerations that led it to exchange five Taliban leaders for his freedom. It was deceptive about when it began nuclear negotiations with Iran. It was deceptive about the terms of the deal. It continues to be deceptive about the fundamental aim of the agreement, which has less to do with curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions than with aligning Washington’s interests with Tehran’s.

Now the administration is likely being deceptive about last week’s U.N. vote, claiming it did not promote, craft or orchestrate a resolution that treats the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City as a settlement in illegally occupied territory. Yet in November, John Kerry had a long talk on the subject with the foreign minister of New Zealand, one of the resolution’s sponsors.

“One of the closed-door discussions between United States Secretary of State John Kerry and the New Zealand government today was a potential resolution by the United Nations Security Council on a two-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict,” the New Zealand Herald reported last month. “‘It is a conversation we are engaged in deeply and we’ve spent some time talking to Secretary Kerry about where the U.S. might go on this,’” the paper added, quoting Foreign Minister Murray McCully.

The Israelis claim to have more evidence along these lines. If so, it means the administration no longer bothers to lie convincingly.

Even this might be excusable, if Mr. Obama at least had the courage of his mistaken convictions, or if his deception were in the service of a worthier end. Instead, we have the spectacle of the U.S. government hiding behind the skirts of the foreign minister of New Zealand—along with eminent co-sponsors, Venezuela, Malaysia and Senegal—in order to embarrass and endanger a democratic ally in a forum where that ally is already isolated and bullied. In the catalog of low points in American diplomacy, this one ranks high.

After the Carter administration pulled a similar stunt against Israel at the Security Council in December 1980, the Washington Post published an editorial that does the paper honor today.

“It cannot be denied,” the editors wrote, “that there is a pack and that it hounds Israel shamelessly and that this makes it very serious when the United States joins it.” The editorial was titled “Joining the Jackals.”

Unlike Mr. Carter, Mr. Obama hasn’t joined the jackals. He has merely opened the door wide to them, whether at the U.N. or in the skies over Syria or in the killing fields in Ukraine. The United States abstains: What a fitting finish to this ruinous presidency.

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.

While I was shocked at Donald Trump’s election victory, I did feel that it was time for a change from the Obama Administration.

And, obviously, there would be a change after Obama’s two terms; it just appeared to many voters that Hillary Clinton would be the change, perhaps Obama 3, a result voters could not tolerate.

While Obama appears to be a good man who cared for his family and wanted to do what he felt was right for the country, he also seemed, at times, to me, to be in over his head as the nation’s chief executive.

I remember when he came into office after a remarkable campaign. He would be the first Black president and I suppose some voters selected him because of that fact. I didn’t. He campaigned on the slogan “Hope and Change,” and it was persuasive to many Americans, including me. I remember his appearance in Chicago just after his election. The fact that more one million Americans attended that celebration illustrated the fact that hope for change had gripped the country.

The next eight years tended to deflate that slogan. While coming across as a good man, Obama could not deliver on the promise.

Trying to come to terms with Trump’s pending presidency, I have been giving some thought to Obama Administration failures, which is presumptuous, perhaps, because I did not have any occasion to see Obama up close and personal. Nor, obviously, do I have any real, first-hand knowledge of what it means to be president, a job so difficult and complex that it almost defies understanding.

Still, I wanted to have something to say when friends and colleagues asked me why I had problems with Obama. Here, for me, are a few summaries of his failures.

• First, Obama’s view appeared, at all times, to be that government had a solution for every It did not appear that a key question was asked – is there a role for government in responding to this problem and, if there is, what should that role be and how should it be defined?

• Second, Obama came into office on a pledge to change the culture of Washington, D.C. by working with all sides on issues and challenges. He never was able to make good on that pledge. Some will fault Republicans in Congress for opposing Obama at every turn and, to be sure, they deserve some of the blame. But a test for every president is the ability to persuade a reluctant Congress to find compromise the fulfills at least part of presidential priorities.

• Third, Obama at least allowed, if not encouraged, several agencies in his Cabinet to act beyond the law. Chief among them was the Internal Revenue Service, which, beyond collecting taxes, used its power to intimidate conservative non-profit organizations.

• Fourth, Obama established a number of “red lines” in the Middle East or other international fronts, then failed to enforce them, a reality that made him a difficult-to-be counted-on president.

• Fifth, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama independently enacted 560 major regulations during his first seven years in office—nearly 50 per cent more than during the two terms of the George W. Bush Administration. The Supreme Court has repudiated or questioned some of Obama’s efforts to circumvent Congress, including his immigration orders, which the court effectively blocked by a 4-4 vote last June.

Even in his last days in office, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel reports that Obama is engaging in a “midnight express” of new regulations in the apparent belief that President Trump will have difficulty getting rid of all of them.

• Sixth, these paragraphs from a column by the brother of Washington Post columnist Maureen Dowd strike me as a solid commentary on Obama, perhaps a bit overstated at times, but still worth considering.

“The election was a complete repudiation of Barack Obama: His fantasy world of political correctness, the politicization of the Justice Department and the I.R.S., an out-of-control E.P.A., his neutering of the military, his non-support of the police and his fixation on things like transgender bathrooms.

“Since he became president, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships.

“The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that it was not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.

“Preaching — and pandering — with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion. This did not go down well in the Midwest, where Trump flipped three blue states and 44 electoral votes.”

So, Obama is now in his final days in office as all of us contemplate a future with Donald Trump at the helm.

My hope is that Trump, with all his baggage, will be judged on the merits or demerits of what he does, not on the merits or demerits of what he says because, at the moment, there is more of the latter than the former – more of the demerits of what he says, I mean.

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 that headline strikes you as a bit presumptuous, good. It is.

I have no business thinking I will ever be in charge of government, either at the state or federal levels and either by appointment or election. Plus, I am retired. But I do have a few prescriptions for what should constitute good government.

So, here goes.

1. Good government should be marked by asking one important question: Is there a role for government in regard to this problem and, if there is, how should a government response be designed to achieve the desired result.

Too often, this question is not asked, much less answered. Thus, we have a pay for government solutions to every problem. Does government have a role in some cases? By all means. But not all cases.

Asking this hard question and providing a fact-based answer is the first step toward good government.

2. Good government should be about promises kept, not just promises made.

Making promises is easy. Keeping them is hard. But if promises are just talk, then why listen? Make promises, then keep them.

Let me add one clarification here. If a candidate makes a promise on the campaign trail or an agency head makes a promise in running a program, then finds out he or she cannot fulfill it, tell the public the truth. In straightforward facts, describe why a promise cannot be kept. That builds credibility.

3. Good government should be about achieving results, not just proposing them.

In his Wonder Land column, Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Henninger put it this way about Donald Trump’s recent election:

“…..Democrats disconsolate since the election about the loss of hope in American politics leave the impression they believe that giving people the rhetoric of hope, lifting them with words, is more important than delivering results, which some might call change.”

Results matter. Measure those who serve you in elected or appointed office by the results they achieve, not the results they promise and don’t achieve.

4. Good government should be about the search for middle ground, not extremes in public policy.

Too often, government these days is about the ability to win at all costs. Call the other side stupid. Impose your will.

Consider the Affordable Health Care Act, which came to be called ObamaCare. It was, in fact, an apt moniker. The program was imposed by Obama and his Democrat supporters in Congress without one Republican vote – and this was not because Republicans were just opposed to Obama. It was because the Act was an over-the-top, one-size-fits-all prescription for health care in America.

Was it all bad? Of course not. Millions of Americas got health coverage as part of new government spending, but at what cost? A huge spike upward in health premiums, both for those newly on a government program, as well as those in the private sector.

The better answer, one the Republicans in charge should now consider, is to legislate from the middle. Work with reasonable Democrats – yes, there are some, just as there are some reasonable Republicans – to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with something that works better.

House Speaker Paul Ryan’s “Better Way” document would be a good place to start in the effort to do what good Americans and their representatives should be able to do, with is find a middle ground solution to health care.

5. Good government should be about ethical and honest behavior, not bending the truth.

This seems far from the case today. A government by and for the people should be honest in its approach to these “people” – us.

Conclusion: These prescriptions might not make good sound bites. But they’d make good government.