Jared’s as Big a Scumbag as Donny Bone spurs

 Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, dismissed the idea that the Trump administration should coordinate with the incoming Biden officials over the coronavirus pandemic. “It was the first COVID... meeting that Jared led after [Biden won],” Griffin recalled, “& Dr. Birx... said, "Well, should we be looping the Biden transition into these conversations?" & Jared just said, ‘Absolutely not.’”

 

 

NEW INC. MAGAZINE ARTICLE FROM HOWARD TULLMAN

 

Give It All Away the Right Way

There's been a lot of commotion about the Giving Pledge, but you need to get your kids involved long before you make such a decision about your assets.  

BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS@TULLMAN

For years we've read about billionaires joining the Giving Pledge to eventually part with large portions of their fortunes when they die. The tax avoidance advantages of such a "charitable" strategy are rarely mentioned in the self-congratulatory and aggrandizing PR announcements that trumpet these "unselfish and wondrous" gestures.  And, as far as I can tell, no one has ever documented the actual transfers of any funds on the occasion of any donor's eventual passing as opposed to the slavish attention afforded to the flamboyant pledges.

In fairness, since the bulk of the pledge makers are still in their prime (other than Warren Buffett, who may live forever, and Bill Gates, who may have already made some very substantial transfers) and since their largely tech-centric fortunes were still growing until the last year or two  (largely tax-free I might add) maybe we all need to be just a little more patient about the prospects of the promises turning into something more tangible.

More importantly, as far as I'm concerned, there's almost never a quote or comment from the impacted kids of these gracious grandees even though it's hard to imagine that these gestures typically reflect the children's fondest hopes and dreams as well as those of their parents. I'm certain that, once the tax matters were addressed, the kids would much rather be bequeathed the money so that they could determine how that fortune would be gainfully employed in their lifetimes rather than have its disposition dictated from the grave by their folks. Our children may love us and judge us, but if we burden and mortgage their futures, they'll never forgive us.01:53

And then there's the matter of whether the whole process is more an expression of parental concern than of Dad and Mom's confidence in the kids' aptitude, appetite for, and interest in philanthropy. In fact, if you asked some of these Daddy donors (many of whom came from nothing and most of whom are male) about their own motivations, objectives, and intentions, the frankest of them would admit that they were more than a little anxious about just how responsibly their children would deploy the family's fortune in the future. Shrouds may not have pockets, and you can't actually take it with you, but prudent parents still have plenty of angst about what they're likely to be leaving behind.

These people - entrepreneurs through and through - are control freaks by definition and by their very nature. It's clearly an attribute that's responsible in part for their successes, but not one that's so easy to pass along to their descendants. As a result, they want to do whatever they can to design, direct, and secure their family legacies in their own lifetimes since it's not clear that they trust their kids to do the same. The truth is that it's not what you do for your children, but what you have taught them to do for themselves that will make them successful human beings.

The Giving Pledge may be great and generous news for the charities awaiting the donors' beneficence, but, in some ways, it's a rude awakening for the kids. Half a blessing in some ways and a curse in others. It's a somewhat perilous topic to raise with the kids, who may well be running significant parts of the family businesses at the time or, just as likely, to be off doing their own thing without the slightest interest in ever running the store. Let's just say it doesn't pay in either case to piss them off. At the same time, we owe it to our kids to let them know what we truly believe, and if they differ with us, we owe it to them to be honest in our discussions and disagreements with them.

Just to be abundantly clear, this is not a problem simply for the richest tech bros and the crypto clowns who -- at least until recently --had too much money to spend in several lifetimes. While the scale of the problem may vary widely, it's still an issue and should be an inevitable conversation for every parent with their family members. There's no question that trust and estate planning conversations with relatives are even more painful than explaining to Aunt Marge why you'd rather see her burning her hard-earned cash with the yule log rather than sending her monthly contributions to buy Trump's NFTs or to join his courageous fight against election fraud.  But the sooner you start to have these chats, the better and easier they will become and the happier all concerned will be.

Here are the five most important things to keep in mind and cover in the conversation -- after you tell them that you love them:

1.      Make sure that they know it's going to happen and when it will before it does.

Surprises are for birthday parties, not for business matters where they are almost always asymmetrical and bearers of bad news. Find the right time and setting and set aside enough time to really focus and properly explain the deal and why you're doing it. Save plenty of time for questions.

2.      Make sure that they know they're going to be part of the entire process.

This isn't so much about not having them feel left out as it is about giving them agency and a real role in the evaluation and decision-making process, which is a powerful way to set them up for a lot of the responsibilities coming their way down the line.  This is the best and cheapest financial education you'll ever provide for them.

3.      Make sure that they know the donees and the folks who run them.

An old adage from the investment advisory world is that you don't want to meet your client's kids at the funeral. It works both ways. Having them meet the team that will be working with your gifts is a great way to introduce them to the charities, projects, and activities that you think are valuable and worthwhile.

4.      Make sure they know that there will be plenty for them to give away, too.

Warren Buffett said it best: he was gonna give his kids "enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing." This is far better than a friend of mine who - when his kids asked about their trust funds - said: "Trust me, there won't be any funds." Not the best way to kick off the conversation.

5.      Make it a family affair and an ongoing and regular annual process.

If there's a better bonding experience than shared giving, I'm not sure what it would be. We want to give our kids roots and wings, but the very best thing to give them is a concrete example of giving back.

Whatever you've created or built in your career will never be as important or meaningful in the long run as your family and children and the lives you've helped ready them for. You can't hug a career or laugh with a promotion. The primary job isn't preparing the path for your kids, it's preparing your kids for the path.

Loop North News

 

It’s clear that transparency is a phony issue Lots of companies fuss over the idea and promise transparency by the boatload, except when it really matters. For new businesses, transparency isn’t always a virtue. By Howard Tullman 27-Dec-22 – Transparency will be the most abused, overused, and unhelpful word in 2023. Accountability will be a close second. You didn’t hear those words here first, and if you haven’t already heard pithy pronouncements with these words as anchors at least a dozen times this week – in every conceivable context – just give it a day or two. You can’t escape the unending media barrage of self-serving pronouncements, pandering polemics, and pitiful pronouncements – hair shirts, mea culpas, and tearful testimonials – flowing through every channel of our digital universe. Every petty politician, petulant publisher, grasping government official, besieged college president, battered police superintendent, suck-up social media maven, corrupt team president, and clueless sports authority is piling on the “tell all” campaign without the slightest intention of making significant changes in the wretched ways they do business. Nor are they disclosing any image-damaging information which – if and when actually and honestly shared – could make material improvements in the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, players, and professionals. When The Washington Post announced surprise, sizable layoffs to take place in the first quarter of 2023, practically the first words in response from the Post Guild, its union, highlighted the hypocrisy of the Post’s oft-asserted commitments to the twin virtues of transparency and accountability. These folks are all happy to gore everyone else’s ox and hoist them all on their own pathetic and hypocritical petards as long as none of those chickenshit comments come home to roost. In fact, for the worst of the bunch, like Elon Musk, all this noise and performative nonsense isn’t a solution for anything. It’s just an excuse for bad behavior, bullying and BS, all cheap talk and utterly free of cost, commitment, or the slightest consequences for these two-faced jackals. A recent ChatGPT demo spun out a six-point corporate mission statement in two seconds, composed entirely of meaningless mush and clichés with core values that included integrity and accountability, and a poignant testament to the power of transparency and open communication. The bot regurgitated a comprehensive crock of jargon and crap which would be at home in the handbooks of any Fortune 500 company – and just as empty and useless as what they now display. But the rest of us aren’t free from these lies or able to ignore the problems such pretense presents, especially for startup entrepreneurs and new business builders who are trying to create and nurture their company’s culture. Because, like it or not, an entire generation of current and prospective employees has been brought up by peacekeeping parents steeped in conflict avoidance and ego inflation. The kids have been lectured by academics interested in no opinions other than their own. And they’ve been led to believe that brutal honesty, unfeeling frankness, and “constructive” criticism are today’s be-alls and end-alls – demonstrably greater goods and values than traditional company assertions – that are far more pressing and important than any others. Their parents and school academics have set them up for failure and the rudest of awakenings when they enter the real world and start spouting their naive opinions and truths. ...aggressive transparency, random truthing, and sharing whatever strikes their fancy is not the way the real world works – never has been and never will be – and, in fact, it’s a prescription for certain and consistent disappointment. The newbies feel and have been told by their folks that they need to bring their own “truth” and their whole selves to work with them, speak their minds and their unfiltered thoughts, and share it all unreservedly and without regard for the consequences or the feelings of others with those around them – like it or not. But aggressive transparency, random truthing, and sharing whatever strikes their fancy is not the way the real world works – never has been and never will be – and, in fact, it’s a prescription for certain and consistent disappointment. As a result, it falls upon each and every CEO who’s trying to inform, excite, and educate team members about their own company and its culture to figure out how to carefully, quickly, and clearly separate the facts of life and business from these persistent and sadly prevalent impressions and misunderstandings. This task couldn’t be tougher than today when half the country continues to live in a bubble of lies and liars, and the very concepts of objective truth and accepted facts are under constant attack. I’ve previously written about the issues around “situational ethics” but primarily with an outward focus: the need to tell the whole truth all the time to clients and customers. Half a lie is still a lie. While the same general ideas apply – the truth doesn’t vary based on circumstances – the way you handle internal discussions and information sharing are considerably more complicated when your people have radically different ideas about how things should go. While honesty is clearly a virtue, complete candor is far more of a challenge. Especially in a new and growing business – where the culture is still formative and malleable – the simple facts and the bottom line are that the truth needs to be wielded with care. Not all truths are for all people and not everyone needs to know everything. This philosophy may be hard to swallow for your newer team members but the ones worth keeping will recognize both the need and the necessity of carefully navigating these very treacherous seas. Being open and upfront at the outset may not get you a lot of friends, but it will ultimately get you the right ones. It’s better to take the beatings and lectures upfront and refuse to wobble than to live for the longer term with an insincere and undeliverable promise. And, believe me, I appreciate how hard it is to hold your tongue when a 25-year-old kid is telling you how to run your business. Like having Ronald McDonald criticize your taste in clothes. But listening to advice sometimes accomplishes a lot more than heeding it. Still, for my money, there are a few ideas that you need to set in stone from the get-go: 1 The first matter is money. Money is what people without talent use to keep score. No one has some God-given right to know what everyone else in a privately-owned business earns. Public companies are obviously different. In today’s complex and stressful hiring game, salaries, bonuses, options, and every other kind of perk are part of the puzzle and built into the most competitive packages. They’re nobody’s business but the boss’s. End of story. 2 Democracy is a great concept, collaboration is terrific, consensus is a mixed blessing at best, and everyone’s entitled to their opinions and to provide constructive input into the decision-making process. However, not every idea or suggestion is smart, appropriate, or even useful. Once a decision is made by management, that’s the end of the conversation and everyone gets on board and moves forward. All the wood behind one arrowhead. 3 Constructive criticism is much more than simple fault-finding. Newbies need role models far more than they need critics. Showing rather than telling is a helpful and instructive approach for both parties. If you can’t offer a better way to proceed and a clearer path, it makes the most sense to keep your eyes open and your mouth shut. Everything looks easy if it’s someone else’s job. 4 At some point, endless conversations become a matter of “my way or the highway” because people need to get down to business. Newbies need to be reminded that they may eventually earn the right to do things “their” way. One clear sign of maturity is when you realize that it takes less time to do as you’re told than it does to complain incessantly about what you’re doing. There are truths which are not for all people, nor for all times. Howard Tullman is General Managing Partner for G2T3V, LLC – Investors in Disruptive Innovators, and for Chicago High Tech Investors, LLC. He is also the author of You Can’t Win a Race With Your Mouth: And 299 Other Expert Tips from a Lifelong Entrepreneur. • Contact Howard Tullman at h@g2t3v.com

Emily Murphy - Never Forget that this PIG delayed for 20 days the Biden transition and cost thousands of COVID deaths

    EMILY MURPHY - CROOKED PIG

 

Traditionally, the day after a presidential election, November 4th, the GSA anoints the apparent winner. The act, known as ascertainment, not only formally acknowledges the victor; it also makes available to the incoming administration office space, funding, access to federal agencies, intelligence briefings, and other vital governing infrastructure. But in a startling break with precedent, the GSA administrator, Emily Murphy, a Trump appointee, refused to ascertain Biden’s victory.

This was no idle act. “Ascertainment is not a ceremonial process,” explained Mary Gibert. “It has potential life and death implications.” The Biden team was furious. Between the election and inauguration, they had just 78 days to ramp up their administration. They’d recruited 500 volunteers to visit every federal agency and report back on who was doing what. Now they were sitting on their hands.

Biden’s contingent had prepared for almost any eventuality. “We had 600 lawyers working long, long hours, producing thousands of pages of memos for all sorts of stuff,” said Bob Bauer, the campaign senior legal adviser. “This was a genuine national security issue: The fact that the president-elect of the United States would be denied access to the tools and the resources for an effective transition was literally, directly, every day, harmful to the country—and in the middle of a public health crisis.” Bauer and his team were prepared to sue Murphy and the GSA. But after a spirited debate, the campaign decided to stand down.

TWENTY DAYS LATER - THE FILTHY CROOKED PIG FINALLY DOES HER DUTY

Finally, on November 23, GSA administrator Murphy declared Biden the winner. But the foot-dragging had been costly. Every day Biden’s team couldn’t access information about Trump’s vaccination program meant delays in getting shots into people’s arms. Every day Biden’s team was denied intelligence briefings meant less time to prepare for potential foreign crises. On January 20 at noon, all CIA covert operations ordered by Trump would immediately belong to Biden. During previous transitions, the major party nominees would receive the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) after their party conventions. Biden and the vice president-elect, Kamala Harris, didn’t get their first intelligence briefing until November 30.

The self-inflicted agony 

of Emily Murphy

Trump’s head of the General Services Administration is in the throes 

of a faux dilemma.

Perspective by Daniel W. Drezner

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a regular contributor to PostEverything.

November 18, 2020 at 2:33 p.m. EST

Emily Murphy, the administrator of the General Services Administration, is having a hard month. It would engender more sympathy if she were not bringing it on herself.

Murphy’s role during the presidential transition was little known before Election Day, but it has come into focus since then. It is her job to produce the “ascertainment” of the election, which is a fancy way of saying who is the “apparent successful candidate” in the general election. At that point, the president-elect (if not the incumbent) can access executive branch agencies and be briefed by intelligence officials.

On the Saturday after Election Day, the Associated Press and the four major networks called the presidential race for Joe Biden. Nonetheless, 36 hours later Murphy had not ascertained the result. GSA spokesperson Pamela Pennington emailed The Washington Post to say, “An ascertainment has not yet been made, and its Administrator will continue to abide by, and fulfill, all requirements under the law.”

That was a weekend, so perhaps one could forgive Murphy for not moving immediately. Ten days later, however, she has still not ascertained the results. According to CNN’s Kristen Holmes and Jeremy Herb, the pressure is starting to get to her: “Emily Murphy is struggling with the weight of the presidential election being dropped on her shoulders, feeling like she’s been put in a no-win situation, according to people who have spoken to her recently.”

At first glance one can sympathize with Murphy’s predicament. It was a close election in a highly polarized moment, and ordinary Americans seem awfully eager to scold people on social media without doing their due diligence. Murphy clearly did anticipate the perils of a close election, consulting with her predecessors to see how controversies were handled in the past. Most of Murphy’s friends and colleagues who talked to CNN attempted to paint her in a positive light, describing her as “a technocrat and policy wonk.”

When we get to Murphy’s agonizing decision, however, CNN’s report raises a whole bunch of red flags: “It’s not clear what specific actions Murphy is waiting on before granting ascertainment. Sources tell CNN she is basing her decision on what she sees as the precedent set by the 2000 election, where there was not a clear winner for more than a month.”

The hard-working staff here at Spoiler Alerts has stared at that last sentence for a while now, and has come to the conclusion that it makes zero sense. Because let’s be clear: There is no comparison between 2000 and 2020.

In the 2000 contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the contest hinged on the results of a single state. The margin between the two candidates in Florida was roughly 500 votes, a margin that a recount could have altered. As time passed and recounts proceeded, the margin between Bush and Gore narrowed. And the litigation between Gore and Bush was a legitimately seesaw affair, with the Florida Supreme Court siding with Gore and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually siding with Bush.

In 2020, Joe Biden is the clear winner. For Trump to win he would need to overturn the results not of one state, but three. The margin between the two candidates in those states is in the tens of thousands; no recount has ever overturned a U.S. election result in which the margin was that large. As time has passed, Biden’s lead in every swing state except Arizona has widened considerably. And as for the ongoing litigation, Trump’s campaign has won only one of the dozens of cases it has brought and subsequently lost that case on appeal. Rudy Giuliani has been put in charge, which is all you need to know.

The better comparison to 2020 is 2016. Trump won a couple of states by a narrow margin, and there was some push for recounts, but the outcome was not really in doubt after Election Day. The only difference between 2016 and 2020 is that the losing candidate in 2016 acted like a mature grown-up.

To use the language of ascertainment, in 2020 Biden is the apparent successful candidate and it’s not close. If Murphy is looking for guidance about how to handle a mercurial boss who does not want to admit defeat, might I suggest this clip from “Michael Clayton":

I want to take Murphy at her word. In my experience folks who work in government, whether as political appointees or civil service employees, try to do the right thing. I want to take Murphy’s word when she said in her 2017 confirmation hearing that, “I am not here to garner headlines or make a name for myself. … My goal is to do my part in making the federal government more efficient, effective and responsive to the American people,” and not cynically presume she’s seeking a private-sector parachute.

Each day Murphy abstains from her responsibilities, however, it becomes harder to see her in that light. Without her ascertainment, Trump can continue to block Biden’s landing teams from engaging with their departments, deny Biden access to intelligence briefings that would allow a seamless transfer of power, and sabotage any effort to bring an end to the pandemic.

Right now, without any apparent logic, Murphy is guaranteeing to make the federal government less efficient, less effective and much less responsive to the American people. I feel her pain. But she seems oddly unaware that it is self-inflicted.