consultants are sandburs

Monday, March 27, 2017

Jarad and Ivanka given cracker jack insider opportunity at diversifying their portfolio with prior knowledge of good bet directions.

But then the other party did not truly want the spoils, else they'd have run Bernie.

Buried on a sub-sub-headline of the Strib homepage, per this screen capture -

- is a headline saying the victor gets the spoils, while all that Andrew Jackson paraphernalia put into the Trump White House Oval Office says the same. Strib carries a WaPo item timestamped an hour after the WaPo online timestamp.

Wapo, in opening paragraphs, published:

President Trump plans to unveil a new White House office on Monday with sweeping authority to overhaul the federal bureaucracy [...] potentially, privatizing some government functions.

The White House Office of American Innovation, to be led by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, will operate as its own nimble power center within the West Wing and will report directly to Trump. [... T]he office will be staffed by former business executives and is designed to infuse fresh thinking into Washington, float above the daily political grind and create a lasting legacy for a president still searching for signature achievements.

“All Americans, regardless of their political views, can recognize that government stagnation has hindered our ability to properly function, often creating widespread congestion and leading to cost overruns and delays,” Trump said in a statement to The Washington Post. “I promised the American people I would produce results, and apply my ‘ahead of schedule, under budget’ mentality to the government.”

In a White House riven at times by disorder and competing factions, the innovation office represents an expansion of Kushner’s already far-reaching influence.

Does that sound like investing a front-running-the-market capability? Make the kill and feed first, later the bone pickers and table scrap pets can finish the cleanup.

Opinions may differ.

ChiTrib carries the same WaPo item.

Why is the word "spoils" absent among the three mainstream outlets running the same item? Good manners, or something else at play?

Closing meandering musing: Looking back at Gipper's 80's putsch to privatization, the unprofitable provision of public goods seems to not be privatized. At least one gentleman in Ramsey, where I live, now is retired from a since-Gipper-Presidency crop insurance business he formed back then, when the Ag Department privatized that aspect, and he has done well with it, thereafter, to the present.

And Bush II, where did the cash flow from securing the homeland? But two thoughts; here and here. Bush I?

A reader request to the one or two Tea Party readers this blog has; name a few Obama era cash flow spinoffs, via a helpful, on-point comment. Oh - Clinton Foundation, not really privatizing in the Gipper sense, but flowing in cash. That does in fairness require mention.

To the extent that sort of "privatization" does injury, the impunity with which it is done adds insult to injury, salt to the wound. In closing, with Trump the context an obvious question: Didn't Yeltsin privatize a lot, "oligarch" being a word at the time springing into the popular press vocabulary? Somehow, with Trump, you can see thought in the choice of Andrew Jackson office decoration, rather than Yeltsin nick-nacks.

Some gifts keep giving. From the ChiTrib version, mid-item:

The innovation office has a particular focus on technology and data, and it is working with such titans as Apple chief executive Tim Cook, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Salesforce chief executive Marc Benioff and Tesla founder and chief executive Elon Musk. The group has already hosted sessions with more than 100 such leaders and government officials.

"There is a need to figure out what policies are adding friction to the system without accompanying it with significant benefits," said Stephen Schwarzman, chief executive of the investment firm Blackstone Group. "It's easy for the private sector to at least see where the friction is, and to do that very quickly and succinctly."

"Obviously it has to be done with corresponding values and principles. We don't agree on everything," said Benioff, a Silicon Valley billionaire who raised money for Democrat Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.

But, Benioff added, "I'm hopeful that Jared will be collaborative with our industry in moving this forward. When I talk to him, he does remind me of a lot of the young, scrappy entrepreneurs that I invest in in their 30s."

Scrappy entrepreneurial terminology, in assessing and then benefiting from "trimming government reach."

Would that be public benefit, or private? Devilish detail to be entailed, in all likelihood. ChiTrib continues:

Kushner's ambitions for what the new office can achieve are grand. At least to start, the team plans to focus its attention on reimagining Veterans Affairs; modernizing the technology and data infrastructure of every federal department and agency; remodeling workforce-training programs; and developing "transformative projects" under the banner of Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan, such as providing broadband Internet service to every American.

In some cases, the office could direct that government functions be privatized, or that existing contracts be awarded to new bidders.

The "p" word rears itself again into the fray, along with reallocation of government spending perks, also called, "existing contracts be awarded to new bidders." Might favoritism intrude into that reawarding process? Could that be?
Can you say "slush?"

And then, "friction." Another word usage. Do you expect this panel of private sector profit seekers, we can call them privateers, will opt for privatizing that which they deem frictional? That they might, seems fictional.

Did Long John Silver go for the gold boats, or those hauling salt or timber?

Go figure.

Video evidence: Pre-election China bashing; tunes can change, and consistency has been called the hob-goblin of petty minds; but really, does Jarad's real estate hopes TRUMP alleged needs of the nation? Where's China on the TRUMP agenda now?

Answer: MIA

Is that being Presidential? Answer: It should not be. But - Yes, for a corporatist, especially a Republican one, but there was Bill Clinton so the corruption is bipartisan.

It is as if a particular word has dropped from the man's vocabulary once in the Oval Office.

With all the executive orders, what's missing?

Is it that China bashing has been deep sixed? Or 666ed? For an interim transitory period if not forever?

Bernie in this video poses the "o" question. Were oligarchs providing a past safety net for Trump adventures on the shoals? As the YouTube segment shows Sanders is asking, "What do the Russians have on him?"

Somebody knows. The Russians, for example. If there's smoke, is there fire? Time favors cover-up destruction; but with Mike Pence VP and the Speaker next in succession - keep Trump no matter what, he's less destructive. Only counterproductive, which is a step better than Pence/Ryan. An the efforts at saying Ryan should resign? Who is being groomed and does he/she speak Russian?

Might there be some conduit thing via Jarad; a Trump, Jarad, Putin/oligarchs troika? Russia has some election soon, yes/no? Might the fan load closer to that event?

No comments: