A MAJOR EVENT ESCAPES MUCH NOTICE AT THE CAPITOL IN SALEM

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 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 of 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.

I use the word “major” in the headline because, when I was a lobbyist, I used to wait impatiently for release of what was called then and is called now, “The Joint Ways and Means Budget Framework.”

Sound a bit weighty?

Yes.

And, you have to be either a political junkie or a former lobbyist to wait with baited breath for the document.  I qualify on both counts.

But, in the way the State of Oregon budget is developed when the Legislature is in regular session, what the Ways and Means leaders say is important.

Almost as important as what the governor recommends when he or she submits budget recommendations to the Legislature at the start of its every-other-year long session.  That occurs on December 1, a couple months before legislators show up in Salem – or, this year, show up virtually, often on Zoom.

So, several months later, what the Ways and Means co-chairs recommend is informed by later developments, as well as the state of political affairs among the 90 legislators.

The document is important for these reasons:

• First, it sets the stage for what happens as the Legislature heads toward adjournment in late June.

• Second, it represents what legislative leaders say are important allocations to such political funding priorities as K-12 education, higher education, public safety (including State Police and prisons), and social programs (including Medicaid and children’s health).

[Those are the major programs, which receive state personal and corporate tax revenue.  Almost all other government programs are funded by federal funds, fees or lottery revenue, so the “state general fund allocations” are critical from both financial and political points of view.]

• Third, it appears that the State of Oregon two-year budget can be balanced without increasing tax revenue, though, of course, some legislators in Salem still want to do so.

• Fourth, it is not yet clear how the new budget framework affects the “kicker” – the process that requires taxpayer refunds if new tax revenue projections are more than 2 per cent higher than previous projections.  The kicker is designed to control state spending, though it remains very controversial politically. 

What the legislative leaders unveiled last week was summarized in these ways by my former colleagues in the lobbying firm, CFM Advocates.

With the state of Oregon receiving $2.6 billion from the American Rescue Plan, around $600 million in recent COVID- and wildfire-related FEMA reimbursements, and with last month’s quarterly economic forecast predicting higher-than-expected revenue, lawmakers are facing a much different budget situation than expected earlier in the pandemic.

The document outlined a $28 billion plan to fund agencies and services over the cycle starting July 1, 2021 and ending on June 30, 2023. Their goal is to fully fund K-12 schools and higher education while potentially introducing reductions in the state’s Medicaid program, the Oregon Health Plan.

While lawmakers have indicated a desire to hold benefits and eligibility harmless, their plan may end up reducing provider and hospital reimbursements, thus adversely affecting the state’s health system after a year of devastating pandemic-related effects.

A final May economic forecast will be released towards the end of session, and that will serve as the final piece of the puzzle for budget writers in the drive to end the legislative session in late June.

And, from me, again, why does all this matter to “regular” Oregonians?  Well, what state government does with “its” money affects nearly every taxpayer, including the possibility of the “kicker” being in play.

So, with me, pay attention to how all this sifts and sorts its way through the last three months of the current legislative session, for it could affect you directly.

BIDEN’S FIRST PRESS CONFERENCE PRODUCES POSITIVE RESULTS – FOR BIDEN

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 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 of 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.

Why would I, fromm my winter base in the California desert, feel compelled to write about the first press conference held by President Joe Biden?

Well, perhaps not “compelled.”  But label me interested.  For one thing, I am a former journalist, so press conferences – how they are held, how the subjects conduct themselves and how reporters respond – all garner my interest.

In this case, for all the media hype prodding Biden to hold a press conference, his first since taking office, what happened was close to boring.

That is not a criticism of Biden.  In fact, it is a compliment.

As I watched live, I thought Biden carried himself with skill and distinction as, for more than an hour, he faced reporters, some of whom were intent on catching him in one of his periodic gaffes.

But, he did not commit any gaffes and, if he had done so, that would have made him look human, for, truth be told, all of us are subject to committing gaffes.

What Biden did was show that he grasped the detail of many of the policy issues that confront his presidency, the largest one of which is the pandemic, but that is followed close behind by immigration, gun control, infrastructure and climate change.

Biden started his press conference with a summary of what his Administration has done, is doing and will do to contain the virus.  Principally, he committed to achieving 200 million vaccinations by the 100^th day of his presidency, an increase from a previous goal.

Surprisingly, however, reporters, siting socially-distanced in a White House room, did not ask one question about the pandemic.  Not one.

In showing expertise on policy issues, Biden illustrated how different he is from his predecessor, Donald Trump. 

Trump rarely knew what he was talking about.  He did not read briefing books, preferring to watch television and emote on Twitter.  Plus, he mostly engaged in lies or diatribes against those he thought disagreed with him, including reporters at the White House.

Here is a summary of what commentators wrote about the long-awaited Biden press conference:

From David A. Graham in Atlantic Magazine wrote a piece under this headline:  WHAT BIDEN’S FIRST PRESS CONFERENCE REVEALED:  THE PRESIDENT INVOKED AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.

Graham went on:

“Joe Biden has a reputation as a softie—grandfatherly if you’re inclined toward him, somewhat windy and elderly if you aren’t.  But when he reached for a phrase to define his approach to office during his first press conference, he didn’t pick an Irish poet or an American statesman.  Instead, he quoted the hardheaded Teutonic conservative known as the Iron Chancellor:  “Politics is the art of the possible,” Biden said.

“The president invoked Otto von Bismarck in response to a question on filibuster reform.  Biden went further than he has in the past, coming close to an out-and-out condemnation of the 60-vote requirement, even as he said he’d be open to tweaks such as a ‘talking filibuster’ or a civil-rights exemption, rather than an outright abolition of the process.

“On the left, critics worried that Biden was a bi-partisanship fetishist, more interested in paying homage to the old ways of doing things (or not doing them, as the case might be) than actually achieving progressive goals.  On the right, critics painted him as a puppet of the ‘woke’ wing of the DemocratParty, putting a friendly face on a radical agenda.  Obviously, both of these views couldn’t be right. But so far, neither one has proved correct.’’

From Karen Tumulty in the Washington Post:  “In the tradition of most modern chief executives, Joe Biden arrived at his first formal presidential news conference with a nugget to announce:  He was doubling his initial goal and would assure that 200 million coronavirus vaccine shots would be administered to the American public in his first 100 days in office.

“So it was perhaps odd that the president got no questions from reporters about the pandemic that in the past year has killed nearly 550,000 Americans, devastated the economy and upended just about every aspect of daily life in this country.

“But it was also, in a way, a compliment to the Biden Administration’s management of the epidemic that is the White House’s most urgent priority, an acknowledgment that at last it has begun to feel that the situation is coming under control.”

From Jennifer Rubin, also in the Washington Post whose column appeared under this headline:  BIDEN EXCELS AT HIS FIRST NEWS CONFERENCE. THE MEDIA EMBARRASS THEMSELVES.

Rubin went on:

“Try as they might to seem ‘tough,’ the media did not succeed in knocking Biden off message.  Biden spoke in great detail and length to show not only his mastery of the issues, but also to suck tension and conflict out of the room.

“He simply would not be lured into accepting a false premise devised by Republicans (i.e., that his nice demeanor prompts parents to send kids thousands of miles under deadly conditions).

“’I’m going to send him on a thousand-mile journey across a desert and up to the United States because I know Joe Biden is a nice guy and he’ll take care of him? What a desperate act to take,’ he said. “The circumstances must be horrible.”

With all this, however, it was Dan Balz in the Washington Post who put it best.  If Biden’s first press conference was so important, he said, then the result didn’t prove the point. 

Given the media’s lackluster performance, Balz said the president might want to decide that there are better ways to communicate with the public than to hold press conferences.

U.S. SENATOR RON JOHNSON ISN’T AN OUTLIER — AND THE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS AT STAKE

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 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 of 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.

The headline in this blog derives from a column by one of my favorite writers, Michael Gerson, whose prose appears in the Washington Post.

[Today, by the way, his new column aks why, in the aftermath of two more shootings where people died, America shouldn’t allow “conscience rule” on gun control – so, control guns.]

But, in what appears below, Gerson writes about the dangerous U.S. Senator, Ron Johnson, who, Gerson opines, “prefers his racism raw.”

On occasion, I devote this blog to the entire text of a column, first, by giving due credit to the writer, and second, by admitting that I could not write better words, so publish someone else’s effort.

So, here is the Gerson column in its entirety:

A political movement will either police its extremes or be defined by them.

Disapproval from opponents is easy to dismiss as mere partisanship. It is through self-criticism that a political party defines and patrols the boundaries of its ideological sanity.

This is the reason the case of Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.) remains so instructive and disturbing. Johnson is a Republican who prefers his racism raw.

He recently described the majority-White crowd protesting on January 6 (some of whom stormed the Capitol and assaulted police officers) as “people that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law.”

Meanwhile, he would have been “concerned” by an approaching crowd of “tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters.”  So:  Whites who propagate a destructive lie, attack the democratic process and commit violence are Johnson’s kind of people; African Americans who protest a history of injustice are a scary horde.

There have always been bigots with access to a microphone. But in this case, Johnson did not face the hygienic repudiation of his party. Republican leaders preferred a different strategy: putting their fingers in their ears and humming loudly.  Republicans have abolished their ideological police.

The reason is simple. After four years of Donald Trump, Johnson’s sentiments are not out of the Republican mainstream.  They are an application of the prevailing Republican ideology — that the “real” America is under assault by the dangerous other: Violent immigrants. Angry Blacks. Antifa terrorists. Suspicious Muslims. And don’t forget “the China virus. ”

Trump did not create such views.  But he normalized them in an unprecedented fashion. Under Trump’s cover, this has been revealed as the majority position of Republicans, or at least engaged, activist Republicans. A recent New York Times poll found 65 percent of people who identify with the GOP to still be Trump “die-hards,” Trump “boosters” or captive to conspiracy theories.

And most of the rest find nothing disqualifying in Trump’s pathologically divisive performance as president.

Our country faces many crises.  But our nation’s politics has a single, overriding challenge:  One of the United States’ venerable, powerful political parties has been overtaken by people who make resentment against outsiders the central element of their appeal.  Inciting fear is not an excess of their zeal; it is the substance of their cause.

This has left some of us politically disoriented.  I am pro-life.  For me, this has always been the natural application of a humane historical trend:  The United States’ gradually expanding circle of legal inclusion and protection.  You may disagree with me, but I believe there is a logical moral progression that leads from abolitionism to the civil rights movement to the protection of the disabled and unborn.

Yet, it is precisely this progression that’s being denied in today’s GOP.  Claiming that discrimination is an illusion, that White people are the true victims, that diversity is a threat and that the American way of life is really identical to the good old days of White dominance — these are not just mistaken policy views, like being wrong on entitlement reform or tax policy.

They are the fundamental failure of empathy, the triumph of dangerous historical lies and the violation of the highest objectives of politics: the advance of equal justice and human dignity.

It is one thing to be involved in policing the excesses of an ideological movement.  It is another task entirely to persuade the large majority of an ideological movement to adopt the basic rules of morality and humanity.  In the first case, the Republican Party is a flawed instrument of good.  In the second case, it is a source of dangerous dehumanization that gets a few important things right.

The stakes could hardly be higher.  Politics does not directly determine the morality of citizens.  But it helps shape the system of social cues and stigmas in which citizens operate.  It matters whether leaders delegitimize hatred or fertilize it; if they isolate prejudice or mainstream it.

If political figures base their appeal on the cultivation of resentment for some group or groups, they are releasing deadly toxins into our society without any idea who might be harmed or killed.  Such elected leaders might not have blood on their hands directly, but they are creating a society with more bloody hands.

I am still finding it difficult to fully embrace the Democrat Party, which denies the American progression toward justice and inclusion in other ways.  But I could not advise an idealistic and ambitious young person to join today’s GOP because her ambition would be likely to destroy her idealism.

Most Republican leaders can no longer be trusted with the moral education of the young on the central moral challenge of our history. Elected Republicans who are not bigots are generally cowards in the face of bigotry.  And that is a shocking, horrible thing.

GOLF CONTINUES TO BE ALIVE AND WELL IN OREGON

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 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 of 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.

This blog headline is possible because of a commitment from Oregon’s golf industry leaders to take the pulse of the sports economic performance.

It did so to rate the year 2019, the most recent year for which statistics were available.  And that was before the pandemic boosted golf participation throughout the country, including in the Pacific Northwest.

The economic report was produced by the Golf Alliance of Oregon (GAO), in collaboration with the National Golf Foundation (NGF).

THE BOTTOM LINE:  Golf’s direct economic impact in Oregon was valued at $1.6 billion 2019.  Golf supports 16,500 jobs for Oregon residents, with $508.1 million in wage income and more than $69 million in state and local taxes.

The Golf Alliance consists of the Oregon Golf Association (OGA), The Oregon Chapter of the Pacific Northwest Section of the PGA of America, the Oregon Golf Course Owners and Operators Association, the Oregon Golf Course Superintendents Association, and the Oregon Club Managers Association. 

Thus, the Alliance covers all segments of the industry.

“There’s been a lot said about the 8 per cent increase in golf’s total participation during a COVID year in 2020 – which is great news,” says Barb Trammell, CEO of the Oregon Golf Association.  “However, this 2019 study, which is pre-COVID, indicates that golf is more than a safe and enjoyable pastime in our state — it is a key industry contributing to the overall economy and quality of life in Oregon.

“In addition, we’re proud that Oregon golf courses are leaders in environmental stewardship and are originators of maintenance practices aimed at protecting the environment and preserving limited resources.”

Here are a few statistics from the just-published report:

• Golf drives significant economic activity across the State of Oregon through golf facility operations, golf related supplies, capital investments, charitable events, tournaments, tourism, golf-related retail spending, and new home construction in golf communities.

• The size of Oregon’s direct golf economy in 2019 compares favorably with other key state industries such as fishing ($698 million) and wine ($5.6 billion).  However, beyond the economic metrics, the report also details how golf contributes to health and wellness for its 242,500 participants, thanks to the benefits of its 20,000 acres of green space and surrounding ecosystems.

• Oregon is home to 177 golf facilities with most of them open to the public.  The state is also home to notable golf apparel companies — Nike, adidas North America, and Columbia Sportswear — as well as several other smaller manufacturers and golf equipment companies.

• In 2019, more than 242,500 Oregon golfers played more than 4.5 million rounds, and more than 18,000 kids were reached through the PGA, First Tee, Oregon Junior Golf, Leisure Hour and First Green programs.

• A total of $19.1 million was contributed to charity from various golf events, including, in particular, the LPGA’s Cambia Portland Classic played at Columbia Edgewater Country Club.  Further, more than two things of Oregon golf facilities hosted a charity event in 2019.

• Golf courses benefit both people and wildlife.  In fact, Oregon was the first state to implement an Environmental Stewardship Guideline, Best Management Practices (BMP) for Golf Courses.

Am I an unbiased source as I report these pieces of good news?  No.

I am proud to serve on the Executive Committee of the Oregon Golf Association Board of Directors where I joined my colleagues to endorse our CEO’s commitment to produce the economic study.

And results continue to prove that golf is more than a safe and enjoyable pastime for many Oregonians, including me.  It is an economic engine.

SHOULD HEALTH CARE BE ENSHRINED AS A RIGHT?

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 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 of 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.

Legislators in Salem appear to be heading toward sending a measure to the ballot that would declare health care to be a “right.”

The measure would proposed a change in Oregon’s Constitution to achieve the objective, thus would require a vote of the people.

It will be a controversial decision for the Legislature, not because health care is not important – it is – but because establishing the right could come at the expense of other important public policy priorities. 

K-12 education.  Higher education.  Public safety.

All could be at risk if health care becomes a right and the Legislature choose to fund that objective.

Here’s the way the Oregonian newspaper described the status of the issue in a story that appeared March 18:

“The Oregon Senate on Thursday approved a resolution that would ask voters to decide whether the state is obligated to ensure that every resident has access to affordable health care as a fundamental human right.

“The resolution, whose aim is to amend the state Constitution, was approved along party lines, with Democrat senators in favor and Republicans opposed.  It next goes to the House in the Democrat-controlled Legislature.”

A similar effort in 2018 was approved by the House, but a Senate committee demurred, thus not allowing it to become the first constitutional amendment in any state to create a fundamental right to healthcare.

Senate Majority Leader Rob Wagner made a simple case for the measure this time around when he said, “Every Oregonian deserves access to cost-effective and clinically appropriate health care.  Oregon’s Constitution should reflect that truth.”

By contrast, Senate Minority Leader Fred Girod took a different tack.

 “The bill doesn’t fund any system to deliver on that promise.  If Democrats are serious about giving Oregonians free health care, they should come up with an actual plan.”

All of this calls to mind a number of similar efforts over the years when I worked as a lobbyist at the State Capitol in Salem.  Health care organizations always were a major part of my client list.

The usual promoter of the right was the late State Representative Mitch Greenlick for whom the issue was a top priority, though he never climbed the hill to realize his goal.

For my part, I have mixed emotions about the issue.  On one hand, it’s hard to argue with the importance of health care as a public policy priority.  On the other hand, the other major programs funded by state tax dollars – education and public safety to name two – could contend they should be a right, as well.

Where I end up is here:

• Don’t establish any of the above issues as rights in the Constitution.
• Rely on the Joint Ways and Means Committee – the Legislature’s budget-making arm – to make the hard decisions about how to use limited state dollars to find the right balance for all of the top priorities.

That won’t appease health care advocates, but it represents reliance on legislators to accomplish one of main actions whenever they show up in Salem – which is to balance the state budget.

That won’t appease health care as a right advocates, for the proposition relies on elected leaders to do their jobs, which they sometimes don’t do.  Still, in this case, leaders have to balance the budget in relation to available revenue, not spend in deficit.  That alone makes the effort reliable.

IT’S NOT POSSIBLE TO CORRECT STUPID

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 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 of 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.

The words in this blog headline – words often used by a friend of mine – came to mind as I read a recent column by Leonard Pitts who works for the Miami Herald and whose prose appears in the Washington Post.

A good wordsmith, Pitt got right to the point when he wrote this:

“My brother-in-law died of ‘hogwash.’

“Another brother-in-law, a sister-in-law, two daughters-in-law, two cousins and several grandchildren are all recovering from hogwash. My wife spent a week in the hospital with hogwash.  I tested positive for hogwash but had few symptoms.

“Hogwash,” Pitts continued, “was the word a grocery-store owner in Naples, Florida, used last month in dismissing the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic.  This, after a viral video showing his patrons and employees going about their business without facial coverings, as if they had time-traveled here from 2019.”

As we observe our first anniversary of life in a pandemic, Pitts said many of us are taking stock of the various ways we have been impacted.

“The most obvious, of course, is the human toll:  One American in every 11 has tested positive, one in every 628 has died.  But even those who’ve escaped that fate haven’t escaped the virus’ touch.  It has transformed virtually every field of endeavor:  Sports, education, entertainment, the environment, the economy, eldercare, worship, justice, journalism, protest and politics, to name a few.  Its effects have also been felt in an arena you may not have considered, though here it has not so much changed something as revealed it.”

“Meaning: it has shown us the high cost of living in a facts-optional — indeed, an anti-fact — society.”

Pitts pointed to two events, which, he said illustrated the anti-fact tendency.  One was the effort to downplay the January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by a zealot army drunk on conspiracy theories as laughable as they were deadly.  The other was regarding the pandemic as “hogwash,” though it has killed more than 525,000 Americans.

Pitts argued that, when facts cease to matter, consequences do, too.

“When everybody has their own truth, and no two truths look alike, we will become -=- as we are becoming — a society unable to effectively mobilize itself, even to save its own life.  If we are to avoid that fate, journalists must disenthrall themselves from false equivalence and stop boosting entertaining liars, voters must extract a penalty at the ballot box from politicians who embrace the anti-fact ethos, social media must be more aggressive in denying platforms to anti-fact super spreaders, and educators must make a priority of teaching critical thinking, civics and media literacy.”

In response to the notions from Pitts, it is surprising, though perhaps it should not be, that a quarter of members of the U.S. House and Senate have not yet received a virus vaccine, some because they don’t believe in the efficacy of it.  Not to mention that Senator Rand Paul recently went after scientist and government official Anthony Fauci in a hearing when Fauci advocated continuing to adhere to virus protections, such as wearing masks.

To put it simply, I’ll side with Fauci, not Paul. It is not possible to correct stupid – and, in this case, that means Paul.

PERSPECTIVES ON WORKING FROM HOME

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 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 of 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.

Working from home is a good idea – some of the time and for some people.

That’s one takeaway from two competing news developments in the last two days, both related to “now what” as statistics related to the coronavirus retreat, at least a bit.

In one case, Ford Motor Company gave 30,000 employees the option to work from home in what the newspaper called “another sign of workforce transformation.”

A day later, Google announced that it would spend $7 billion on new buildings and data centers in the U.S. this year, doubling down on a return to the office.  The new buildings will be In Texas, California, North Carolina and Minnesota.

Google was one of the first major U.S. companies to send its workers home in March 2020 as the coronavirus began to spread rapidly across the United States.  It now plans to bring employees back to the office in September, but unlike Facebook and Twitter, it hasn’t given them the option for permanent remote work.

A story in the Washington Post included this quote:  “Coming together in person to collaborate and build community is core to Google’s culture, and it will be an important part of our future.”

By contrast, Ford said many workers will have a new ‘hybrid option’ to work both remotely and in-person, starting in July.

The news caught my attention because, several years ago before I retired as a lobbyist, I moved my firm’s office from downtown Salem, Oregon to my home.

The reason was not related to the coronavirus, which at the time, was several years away.   To state the obvious, our small firm is very different than Ford or Google, but we faced some of the same decisions in a far smaller way.

The reasons for scrapping an office were, first, we were doing more and more work from home anyway, and, second, doing away with physical office space saved money.

As lobbyists, we often communicated with clients late at night or early in the morning.  Then, days during regular sessions of the Oregon Legislature were spent at the Capitol in downtown Salem.  And, when the Capitol became wi-fied, there was no need for an office.  Work could be done literally in Capitol hallways.

But there is no RIGHT answer here.  Just options.

So, to gain some perspective on this, I did what I often do, which consult with one of my friends who is a business consultant.

Here are excerpts of what he told me:

“…the pandemic has shown us that remote work options do work, though the option does not work for ALL jobs in all industries.  Based on the data I have seen, productivity has not declined and technology has helped to bridge the gap of working independently.

“If I were assisting a business which was considering remote work as an option, I would be asking:  Has the company spoken to its employees about the option and, if so, what have the concerns been; why are employers thinking about this as an option for employees; what do they hope to gain from it; have they determined which jobs would be eligible; and – relative to jobs that would continue to be done in place – what incentives have they investigated to compensate for the lack of flexibility; and, finally, what metrics will they use to determine the success of the effort?”

My friend also told me that he does not see the U.S. ever going back fully to what most of us have experienced in terms of “going to work.”

“The lost time commuting, traveling to locations to meet face-to-face, or even just standing around the water cooler or coffee pot just chit-chatting, will be pretty much gone for many employees.  Employers are saving a ton of money on leased space, travel, lodging, meals and some administrative costs.

“Managing employees will definitively have a different format with different expectations AND it just may very well be clearer and more effective that the ‘old’ model,” though questions will remain on whether working at home effects productivity.

As usual, good points all.

For me, working at home was effective and productive.  When I made the decision for my firm, the coronavirus was not involved; it was just the best decision for my firm at the time.

It might not be the same for all companies or all jobs, including the obvious cases such as at Ford where some workers will have to remain at physical plants to produce cars.

It strikes me that the smart move will be for companies to try working at home as an option for some employees, not a requirement, and then test the new model after a few years to make sure it works as designed.

IT’S BECOMING HARDER TO FIX ONE OF TRUMP’S MOST INHUMANE POLICIES – UNFORTUNATELY

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 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 of 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.

When Joe Biden became president, I hoped he would put in place specific actions to correct one of the most egregious – not to mention intentional – abuses of power Donald Trump.

It was the policy to separate immigrant children from their parents at the Southern border.

If you are a parent, imagine the emotions involved to have your children ripped away from you.  Call it kidnapping, which is what it was.

Now, it appears that a new influx of immigrants at the Southern border will create at least two results – (a) a political challenge for the Biden Administration policy to adopt sensible immigration politicies, and (b) a likely delay in the ability to reunite children and parents separated by Trump.

Back on February 2, Biden announced the start of efforts to identify and reunite hundreds of families who were separated at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The new president signed an executive order creating a task force to reunite the families, a step toward fulfilling his campaign promise.

“With the first action we are going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration that literally, not figuratively, ripped children from the arms of their families at the border and with no plan, none whatsoever, to reunify the children who are still in custody and their parents,” he said.

The fact is that the Trump Administration separated at least 5,500 children from their parents along the border between July 2017 and June 2018.  The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the government over the policy, says it’s likely that at least 1,000 of those families remain separated — parents scattered mostly across Central America and children living with relatives in the United States.

Many of those parents, unsure if or when they would ever be together again, have spent the past several years trying to raise their children over video calls.  Some returned to the U.S. border in hopes of finding their children but were once again apprehended by immigration agents and deported a second time.

Now, a new challenge.

Looming over the debate about general immigration reform, as well as the effort to reunite children and families, is a new surge of migrants at the southern border.

Senator Lindsay Graham said the new border crisis makes it “much harder” to make progress on helping Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

So, where we now sit creates more delay for reunification.  That’s, again, almost unthinkable.

What Trump did to separate migrant children and their parents created an indelible stain on America and it now appears that stain won’t be washed away any time soon. 

My fond hope continues to be that the reunification obligation won’t get lost in another political quagmire in Washington, D.C.

HOW LOBBYING HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS – OR AT LEAST WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SUBJECT

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 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 of 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.

One of my former associates in the lobbying business I helped to found called me the other day to set up an interview for a podcast on how lobbying has changed over the years.

She called because, I am old, and, thus, I am able to talk about the past and, at least to a degree, about the present.  Though for the present, I have been retired for nearly five years, so don’t have much first-hand experience.

Still, using the interview as a basis, I turned the process into this blog because, the more I thought about it, the more my notions struck me as important comparisons between the past and present of the lobbying game.

Here a few of the perceptions I provided to my interviewer:

• Lobbying in the past was not tinged as much as it is today by over-the-top emotion, anger and invective.

• Persons on opposite of issues – be they legislators or lobbyists – were accustomed to finding a way to work together in the past.  Today, it is far more difficult to find the smart middle ground because both sides want to advance their cause, not compromise.

• Today, the emphasis on the part of legislators appears, more than ever, to be to find fault with those who disagree with them.  Yelling and screaming, at least figuratively, if not literally,  has become an art form.  No longer is it possible as often to engage in politics as the “art of compromise.”  The fact is the ability to disagree agreeably is a lost art.

• The “personal touch” of lobbying appears also to have receded.  One reason, of course, is the pandemic, which has rendered the Legislature a “virtual” one.  But another reason is the emotionally tinged status of both political parties.  In the past, as a lobbyist in a regular session, I would have talked to each of the 90 members of the legislature to discuss the pros and cons of legislation and whether compromise was possible.   Today, that is far less likely to occur.

In my interview, I went beyond the “old and new” question to cite examples of two specific lobby cases in which I was involved where the result was good for my clients, as well as for Oregon as a whole. 

Could results like this occur today?  Not sure, if for no other reason than the examples include controversial environmental issues that would divide, not unite, current legislators.

• Port of Portland channel deepening
  
  

+  My client, the Port of Portland, made this an Oregon issue, not just one that would benefit Portland.

+  We emphasized local connections with a list of all private companies around the state that would benefit from deeper draft maritime commerce.

+  We found an innovative way to surmount the “one legislature cannot bind the next legislature issue,” a reality that makes sense, but is difficult if the cost of a project – deepening the channel in this case – is too large to be accommodated in one two-year budget period. 

+  We found a way to offset the complaints from “environment lobbyists” who feared “dredge spoils” would be dangerous.  Of course, what was dredged was clean sand which actually had a market once pulled out of the river.

+  We found a way to meld the interests of two states (Oregon and Washington) with the federal government, since all three would bear shares of the cost of the project.
 

• Field burning under power lines for Hewlett-Packard, which operates a facility in Corvallis

+  The problem was this:  When field burning produced clouds of smoke that enveloped major power lines, the effect often was that outages occurred.  And that wreaked havoc on H-P technology processes at the Corvallis plant.

+  So, to promote passage of a bill to cure the problem, H-P authorized me to join with environment lobbyists to advocate for passage of a field burning ban bill.  To put it bluntly, H-P did not often join with such lobbyists, though it made sense to do so this time.  And the result was success:  The burn ban bill passed, though it was not a total ban, but did include “not under power lines” clause.

With this as background, I told my interviewer I thought we were standing on the horizon of a major issue for everyone in Oregon and, for that matter, in the country as a whole.

It is this:  All of us better find a way to return to the challenge of working together in politics rather than just arguing with raw and antagonistic emotion.   That includes both legislators and lobbyists, as well as those who elect or hire them.

If we don’t, democracy as we know it may be a form of government of the past.

That is not an exaggeration.  The January 6 insurrection at the Nation’s Capitol is only an indication of what could come, especially if certain persons continue to foment destruction as an intentional method to get their way.

As President Joe Biden has advocated, working together makes far more sense than stoking division and dissension.

EARMARKS: THERE ARE WAYS “TO BRING HOME THE BACON WITHOUT THE PORK”

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 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 of 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.

The word “earmarks” conjures up controversial political notions about the process of producing the annual federal government budget.

Such as the headline which compares spending to benefit local congressional districts with “pork,” which means, in the vernacular of politics, stupid spending that does no good.

But what is the definition of the term earmarks.

Here’s what the dictionary says:

“An earmark refers to congressional provisions directing funds to be spent on specific projects.”

Detractors say that earmarks pollute the federal budget because certain powerful lawmakers can steer funding for unworthy projects to their home districts.  In some cases, that may be true, such as the fabled “bridge to nowhere” project in Alaska.

Proponents counter that earmarks are part of the process of representative government in Congress when members steer funding to specific projects in their districts – projects which address real issues and which help to solve problems in local areas.

A story by the Associated Press (AP) asked this question the other day:  Can lawmakers bring home the bacon without it being pork?

It’s a question that’s vexing Republicans as they consider whether to join a Democrat push to revive the much-maligned earmarks process.   

Earmarking was linked to corruption in the 2000s, leading to an outcry and their banishment in the House and Senate.  But many in Congress said the ban has gone too far, ceding the “power of the purse” to party leaders and the Executive Branch, and giving lawmakers less incentive to work with members of the other party on major legislation, including local appropriations.

According to the AP:  “Democrat appropriators in the House see a solution and are proposing a revamped process allowing lawmakers to submit public requests for ‘community project funding’ in federal spending bills.  To guard against graft, the process includes safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest.

“Whether earmarking becomes bi-partisan could have enormous implications not only for the allocation of spending across the country, but for President Joe Biden, who is gearing up for a massive infrastructure push that he hopes will attract significant Republican support.  With earmarking in place, bi-partisanship could prove easier to achieve, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle could have reason to support bills they would otherwise oppose.”

So, what’s my view?  Well, first, in the spirit of full disclosure, the lobbying firm in which I was a partner for about 25 years fought for earmarks extensively as we represented a number of local governments in the Northwest.  So, I am not an unbiased source.

When earmarks were allowed, our firm fought for them.  When earmarks were not allowed, our D.C. staff worked the process to gain funding for local governments without an earmark.

And, as a point of emphasis, we never advocated for a project such as the “bridge to nowhere.”

I support the return of earmarks if appropriate conditions are attached, so the expenditures can be considered “investments,” not just more spending.

The entire debate in Congress over restoring earmarks is likely to come down to that:  Making sure funding allocations can meet the test of being investments.