May 30, 2021 by davefiskum

A TOP HIGHLIGHT OF MY TIME WORKING FOR OREGON STATE GOVERNMENT

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.

It can be a worthwhile activity to look back on something you have done in your life and reflect on the good times.

Regarding my work in state government from 1979 through 1990, I did that this week with my wife as we drove over to an iconic resort on the Oregon Coast, Salishan Lodge.

The visit, which we have made many times over the years, brought back fond memories of a special occasion at Salishan more than 39 years ago, the Western Governor’s Association conference there.

I had the privilege of handling media relations for Governor Vic Atiyeh as he hosted the event for 14 Western state governors, as well as top representatives of three U.S. territories.

All of this came flooding back to me as my wife and I visited with Mary Arnstad who, 39 years ago, was a key Salishan manager who was in charge of hosting the Western Governors’ event. She is now back at the Coast as an investor in the Bay House Restaurant, which has re-located from South Lincoln City to Salishan Lodge.

Mary did a great job of hosting us 39 years ago, including arranging for building a parking lot at the end of the Salishan spit, which became the site of a major seafood barbecue for all those attending, except the elected officials who were hosted elsewhere, though they probably would rather have been at the barbecue.

Let me add quickly that everyone attending the conference participated in substance on such issues as natural resources and economic growth, each of which motivated the policies of the governors.

That is outlined in a piece by my friend Denny Miles, which is excerpted below. Denny was Governor Atiyeh’s press secretary and also served as chair of Oregon’s task to host the Western Governors.

Denny and I were – and are – friends and, for the conference, he asked me to handle media relations, which I gladly did, while I took a few days leave from my position at the Department of Human Resources.

Here are excerpts from Miles’ post:

“The Western Governors’ now operates with a different name and governance model, but in those days, it was headquartered in San Francisco and the organization concentrated on issues related to natural resources and economic matters of interest to Western states.

“’Western’ was defined as everything from Wyoming to New Mexico to Alaska and American Samoa — so it covered a lot of geography.

“The Western governors’ meetings were very non-partisan, in that the governors nearly always had more in common based on geography than differences based on political party. Often a Democrat governor from Montana was more conservative than a Republican governor from California.

“The host state would raise money for a special fund donated by corporate sponsors. Sponsors typically would attend the conference and interact with the governors and their spouses during the meeting. A lot of policy was discussed, the White House always participated, and what seemed most important, everyone always had a great time.

“Salishan was such a great spot for this kind of premier event. It had hosted Western governors before — during the McCall Administration.

“The Pacific Ocean is a great collaborator to have for such an event. But we also had an astronaut from Oregon (Gordon Fullerton), great local entertainment (Stoddard & Cole and The Shoppe), and a lot of great parties laid into the agenda. We literally took over the Salishan facility, along with several nice hotels nearby.

“As chairman of the WGC, Governor Atiyeh had been looking forward to hosting the Western Governors’ Conference. We all knew it was going to be right in the middle of a tough election year. Atiyeh always did things in the legal, proper and ethical way. Given the election-year timing we were especially careful. Our policies, procedures and practices were vetted through legal counsel Bob Oliver. This operation would be antiseptically clean.

“In planning for the event, every morning I would meet first with my team of Oregon host staff. Glenna Hayden handled registration, we had an Oregon State Police captain leading a substantial cadre of troopers, Dave Fiskum was in charge of press relations, and Paul Phillips was the transportation coordinator. Mellissa Underwood was a volunteer who also helped out. She had a delightful Tennessee accent that calmed down just about any situation.

“My second meeting each morning was with Salishan staff, led by assistant manager Mary Arnstad. These folks were pros. If there was a problem, I typically didn’t hear about it until it had been solved.

“…Salishan had arranged for an area on the spit to be paved and a huge tent installed. A very efficient shuttle system took guests to the end of the spit. This special event featured wonderful ‘Oregon bounty’ food and great music. This specific party was for non-elected participants. At the same time, all the chief executives and lobbyists were hosted for a very fancy and exclusive party in a private home just a mile south.

“Visualize a huge tent set up at the end of the spit overlooking Siletz Bay and the Pacific Ocean. I can’t remember how they got electrical power to this end-of-the-road location. There was a sumptuous buffet and a well-stocked open bar. Then there was The Shoppe, an amazing country-pop band that kept the place hopping for hours.”

The Salishan governors’ conference was an unbridled success. The governor was ecstatic. His fellow governors had a great time. Chief of Staff Gerry Thompson, still a friend to this day, was very pleased.

“It seemed that at future WGC gatherings the comments were something like, ‘nice enough event, but nothing like what you guys did in Oregon,” Denny remembers. “I (Denny) remember thinking at our post- event celebratory staff gathering upstairs in the Salishan bar – ‘Gee, I could go out now on a high note. But I had accepted another, much tougher job, and my start date was just days away.

“Four days later, I moved into the Atiyeh re-election campaign office as the new campaign manager. The incumbent governor was seriously behind in the polls.”

**********

The rest of the story: As Denny left, I took over as the governor’s press secretary. The governor won re-election by a huge margin, Denny came back to his press secretary job, and, after pinch-hitting for him, I went on to serve as deputy director of the Oregon Economic Development Department and assistant director of the Oregon Executive Department before moving on to become a lobbyist.

Good to be able to remember 39-years-ago highlights.

May 29, 2021 by davefiskum

WILL THE “KICKER” KICK? YES

The headline formulates a question you could only ask in Oregon and get an answer.

The “kicker” is an Oregon law that says, if projected tax revenue is more than 2 per cent over projections, then the “excess” is returned to taxpayers.

In other words, the “kicker” kicks.

All of this came to mind the other day for at least two reasons:

First, a friend of mine who knew I worked in and around state government for many years said he had heard that legislators would find a way to avoid sending excess revenue back to taxpayers. I said, no, that wouldn’t’ happen.

Second, the latest revenue forecast projected a huge “kicker” for personal taxpayers in their 2021 filing.

Here is more information on both points, even as I write about this for the second time in a week:

Some legislators in Salem may want to spend “kicker” money instead of returning it to taxpayers, but they cannot take such action on their own.

The reason is that a measure went to the ballot in 1979 to put the “kicker” law in the Oregon Constitution. It passed by a wide margin – 62 per cent approval. So, undoing the “kicker” would require a vote of the people, and that is not likely to happen and, if the “kicker” law was sent to the ballot, there is little question but that it would be retained.

In 2007, lawmakers did succeed in diverting funds from the corporate kicker to a surplus account called the rainy-day fund, but that involved a deal with corporate payers, not individual payers.

The latest Oregon revenue report was more eye-popping than its predecessors, showing the state will bag $1.18 billion more in taxes and lottery proceeds than originally projected. The report pretty much solidifies that Oregonians will get what state economists call the “mother of all kicker” refunds when they file their 2021 tax returns.

The “kicker” could return $1.4 billion to personal income taxpayers, ranging from around $300 to Oregonians earning up to $40,000 per year to nearly $13,000 for high-earning filers. The average refund would be $636. The corporate income tax kicker also would be triggered, but refunds, projected to top $660 million, would go to K-12 education reserves.

The prospect of huge kicker refunds triggered, as it has in the past, some comments on how the refunds could be used if not returned to taxpayers.

House Speaker Tina Kotek said she would favor redirecting some of kicker to “bold action and immediate relief” for struggling families. Legislative Republicans, by contrast, were quick to push back, insisting kicker refunds “belong to taxpayers” and “there is no justification to take refunds from them.”

That’s the normal political debate, one I witnessed up close and personal during my time as a state lobbyist. It is not likely to recede. So, count on the “kicker” refund this year.

May 28, 2021 by davefiskum

LISTENING TO CUSTOMERS

Here’s brilliant thought.

If you want to sell something, you need to listen to what your customers think.

This proposition showed up in a Wall Street Journal story the other day that appeared under this headline:

WHY COMPANIES SHOULDN’T GIVE UP ON FOCUS GROUPS

In an era of big data, marketers may be forgetting qualitative research

The story went on to cite a fascinating story about the toy firm, Lego:

“Numbers may not lie, but they can mislead. Listening to customers and understanding them can help companies develop strategies that are more on target.

“Back in the early 2000s, Lego Group was in trouble. Videogames were ascendant, making the Danish toymaker’s trademark plastic interlocking bricks seem passe. Relying on data analytics, company executives concluded that a digital generation demanded instant gratification, so they pivoted toward Lego sets with larger components that could be completed more quickly.

“Big mistake. Sales tanked further.

“Hurtling toward bankruptcy, company executives re-dedicated themselves to listening to their potential customers rather than treating them as data points, according to Martin Lindstrom, a branding consultant who was brought in to help with the effort and to whom Lego referred questions.

“And so it was that an 11-year-old boy in Germany mentioned to a team of Lego researchers that the worn-down and pocked soles on his sneakers were evidence of his prowess on a skateboard. ‘They are my trophy,’ the boy said. It was a eureka moment that helped change the company’s fortunes.”

Over my years in business, I was a partner in a company that valued research, in both quantitative and qualitative forms. The definition of research we used: Go to the effort to transcend your own biases and find out what the members of the public really thought about an issue or issues.

We weren’t selling toys like Lego or anything else in that arena. We were selling ideas and perspectives from our clients.

Nowhere was this more valuable than in preparing for campaigns on ballot measures in Oregon, a tough business that became one of our specialties despite the fact that, as I put it, “we were working without a net.” There was no middle ground to be found such as would be the case in lobbying; at the ballot, it was win or lose, which, for me, is working without a net.

One of my partners, Pat McCormick, was a master of the art of interpreting polls, but his ability didn’t stop there. He always went beyond the “big data numbers” to test individual perceptions before deciding how to encourage people to vote.

One of the methods he modeled was to schedule focus groups, an ability which became an art form for another of my partners, Tom Eiland, who functioned as one of Oregon’s public survey opinion leaders. Invite people to a meeting, even if you had to pay them just a bit to attend, then test their perceptions face-to-face.

Good to combine focus group results with polling data.

Here is the way the Wall Street Journal put it:

“In an age when big data, or quantitative research, has seduced many companies into thinking they know their customers better than their customers know themselves, there is a growing realization that, even if the numbers don’t lie, they can be seriously misleading. To really understand the beliefs, motivations and passions that move people, it is still necessary to sit down and listen to them, which is what qualitative research is all about.”

It takes fortitude to come to the belief that you cannot rely just on data – or your own biases — and that you need to find ways to understand the real intentions, beliefs, likes and dislikes of your customers.

The Lego account above speaks volumes.

As a lobbyist, my twist on this was that I often counseled clients not to pitch an idea to the Legislature before they had done the due diligence of asking legislators for their perspective, or what they could see their way to support, given who they were, where they lived, and how they won election.

Then, after doing legislators the courtesy of listening, either convince them of your point of view or find what I like to call “the smart middle.”

Take the basic message to heart — if you are selling something or, as was my case as a lobbyist, you are selling a perspective or point of view, find out what your customers really think before you move ahead to arrive at a conclusion.

Just ask Lego – you’ll be better for the effort.

*******

And this footnote: A writer of a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal said it was wrong for the Journal to equate the January 6 insurrection with such events as the 9/11 tragedy. She said it was wrong because not enough people died on the 6th. Well, I wrote about this, too, and I included the January 6 event because it was designed to overthrow the U.S. government. Good that not a huge number of lives were lost, but the purpose was still sinister.

May 26, 2021 by davefiskum

TRAUMATIC DAYS IN U.S. HISTORY, INCLUDING THE JANUARY 6 INSURRECTION

Where were you when:

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated?
The twin towers in New York City came down during the horrific airplane attack?
When insurrectionists, at the urging of President Donald Trump, attacked the U.S. Capitol?

Unfortunately, it is relatively each for all of us to remember those fateful days.

Wall Street Journal writer Gerald Seib made the same point in a column earlier this week that started this way:

“One could make a plausible case that the three most traumatic days in America in the last 60 years were November 22, 1963, the day President John Kennedy was shot; September 11, 2001, the day terrorists struck New York and Washington; and January 6, 2021, the day the Capitol was attacked and democracy’s work stopped by an angry mob.”

Seib’s proposition is noteworthy in that it elevates the profile of the insurrection, comparing it to the day Kennedy was assassinated and 9/11 tragedy occurred.

Some observers, especially some Republicans, wouldn’t make that connection.

And, before I go on, I would add a fourth traumatic day – the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, though it was not within the 60 days of Seib’s proposition. I was not alive on the day Pearl Harbor was attacked, but I have watched enough documentaries to understand how horrific that day was in our history – “a day of infamy.”

Further, though it would not be possible to cite a specific day, it is worth mentioning the holocaust Adolph Hitler wrought in Germany and many other parts of Europe, which featured his plan to rid the earth of human beings he hated, the Jews. To be sure, the Hitler-trauma occurred far outside the U.S., but it still resonated here – and does to this day as a time of unspeakable trauma for the world.

Back to more from Seib:

“In the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination and the 9/11 attacks, commissions were created to investigate, though they actually pursued slightly different questions. In the case of the Kennedy assassination, the key question before the Warren Commission was: What happened? In the 9/11 aftermath, the key question for the panel created then was: How did this happen?

“In the aftermath of January 6, versions of both questions are on the table, and a commission presumably would try to get at both.”

The U.S. House has approved creating a commission, with 35 Republicans joining Democrats to back the idea. But the Republican congressional leaders, under pressure from Trump, continue to oppose the idea.

For example, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell will try to stop the commission on the Senate floor this week and he may well succeed, including by using the filibuster to block action.

As Seib put it, in the cases of Kennedy assassination and 9/11 commissions, “the fear of what could happen if there wasn’t an independent inquiry came to outweigh concerns about the problems one might create. And in the end, each panel served the principal purpose for which it was created.”

As for the January 6 commission, the question persists – what will happen if there is not an independent inquiry, one created by, but separate from, Congress.

Republicans appear to fear that an independent inquiry would verify that Trump fomented the insurrection, did nothing to stop it, and, presumably, thinks it serves his interests to ascribe value to what it did.

Which, for me, stands as another reason to oppose the rise of Trump.

May 25, 2021 by davefiskum

QUIRKY GOLF STUFF

I set out to write this blog about quirks in the game we love – golf. But, just as I started, I received a newsletter from the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) that gave me more grist for my mill.

First, here are just a couple quirky things I remember:

I recall when ace golfer Phil Mickelson hit a ball while it was still rolling on the green after he had hit a putt far too long. He got a penalty, which, I add, he deserved.

And, as I write this, I am still relishing his huge win in the PGA Championship. A win for the ages – and for all of us old golfers!

I recall what no less a golf legend than Jack Nicklaus did what many of us have done on a golf course over the years – hit a “shank,” which is not a word anyone should use on a course. It was in a tournament in Hawaii and, of course, given his stature in the game, Nicklaus recovered from that bad shot to play well.

On to the quirks cited in the OGA newsletter, which was written by two staff members at the Association who have tough jobs – Kelly Neely, who handles golf handicapping, and Gretchen Yoder, who is in charge of course rating.

Here’s how they started their article.

“Gretchen and I often laugh (when we aren’t crying) about the weird and wonderful world of handicapping and course rating we inhabit.

“We muse upon the fact that we are in unusual company with like-minded oddballs who know quite a bit about some peculiar subjects.   Not that golf in and of itself is strange; rather due to its complexity, there are mystifying things surrounding it (we’re looking at you, Rules Officials).

“Gretchen pointed out one day that there are actually more professional mermaids in the U.S. than there are handicapping and course rating administrators. Apparently, there are over a thousand people willing to reach whatever accreditation is necessary to become the best mermaids they can be. In comparison, folks of our ilk only number about 200, so while that makes us more rare, they have better outfits.

“Speaking of oddities, we happen to be fascinated by the quirkier aspects of the Course Rating System and while some of them are not necessarily things Gretchen and her ready team of raters encounter on a daily basis, we believe they deserve closer examination. Yardage measurements for the course have to be spot-on. The USGA requires that the equipment we use be within 6 inches for every 250 yards.”

Other quirks:

Ten obstacles are evaluated per hole – landing zones, topography (stance and lie), fairways, crossings, lateral (water, extreme rough, out of bounds), bunkers, rough and recoverability, green target (length of approach shot and size of green), green surface (speed and contour), and psychological.

Scratch Player – Course Handicap of a big fat 0 for men and women. Note: Even though most of the course rating team members are not scratch golfers, we do need to think like one!

Bogey Player – Course Handicap of 20 for men, 24 for women.

Every hole on every set of tees at every course is rated for each of those players. This gives us a Scratch Course Rating and a Bogey Rating and guess what those two things produce? The magical Slope Rating. We need all three for an official rating for handicap purposes.

We always rate the forward tees for the scratch player, even though they may never play from there.

And, out of mercy, I will not continue on with detailed explanation of more quirks, cited by Neely and Yoder such as doglegs, split fairways, no landing zones, double green vs. “conjoined” greens, pars 3s with tees at different angles, etc.

You can thank me now for stopping with the quirks.

May 24, 2021 by davefiskum

MILLIONS ARE SAYING NO TO THE VACCINES: HERE’S A SUMMARY OF WHY?

Even as the pandemic appears to be lessening – notice the word “appears” because there are so many twists and terms in the process – many people continue to avoid vaccines.

Call them “anti-vaxxers.”

Why?

There aren’t many good reasons. At least that’s my view.

Atlantic Magazine had the same view, so sent one of its writers, Derek Thompson, on a quest in early May to find out more about anti-vaccine beliefs. It was a tribute to quality enterprise journalism.

Here’s how Thompson started an article he wrote for the magazine:

“Several days ago, the mega-popular podcast host Joe Rogan advised his young listeners to skip the COVID-19 vaccine. ‘I think you should get vaccinated if you’re vulnerable,’ Rogan said. ‘But if you’re 21 years old, and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go, ‘No.’”

Thompson reports that, while Rogan’s comments drew widespread condemnation, his view is surprisingly common.

“One in four Americans say they don’t plan to take the COVID-19 vaccine, and about half of Republicans under 50 say they won’t get a vaccine,” Thompson reports. “This partisan vaccine gap is already playing out in the real world. The average number of daily shots has declined 20 per cent in the past two weeks (the Atlantic article was published on May 3) largely because states with larger Trump vote shares are falling off the pace.”

To find out what “vaccine-hesitant, vaccine-resistant, and COVID-apathetic” persons thought, Thompson posted an invitation on Twitter for anybody who wasn’t planning to get vaccinated to explain why.

“In the past few days,” he wrote, “I spoke or corresponded with more than a dozen such people. I told them that I was staunchly pro-vaccine, but this wouldn’t be a takedown piece. I wanted to produce an ethnography of a position I didn’t really understand.

“The people I spoke with were all under 50. A few of them self-identified as Republican, and none of them claimed the modern Democrat Party as their political home. Most said they weren’t against all vaccines; they were just a “no” on this vaccine. They were COVID-19 no-vaxxers, not overall anti-vaxxers.

“Many people I spoke with said they trusted their immune system to protect them. ‘Nobody ever looks at it from the perspective of a guy who’s like me,’ Bradley Baca, a 39-year-old truck driver in Colorado, told me. ‘As an essential worker, my life was never going to change in the pandemic, and I knew I was going to get COVID no matter what. Now I think I’ve got the antibodies, so why would I take a risk on the vaccine?’

“Some had already recovered from COVID-19 and considered the vaccine unnecessary. ‘In December 2020, I tested positive and experienced many symptoms,’ said Derek Perrin, a 31-year-old service technician in Connecticut. ‘Since I have already survived one recorded bout with this virus, I see no reason to take a vaccine that has only been approved for emergency use. I trust my immune system more than this current experiment.’

“Others were worried that the vaccines might have long-term side effects. ‘As a Black American descendant of slavery, I am bottom caste, in terms of finances,’ Georgette Russell, a 40-year-old resident of New Jersey, told me. ‘The fact that there is no way to sue the government or the pharmaceutical company if I have any adverse reactions is highly problematic to me.’

“Many people said they had read up on the risk of COVID-19 to people under 50 and felt that the pandemic didn’t pose a particularly grave threat. ‘The chances of me dying from a car accident are higher than my dying of COVID,’ said Michael Searle, a 36-year-old who owns a consulting firm in Austin, Texas. ‘But it’s not like I don’t get in my car.’

“And many others said that perceived liberal overreach had pushed them to the right. ‘Before March 2020, I was a solid progressive Democrat,’ Jenin Younes, a 37-year-old attorney, said. ‘I am so disturbed by the Democrats’ failure to recognize the importance of civil liberties. I’ll vote for anyone who takes a strong stand for civil liberties and doesn’t permit the erosion of our fundamental rights that we are seeing now.’

After many conversations and email exchanges, the Atlantic writer said he came to understand what he called “the deep story of the American no-vaxxer.”

“The under-50 no-vaxxers’ deep story has a very different starting place,” Thompson wrote. “It begins like this: The coronavirus is a wildly overrated threat. Yes, it’s appropriate and good to protect old and vulnerable people.

“But I’m not old or vulnerable. If I get it, I’ll be fine. In fact, maybe I have gotten it, and I am fine. I don’t know why I should consider this disease more dangerous than driving a car, a risky thing I do every day without a moment’s worry. Liberals, Democrats, and public-health elites have been so wrong so often, we’d be better off doing the opposite of almost everything they say.

“I don’t need some novel pharmaceutical product to give me permission to do the things I’m already doing. This isn’t even an FDA-approved vaccine; it’s authorized for an emergency. Well, I don’t consider COVID-19 a personal emergency. So why would I sign up to be an early guinea pig for a therapy that I don’t need, whose long-term effects we don’t understand? I’d rather bet on my immune system than on Big Pharma.”

The trouble, of course, is that those who oppose the vaccine, given its meritorious effect overall, risk the lives of others. It’s not just the individuals who refuse the vaccine; it’s the rest of us.

And, in this way, it’s like so much else in this country these days. It’s the, “I’ll do what I want TO DO because I know best and others can pay the price, not me.” Call it what it is – being selfish.

May 23, 2021 by davefiskum

“STUNNING” STATE OF OREGON REVENUE FORECAST ELEVATES “KICKER” PROSPECTS

The headline in this blog uses a word — “kicker” – that has come to describe an important debate in the Oregon Legislature.

It is this: When citizens pay taxes, are those monies theirs, or do they become state government property?

It is possible, objectively, to argue both points of view.

For what it’s worth, I was involved in various “kicker” debates over the years when I worked at the Capitol for state government agencies, and later as a lobbyist.

So, in the first place, what’s the “kicker”?

The term refers to a reality in Oregon law: When Oregon tax revenues (minus corporate income taxes) exceed the forecast made at the start of the two-year budget cycle by 2 per cent or more, all the extra revenue must be returned to taxpayers.

The corporate kicker works the same way, but the surplus, by state law, goes to schools.

The “kicker” law was passed by the Oregon Legislature in 1979 and, a year later, was approved by the state’s voters in a special election.

The law always has been controversial. Some in the Legislature want to retain the money and use it to fund what they consider to be important government programs. Others say the money belongs to taxpayers and, thus, should be returned.

According to the latest state government revenue forecast, which was released last week, Oregon is on track to bring in an additional $1 billion in tax revenues this budget cycle. Thus, if left in place, a “kicker” tax rebate could reach about $1.4 billion, a record of sorts for “kicker” revenue.

The word “stunning” appears in the headline on this blog because a dramatic rebound from the down forecast one year ago caught state leaders by surprise, though they welcomed the good news.

The Oregonian newspaper wrote this: “Today’s forecast is stunning,” said House Speaker Tina Kotek. “A year ago, the world was in a free fall. Oregon’s decisions and investments in the face of converging crises have started an incredibly strong recovery.”

Senate Republicans proclaimed, “Oregon is swimming in money.” Senate President Peter Courtney described the forecast as “unbelievable.”

What sparked the turnaround?

For one thing, federal aid poured into Oregon in the form of higher-than-usual unemployment benefits for almost anyone out of a job due to the pandemic, even if they weren’t seeking other work. Further, assistance for renters, business owners, health care providers and that other groups helped lead to the strong economic performance.

That infusion of dollars tended to offset business losses during the pandemic, though many businesses are beginning to recover as, overall at least, the pandemic recedes.

With just six weeks left in the two-year budget cycle that ends in June, lawmakers aren’t expected to spend more than a trickle of the “new” money in the current budget. Several political leaders have spoken about the importance of focusing on one-time spending items rather than establishing new, ongoing commitments, as they acknowledge the uncertainty around future revenues.

At the moment, Oregon taxpayers would receive their share of the “kicker” as a credit against their 2021 taxes when they file next spring. The size of the rebate would be based on how much tax they paid the state when they filed their 2020 taxes this year.

So, one question is, will the “kicker” kick?

The answer is almost certainly yes.

There is not time in the current legislative session to do anything else. Plus, doing something else is a huge political lift.

But, as has been proposed in the past on occasion, a possible compromise down the road could be to propose placing the “kicker” revenue in dedicated funds that would be saved for the future, not spent as they arrive. Voters might accept such a change.

Then, when the economy turns sour, as inevitably will happen sometime in the future, legislators would have sources of money to use to cushion the blow.

Whenever such a proposal is considered, if it is considered at all, it would take high-level negotiations to resolve the continuing tension – who’s money is it, the government’s or individual taxpayer’s?

May 19, 2021 by davefiskum

IF YOU WANT A FUNCTIONAL CONGRESS, WELCOME THE RETURN OF “EARMARKS”

I write again about this subject – Congressional “earmarks” – for several reasons:

It’s timely given what is happening in Congress.

The lobbying firm where I worked for almost 25 years operates an office in Washington, D.C. and has engaged extensively in the process of securing federal funds for local projects.

No less an insightful columnist than George Will opined on the subject, advocating for the retention of earmarks in Congress.

Here is the way Will started his recent column, which appeared under a headline much like the one in this blog:

“The wary and partial revival of earmarks by congressional Republicans is, on balance, welcome. This is so partly because it illustrates how coping with the transaction costs of democracy is often a matter of balancing the admirable with the regrettable.

“For those of you who sometimes forget things that once seemed unforgettable, long ago — about a decade ago — many in Congress, especially conservatives, decided that earmarks were a scandal, the elimination of which would make a mighty improvement in national governance. Earmarks are spending items directed by individual members of Congress to particular state or local projects.

“Members became promiscuous with this practice, until it became notorious, thanks to one such project, the 2005 “Bridge to Nowhere,” which would have connected, at a cost of $223 million, an Alaskan community of 8,900 to its airport on a nearby island with a population of 50, thereby sparing fliers a 15-minute commute by ferry and a cost of $6 per car.

“Like problem drinkers forswearing demon rum, Republicans banned earmarks. Bemused Democrats lacked enthusiasm for this political version of Prohibition: They argued, plausibly, that members of Congress know better than executive branch agencies do their states’ or districts’ needs.”

So, the debate over earmarks continues, with, essentially, two competing views:

PRO: It is what columnist Will wrote – legislators know better what kinds of projects will help their local areas than do members of the Executive Branch. Plus, a side benefit of earmarks is that it helps Members of Congress negotiate with each other over how to develop the federal budget. [Not balance it, of course, because, unlike state government budgets, the federal budget does not have to be balanced.]
CON: All earmarks do is inflate the federal budget, curry unnecessary favor for legislators in local districts, and may not, as was the case in the “bridge to nowhere,” have anything to do with solid budget allocations.

Another issue revolves around terminology. As Congress returns to earmarks, the label has changed. It is now “community project requests.”

Oregon’s Congressional Delegation is asking for a number of projects: More than $6 million to repair and improve the Willamette Falls Locks in West Linn; $2 million to create a railway quiet zone through parts of Oregon City’ $793,000 to help Portland Community College develop an artificial intelligence program; $2 million to repair track and trestles for the 5.5-mile Willamette Shore Line Rail from Lake Oswego to Portland’ $500,000 to help Oregon Technology Business Center in Beaverton develop a non-profit incubator; more than $2 million to help the Virginia Garcia Health Center expand its Newberg clinic.

Are all these projects worthy competitors? Who knows? But, at first blush, they sound reasonable, especially compared to the “bridge to nowhere.”

Returning to earmarks is, to me, a good plan, if one thing rings true. It is that Members of Congress will advocate for real projects that meet real needs in their districts.

Can we count on that? Perhaps not, but, overall and on balance, I think it’s worth a try.

May 17, 2021 by davefiskum

A GOOD STORY ABOUT REFUGEES

Want to hear a good story about refugees?

The answer is yes, given all the stuff we hear about problems with refugees – or, as they often are called, immigrants.

Donald Trump pounded immigrants to try to boost his political standing. President Joe Biden clearly has better ideas about how to handle refugee issues and has not played politics with subject.

Plus, former president George Bush just came out with a new book – Out of Many, One: Portraits of America’s Immigrants – that does an excellent job of explaining how immigrants have added to tapestry of American life over many years. A key part of the book is the portraits of immigrants done by Bush who is an accomplished artist.

So it was that I read a story over the weekend in the Salem Statesman-Journal that appeared under this headline:

“Supporters take ‘Amazing Race’ learning refugees’ journey through Salem”

I was interested in the story because two generators of the positive effort around refugees in Salem were Salem Alliance Church where my wife and I have attended for more than 30 years, and Salem Leadership Foundation where I served on the Board of Directors for several years.

Both organizations do solid work in the Salem-Keizer area, including with respect to refugees. Here are excerpts of the story that illustrate the credential.

*********

More than 100 community members participated this weekend in a local event inspired by the hit reality show “The Amazing Race.”

“The Amazing Race: Salem for Refugees Edition” took place Saturday morning, with 29 teams speeding through the scavenger hunt in downtown and central Salem.

The event served as a COVID-friendly fundraiser for the nonprofit Salem for Refugees, which provides a host of services to refugees resettling in the Salem area. These resources include help with childcare, job placement, transportation, interpretive services, school enrollment and housing support.

Nearly 67,750 refugees have resettled in Oregon from 1975 to 2018, the latest data available from the Oregon Department of Human Services.

In 2016, Salem began to see a large uptick in its number of refugees, defined by the United Nations as someone “who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence.”

Previously, refugees were primarily resettled in Portland. However, housing was becoming too expensive and jobs were harder to find, so social organizations turned to Salem.

Salem for Refugees was started in 2016 in partnership with groups such as the Salem Leadership Foundation and Salem Alliance Church and it has served more than 350 refugees since. These individuals and families come from all around the world, including Iraq, Syria, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Ukraine and Venezuela.

Part of Saturday’s event was to have participants — most of whom were donors and volunteers with the organization — experience what it can feel like to resettle in a new and unfamiliar place.

Clues led competitors, for example, to Sparrow Furniture, which specifically employs refugees and provides English language classes. Organizers said this stop was meant to highlight entrepreneurship since many refugees leave behind careers when they resettle.

Participants also went to Cherriots to learn about common transportation barriers. They went to Fork Forty Food Hall to think about finding favorite, familiar cuisine. And they ended at Grant Community School, symbolizing the dozens of languages spoken and cultures represented throughout the Salem-Keizer school district.

Participants were encouraged to wear costumes, and they did not disappoint.

You can earn more about Salem for Refugees and refugees living in Salem at salemforrefugees.org.

**********

This entire episode illustrates an important fact, one lost in much of the political rhetoric these days. It is this: It is possible for refugees to become an important part of a community like Salem-Keizer if we view the refugees as human beings worthy of respect, not as a class of persons to despise.

May 16, 2021 by davefiskum

THE DEPARTMENT OF INQUIRING MINDS IS NOW OPEN

The Department of Inquiring Minds is one of four departments I run with a free hand to manage each as I see fit.

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

So, the former – the Department of Inquiring Minds – is now open.

ABOUT AUDITS: Just wondering — when a group of auditors audits a government operation, who audits the auditors?

Government is always quick to create a new office or operation to do something, but think for a minute about how far this goes. At one point, legislators created the Office of Audits run by the Secretary of State in Oregon. It was supposed to go out and review the performance of state agencies.

But the question persists — who audits the auditors?

Maybe we need to create another office to do so.

ABOUT THE VIRUS AND VACCINES: Several days ago, according to the Wall Street Journal, podcast host Joe Rogan advised his young listeners to skip the COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think you should get vaccinated if you’re vulnerable,” Rogan said. “But if you’re 21 years old, and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go, ‘No.’”

The Journal went on to say Rogan’s comments drew widespread condemnation. But his view is surprisingly common. One in four Americans say they don’t plan to take the COVID-19 vaccine, and about half of Republicans under 50 say they won’t get a vaccine.

When getting vaccines is critical to health, as well as getting back to some state of “normal,” why do so many argue against such protection for themselves and for others.

There is no logical answer.

ABOUT FEDERAL EARMARKS: The practice of giving Members of Congress the chance to direct federal spending to favored local projects – it was called “earmarks” – came into such ill repute that it was banned several years ago.

Now, experienced political commentator George Will shows up with advocacy for reinstating earmarks.

In the Washington Post, he wrote, “The wary and partial review (of earmarks) by congressional Republicans is, on balance, welcome. This is so partly because it illustrates how coping with the transaction costs of democracy is often a matter of balancing the admirable with the regrettable.

Thanks to one project, the 2005 “Bridge to Nowhere,” Wills says Congress scrapped earmarks. The “nowhere” project would have connected, at a cost of $223 million, an Alaskan community of 8,900 to its airport on a nearby island with a population of 50, thereby sparing fliers a 15-minute commute by ferry and a cost of $6 per car.

Why are earmarks coming back into support? Wills says negotiating over earmarks provides a way for Members of Congress to cooperate with each other when not much else works to achieve that aim.

In the spirit of full disclosure, the firm I helped to found and where I worked for almost 25 years, operates an office in Washington, D.C. that, among other things, advocates for federal spending allocations.

Without our earmarks, our office continued the work. But, now with earmarks being restored, the restoration gives us another avenue to represent Northwest clients.

But, let me underline this – we would never advocate for a “bridge to nowhere.” We advocate for local projects that benefit local citizens.

ABOUT “FIDUCIARIES:” That word – fiduciaries – is hard to understand, but, in the financial services business, it pertains to the fact that those who counsel citizens about finances have to keep those citizen interests in plain view. They are the priority.

Sounds obvious to me. I would never engage a financial counselor who was out for his or her own interests, not my interests.

Fortunately, the one we have maintains our interests at all times and keeps us posted on results. Kudos to him and his staff.

	literarywanderings on MATT GAETZ: JUST WHAT NO ONE…
	literarywanderings on THE DEPARTMENT OF GOOD QUOTES…
	Bentley Gilbert on BIDEN STRIKES APPROPRIATE ADMO…
	S.B. Lewelling on AN AWE-INSPIRING EXPERIENCE TH…
	S.B. Lewelling on ME, A MULTI-SPORT ATHLETE!…

Perspective from the 19th Hole

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

Month: May 2021