Saturday, May 6, 2017

Stock Market Reaches Record Highs After Positive April Jobs Report - TIME

Posted: 05 May 2017 02:17 PM PDT

(NEW YORK) — A solid pickup in hiring last month helped push the stock market to record highs Friday. The gains were driven by energy, technology and industrial companies.
The Labor Department told investors what they had hoped to hear: employers added more workers last month after a sluggish beginning to the year.
Energy companies rose as the price of oil recovered from losses earlier in the week. Media companies like CBS and Charter Communications recovered from their losses earlier in the week. Technology companies rose, but IBM missed out after billionaire investor Warren Buffett said he sold a large part of his stake in the company.

After a quiet morning, stocks rose in the afternoon and the S&P 500 finished above the all-time high close it set March 1.
Scott Wren, senior global equity strategist at Wells Fargo’s Investment Institute, said stocks benefited from the combination of greater hiring and slower wage growth because if wages rise too quickly it will affect corporate profits.
“The market is likely to be concerned about wage gains and the impact on corporate margins as we move into 2018,” he said.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 index climbed 9.77 points, or 0.4 percent, to 2,399.29. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 55.47 points, or 0.3 percent, to 21,006.94.
The Nasdaq composite jumped 25.42 points, or 0.4 percent, to 6,100.76, which beat a record it set earlier this week. The Russell 2000 index of smaller-company stocks added 8.15 points, or 0.6 percent, to 1,397.
Employers in the United States added 211,000 jobs in April, according to the Labor Department. That comes after slow hiring over the first three months of the year and sluggish economic growth.
Energy companies bounced back as the price of oil steadied. After two steep losses in three days, benchmark U.S. crude oil jumped 70 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $46.22 a barrel in New York. Brent crude, the standard for international oil prices, added 72 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $49.10 barrel in London. Oil prices had fallen earlier this week as investors wonder if OPEC will extend a deal that trimmed oil production.
Occidental Petroleum rose $2.38, or 4.1 percent, to $60.40 and Transocean jumped 84 cents, or 8.1 percent, to $11.18. Baker Hughes gained $1.92, or 3.3 percent, to $59.33.
Apple jumped $2.43, or 1.7 percent, to $148.96, another record for the world’s most valuable publicly-traded company. That helped tech stocks move higher.
Basic materials makers advanced. Dow Chemical gained $1.67, or 2.7 percent, to $63.09 and gas supplier Praxair rose $3.16, or 2.5 percent, to $129.48. Fertilizer maker CF Industries climbed $1.35, or 5 percent, to $28.42.
CBS announced a bigger profit and more revenue than analysts expected, and its stock gained $1.35, or 2.1 percent, to $65.20. Media companies have struggled the last few days as investors worried about declining cable ad revenue. Charter Communications, Scripps Networks and Tegna all traded higher.
IBM fell after Warren Buffett said he’s sold about 25 million shares of the technology and consulting company, about a third of the stake that his Berkshire Hathaway company had owned. Buffett started buying IBM stock in 2011. IBM faces stiff competition from companies including Microsoft and Amazon, which have focused on cloud computing services. IBM reached an all-time high of $215 in early 2013 and closed at $155.05 Friday, down $4, or 2.5 percent.
Cosmetics maker Revlon plunged after its sales in North America fell during the first quarter. That affected all parts of its business, as its consumer and professional divisions both reported smaller profits and lower sales than they did a year ago. Revlon bought Elizabeth Arden in September, and sales for that business were about the same as they had been a year ago. The stock had its worst day since 2008 as it gave up $5.95, or 23.6 percent, to $19.30.
Biotech drug companies slipped. Biogen dropped $6.45, or 2.4 percent, to $262.15 and Incyte sank $2.69, or 2.1 percent, to $122.41. Celgene fell $2.05, or 1.6 percent, also closing at $122.41.
Bond prices held steady. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note remained 2.35 percent. High-dividend stocks did fairly well. Telecommunications companies recovered from a hard loss the day before, and utility companies also rose. Banks traded lower.
Gold dipped $1.70 to $1,226.90 an ounce. The precious metal fell more than 3 percent this week for its biggest decline since right after the presidential election. Silver lost 3 cents to $16.27 an ounce. Copper rose 2 cents to $2.53 a pound.
In other energy trading, wholesale gasoline rose 2 cents to $1.50 a gallon. Heating oil added 2 cents to $1.44 a gallon. Natural gas jumped 8 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $3.27 per 1,000 cubic feet.
The dollar rose to 112.61 yen from 112.42 yen. The euro climbed $1.0990 from $1.0981.
France’s CAC 40 jumped another 1.1 percent as investors hoped centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron will be elected president over the weekend. The CAC 40 is at its highest level since early 2008. Britain’s FTSE 100 was up 0.7 percent and Germany’s DAX added 0.5 percent. The Hang Seng in Hong Kong lost 0.8 percent. Markets in Japan and South Korea were closed for holidays.

A CEO Explains Why He Doesn’t Care About Your Résumé, Your Alma Mater, or Your Last Job When He’s Looking to Hire - Business Insider

Posted: 05 May 2017 03:00 AM PDT

For United Shore CEO Mat Ishbia, it’s not about what you know.
Ishbia says that specific skills, such as salesmanship, graphic design, or programming, can be taught. Those don’t guarantee whether or not a candidate will succeed at the Troy, Mich.-based financial services business.
“I don’t care about your résumé,” Ishbia says. “I don’t care about what school you went to. I don’t care about what you did at your last company.”
So, what does matter to Ishbia? Two things: work ethic and attitude.
“It doesn’t matter if you went to Harvard or you went to a community college or you didn’t go to college,” he told Business Insider. “What I care about is your work ethic and attitude. That’s what’s going to dictate your success at our company and your success in life, in our opinion.”

Ishbia says that his company has a rather unusual way of vetting attitude and work ethic.
United Shore has its own on-site, mortgage-themed escape room (a game that requires participants to gather hidden clues and solve puzzles and brainteasers in order to “escape” a locked room). Prospective employees interviewing for some positions—he doesn’t like to say which—must “escape” the room before they receive a job offer.
This particular escape room’s not all fun and games, according to Ishbia. Hidden among eight or so candidates is a “mole”—a United Shore recruiter.
He says that a person’s work style and personality will usually shine through as they work piecing together the puzzles and clues. The whole exercise is meant to give recruiters a sense of what candidates will truly fit in with the company’s culture, which prizes drive and teamwork.
“Some people take the bull by the horns and actually do things, some collaborate well and work well together, and others kind of just do their own thing and aren’t team players,” Ishbia says.”That recruiter is really able to measure leadership.”
This story originally appeared on Business Insider.

Some of the Best Available Mutual Funds Are Now Off Limits to Millions of Investors - TIME Business


Posted: 04 May 2017 09:37 AM PDT

The largest brokerage in the country, Morgan Stanley, is cutting off access to the only mutual funds that investors seem to want to buy.
Vanguard was the best-selling mutual fund manager last year—with roughly $183 billion in net new assets flowing into its mutual funds, according to Morningstar. MONEY frequently recommends its low-cost, no-frills indexing approach—championed by its founder, Jack Bogle—and has placed almost 20 of its funds on the MONEY 50, an annual list of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds we recommend using to build a long-lasting portfolio.
But starting next week, Morgan Stanley will not permit its 15,800 financial advisors (currently the biggest team of brokers in the U.S.) to sell customers shares of Vanguard’s mutual funds, a company spokeswoman confirmed Thursday.

As first reported by industry website AdvisorHub, Morgan Stanley customers who are not already invested in Vanguard will not be able to buy new shares of the company’s conventional mutual funds starting on Monday. Those with existing Vanguard shares will not be immediately yanked out of the funds, but they only will be able to increase their positions through early next year.
The follows Morgan Stanley’s announcement in April that it would be pursuing a series of pricing, policy and product changes spurred by the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, which would require advisors to act in their clients’ best interests when working on retirement assets. “These changes are designed to reduce client costs, ensure we are offering top quality products to clients, and reduce the potential for conflicts of interest,” said the company, which says it has 3.4 million clients. The company did not explain how eliminating a line of low-cost funds would help reduce client costs.
After the cuts, the firm will offer about 2,300 funds.
Morgan Stanley’s move is seen as retaliation against Vanguard over its refusal to pay the brokerage for access on its advisor platform, AdvisorHub reports. (Last May, Merrill Lynch made a similar decision to remove Vanguard mutual funds from the funds available for advisors to sell to clients.) It’s not unlike what happens when cable companies threaten to cut certain channels when contract negotiations break down.
“It’s unfortunate that certain advisors and then therefore their clients are not able to access the conventional shares of Vanguard mutual funds,” a spokeswoman for Vanguard said Thursday. However, she noted that Vanguard’s ETFs are still available and provide the same kind of low-cost, broadly diversified option for investors.
Even with ETFs still available, Morgan Stanley could be taking a big risk—because Vanguard is one of the few mutual fund companies that investors can’t get enough of. Last year, Vanguard’s mutual funds took in more money than the rest of the fund industry combined, according to Morningstar’s calculations.

Getting rich is largely about luck – shame the wealthy don’t want to hear it - Independent

Getting rich is largely about luck – shame the wealthy don’t want to hear it
A new report confirms how the rich become deluded about their talents, but also hints at a growing acknowledgement of inequality
The UK suffers from the highest levels of income inequality in Europe – partly because of the delusions of its rich. In countries where the rich have less, they tend to be less delusional, about themselves, about other people, about what is possible, and about why some become rich.
In the UK, it is unsurprising to read that an investment banker thinks £100m is a lot of money but “not a ridiculous amount of money”. In a report in The Guardian this week, we also heard that one particular banker is “fairly confident” that a driven and passionate individual could “start from zero and get to £100m within 20 years”.
However, there is hope. In the research report that kicked off this latest set of news stories, Katharina Hecht from the London School of Economics and Political Science found that one third of her sample of extremely rich people working in the City of London agreed that “the government should reduce income differences”. The sample is extremely small and this subset of the very rich has not been asked similar questions before, but what they say chimes with reports from the US last year, which implied attitudes among the extremely wealthy are beginning to change.
In 2016 in New York, 50 millionaires wrote to the state’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, asking him to increase their taxes because they thought economic inequalities had grown too high. The group included Abigail Disney, granddaughter of Walt Disney, and Steven Rockefeller, a fourth-generation member of that very wealthy family. The offspring of the rich at least know they did not bring in their riches, let alone create them out of thin air.
In truth, no one creates wealth out of the ether as the mythic phrase “wealth creator” suggests. Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made. Wealth can grow but only when it is well shared, not corralled into the hands of a few. Wealth growth rates are highest in countries that are more equitable than their neighbours.
Four years after the great financial crash, Michael Lewis, one of the most successful people ever to write about the financial industry tried to explain to a group of Princeton University graduates why most of his own and his audience’s success would be down to luck. The author of The Big Short and Moneyball told them that the odds would just be tipped a little in their favour if they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth:
People really don’t like to hear success explained away as luck – especially successful people. As they age, and succeed, people feel their success was somehow inevitable. They don’t want to acknowledge the role played by accident in their lives. There is a reason for this: the world does not want to acknowledge it either.
The world Lewis was talking about was not the whole world, but the world as seen by the elites in unequal counties. By “world” he really meant “America”, and in particular he was talking about the “American Dream” – the idea that anyone can make it if they try hard enough and are talented enough, no matter how economically unequal the society is they are competing in.
The American dream is a myth, just like the London investment banker’s fantasy. Those who make money are often not very talented at all. They were just lucky at the right points in their lives. They might have worked hard and often are driven and greedy, but thousands of others will have worked as hard as them, been just as greedy as them, and not consistently struck it lucky. Most often, those who make money had money given to them in the first place, through inheritance that increased their chances; but it is always down to luck. Don’t believe the myth of the nice, kind, gifted, self-made entrepreneur.
We live in a world in which those who have got to the top have got there not out of great merit, but because they often had a few unfair advantages to start with, such as being born male, white and rich, because they had many lucky breaks on the way up, and often because they were willing to stamp on others’ chances as they rose. The human world does not consist of just a few superior beings able enough to do the key things that need doing, and a lumpen mass of inferior beings who could never do these things and so should be penalised appropriately.

Danny Dorling is a Halford Mackinder professor of geography, University of Oxford. This article first appeared on The Conversation (theconversation.com)

Friday, May 5, 2017

In House Health Vote, Reince Priebus Sees a Much-Needed Reprieve - New York Times

In House Health Vote, Reince Priebus Sees a Much-Needed Reprieve

By GLENN THRUSH and MAGGIE HABERMAN
MAY 5, 2017
WASHINGTON — The Republican health care overhaul might never become law, but it has already changed the life of one American: Reince Priebus, who knew it was his best and perhaps last hope of becoming an empowered White House chief of staff.
President Trump placed much of the blame for his first, failed push to repeal the Affordable Care Act in March on Mr. Priebus, the harried and ambitious former Republican National Committee chairman. He told aides that he believed the damaging loss had resulted in no small part from Mr. Priebus’s too-rosy vote-count predictions and his too-cozy relationship with Speaker Paul D. Ryan, a fellow Wisconsinite.
After that defeat, Mr. Trump’s staff noticed that the president had adopted a practice of merging the two men’s names into one long “Ryan-ce,” according to several West Wing aides.
It is unlikely that Mr. Priebus — roundly regarded as a steady party leader but one of the least powerful White House chiefs of staff ever — would have been fired had the second repeal-and-replace plan not passed the House on Thursday. But he viewed it as a personal make-or-break moment, and interviews with two dozen West Wing aides and Republican officials confirmed that another big loss on health care would probably have been an unrecoverable blow to an already weakened Mr. Priebus.
He responded by texting, calling and buttonholing Republicans, especially Mr. Ryan — badgering him for weeks to bring some version of the bill to the floor and demanding votes despite being short of support, with an angry insistence that tested their two-Cheeseheads-are-better-than-one friendship.
Mr. Priebus’s push for a quick vote chafed some members of the White House staff. Several people on Mr. Trump’s team who were trying to lower expectations were annoyed to find out that Mr. Priebus was openly talking about forcing a vote this week. At times, Mr. Trump himself seemed a little puzzled by his aide’s vehemence, telling legislators, including Mr. Ryan, that while he wanted a win, he did not necessarily need a vote immediately.

And it was Mr. Ryan, not the president, who offered his friend a shout-out at Thursday’s spike-the-football celebration for a bill passed by one chamber of Congress. “I especially want to thank Reince Priebus,” he said as Mr. Trump looked on.

The House’s passage of the health bill was less a victory for Mr. Priebus than a reprieve. It bought him time for a badly needed reset after three chaotic months in a job that has often seemed to overwhelm him — and possibly would anybody else in his position.
“At first, I think Reince wanted to be the gatekeeper, the guy who has control of who comes in and out all day. But you can’t do that with Donald Trump — he won’t let you,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an on-and-off Republican critic of Mr. Trump who speaks with Mr. Priebus often. “I think he’s learned to play a different role by necessity. He has to stick with organizing things. He has to be the connective tissue. I think he gets that.”
Even with a win, Mr. Priebus remains, at best, the third most powerful player in a top-heavy White House dominated by bigger personalities, a would-be gatekeeper desperately in search of a gate.
“It’s been the most dysfunctional White House in memory, and a lot of it is on Reince,” said Chris Whipple, a documentary filmmaker and author of “The Gatekeepers,” a new book chronicling White House chiefs of staff back to the Truman administration.
“Priebus has made rookie mistake after rookie mistake, and he started by making the biggest one of all: not insisting he be the first among equals,” Mr. Whipple said. “Fatal mistake. I’m not sure anybody could make that demand, but he didn’t even really try.”

“At some point, the president is either going to embrace failure or pick a grown-up, like a C.E.O. or maybe Mattis, as his chief,” he added, referring to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
The signature image of Mr. Trump’s first 100 days in office, people close to the president said, is that of Mr. Priebus standing just inside the open door of the Oval Office, agitated and rolling his eyes, as Mr. Trump beckons another seemingly random gaggle of aides, friends, family, visitors, reporters — even the White House decorator — in for an unstructured chat or, worst of all, policy discussions.
Mr. Priebus, who has said he has self-diagnosed obsessive-compulsive disorder, tried at first to restrict these interactions, often by keeping the president busy with ceremonial events like executive order signings and meetings with business leaders.
Over time, Mr. Trump bridled and demanded the unstructured time he had so valued as an executive at Trump Tower. Mr. Priebus, who initially outsourced the details of Oval Office scheduling and paper flow to a deputy, has now taken over those tasks himself. He has reduced the pace of public events and, like a Montessori teacher, modulates structured work time with the slack periods Mr. Trump craves.
In recent days, Mr. Priebus cut back on his stalking-butler tendency to hover over the president, realizing his antsy boss had grown resentful of his constant companionship. “What are you doing in here? Don’t you have health care to take care of?” Mr. Trump asked Mr. Priebus at one recent meeting around his desk, according to a senior White House official.
Mr. Priebus is increasingly focused on big-picture issues like improving the “interagency” process linking the West Wing to the federal bureaucracy. He has also tried to reduce what he calls inputs — the number of people talking to the president each day — to 20 or so from about 50, and to keep Mr. Trump to a tighter schedule through short, agenda-driven meetings: a suggestion made by many outside advisers he consulted, including John H. Sununu, the chief of staff to President George Bush.

That entails trying to cut the number of Oval Office meeting attendees from 15 to eight or fewer, according to an aide.
One small but significant recent victory: excluding Omarosa Manigault, the former “Apprentice” contestant and Trump favorite, from as many meetings as possible.
“The trains are now running on time,” said Thomas Barrack Jr., a close friend of Mr. Trump’s, reflecting a prevailing sense even among Mr. Priebus’s critics in the White House that the situation has improved.
That does not mean Mr. Priebus is entirely running things. He is often elbowed out by a half-dozen other West Wing players — chief among them Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who enjoys many of the powers exercised by a chief of staff (he has been described by friends as “a first among equals”), including a virtual veto over some hiring decisions. Mr. Priebus has half-joked that Mr. Kushner has “all the fun” but few of the responsibilities that burden him, according to one longtime Priebus confidant.
“Reince is fundamentally a nice Midwestern guy who is very concerned about not losing friends and not making enemies,” said Charlie Sykes, a veteran Republican operative and radio host in Wisconsin who has been friends with Mr. Priebus for two decades. “He is, at bottom, a pleaser. But he doesn’t want to fail.”
“One of the things that’s made him successful up until now is that he knows how to maintain friendships; he knows how to keep in touch with donors and key players,” Mr. Sykes said. “But I don’t know that he would be the one to crack the whip. At a certain point, you have to be willing to be confrontational and to lose friends. I think that’s very difficult for Reince.”
For all the talk of Mr. Priebus as a potentially moderating force, he has fed some of the president’s most self-destructive impulses, including reviewing a way to sue the news media and vigorously supporting Mr. Trump’s hunt for an order supposedly obtained by the Obama administration to allow the surveillance of Trump campaign officials.

But all of these stresses are worth it, Mr. Priebus has told friends.
One of the party’s most formidable fund-raisers, Mr. Priebus, who declined to be interviewed for this article, is accustomed to swallowing his pride to court richer, more powerful men. So he has a high pain threshold for a boss who still views him, in moments of candor, as a leader of the Republican political establishment that once tried to destroy Mr. Trump.
Mr. Priebus — whose allies say he has always been animated by proximity to power — is nothing if not resilient, however, and he is intent on forging alliances with anyone who can improve his internal standing. In recent weeks, he has tried to capitalize on the growing rift between Mr. Kushner and the White House chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon.
At the height of the Kushner-Bannon spat last month, Mr. Trump instructed both men to “stop it” or face the boot, and delegated to Mr. Priebus the role of evenhanded mediator. Instead, Mr. Priebus interpreted that as a license to forge an alliance with Mr. Kushner, though the first son-in-law has felt free to use his veto power over the chief of staff, including siding with others to keep Mr. Priebus from promoting his preferred choices for his deputy, according to four West Wing aides.
Mr. Priebus has been reluctant to confront Mr. Bannon directly. But he has quietly sought to undermine Mr. Bannon’s agenda and temper his nativist impulses, and has happily assumed the role of establishment soother. At a dinner last week at the Hay-Adams Hotel with a number of prominent Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Priebus assured the attendees that the North American Free Trade Agreement would not be undone the next day, as Mr. Bannon had sought to do, according to three people with knowledge of the interaction.
He has also bonded with Mr. Kushner and his wife, the president’s daughter Ivanka, over what they all see as Mr. Bannon’s hidden war against them in the news media, especially through Breitbart, the site Mr. Bannon used to run. Mr. Kushner was especially incensed by Breitbart’s speculation that Mr. Priebus would soon be replaced by his ally Gary D. Cohn, the National Economic Council chairman, two people close to him said.




Go

Politics

In House Health Vote, Reince Priebus Sees a Much-Needed Reprieve

DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
By GLENN THRUSH and MAGGIE HABERMAN
MAY 5, 2017
WASHINGTON — The Republican health care overhaul might never become law, but it has already changed the life of one American: Reince Priebus, who knew it was his best and perhaps last hope of becoming an empowered White House chief of staff.
President Trump placed much of the blame for his first, failed push to repeal the Affordable Care Act in March on Mr. Priebus, the harried and ambitious former Republican National Committee chairman. He told aides that he believed the damaging loss had resulted in no small part from Mr. Priebus’s too-rosy vote-count predictions and his too-cozy relationship with Speaker Paul D. Ryan, a fellow Wisconsinite.
After that defeat, Mr. Trump’s staff noticed that the president had adopted a practice of merging the two men’s names into one long “Ryan-ce,” according to several West Wing aides.
It is unlikely that Mr. Priebus — roundly regarded as a steady party leader but one of the least powerful White House chiefs of staff ever — would have been fired had the second repeal-and-replace plan not passed the House on Thursday. But he viewed it as a personal make-or-break moment, and interviews with two dozen West Wing aides and Republican officials confirmed that another big loss on health care would probably have been an unrecoverable blow to an already weakened Mr. Priebus.
B11370825.151252818.gif
He responded by texting, calling and buttonholing Republicans, especially Mr. Ryan — badgering him for weeks to bring some version of the bill to the floor and demanding votes despite being short of support, with an angry insistence that tested their two-Cheeseheads-are-better-than-one friendship.
Mr. Priebus with Stephen K. Bannon, right, and Stephen Miller at the White House last month. He has tried to capitalize on a rift between Mr. Bannon and Jared Kushner.
AL DRAGO / THE NEW YORK TIMES
Mr. Priebus’s push for a quick vote chafed some members of the White House staff. Several people on Mr. Trump’s team who were trying to lower expectations were annoyed to find out that Mr. Priebus was openly talking about forcing a vote this week. At times, Mr. Trump himself seemed a little puzzled by his aide’s vehemence, telling legislators, including Mr. Ryan, that while he wanted a win, he did not necessarily need a vote immediately.

And it was Mr. Ryan, not the president, who offered his friend a shout-out at Thursday’s spike-the-football celebration for a bill passed by one chamber of Congress. “I especially want to thank Reince Priebus,” he said as Mr. Trump looked on.

The House’s passage of the health bill was less a victory for Mr. Priebus than a reprieve. It bought him time for a badly needed reset after three chaotic months in a job that has often seemed to overwhelm him — and possibly would anybody else in his position.
“At first, I think Reince wanted to be the gatekeeper, the guy who has control of who comes in and out all day. But you can’t do that with Donald Trump — he won’t let you,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an on-and-off Republican critic of Mr. Trump who speaks with Mr. Priebus often. “I think he’s learned to play a different role by necessity. He has to stick with organizing things. He has to be the connective tissue. I think he gets that.”
Even with a win, Mr. Priebus remains, at best, the third most powerful player in a top-heavy White House dominated by bigger personalities, a would-be gatekeeper desperately in search of a gate.
“It’s been the most dysfunctional White House in memory, and a lot of it is on Reince,” said Chris Whipple, a documentary filmmaker and author of “The Gatekeepers,” a new book chronicling White House chiefs of staff back to the Truman administration
“Priebus has made rookie mistake after rookie mistake, and he started by making the biggest one of all: not insisting he be the first among equals,” Mr. Whipple said. “Fatal mistake. I’m not sure anybody could make that demand, but he didn’t even really try.”

“At some point, the president is either going to embrace failure or pick a grown-up, like a C.E.O. or maybe Mattis, as his chief,” he added, referring to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
The signature image of Mr. Trump’s first 100 days in office, people close to the president said, is that of Mr. Priebus standing just inside the open door of the Oval Office, agitated and rolling his eyes, as Mr. Trump beckons another seemingly random gaggle of aides, friends, family, visitors, reporters — even the White House decorator — in for an unstructured chat or, worst of all, policy discussions.
Mr. Priebus, who has said he has self-diagnosed obsessive-compulsive disorder, tried at first to restrict these interactions, often by keeping the president busy with ceremonial events like executive order signings and meetings with business leaders.
Over time, Mr. Trump bridled and demanded the unstructured time he had so valued as an executive at Trump Tower. Mr. Priebus, who initially outsourced the details of Oval Office scheduling and paper flow to a deputy, has now taken over those tasks himself. He has reduced the pace of public events and, like a Montessori teacher, modulates structured work time with the slack periods Mr. Trump craves.
In recent days, Mr. Priebus cut back on his stalking-butler tendency to hover over the president, realizing his antsy boss had grown resentful of his constant companionship. “What are you doing in here? Don’t you have health care to take care of?” Mr. Trump asked Mr. Priebus at one recent meeting around his desk, according to a senior White House official.



B11370825.151252818.gif

That entails trying to cut the number of Oval Office meeting attendees from 15 to eight or fewer, according to an aide.
One small but significant recent victory: excluding Omarosa Manigault, the former “Apprentice” contestant and Trump favorite, from as many meetings as possible.
Mr. Priebus leaving Air Force One in West Palm Beach, Fla., in February. He is regarded as one of the least powerful White House chiefs of staff.
AL DRAGO / THE NEW YORK TIMES
“The trains are now running on time,” said Thomas Barrack Jr., a close friend of Mr. Trump’s, reflecting a prevailing sense even among Mr. Priebus’s critics in the White House that the situation has improved.
That does not mean Mr. Priebus is entirely running things. He is often elbowed out by a half-dozen other West Wing players — chief among them Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who enjoys many of the powers exercised by a chief of staff (he has been described by friends as “a first among equals”), including a virtual veto over some hiring decisions. Mr. Priebus has half-joked that Mr. Kushner has “all the fun” but few of the responsibilities that burden him, according to one longtime Priebus confidant.
“Reince is fundamentally a nice Midwestern guy who is very concerned about not losing friends and not making enemies,” said Charlie Sykes, a veteran Republican operative and radio host in Wisconsin who has been friends with Mr. Priebus for two decades. “He is, at bottom, a pleaser. But he doesn’t want to fail.”
“One of the things that’s made him successful up until now is that he knows how to maintain friendships; he knows how to keep in touch with donors and key players,” Mr. Sykes said. “But I don’t know that he would be the one to crack the whip. At a certain point, you have to be willing to be confrontational and to lose friends. I think that’s very difficult for Reince.”










serve.adfootprints.com/serve/noscript_link/3048/clicktag" target="_blank">serve.adfootprints.com/serve/noscript_image/3048
" border="0">
B11370825.151252818.gif

But all of these stresses are worth it, Mr. Priebus has told friends.
One of the party’s most formidable fund-raisers, Mr. Priebus, who declined to be interviewed for this article, is accustomed to swallowing his pride to court richer, more powerful men. So he has a high pain threshold for a boss who still views him, in moments of candor, as a leader of the Republican political establishment that once tried to destroy Mr. Trump.
At the height of the Kushner-Bannon spat last month, Mr. Trump instructed both men to “stop it” or face the boot, and delegated to Mr. Priebus the role of evenhanded mediator. Instead, Mr. Priebus interpreted that as a license to forge an alliance with Mr. Kushner, though the first son-in-law has felt free to use his veto power over the chief of staff, including siding with others to keep Mr. Priebus from promoting his preferred choices for his deputy, according to four West Wing aides.
Mr. Priebus has been reluctant to confront Mr. Bannon directly. But he has quietly sought to undermine Mr. Bannon’s agenda and temper his nativist impulses, and has happily assumed the role of establishment soother. At a dinner last week at the Hay-Adams Hotel with a number of prominent Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Priebus assured the attendees that the North American Free Trade Agreement would not be undone the next day, as Mr. Bannon had sought to do, according to three people with knowledge of the interaction.
He has also bonded with Mr. Kushner and his wife, the president’s daughter Ivanka, over what they all see as Mr. Bannon’s hidden war against them in the news media, especially through Breitbart, the site Mr. Bannon used to run. Mr. Kushner was especially incensed by Breitbart’s speculation that Mr. Priebus would soon be replaced by his ally Gary D. Cohn, the National Economic Council chairman, two people close to him said.

ADVERTISEMENT: GUCCI









 
B11370825.151252818.gif
Mr. Priebus is wounded by the speculation and is intensely protective of his image, forged over seven successful years at the Republican National Committee, of competence and effectiveness, even as some of his own colleagues question it.

He has spent so much time in the Oval Office that his own suite in the southwest corner of the White House remains much as his predecessor, Denis McDonough, left it, complete with its vintage World War II and Vietnam-era photographs of naval battles. His own desk is sparsely decorated and often covered with neatly arrayed note cards on which he has written, in fastidious red Sharpie, his daily to-do list or his talking points.
The wall opposite his standing desk features a triptych of flat-screen TVs tuned to basic cable, and he spends much of his day monitoring the chatter, especially the utterances of his fellow Republicans.
When Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Trump ally and the source of speculation as a future chief of staff, visited the White House recently, Mr. Priebus pulled him into the Roosevelt Room to complain about Mr. Christie’s less-than-helpful comments on TV.
“He’ll text you all the time,” Mr. Graham said. “It will be like, ‘Thanks,’ or ‘Why the hell did you say that?’”
Correction: May 5, 2017

An earlier version of this article misattributed a description of Jared Kushner as “a first among equals.” He was described as such by friends; he did not tell friends this.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Madeleine Albright condemns Donald Trump for saying he would be 'honoured' to meet Kim Jong-Un - Independent

Madeleine Albright condemns Donald Trump for saying he would be 'honoured' to meet Kim Jong-Un
'Honoured would definitely be the wrong way to discuss somebody who is keeping his people in poverty and starving and control,' says former Secretary of State

Maya Oppenheim @mayaoppenheim Wednesday 3 May 2017 17:10 BS

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has condemned Donald Trump for saying he would be “honoured” to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.

President Trump stoked controversy on Monday when he said he would meet with the supreme leader if it is “under the right circumstances”.

"If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely, I would be honoured to do it," the President said in an interview with Bloomberg News. In a separate interview shortly beforehand he referred to Mr Kim as a “smart cookie” for being able to hold on to power in his country.

Albright, the first woman to become the US Secretary of State, said "honoured" was an inappropriate word to use to refer to a meeting with Mr Kim.

"A president doesn't go to a country without any preparation, and 'honoured' would definitely be the wrong way to discuss somebody who is keeping his people in poverty and starving and control," Albright said on CNN.

The Democrat argued the billionaire property developer was overly keen to develop personal relationships with world leaders without acknowledging the concrete political consequences they could have.

"I think that part of the issue is that President Trump seems to believe that he can have just one-on-one relationships. And maybe that's possible in business, but that is not something that is possible as president of the United States," she said. "This is not a matter of charming, by saying you're 'honoured' and he's a 'smart cookie.' "

Albright is one of the most high-profile American diplomats to have visited North Korea on official business and met with the former North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang in 2000. Nevertheless, no American President has yet to meet with the leader of North Korea during their tenure and the notion remains deeply controversial.

Tensions between the US and North Korea have drastically escalated in recent weeks as American and other intelligence agencies have suggested the country was preparing for a possible nuclear test. The Trump administration has said all options, including a military strike, are on the table.

What would a meeting between Trump and Kim Jong-un look like?
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer responded to Mr Trump’s bold claims about potentially meeting Mr Kim during a daily briefing, saying the conditions for a meeting between the pair “were not there yet”.

Mr Trump first offered to meet the North Korean leader during the election campaign last June in an attempt to emphasise the differences between him and his Democrat rival Hillary Clinton.

“What the hell is wrong with speaking? And you know what? It’s called opening a dialogue. It’s opening a dialogue,” he said at the time. “If he came here, I’d accept him, but I wouldn’t give him a state dinner like we do for China and all these other people that rip us off when we give them these big state dinners.”

He suggested he would serve Mr Kim and other visiting leaders “a hamburger on a conference table”.