December 24, 2023 by davefiskum

TRUMP CASES CRASHING INTO SUPREME COURT COULD RE-SHAPE 2024 ELECTION

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf. The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie. And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Does anyone have the head of a pin available?

I ask because that’s what I would need to house all I know about the recent decision by the State of Colorado Supreme Court to ban Donald Trump from the presidential election ballot in their state because he incited a riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The basic decision threatens to roil – there, don’t you like that word as much as I do? – the 2024 election. And, now, it has resulted in threatened violence against the judges who wrote that decision.

On one hand, the ruling goes against Donald Trump.

On the other hand, there are early indications that the ruling could have a reverse spin effect: That is, it could redound to Trump’s credit for either of two reasons: (a) Trump, ever the narcissist, will contend the ruling indicates that power structures are out to get him and he remains a victim, or (b) the case is not legally crystal clear and the U.S. Supreme Court may have no choice but to overrule it.

The issues are complicated enough that I am not able to understand all of them, residing as I do in the cheap seats out West.

So, even on this Christmas eve day, when there probably are better things to do, I quote below from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times to provide background on the Colorado case, which is nothing if not monumental.

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES: It has been obvious for months that politics and the law were going to bump into one another in the 2024 campaign, given the double role that former President Donald J. Trump has been playing as a criminal defendant and leading Republican candidate.

But in a way that few expected, that awkward bump has turned into a head-on collision. It now seems clear that the courts — especially the Supreme Court — could dramatically shape the contours of the election.

The nine justices have already agreed to review the scope of an obstruction statute central to the federal indictment accusing Trump of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. And they could soon become entangled in both his efforts to dismiss those charges with sweeping claims of executive immunity and in a bid to rid himself of a gag order restricting his attacks on Jack Smith, the special counsel in charge of the case.

…a number of the issues the court is now confronting could drastically affect the timing of the proceedings against Trump, the scope of the charges he should face or his status as a candidate, with potentially profound effects on his chances of winning the election.

“In this cycle, the Supreme Court is likely to play an even larger role than in Bush v. Gore,” said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a non-partisan group dedicated to improving election administration.

“It’s not just the issue of whether or not Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, which would disqualify him from holding the presidency under the 14th Amendment,” Becker said, “but also issues related to presidential immunity and criminal proceedings in general.”

In fact, there are so many moving parts in the overlapping cases that Trump is facing that it is all but impossible to predict which issues might get taken up, how the justices will rule on the questions they consider and what effects their decisions might have as they flow downstream to the lower courts that are handling the former president’s four criminal cases and his many civil proceedings.

It is important to remember something else: Trump is interested in more than winning arguments in court. From the start, he and his lawyers have pursued a parallel strategy of trying to delay his cases for as long as possible — ideally until after the election is decided.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: The Journal wrote under this headline: “What Is Insurrection? Trump Puts Once Obscure Questions Before Courts.”

Donald Trump’s efforts to stay in power after losing the White House are forcing judges all the way up to the Supreme Court to confront obscure legal questions that long seemed largely academic but now carry big consequences.

For one, what counts as insurrection against the U.S.?

Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was enacted to keep former Confederate officials from gaining power during Reconstruction. Congress last invoked the law in 1919, when it refused to seat Victor Berger, a socialist accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during World War I.

But last year a state court in New Mexico used it to remove a participant in the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol from an elected position as county commissioner.

Soon liberal groups, supported by some conservative opponents of Trump, unleashed a wave of lawsuits against the former president, asserting that his encouragement of efforts to block the peaceful transfer of power to President Biden amounted to an insurrection and disqualified him from running for president in 2024.

The Supreme Court justices could take a range of approaches to deciding the case.

On appeal, Trump will likely argue that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the office of the presidency, since it refers to other federal roles, including Members of Congress and electors, as well as to “officers of the United States,” but not specifically to the president.

Trump also is expected to argue that Section 3 can’t be enforced by state election officials. The former president’s lawyers have said further legislation by Congress is required to make Section 3 enforceable.

Another consideration will likely be on the justices’ minds in deciding on the case: Whether, as all of Trump’s rivals for the Republican nomination have suggested, it subverts democracy to have a court rather than voters decide on who they can choose as president.

AND MORE FROM THE WALL JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD: Under this headline – “The Folly of Colorado’s Trump Disqualification” – the writers said this:

The decision by four Colorado judges to bar Donald Trump from the state presidential ballot is an ugly turn that augurs nothing but trouble for American law and democracy. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the ruling, as it probably will, the Colorado decision will confirm for millions of Americans that Trump’s opponents will do everything possible to deny them their democratic choice.

Anti-Trump lawyers have been peddling that Trump can be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Colorado’s 4-3 Supreme Court majority is the first court to buy the argument, and in the process it has blundered into the middle of the 2024 election. The four Democrat justices join special counsel Jack Smith and New York and Georgia prosecutors in providing ironic assistance to Trump in gaining the GOP presidential nomination, and maybe the White House.

The court said Trump is disqualified under the post-Civil War 14th Amendment because he inspired and “engaged” in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. that took place on January 6, 2021. They rely largely on evidence compiled by the House January 6 special committee.

Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election through Jan. 6 was disgraceful, and it is one of several reasons not to trust him with so much power again. It was an attempt to obstruct the counting of electoral votes. But the evidence is unpersuasive that this amounted to an insurrection or rebellion under the statutory or constitutional meaning of those terms.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST: Even the more liberal Post got into the act under this headline: “Should courts throw Trump off the ballot? Not so fast.”

Never mind whether Donald Trump should be president a second time: The U.S. Supreme Court now looks likely to determine whether he even can. The justices must do so, mindful that the legal issues involved are murky — and that the implications of a court determining whether a candidate may participate in a democracy’s elections are substantial.

Obvious as this analysis might seem to citizens appalled at the then-commander in chief’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, the law is not so clear. The court had to answer “yes” to a vexing series of questions: Does Section 3 apply to the presidency? The answer here is probably “yes.”

The provision doesn’t list that office even as it does list others — but the Colorado court majority found the idea that Section 3 should exclude the most powerful position of all implausible.

Harder still is the question of whether Congress needs to pass legislation for Section 3 to take effect.

Yet these puzzles are relatively mundane compared with the case’s most consequential conundrum: Whether Trump really did engage in insurrection.

THIS FROM ME: Now, this conclusion. I avoid all the to-ing and fro-ing over what federal election law says. I simply go to what Trump did on and around January 6. His conduct compels the truth that he not be allowed to be president again, either by court decision or vote.

December 23, 2023 by davefiskum

THE DEPARTMENT OF “JUST SAYING” IS OPEN AGAIN

This is one of four departments I run as director with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

So, “just saying:”

ON RUDY GULIANI: His fall from grace has been remarkable and, further, he has done the deed to himself.

After a stint as the “nation’s mayor” for the solid way he responded to the 911 attack, Guliani “extinguished” himself as a pawn for Donald Trump.

And, now, in the facing mounting civil judgments against him, including the most recent $148 million, he has declared bankruptcy.

To me, just saying, this is not just financial bankruptcy. It is mental bankruptcy.

ON THE WORLD’S LARGEST CRUISE SHIP, ICON OF THE SEAS: Just think about the statistics for a moment…

• Icon of the Seas can hold 5,610 passengers.
• It’s nearly 1,200 feet long.
• It has more than five times the tonnage of the Titanic.
• It has more than a dozen decks.
• There’s a pool for every day of the week.
• It has the biggest water park on the water.
• There are 40-plus places to eat and drink yourself silly.

Just saying, I told my wife not to book us on this behemoth.

AND MORE ON CRUISING: Just saying that a story in the Wall Street Journal under this headline – “The 3-year cruise was canceled. Enter the 3.5-year cruise” – is not for me.

Here’s more from the Journal:

“Sailing on the Villa Vie Odyssey during its first circumnavigation will start at $115,789 before taxes and fees

“About a month after Life at Sea Cruises canceled its debut three-year voyage because it couldn’t secure a ship, another company has done just that. Villa Vie Residences, which plans to sail the world in 3.5 years, announced last week it has purchased a 924-passenger ship that is expected to launch in May.

“It’s a continuous cruise that will really never stop,” said Mikael Petterson, Villa Vie Residences’ founder and CEO. “Our goal is to make this more of a lifestyle and residence, more than your typical cruise.”

So be it. Just saying, not for me.

ON HARVARD’S PRESIDENT: Claudine Gay got herself in trouble first when she appeared before a Congressional committee and did not answer well when antisemitism came up as a subject.

But her Board of Directors supported her.

Then, she got caught in an increasing number of plagiarisms in “her” writing. So, just saying, it appears likely to me that those lapses may end up costing her the top job at Harvard.

Just saying it’s hard to treat the president any different than Harvard students who, if caught plagiarizing, will suffer a penalty.

December 22, 2023 by davefiskum

ABOUT WRITING WELL

It will not surprise those who know me to hear that I enjoyed a recent column in the New York Times by Frank Bruni that emphasized the importance of this craft: Writing well.

To me, the ability to write well indicates the ability to think well.

Or, take reverse – thinking well can translate to writing well.

So, do I write well?

The answer is, sometimes, but try to do so all the time. I just don’t succeed every minute.

In Bruni’s column, early on, he emphasizes two attributes that aid readability — the appropriate use of punctuation, and keeping paragraphs short. On the former, I agree, which is one reason why I employ the use of commas more than most – they aid readability.

When you see commas, just pause. Then, move on.

And short paragraphs? Yes.

Rather than dwell more on my thoughts here, I choose to reprint Bruni’s column because – get this – it is written well. [A summary of Bruni’s varied background appears below.}

**********

A.I. or no A.I., it pays to write — and to write well

When I go through students’ papers and flag the misplaced modifiers, note the clichés or explain that a 15-sentence paragraph is less approachable than a five-sentence one, I sometimes ask myself a question that the students who get those papers back from me perhaps ponder as well: Does it really matter?

Is skillful writing a prerequisite for accomplishment? For contentment? Even for communication? You can make your point without punctuating it properly. The most potent ideas may well survive the most flaccid prose.

Besides which, you can now generate prose without writing at all. Wait, scratch that: You do need to fashion the prompt that you’re giving ChatGPT — the parameters of the composition you want, the objectives, the guidelines. But artificial intelligence will do the rest. It will sweat the structure, the syntax, the semicolons.

When I prattle on about dangling participles and the like, some students hear a sad evangelist for a silly religion. I can tell. Even a few of my faculty colleagues look askance at me.

One couldn’t understand my frustration with a student who had toggled repeatedly and randomly between “and” and “&” in an essay. Didn’t the student’s meaning come across well enough?

I suppose so. But it could have come across a whole lot better, and that’s one of the arguments for writing well — for taking the time and summoning the focus to do so. Good writing burnishes your message. It burnishes the messenger, too.

You may be dazzling on your feet, an extemporaneous ace, thanks to the brilliant thoughts that pinball around your brain. There will nonetheless be times when you must pin them down and put them in a long email. Or a medium-length email. Or a memo. Or, hell, a Slack channel.

The clarity, coherence, precision and even verve with which you do that — achieving a polish and personality distinct from most of what A.I. spits out — will have an impact on the recipients of that missive, coloring their estimation of you and advancing or impeding your goals.

If you’re honest with yourself, you know that, because you know your own skeptical reaction when people send you error-clouded dreck. You also know the way you perk up when they send its shining opposite. And while the epigrammatic cleverness or audiovisual genius of a viral TikTok or Instagram post has the potential to shape opinion and motivate behavior, there are organizations and institutions whose internal communications and decision-making aren’t conducted via social media. GIFs, memes and emojis don’t apply.

When my friend Molly Worthen, a history professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a frequent contributor to Times Opinion, took the measure of the influential diplomat Charles Hill for her 2006 book “The Man on Whom Nothing Was Lost,” she noted that a principal reason for his enormous behind-the-scenes influence was his dexterity with the written word. He took great notes. He produced great summaries. He made great arguments — on paper, not just on the fly.

Worthen noted in her book that “transmitting ideas into written words is hard, and people do not like to do it.” As a result, someone who performs that task gladly, quickly, and nimbly “in most cases ends up the default author, the quarterback to whom others start to turn, out of habit, for the play.”

Good writing announces your seriousness, establishing you as someone capable of caring and discipline. But it’s not just a matter of show: The act of wrestling your thoughts into logical form, distilling them into comprehensible phrases and presenting them as persuasively and accessibly as possible is arguably the best test of those very thoughts. It either exposes them as flawed or affirms their merit and, in the process, sharpens them.

Writing is thinking, but it’s thinking slowed down — stilled — to a point where dimensions and nuances otherwise invisible to you appear. That’s why so many people keep journals. They want more than just a record of what’s happening in their lives. They want to make sense of it.

The subtitle of “The Notebook,” a new non-fiction book by Roland Allen, is “A History of Thinking on Paper.” In a recent review of it in The Guardian, Sukhdev Sandhu noted that Allen “points to evidence that maintaining a notebook with pen and paper is best for processing and retaining information.”

I think you can take the “pen and paper” out of the equation — replace them with keystrokes in a Google Doc or Microsoft Word file — and the point largely holds. That kind of writing, too, forces you to concentrate or to elaborate. A tossed-off text message doesn’t. Neither do most social media posts. They have as much to do with spleen as with brain.

What place do the traditional rules of writing and the conventional standards for it have in all this? Does purposeful, ruminative, or cathartic writing demand decent grammar, some sense of pace, some glimmer of grace?

Maybe not. You can write in a manner that’s comprehensible and compelling only or mostly to you. You can choose which dictums to follow and which to flout. You’re still writing.

But show me someone who writes correctly and ably — and who knows that — and I’ll show you someone who probably also writes more. Such people’s awareness of their agility and their confidence pave the way. Show me someone who has never been pressed to write well or given the tutelage and tools to do so and I’ll show you someone who more often than not avoids it and, in avoiding it, is deprived of not only its benefits but also its pleasures.

Yes, pleasures. I’ve lost count of the times when I’ve praised a paragraph, sentence or turn of phrase in a student’s paper and that student subsequently let me know that the passage had in fact been a great source of pride, delivering a jolt of excitement upon its creation. We shouldn’t devalue that feeling.

We should encourage — and teach — more people to experience it.

**********

Bruni joined The New York Times in 1995 and has ranged broadly across its pages. He has been both a White House correspondent and the chief restaurant critic. As a staff writer for The Times Magazine, he profiled J.J. Abrams and a health-obsessed billionaire who planned to live to 125; as the Rome bureau chief, he kept tabs on Pope John Paul II, and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

December 20, 2023 by davefiskum

“IS HE WORTHY?”: A MAJESTIC HYMN OF PRAISE

I have written before about how Christian hymns use words and melodies that often capture my mind and heart.

That’s even though I cannot sing a lick. Thus, words – lyrics – matter.

So it was that I came across a story in the Wall Street Journal that touted the lyrics and melodies of a relatively new Christian song that asks a question, “Is He Worthy?” Then, it provides a quick and sure answer, “He is.”

A very appropriate hymn for this Christmas season.

Here is the sub-head for the Journal story:

“Written by Andrew Peterson and Ben Shive, the worship song has become a staple in Christian churches around the world thanks to its musical sweep and conversational, call-and-response format.”

The Journal’s writer, Barbara Jepson, regularly wrote about classical concerts, recordings, and musicians for the Journal from 1983 until her retirement last year. This time, in retirement, she wrote about the song, “Is He Worthy.”

Her story started this way:

“More than five decades ago, the spiritual awakening known as the ‘Jesus Movement’ swept through the U.S., bringing hippie culture into evangelical Christian churches, and impacting the sound and feel of worship music.

“Guitars, electronic keyboards and drum sets — previously unthinkable at Sunday morning services — were introduced with far-reaching effect: Contemporary worship bands now co-exist with organs and choirs at many churches or have replaced them altogether.

“And a sizable body of vibrant praise songs and anthems influenced by folk, country, rock, or gospel has been created. The lyrics may incorporate poetic imagery and mantra-like repetitions. The Christian belief in the second coming of Christ is a recurring theme.”

She wrote that “one of the most notable achievements in this still-evolving praise genre is the song ‘Is He Worthy.’”

Released in 2018 on Peterson’s album “Resurrection Letters, Volume I,” which Shive produced, it was quickly copied by Christian mega-star Chris Tomlin. His version reached No. 12 on Billboard’s “Hot Christian Songs” chart in May 2019 after a 26-week run.

According to Christian Copyright Licensing International, the work has been on its “Top 100 List” for nearly four consecutive years, based upon usage data from churches in North America, the U.K., and Australia.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOCIAL COMMITMENTS AND POLITICAL ACTION

The comparison in this blog headline arose because of two current issues for me – higher education’s so-called commitment to “diversity and inclusion” and, of all things, an environmentally-sound winery here in Oregon which my wife and I joined a few weeks ago.

Why do these different issues underline this critical distinction?

For higher education, it is one thing to be committed, ethically and morally, to diversity and inclusion. It is quite another to sign up for a political movement which strains or perhaps ridicules those who don’t sign up for the movement.

As for the winery, the Brooks Winery in Yamhill County, it is committed to environmental way of growing of grapes that are harvested to make wine, so much so that it recently won an international award for its commitments. Again, not an award for joining a political movement; an award for on-the ground environmental stewardship.

Here’s more background.

The acronym, DEI, refers to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” which seeks to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups that have historically been under-represented or subject to discrimination on the basis of their identity or disability.

That’s laudable as a commitment.

What runs afoul of my sensibilities is when DEI becomes a political organization which demands salutes and, if you don’t give those salutes, describes you as an enemy.

The same can be said of the “environment lobby.” If you don’t salute its political agenda, you are an enemy.

A week or so ago in London, The Drinks Business (which is the European top wine and spirits magazine) awarded Brooks the “Green Company of the Year.”

Nominees competed from around the globe. The criteria all were related to “sustainable efforts” in winemaking with a focus on and actions in the last 12 months.

Good for Brooks! Its award is for real, down-to-earth work.

I saw the distinction between commitments and politics play out when I worked as a lobbyist for about 25 years.

Social commitments can be good and beneficial.

When they become political movements, they lose, for me, most of their luster.

So, I say, salute the commitments, not the political movement.

December 18, 2023 by davefiskum

THE DEPARTMENT OF GOOD QUOTES WORTH REMEMBERING IS OPEN AGAIN

This is one of four departments I run with a free hand to manage as I – and only I – see fit.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, and the Department of “Just Saying.”

So, here more good quotes – and I start with a special one.

SAM SKILLERN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SALEM LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION: “Two thousand years ago, things were pretty rough in the Middle East. The Roman Empire was in charge, and it was brutal. Even though the Romans allowed the Jewish culture and systems to remain in place, they ruled with the proverbial iron fist. Royalty and religious leaders had to kowtow.

“Merchants endured a harsh economy. Families worked hard to eke out an existence. The average man was nothing but a peon; women and slaves were nothing. Unspeakable cruelty, including crucifixion, was the norm.

“There was sharp political and theological divide, with an underground revolt smoldering. Cultural and ethnic tensions due to nationality, class, and religion. Concerns about immigration and refugees. Hope for something … or someone … to break into the chaos and bring peace.

“You know the story. It wasn’t the conquering adult warrior many expected. It was a baby, entering into our human existence to walk with us and show us the way. It was a miraculous breakthrough that changed world history forever, something that has been widely documented even outside Christian literature.

“As we consider the times we’re in … are we open to a breakthrough? At this time of year, do we only look back and remember one momentous occasion? Or, in our hearts, do we invite and await a profound 2023 breakthrough? Emmanuel, God with us. An epiphany, manifestation of Christ. These concepts are not new; they have been in play since the manger. But do we perceive them? Especially in times like these?

COMMENT: As usual, Skillern asks probing questions as he has done for years at the helm of the Leadership Foundation, which works hard and effectively to bring various interests to solve community problems.

At this time of year, Christmas, Skillern points us to the real reason for the season – Christ’s birth and what that means for us if we accept His free gift.

FROM WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL WRITERS: Under this headline — “The Supreme Court should not allow Trump to play the justice system” – the writers said this:

“The essential moment in Jack Smith’s 2020 election obstruction case against Donald Trump might have arrived — and, oddly, the substance of the charges has nothing to do with it.

“The special counsel this week filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to speedily review the former president’s claims that he is immune from prosecution, rather than allow an appeals court to do so first. The strategy is gutsy, but it might be necessary to get the case to trial before the general election — and that is a wholly legitimate goal for Trump’s prosecutor.

“By ignoringthat timing in a case with the peaceful transition of power at its heart, the courts would allow themselves to be manipulated by a politician using his status as a candidate to avoid accountability.”

COMMENT: That’s the Trump strategy – delay, forever. And, then if, perish the thought, he becomes president again, he’ll simply pardon himself by instructing the Justice Department to stop.

FROM ATLANTIC MAGAZINE STAFF WRITER TOM NICHOLS: “The public’s cultish fascination with celebrity is not a new problem, but it’s getting worse. Back in 1992, I was a young professor living in New Hampshire. I was teaching political science back in those days, but I had several years of practical experience from working in city, state, and federal politics.

“Nonetheless, I was unprepared for the madness that settles over the Granite State during the presidential primaries. I went to several events, and I started to worry about how dysfunctionally Americans regard the office of the chief executive.

“As various contenders — including the right-wing populist Pat Buchanan — made their way through the state, I got to hear voters directly addressing the candidates. As far as I could tell, they had one overriding message for the people contending to be the Leader of the Free World at a time of tremendous global instability, and it sounded something like this:

“I am an unemployed pipe fitter from Laconia, and I would like to know when you’re going to get me a job.

“Trump has played to both sides of the Superman/daddy concept, encouraging a cult of personality that endows one man with saintly powers—a man who never has to deliver, and who can never fail but can only be failed by others.”

COMMENT: Nichols, a solid writer, makes a prescient case that Americans often place too much faith in the Office of the President. He or she is not superman.

Trump, however, supports the superman myth because to him – he is the smartest person on the planet – he is always right. And, no matter what he does as president, if he gets the office again, it will be for his own good.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “Technology giants strengthened their grip on the top of the annual Management Top 250 ranking of America’s best-run companies.” For the fourth year running, Miscrosoft was at the top of the list.

“Others in the top five were Apple, Nvidia, Alphabet, and IBM in the ranking compiled by researchers at the Drucker Institute, part of Claremont Graduate University.

“The top five companies scored well across a wide range of measurements, from job satisfaction to supply-chain management to shareholder returns — strengths reflected in their standing in the ranking’s five main components.

COMMENT: It’s good to be recognized for overall management strengths. And, from a position far from the action, I think Microsoft deserves the plaudits.

December 17, 2023 by davefiskum

A MAJOR POLITICAL BATTLE IS BREWING IN OREGON: IT’S OVER AN ISSUE WITH A STRANGE NAME, “THE KICKER LAW”

A major political battle is brewing in Oregon and the debate could go to the heart of what state government means here.

The title is strange: The so-called “kicker law.” But, many Oregonians know about it because it has existed for years and often means regular citizens have more money in their pockets.

If you want to read a solid article on this subject, go to the Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) website.

There, reporter Dirk VanderHart writes a long story on the law. His work deserves plaudits as a solid piece of journalism, which, I add, is typical of OPB, the state’s best news and public affairs outlet.

[In the spirit of full disclosure, I was OPB’s lobbyist for more than 10 years in Oregon and my old firm still represents the company.]

Here is the bottom line. All of us can read all we want about the kicker law and other elements of Oregon state government budgeting, but the issue boils down to this salient point: Politics is what matters, not intricate tax and budget detail.

From OPB, here is a summary of the kicker law:

“The kicker is an Oregon institution, triggered whenever personal income taxes and other non-corporate revenue streams come in at least 2 per cent higher than state economists predicted when legislators were building a two-year budget. In those increasingly common cases, all the excess is ‘kicked’ back to taxpayers.

“The law was fashioned in 1979 as a blunt tool to keep state spending in check, but Oregon has never seen anything close to the $5.6 billion refund headed out the door next spring.”

The sheer magnitude of the payout is kick-starting – pardon the play on words — a fresh set of questions in the Oregon Capitol and beyond.

For their part, Democrats are increasingly pointing to the refund to explain why they can’t pay for a growing list of what they call “crises” — housing and homelessness, public defense, mental health, and K-12 education.

Further, the state’s largest labor union is calling out the economists whose consistent underestimations of income tax revenue have sent $10.2 billion out of state coffers over the last decade.

Here is a quick summary of the politics:

Conservatives, including many Republicans, believe the tax money belongs to taxpayers and, so, if there is more than expected, it should be sent back.
Liberals, including many Democrats, believe state government – including such programs as K-12 education, higher education, public safety, and social services – needs the money more than taxpayers, so it should be saved for government.

State Senator State Senator Lew Frederick is one of the most vocal opponents of the kicker – and because I know him well from having lobbied him at the Capitol, I report his position.

As a Portland Democrat, Frederick needs little prompting to expound on all the things Oregon could do with the forgone money: From his perspective, fully fund schools, bolster mental health care, pay for road maintenance.

“We have the money,” Frederick said. “It’s not available because of the way we’ve designed the kicker, and because folks have been told that somehow spending it is taking money from them. It’s not.”

Of course, to others, it is – it’s “taking” someone’s money.

A third political issue lurks on the horizon.

A number of years ago, Republicans, concerned that the “spend it all” attitude would prevail, managed to “enshrine” – yes, that is the word that often is used – “enshrine” the kicker law in the State Constitution.

That means it would take a statewide vote of the people to change it or get rid of it, not just legislative action at the Capitol in Salem.

The very size of the kicker this year – OPB says the “state will send a jaw-dropping $5.6 billion back to taxpayers next year” – has ratcheted up pressure on changing the tax policy, despite how much voters may love it.

There is talk around the Capitol that, (a) the state economist, John McMullen, has not done his job well because his estimates on revenue have been so far off, and, thus, he should be let go, (b) it is time for discussions about how to change the law, so government has money for schools and other programs.

An interesting sidelight, at least so far, is that the state’s highest-ranking Democrat, Governor Tina Kotek, has shown no appetite to propose spending kicker money. She has repeatedly declined to entertain the idea of diverting the refund to address her top issues of housing and education – and it would take a vote of people, as explained above, to do that deed.

“That personal income tax relief that will come in next year’s taxes is really important to Oregonians,” Kotek told reporters in October. “If Oregonians want to have a conversation of where the personal income tax kicker goes in the future, let’s have that.”

It may not be smart to bet on politics, but if I was doing so on this issue, I would bet that Oregonians would not vote to get rid of the kicker.

One of the state’s most reputable polling firms, DHM research, says essentially the same thing – 68 per cent of voters want to keep the kicker and only 28 per cent are open to change.

Plus, in the end, most voters will want to keep money in their pockets.

December 15, 2023 by davefiskum

TWO VIEWS ON HIGHER EDUCATION CHALLENGES

It is not possible read national newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post these days without coming into contact with stories on higher education.

And, if you read carefully, you’ll find a multiplicity of views.

Some say higher education is in deep trouble.
Others say higher education has a chance to correct itself, if only it will act to return to learning as its main purpose, not political action, especially from the left.
Still others advocate for outside intervention.

This week, I read two views on higher education in the same edition of the Wall Street Journal. One was by partially retired columnist Daniel Henninger. Another was by a letter writer from the East Coast.

Here is a summary of the two views:

HENNINGER: He wrote under this headline and sub-head: University Presidents Flunk Out; What six-syllable word describes the testimony of Claudine Gay and Liz Magill?

First, Gay and Magill are two of the university presidents who appeared before a Congressional committee a couple weeks ago and offered comments that continue to make headlines. One reason is that, looking back, they were not as definitive as they should have been in condemning genocide against Israelis.

To a degree, they answered in an understandable fashion because of the tension between over-the-top speech and America’s commitment to freedom of speech. Tough topics that don’t lend themselves to an appearance in Congress.

Still, to me, a simple declaration that “all advocacy for genocide is wrong and cannot be tolerated” would have avoided the controversy, part of which owes to a trap sent by Representative Elise Stefanik, herself a vapid office holder who seeks to garner headlines, not make sound policy.

From Hennninger: “It may be no coincidence that colleges are abandoning SATs at the same time as three university presidents were flunking questions in public about genocide. After receiving Fs for insisting that the answer to any direct question is ‘It depends on the context,’ University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill lost her job and Harvard’s Board of Governors retained Claudine Gay with a limp vote of confidence — ‘she is the right leader to help our community heal.’ Uh-huh.

“This may be the moment to bring back vocabulary tests.

“Question: What six-syllable word describes the three university presidents who testified before Congress?

“Answer: Pusillanimity.”

Capitalizing on his choice of a word, Henninger challenged readers to name as many synonyms as they could for “pusillanimity.” He answered his own question: Cowardice, cravenness, gutlessness, spinelessness and — his favorite — poltroonery.

Henninger attributes the loss of esteem for universities to their adoption of “cancel culture,” which he said should have been another “sign their schools were off the rails.”

To this, the letter writer to the Wall Street Journal, Tom Littleton, says this: “The College Presidents Were Right: Questions about speech codes demand nuance and, yes, context.”

“I reject Representative Elise Stefanik’s narrative that the presidents of Harvard, M.I.T. and Penn are morally unclear. Had they been asked if they find anti-semitism contemptible, all would have answered yes. Instead, they were bullied into answering binary questions about whether certain speech was in violation of their institutions’ codes of conduct.

“Those questions demand nuance and, yes, context. The moment we start punishing speech that doesn’t specifically threaten individuals or incite violence, we become no better than Russia.”

There you have it. Two views on higher education.

To conclude, I turn to Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan who wrote this, quoting Fareed Zakaria on his CNN news program:

“’When one thinks of America’s greatest strengths, the kind of assets the world looks at with admiration and envy, America’s elite universities would long have been at the top of that list,’ he said. ‘But the American public has been losing faith in these universities for good reason.’

“He scored the three presidents who’d come under fire in the House for their ‘vague and indecisive answers when asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their institutions’ codes of conduct.’

“Their performance was understandable if you understand that our elite universities ‘have gone from being centers of excellence to institutions pushing political agendas.’ Those agendas, ‘clustered around diversity and inclusion,’ began in good faith, ‘but those good intentions have morphed into a dogmatic ideology and turned these universities into places where the pervasive goals are political and social engineering, not academic merit.’”

So, again, back to learning as a central goal of higher ed. It cannot come too soon.

December 14, 2023 by davefiskum

THE DEPARTMENT OF INQUIRING MINDS IS OPEN AGAIN

This is one of four departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit because, you see, I am a management guru.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of “Just Saying,” and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

So inquiring minds want to know:

How do cardiologists do what they do?

I ask this question based on my experience with very capable cardiologists who work for the Oregon Heart Center here in Salem, Oregon.

One, Dr. Kevin Thompson, takes care of me and he has done a great job over the years. We are not just “patient and doctor;” we are friends.

The other is Dr. Raghu Kamenini, who has taken care of my wife recently. He also is positive in disposition and outlook.

What impresses me most: On a routine basis, these two – plus their colleagues – regularly insert stents into hearts to save lives. Often, they go through the wrist and up into the heart, conducting an angio-gram if that is indicated, but, then based on what they find, inserting a stent immediately if that, too, is indicated.

If not through the wrist, they go through the groin.

Don’t ask me how they do what they do. For them, it’s routine.

But for patients, it is anything but routine. So, it is great to have quality cardiologists on your side as we do here in Salem.

How does John Kirby manage the ins and outs of commenting on the Israel-Hamas war?

Who is John Kirby?

He is the public spokesman for the federal National Security Council and has been joining President Joe Biden’s regular press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, to brief the press on two wars — the Israel-Hamas War and the War in Ukraine.

A retired rear admiral, he has been a commanding presence in the briefing room because he has kept messaging clear and straightforward, a tall task when it comes to reporters and editors who are at least skeptical of government, if not cynical.

Error! Filename not specified.After another day of crisis in Gaza last month, a reporter asked John Kirby in a White House press briefing whether President Biden’s support of Israel’s military response against Hamas constituted support for “genocide” against Palestinians.

According to the Washington Post, he said, for example, “that the word, ‘genocide,’ is getting thrown around in a pretty inappropriate way by lots of different folks. What Hamas wants, make no mistake about it, is genocide. They want to wipe Israel off the map. If we’re going to start using that word, fine. Let’s use it appropriately.”

From the Post: “It was a typical Kirby response: Direct, plain-spoken and unmistakably supportive of the Administration’s pro-Israeli policies.”

All of this called to mind for me a role I had more than 40 years ago, serving as press secretary for Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh. Of course, the stakes were lower – for the governor, I was not commenting on any war, nor was I in Washington, D.C.

But, here in Salem, Oregon, I tried purposefully to measure my words as to accuracy and honesty so there would be little room for misapprehending the views of the governor.

Kirby has a job these days that almost no one would want. And I continue to be impressed by his top-level performance.

December 13, 2023 by davefiskum

IT’S NIKKI HALEY OR BUST FOR THE GOP

Rather than build toward a conclusion, I’ll start with it.

My fond hope is that someone other than Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination for president.

We don’t need any more of Trump’s bombast, narcissism, and failure to abide by laws of the land.

So, here’s hoping that Nicki Haley can rise to the challenge.

Washington Post Columnist Jennifer Rubin agrees with me, or perhaps I agree with her.

Here is what she wrote the other day:

Error! Filename not specified.

“Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has taken on the unmistakable aura of a loser. Vivek Ramaswamy has proved to be an annoying, incoherent dilettante. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie simply has not caught on with GOP voters. And neither Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin nor any other white knight has emerged to save the Republican Party from itself.

“That means only one Republican presidential candidate with the ability to dislodge Donald Trump remains: Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley.”

As Politico reported recently, “Haley is benefiting from this recent surge of support. She is now polling ahead of DeSantis in New Hampshire, the first primary state, and in her home state of South Carolina. One recent survey showed her running neck and neck with DeSantis in Iowa.”

Establishment donors (including the Koch network) are also shifting her way.

“’In recent weeks, a number of chief executives, hedge fund investors and corporate dealmakers from both parties have begun gravitating toward. Haley and, in some cases, digging deeper into their pockets to help her,’ the New York Times reported.

“Her ascent in the polls and strong debate performances have raised hopes among Republicans hungering to end the dominance of former President Donald J. Trump that maybe, just maybe, they have found a candidate who can do so.

“That hardly makes her a likely winner, not with a majority of the primary electorate seemingly locked in for Trump. But it does make her the only candidate in the primary who does not pose an existential threat to democracy and who has a chance to disable Trump.”

“Don’t get me wrong,” Rubin adds. “Haley is an unabashed opportunist who has never fully denounced Trump. She even suggested she might pardon him. She’s enamored of trickle-down economics and more tax cuts for the rich. And her views on abortion are anathema to those who want women to retain first-class citizenship and control over their own lives.

“However, the question is not whether Americans strongly inclined to vote for President Biden would vote for her in the general election. The question is whether, if she managed to topple Trump, she would break with the MAGA cult of personality, decline to bow and scrape before Russian President Vladimir Putin, decline to weaponize the Justice Department against her enemies, and return to some version of normal Republican politics.

“All indications suggest that, yes, she would refrain from subverting constitutional democracy if she somehow won the nomination and went on to win the presidency.”

At this moment, far from the election, it is not clear that Haley has the chops to win the Republican nomination. But she got a dose of good news the other day when New Hampshire Governor John Sununu endorsed her presidential bid.

Some observers had hoped that Sununu would run himself, but he passed on the “opportunity.”

I don’t agree with Halen on many of her policy stands, but one center fact is true: She is better than Trump – which isn’t saying much – but she might be the only Republican who can still beat Trump.

If I was a Republican and not an independent, I would vote for her.

	S.B. Lewelling on WHO TO FAVOR AFTER TRUMP? MY…
	Shelley Lewelling on ANOTHER GREAT SUNDAY!
	literarywanderings on MATT GAETZ: JUST WHAT NO ONE…
	literarywanderings on THE DEPARTMENT OF GOOD QUOTES…
	Bentley Gilbert on BIDEN STRIKES APPROPRIATE ADMO…

Perspective from the 19th Hole

Thoughts from a lobbyist who has represented clients in Oregon and Washington, D.C. for more than 40 years.