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 Washington Post performed an excellent service a few days before final voting in this strangest-of-all presidential elections by listing some of the incredible things Trump has said along the campaign trail.

Plus, the editorial writers say that, when Trump is caught in a lie or an overstatement, he doubles down and contends that he and only he can deal with the issue.

I have thought that, along this campaign trail, Trump has showed signs of being mentally ill. He comes across as paranoid and so obviously self-centered that who knows what he would do if he had the nuclear trigger at his disposal.

The editorial writers closed with this paragraph:

“It is mystifying that so many Republicans, after criticizing Mr. Obama for eight years for showing insufficient pride in the United States, would attach themselves to someone who has such contempt for the country, its institutions and its values. U.S. generals have been “reduced to rubble,” the U.S. Army cannot fight, U.S. cities are “hell,” U.S. wealth has been “stripped” away by global interests, the electoral system is “one big, ugly lie.” To each of these disasters, Mr. Trump offers phony solutions (Mexico will pay to build a wall) or none at all. He has neither the interest nor the capacity to suggest actual policies.”

Here, then, is the list of Trump pronouncements.

• “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely.”

Comment: Don’t bet on it. His refusal to release returns, the Post says, is an unprecedented sign of contempt for voters

• “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people who have lots of problems. . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Comment: To Trump, all Mexican immigrants are rapists. Surely, the United States must do a better job of controlling its borders, including to the south, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who is not Trump is a criminal.

• “You’d be in jail.” (a remark to Hillary Clinton)

Comment: Every four years there are winners and losers in national elections. This time, if Trump loses, going against the pattern of history, he says he won’t accept the outcome.

• “I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

Comment: So, Trump, himself proposes that he would be a terrorist.

• “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.”

Comment: Trump’s instinct to fight with anyone who disagrees with him portends nothing but trouble if he sits in the Oval Office.

• “When you’re a star, they let you do it.”

Comment: Consider the incredible, over-the-top egotism of this comment. He’s a star so he can do what he wants to women.

• “Make America great again.”

Comment: For me, this comment always stirs up disquieting memories of what it must have been like in post World War I Germany when Hitler rose to power. Like Hitler in Germany, Trump says he alone can be the savior of America.

Now, some who may read this post will respond that Hillary Clinton has her own problems with ethics and integrity. To that, I answer, “yes, true.” But Trump’s pronouncements are far worse.

If that means, we, as voters, face a choice between the evils of less than honorable candidates, so be it. I’ll choose the one, Clinton, who at least has a semblance of qualifications to serve in the nation’s highest political office.

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

One of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, wrote the other day about an interesting focus group conducted by reputed national pollster Peter Hart.

He gathered 12 “regular citizens” in a room and asked questions about the current presidential campaign, questions that resonate with many of us who have watched the current depressing run for the nation’s highest political office.

Here is one exchange reported by Noonan:

“Raise your hand, said Mr. Hart, if you like both candidates. No one did. Raise your hand if you like one candidate. No one did. Raise if you don’t like either. All 12 did.

“When asked to describe the America they want, they wrote things like ‘a solid education system, ‘no longer at war,’ ‘people have joy in their work,’ ‘leading the world in everything, including morals, ‘equal opportunity and reward based on work,’ ‘people haven’t lost their homes,’ and ‘a culture that improves us as a people.’”

Agreed.

One of the risks in the current debacle of an election is that it leaves us, as Americans, more dubious about our future.

If Clinton wins, we’ll be subjected to more lies and unscrupulous behavior.

If Trump wins, we’ll be embarrassed by his conduct, his words, his actions and an inability to take other than an “I am great” approach to anything.

Hart’s focus group is interesting for another reason. It did not produce just a slew of negatives from the respondents.

There was some optimism. Hart asked whether there could be a good outcome from this election. Five of those in the room answered “yes,” including this comment. “We’re a hardy bunch,” said a woman. Another: “It’ll stick in our minds. We’ll learn from it.”

Also this week, San Francisco columnist Kathleen Parker worried that there only days remaining before the time comes to vote (unless you have done what I have done in Oregon, which is to vote by mail early). “Wait, no, I’m not ready!” Parkear said. “Where’s the one I want to vote for? Can it be true that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States? For real? Is this really all we’ve got?

Where, Parker wondered, “is the individual who compels us to cheer for the good that unites us, the virtue that defines us, the strength that sustains us and the faith that tomorrow will always be better? Where is the sunny, aspirational leader who understands the frustrations of Trump supporters and the sense of left-behindness of people on both left and right?”

Parker also worries that decent people – more decent than either of the presidential candidates – may decide that getting into public service isn’t worth the total surrender of one’s autonomy and privacy.

“Who can blame them? Thus, our next president will be chosen not with the enthusiasm of a well-informed electorate but with the forelornness that comes of having no better option.”

So, amidst all of the depressing news, how can we not only survive, but thrive? As the focus group and Parker note, there are ways to find optimism. One is to maintain a sense of personal equilibrium, knowing that, this too, will pass and we can learn from the experience.

Another is to remember, as Parker urges, “the good that unites us, the virtue that defines us, the strength that sustains, and the faith that tomorrow will always be better?

Beyond that, I say find your own roots.

For me, roots are family and friends, buttressed by the reality of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which provides a basis for living day-to-day, as well as being optimistic about the future.

…This is the second of several blogs outlining criticism of the State of Oregon budgeting processes, which is important as voters here consider a major new tax increase…

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.

Back in 2003, the Oregon Legislature came up with an idea that sounded questionable, but was based on explicit U.S. government permission.

It was this:  Impose a special tax on 16 major Oregon hospitals, take the money into the hands of state government, then use it to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid, the joint state-federal health care program for low income citizens.

Everyone wins, right?

Well, perhaps not the federal government, which had to shell out more money in matching funds, but the purpose was positive in the eyes of most people — provide more and better health care services for low income citizens.

It didn’t work out as planned, especially not for Oregon hospitals or the citizens they serve.

The transaction illustrated what could have been suspected back then, but wasn’t as clear as it is today:  It is impossible to negotiate a deal with the legislature, then expect that deal to hold up, even for one two-year budget cycle.

Something always intrudes.

Legislators and the governor forget the deal they cut, so they don’t honor it.  Or, a new “emergency,” real or imagined, comes up and the deal is off.  Or, even more perversely, legislators appear to honor the deal and devote the “new money” to health care, then, in a back room and out of public view, they take “general funds” out from behind the deal and allocate it elsewhere, including to the legislature’s top political priority — K-12 education.

So, does the hospital tax make sense?

To some, the answer might be yes if they want government to have more money.  In other words, the lure of the federal match drives the process – and, at the moment, this is the case in 49 states, as well as in the District of Columbia.

To others, the answer also might be yes if the general purpose is served — more health for low-income persons who don’t have access to health care otherwise.

To hospitals, the answer might be yes if, in fact, they would get back money for the tax they pay, which, after all, was the original design of the program.  But, as it is today, not all hospitals get back all of “their” money and the new money for Oregon often goes to other than health care programs.

To taxpayers, the answer also is murky.  Could be yes or could be no, depending on an individual’s political persuasion. If you want more government and believe taxes should be increased, you would be in favor of the transaction. If, on the other hand, you believe government should be more frugal in how it allocates money, you would oppose the tax scheme; after all, it results in more federal and state spending.

Back to hospitals.  They have operated in good faith in this kind of transaction, but have suffered because of the realities outlined above, which underline again the inescapable conclusion:  You can’t negotiate and cut a deal with the legislature and expect it to be honored.

Along the way, hospital lobbyists have insisted on “memoranda of understanding” (MOU) to memorialize the deals over the years and, while not ironclad, the MOUs provided a bit of assurance that the legislators and the governor who signed them would live up to the deals.

No.  There was only one legislator who was at the table during the negotiations who admitted in public that legislators did not live up to what they signed.  That was Senator Betsy Johnson, the Democrat from Scappoose, who is one of the legislature’s chief budget experts, not to mention a public official marked by candor and integrity.

She announced that legislators and the governor had reneged on the deal to her chagrin. Her position was that legislators should honor it.

All of this will matter down the road if legislators and the health insurance industry sit down in a room to negotiate an extension of a health insurance tax, which, again, is designed to garner more federal matching dollars.

As originally designed, proceeds from the insurance tax and matching dollars were supposed to fund health insurance for children who did not have coverage.

It didn’t work out that way.  Legislators said they needed the money elsewhere and they took it. In the vernacular of the Ways and Means process, this is called “sweeping” the money.

And, this time, hospitals were not the ones left out in the cold.  It was citizens who had commercial insurance coverage.  A one per cent tax was added on to their insurance premiums and the insurance companies then sent the money to state government where it performed the magic of gaining federal matching dollars. So, the insurance tax was a tax on general citizens.

It is not clear how long this house of cards will be allowed to stand, either for hospital or insurance taxes.

At some point, observers expect the federal government to say, whoa, we are spending a lot of money on this, given that the 49 states and the D.C. now impose provider and insurance taxes.  We’ve got to stop, they may say.

When the federal government does say no, the question remains — what will states like Oregon do to replace the lost money?  The betting in this corner is that they will leave the hospital and insurance taxes in place, without the federal match.

Once a new tax is on the books, it stays on the books, even if the rationale goes away.

 ********   

[Full disclosure: The author, Dave Fiskum, represented private health care interests in Salem for 25 years. He was at the table in 2003 when the hospital and health insurance taxes were first envisioned and he watched – not to mention opposed – actions to renege on the deals.]

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

I was shocked to learn this morning that the Salem Statesman-Journal (S-J) was laying off its editorial page editor Dick Hughes after more than 34 years at the newspaper.

The S-J, perhaps already a shell of its former self as is the case with many other newspapers around the country in a digital age, will not be same without Dick.  His work as a committed journalist was a highlight for me every day in the newspaper.

I first knew him when I worked for state government about 30 years ago and Dick covered state government for the S-J.

One of my tasks for a number of state agencies, including a governor’s office, was to deal with the media. Thus, I dealt a lot with Dick and, while we have had differences over policy and outlook, he always was imminently fair.

He was, appropriately for a journalist, a skeptic of state government. Not a cynic. A skeptic.

I say that because, when I reported for a daily newspaper a long time ago, I tried to be a skeptic, as well, believing that was an appropriate role for a watchdog of the people.

In state government, I worked for a manager who once said that the easiest thing to do with regard to government “was to be a cynic.”

Dick wasn’t a cynic.

As I watched him move from being a reporter to an editor and eventually editor of the editorial page for the S-J (not to mention a “content coach”), I noted a few aspects of his character:

• He was an honest as the day was long. If he didn’t know something, he would find out.

• He was inquisitive, always interested in finding our new information about old and new topics.

• He was particularly good at using the right words, as well as using them with an appropriate commitment to solid grammar and syntax.

• He readily shared information about his own Christian faith, a commitment that found its way into his own reporting and editing.

For the Statesman-Journal, there will be no way to replace Dick’s history and journalistic ethics.

His departure is a great loss for the Statesman-Journal. It is also a great loss for the Salem community.

But I am confident that Dick will land a new gig. He is too good to be silent.

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 is the first of several blogs outlining criticism of State of Oregon budgeting processes, which is important as voters here consider a major new tax increase…

Head down a back hallway on the first floor of the State Capitol in Salem and what do you find?

A back room where legislators and budget staff hammer out the State of Oregon two-year budget beyond the glare of public view.

It used to be called “a room with a blackboard” on which staff wrote big numbers reflecting proposed commitments to the largest budget categories – K-12, higher education, cop and prisons, and social services, including health care.

These days, there is a “whiteboard.”

But the point is the same. Proposed allocations of the state budget are discussed and agreed upon in private. Yes, of course, ratification occurs in public, but the deals are cut in the backroom, then simply endorsed blandly in public.

I outline this to underscore a reality: It is impossible to understand what goes into the State of Oregon budget and how one fund relates to another. I would defy even an acknowledged budget expert to uncover the interrelated details.

I have tried. And, while I may not be a “budget expert,” I have lobbied state budget issues for more than 25 years (see footnote).

The basic problem can be summarized in one word – supplanting. Supplanting occurs when money comes in to state government for one purpose, the money is used ostensibly for that purpose, then other resources are taken out from behind the original allocation, thus making the “new money” ineffective.

Supplanting can be difficult to understand and almost impossible to track through the corridors of state budgeting processes. But it is critical concept and one that renders state budgets nothing if not opaque, even as legislative budget leaders trumpet transparency.

Let me cite a few examples to illustrate my point.

HOSPITAL TAXES: In 2003, state officials decided to do what most other states were doing, which is to tax major hospitals, take the tax proceeds into state coffers, and then use the money to generate federal matching funds under the Medicaid program while, in theory at least, paying back hospitals for their taxes.

Sounds good, I suppose, especially if you believe that state government needs more money to do so-called “good work.” This was a scheme, albeit legal, to garner the federal matching funds and bring the money home to increase support for health care programs.

But, I would defy anyone to prove that the money actually went to fund expanded health care programs. What happened was typical legislative sleight of hand. Sure, the “new money” went to health care programs, but, behind that, legislators and their budget took “general fund” money away and directed it instead to K-12.

Supplanting occurred in spades.

HEALTH INSURANCE TAXES: Or, consider another let’s “hide the real purpose” legislative construct. This time, it was a proposal to impose a one per cent tax on top of all commercial health insurance premiums.

The tax proceeds would flow to the state, where, again, much like money in the hospital tax, they would be used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid. The justification was that the new money would be used to fund health insurance for children who did not have coverage.

What happened?

Not that.

Instead, legislators practiced another budget shenanigan. They “swept” the money from the health insurance fund and used it, again, to fund K-12 education.

Those left holding the bag were private health insurance premium payers who might have been okay helping to fund health insurance for children, but might have not have been okay diverting health insurance money to fund K-12.

TOBACCO SETTLEMENT FUNDS: One of the most egregious legislative slight-of-hand actions occurred with “tobacco settlement funds,” which emerged in 1998 as a result of a court case against tobacco companies.

As part of a $10 billion settlement, millions of dollars were supposed to come to Oregon (as well as other states) to fund anti-tobacco education programs, as well as expanded health care programs.

The money arrived; the result did not.

Instead, legislators diverted general funds behind the tobacco settlement money to fund K-12 education.

Same supplanting story. Second verse.

Oregon likes to talk about itself as a leader in transparent state budgeting practices. But, as these three examples indicate, the truth does not match the rhetoric.

And that should be an important factor as voters consider Ballot Measure 97. There is no way to understand where the new money will go if the measure passes.

What’s needed is simple and straight-forward: An open and candid state budgeting process that is clear about where the money comes from and where it goes.

*********

[Full disclosure: The author, Dave Fiskum, represented private health care interests in Salem for 25 years. He was at the table in 2003 when the hospital and health insurance taxes were first envisioned and he watched – not to mention opposed – actions to renege on the deals. He also opposed the “sweep” of health insurance taxes and the diversion of tobacco settlement funds.]

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 question – what does a potential political leader running for office really want to do once he or she gets to a job – contains both risks and rewards for candidates.

The risks are that you will be expected to deliver on your promises. The rewards are the same.  But, if you want a top political job, you ought to have a set of key reasons for wanting to win.

The Oregonian newspaper published a story on Sunday, October 23, asking about what really motivates Democrat candidate Kate Brown as she bids for her own term in the state’s top political job, albeit only a two-year run.

Oregonian reporter Hillary Borrud wrote it this way:

“But the back-and-forth (on transportation funding) plays into a long-running debate about Brown’s leadership style, eighteen months after Gov. John Kitzhaber resigned in scandal and just weeks before Oregonians decide whether she should finish his term or give way to Republican Bud Pierce.

“Has Brown’s penchant for pragmatism — honed during 25 years in state office — sometimes kept her from challenging other political players and interest groups? Is her famed niceness enough? And will having a mandate, if she wins election Nov. 8, free her to lay out her vision for the state? 

“Brown has enjoyed goodwill from lawmakers and others who sympathized with her struggle to soothe the state post-Kitzhaber. She also responded adeptly as Oregon dealt with last year’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College and then, months later, militants’ armed standoff in Harney County.

“But what’s yet to emerge, political observers say, is a striking vision for what Brown wants to accomplish. Though she managed to push through a compromise on the minimum wage this year, she’s yet to squarely tackle the state’s pension crisis or chart a clear path toward new transportation funding.”

I had the privilege of lobbying then State Senator Kate Brown over many years at the Capitol and I always found her to be genuine and approachable. She always was ready to listen to points I made on behalf of clients and also – good news here in a sometimes perverse kind of way – was quick to say when she couldn’t see supporting my clients’ objectives.

Getting a clear answer from a legislator, even a “no” answer, is better than contending with uncertainty.

In other words, her top qualities could be described as friendliness and candor, both of which are needed in the state’s top political job, which it appears she will be able to retain in the November 8 election.

The Oregonian story prompted me to think of “the vision thing” and here, for what it’s worth, are traits I I want to see in those who say they want to lead our state and our country.

• Honesty and candor, two qualities lacking in the dispiriting run for president by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
• Ability to lead others to find middle ground, which is where public policy problems are solved, not on either the right or left extremes. Another way to put this is the ability to see contentious issues from the perspective of others, a key to finding middle ground.,
• Commitment to working to assure effective and efficient spending of public dollars, not just an appeal for more.
• Recognizing that not every problem in society can be solved by another government program — in other words, recognizing a solid balance between government and the private sector.

Do these credentials gain appeal from voters? Perhaps not. They don’t necessarily translate into sound bites or cute slogans.

But they and others like them would contribute to better government, which ought to be our goal as voters.

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.

Here’s a great sentence I wish I would have been smart enough to write:

“Good government happens at the intersection of passion and thoughtful policies.”

That was the lead in a piece by ECO Northwest CEO John Topagna wrote for the Oregonian criticizing Ballot Measure 97, the public employee-union sponsored measure that would impose a tax on sales in Oregon.

While his lead applies to Measure 97, it also could apply to any issue where passion and an intelligent effort to find middle ground could produce solid public policy.

Here is a further excerpt from the Topagna piece:

“We use our hearts and our heads to advance programs that improve our schools, deliver better health care, make our communities safer, create jobs and move families from poverty to the middle class.

“This political cycle has been long on passion and short on policy. An angry share of the electorate wants to break up banks, build walls or both. And they have no patience for white papers. Trust in major institutions is at an all-time low. Newspapers, television news, public schools, banks, big business, organized labor and Congress all poll at 30 percent or less. Veteran Oregon pollster Adam Davis likens the mood to a Category 5 hurricane.

“All this passion creates a rich environment for skilled political strategists. And how they choose to harness it — for better or for worse — will shape our future.

“The architects of Measure 97 sensed the mood long ago as they set out to design what could become one of the largest tax increases in Oregon history. Give them credit for their political instincts and polling capabilities. But absent from their team was any expertise on tax policy.  

“The result is a sloppy, incoherent ballot measure.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

Topagna says Measure 97 is built on an ill-devised gross receipts tax. It assesses a tax on the total sales price of products as they move along a supply chain — for example, from a packager to a wholesaler to a retailer to a customer. That’s called tax pyramiding, and it’s a major reason only five states have a gross receipts tax.

Measure 97 tax would apply to virtually everything that Oregonians buy or use, with no protections for low-income consumers: groceries, prescription drugs, electricity, natural gas, gasoline, clothing, health insurance, cellphone service, and most forms of entertainment. The tax could hit you a half dozen times between your bed and the morning shower: flip on the light, check your phone, open the freezer, grab the coffee, turn on the stove, feed the dog. This goes on all day long.

The non-partisan Legislative Revenue Office estimates that the measure would impose a $600 burden on a typical Oregon household, a reality which is contrary to the tripe proclaimed by advocates who say a tax would not be passed on to consumers.

I have used this blog in the past to argue that the best place to hammer out tax policy for the state is in the legislature. That may not be a popular notion because some believe the producing legislation is a lot like making sausage – ugly and not a sight for sore eyes.

But the benefit of the legislative process is that tough issues like taxes are hashed out in a committee, which includes representation from both sides of the political aisle. There is the usual push and pull as legislators and those who testify argue competing viewpoints.

The staff – professional experts in the Legislative Revenue Office – listen and analyze proposals and report publicly and dispassionately on what they find. Attorneys in the Legislative Counsel Office write the language agreed upon in committee; it is not written by some amateur out of the glare of public view. And then there is a public vote in committee, which can send a piece of legislation to the floors of both the House and Senate. Votes there determine the outcome and, if a bill passes, it goes to the governor for his or her action, which is a signature if the bill gains the governor’s approval or a veto letter if it does not.

All of this – call it sausage-making – is far better than special interests making up language at, figuratively, their kitchen table and sending the mishmash to the ballot.

That’s happened again in Oregon this time around and the result is that both sides are spending millions of dollars to advocate for votes.

The process is flawed and, if Oregonians approve Measure 97, the result will be flawed, as well.

As Topagna put it in his Oregonian piece, “revenue would slosh around in all corners of the budget, making it impossible to say what we (Oregonians) would get for the money.”

So, to guard against that stupid result, plus to hold out hope for a more reasoned look at tax reform in Oregon — yes, in the legislature — vote NO.

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.

That is a question that rises to the fore in the remarks from one Donald Trump who, again, is setting out to blame everyone but himself for the status of the presidential election, including that fact that he may well lose.

His remarks, as he himself would say, are “unshackled.” For his personal benefit, they are designed to raise questions about whether the American system is worth preserving. He would answer “no>’

For me, the question boils down to this: Is governing still possible in America? Can those we elect find the smart middle ground?

In some ways, positive compromisE is already decaying as neither side – neither the Rs or the Ds – know how to work to find answers to tough questions.

But Trump makes it worse.

If he loses, count on the fact that Trump won’t quit as he leads protests and demonstrations against Hillary Clinton. There is even the prospect of Trump-induced violence on or after election day — he has directed his supporters to monitor polling places, a recipe for conflict.

The Arizona Republic endorsed a Democrat for president for the first time in its 125-year history and what happened — the newspaper’s management received death threats.

Trump’s legion of followers, apparently not sufficiently put off by his boasts about groping women, appear to be planning to vote for him, then, when he loses, oppose the new Clinton Administration at every turn.

In its normal expression, opposing those in office is the stuff of being the “loyal opposition.” In the extreme – Trump’s extreme – that is the stuff of “revolution.”

Read this from a Wall Street Journal editorial published on October 17:

“No presidential candidate should portray U.S. elections as illegitimate, and Mike Pence was right to say Sunday that the GOP will ‘absolutely’ abide by November’s election results. Hillary Clinton is not going to steal the White House like Lyndon Johnson stole a Texas Senate seat in 1948. Voting irregularities are real, and cheating sometimes happens, especially in machine cities, but voters should have confidence in the electoral system. There’s zero evidence that the process is compromised across multiple states and precincts.

“It is a further indication (as if we needed it) that Trump has no commitment to the American political system. He is perfectly willing to delegitimize democratic institutions as a campaign tactic, squandering a civic inheritance he does not value. Even before his current troubles, he said that an electoral loss would be prima facie evidence of fraud and encouraged supporters to monitor majority-black polling stations in Pennsylvania. Now he is entering uncharted territory. By preemptively questioning the legitimacy of his forthcoming shellacking, Trump is stepping outside the four corners of the constitutional order, on the model of autocratic strongmen he has publicly admired.

“Trump’s final appeal is also corrupting a portion of the public and crossing moral lines that won’t be easily uncrossed. There are certain qualities of heart and mind that allow for self-government — civility, tolerance and mutual respect. In his rage and ruthlessness, Trump is inviting Americans to drink from a poisoned well. One problem is the risk of physical violence — the possible influence of unhinged rhetoric on an unbalanced mind. The broader result is radical polarization in which citizens question the legitimacy of elections and view some fellow citizens as enemies.”

So, for those – me included – who hope for a return to the business of governing after the election, lose heart.

It doesn’t appear we will get there. Rather than work to find middle ground, we are in for even more polarized and divisive politics.

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 Department Of Peeves is open because I, as the director, say it is. No one can overrule me.

So, here are three new pet peeves:

THE OPAQUE STATE OF OREGON BUDGETING PROCESS

Those involved at the top of this pyramid like to say that budgeting processes are transparent. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The fact is budgeting processes are opaque, a word that may need to be defined. The dictionary says opaque means, “not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; hard to understand; not clear or lucid.”

Exactly the case with state budgeting.

Even if you were a financial expert, you would not be able to track the whereabouts of government dollars, including the “general fund” (individual and corporate tax money), federal dollars, special purpose dollars, lottery dollars. Perhaps you could come up with some kind of over-arching estimates, but they would fail to deal with the detail which is, to go back to the word above, opaque.

This has been especially true over the years in three cases – hospital taxes, health insurance taxes, and tobacco settlement dollars. In each case, legislators took the money from those sources and directed them, at least in theory, to expanded health care and tobacco prevention programs.

Then, out of the glare of public view, legislators took other money out from behind these “new” dollars and directed the other money to K-12. In budget parlance, it’s called “supplanting.”

My view: Legislators should devise a system that is patently clear about where money comes from and where it goes. Make the process transparent, not opaque.

PROPOSING WHAT EVANGELICALS BELIEVE AND HOW THEY SHOULD VOTE IS OFFENSIVE

I write this subhead as one of that group – an evangelical, someone who has made a personal decision to follow Jesus Christ.

So, when commentators presume to tell evangelicals what they should believe and how they should vote, I shudder. That is especially true in this current, worst-in-history presidential election.

Evangelicals should make their own personal decisions about voting, not follow a crowd.

A PROBLEM WITH PROPERTY INSURANCE – PREVENTION IS NOT COVERED

If you have insurance on your home, you would think that taking action to prevent a problem would be covered, right?

Well, the answer is no.

Insurance officials say they cannot afford prevention.

I say they cannot afford not to fund prevention.

This issue came home to roost for me recently when we arranged for earthquake retrofitting for our older home. We knew we would be paying for that. But the workers found a worse problem – the foundation around a couple of our house and garage walls had eroded away, which could have caused a major, future problem, walls caving in.

We thought the fix would be covered by insurance because, if the foundation had caved, the fix would have been even more expensive.

But, the answer was no.

My reaction, as a former lobbyist, is to consider asking one of the legislators who represents me where I live to introduce a “bill for an act” that would require insurance coverage for genuine prevention actions by homeowners.

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

I ask that question as I, along with many others in the country, are still recovering from the second presidential debate.

It was one for the ages — and not in a good way.  Donald Trump may have survived, but barely in light of his imploding campaign.

It deserves to implode, given his absolutely deplorable conduct, not just recently, but over the last 20 or so years of his life, if not longer. Telling the truth is not something he knows how to do. Neither is valuing people for what they are – people.

Hillary Clinton’s opponents could say similar things about her and, truth be told (pardon that phrase in this blog), Clinton has not lived up to truth as a model in her political life. It’s just that, compared to Trump, Clinton comes off nearly as a truth teller.

I could write more about the terrible character of this presidential election, but, for now, let me simply offer these quotes from the Washington Post

From Richard Cohen – Trump Declares Moral Bankruptcy

“Over the weekend, Donald Trump did what he always does when things go south for him. He walked away. He announced he is not the man at 70 he had been at 59 when he had boasted of sexual assault, and he pledged “to be a better man tomorrow.’ With that, he effectively declared moral bankruptcy, paying about a dime on the dollar of sincerity.

“It was, of course, what Trump had done six times in business, only this time the crisis was not about his finances, but his character. He had been caught talking trash about women. He has been caught boasting about committing the sort of sex crimes transit cops are always on the lookout for. He said he had hit on a married woman soon after he himself had been married. For all of that, he had ‘regret.’

“Then, like the angel he thinks he is, he took flight. He left his own body and, looking down, pronounced in his videotaped apology that the Donald Trump who said all those repugnant things, the Donald Trump who managed to break centuries of newspaper tradition against using certain words, the Donald Trump who issued a casting call for the alleged victims of Bill Clinton, the Donald Trump who often talked about women in the most despicable terms, the Donald Trump who listened to Howard Stern take apart his daughter’s physique like she was a Lego creation, the Donald Trump who went vile on Megyn Kelly and who has called women “dogs” and “pigs” and who berated a former Miss Universe for gaining weight and who made a tabloid spectacle of his extramarital affair with Marla Maples, that that Donald Trump doesn’t exist anymore. The man erased his own past.”
From George Will – Trump is the GOP’s Chemotherapy

“Today, however, Trump should stay stop the ticket for four reasons. First, he will give the nation the pleasure of seeing him join the one cohort, of the many cohorts he disdains, that he most despises — ‘losers.’ Second, by continuing to campaign in the spirit of St. Louis, he can remind the nation of the useful axiom that there is no such thing as rock bottom. Third, by persevering through Nov. 8 he can simplify the GOP’s quadrennial exercise of writing its post-campaign autopsy, which this year can be published Nov. 9 in one sentence: “Perhaps it is imprudent to nominate a venomous charlatan.” Fourth, Trump is the GOP’s chemotherapy, a nauseating but, if carried through to completion, perhaps a curative experience.”

From Michael Gerson – Republicans Deserve Their Sad Fate

“To many people outside the talk-radio hothouse, I can attest, Trump’s debate performance was appalling, contemptible, shameful, squalid, vile. Do we really want a president who views the rule of law as a means to imprison his opposition? A president who dismissed talk of sexual assault on the theory that boys will be boys? “A president who urges a foreign power to hack his opponent, then excuses that power when it is caught? A president who accuses his opponent of killing American soldiers based on a position he actually took himself.

“Trump and his advisers must know that the conservative talk-radio audience, and the Republican primary electorate, is different from a national electorate, which actually includes minorities, young people and women who don’t like disgusting boors. Perhaps Trump’s strategy was a recognition that even his strongest supporters were on the verge of bolting and needed to be appeased. Perhaps Trump’s knowledge of policy is so thin that it fills three or four minutes of a 90-minute debate and all he has left is trash talk. Or perhaps he is captive to his impulses, incapable of shame and nasty to the core.

“Whatever the explanation, Trump achieved the worst possible outcome for the GOP. He was good enough with his base to avoid a generalized revolt, and bad enough with the rest of the country to continue his slide toward major defeat.

“This sad Republican fate is deserved. It is the culmination, the fruition, of an absurdly simplistic anti-establishment attitude. The Trump campaign is what happens when you choose a presidential candidate without the taint of electoral experience — and all the past vetting that comes with it. It is what happens when you pick a candidate who has not engaged in serious public argument over a period in which his or her views and consistency can be tested. It is what happens when you embrace a candidate only on the basis of an outsider persona, who lacks actual political skills — like making a policy argument, empathizing with a voter or avoiding a constant stream of distracting gaffes.”

From the Washington Post Editorial Board – Donald Trump Unleashes a Stream of Falsehoods

Politicians lie all the time, it is sometimes said. Never before has an American politician come as close as Donald Trump has to making the saying literally true.

Despite what you may have heard at Sunday night’s presidential debate…

• Syrian refugees are vetted before they enter the country.
• Americans are taxed at lower rates than the citizens of many other developed countries.
• Trump publicly backed the Iraq War before the invasion. His claims otherwise have been repeatedly debunked.
• The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has not endorsed Mr. Trump.
• The country’s nuclear arsenal is not “exhausted.”
• The U.S. economy is growing at faster than 1 percent per year.
• There has been hacking of U.S. email accounts this election year. The U.S. intelligence community has blamed the Russian government.
• Trump did urge his Twitter followers to “check out” an alleged sex tape involving former Miss Universe Alicia Machado.
• Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the racist “birther” campaign Mr. Trump waged against President Obama.
• She did not laugh at a rape victim.
• “Clean coal” is a contradiction in terms.
• The trade deficit was not $800 billion last year.
• Clinton has not proposed admitting “hundreds of thousands” of Syrian refugees.
• She does not favor a single-payer health-care plan.
• Most health-care premiums are not spiking by “68 percent, 59 percent, 71 percent.”
• The Islamic State does not control “a good chunk” of Libya’s oil.
• The North American Free Trade Agreement was not a “disaster” for jobs.
• Clinton did not order the deletion of State Department emails after they were under subpoena.
• S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens did not make 600 calls for help before dying in the September 2012 Benghazi attacks.
• The United States is not “giving” Iran $150 billion as part of the nuclear deal.
• There is no evidence “many people saw the bombs all over the apartment” of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters.
• Most African Americans do not live in bombed-out inner cities.

So does lying matter in this election?  My answer is yes. The unfortunate fact is that both Trump and Clinton have lied to advance their causes. It’s just that Clinton has lied less and, given that, I intend to cast my vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils.