offset

What is offset?

Exploration of topics covered in written articles, but anecdotal stories, and off-topic discussions based on news of the day.

The house narrowly passed, its
policy bill, the National Defense

Authorization Act out of the
house, armed Services Committee.

Typically a bill that passes with ease
because it authorizes things for the

executive to do It's not as important
as house appropriations, which is kind

of the whole ball game, the policy bill
always comes before the appropriations

'cause it authorizes the different
programs that the appropriators

inappropriate, and then the executive
is intended to spend it as appropriated.

But this is the issue.

The executive is not doing that.

They don't really want to do that.

They're not having a lot
of debates with Congress.

The bottom line is if they can
barely pass a house policy bill.

For defense, which is
typically not an issue.

New policy ideas can be implemented and
pursued once they're authorized, but it

doesn't stop the defense of the country.

It doesn't really curtail us interest
unless the new policies authorized are.

Able to make change.

But you know, they're all kind of forward
looking and yeah, it re authorizes

the appropriators to spend every year.

And that's true.

But does it have to be a yearly bill?

Thinking about it more often, I just
don't know if it even needs to be

this, single year, every year thing.

And perhaps defense department
should be funded multi-year.

Why is it every year.

This is just a problem and this is
the type of bullshit that gets caught

up in the partisan brinksmanship
that is a massive distraction

and they don't really end up
addressing their fundamental issues.

The Democrats believe that this bill had
culture war elements to it, the fact that

it's getting harder to pass these bills,
I don't know, it's just not a good sign.

So not feeling great about that.

And I just think it's yet another
indicator that if the house is barely

passing the NDAA easily, the most
bipartisan, easiest build pass.

Then how is it go and how are
they gonna go through everything

when they go to conference?

There's a continuing resolution.

I've written about it before, I just
think people need to be prepared for

a continuous resolution of sorts that
never ends 'cause they can't agree.

And then potentially like the last Trump
administration, they fund things by

agency that are relatively conservative
and they do agree to certain things.

Another wild card in
this is reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a lot of money,
incomprehensible amount of money, like

all of this is to all of us mortals.

It is sort of a bank account that they can
pull from when they decide to, and it's

kind of the executive is clearly doing
things that it thinks it needs to do and

it's not coming back to ask Congress,
but Congress has also been outta control.

I saw yet another post on LinkedIn, I just
don't understand these people who have.

Service backgrounds, it's just so odd
what's going on with folks and it's

yet another comment that lobbying
should be this front loaded endeavor.

It just makes me think that people
who say that have no credibility

or exposure to the mission.

They want to turn everything into a game
'cause they're not serious and they want

you to lobby because that's probably the
only people who will even talk to them.

But the average person on the
hill ain't a war fighter, and

they are a far cry from that.

This admin has made it clear they're
worried about their constituents.

For example, in the Army, the
army's worried about soldiers how

you do or don't help the soldiers?

What do the soldiers want?

What do they want to do?

We haven't seen this attitude in
a long time, and a lot of past

admins have been heavy handed on the
executive side and decision making.

As we move toward potential great
war, it's becoming more distributed.

In peace time it gets more consolidated
in the true war fighting ranks, the

decisions are not made by some random
guy or gal who has nothing to do with

the culture in the military or in your
unit or on your team, different agendas,

different ways they communicate, that's
why in order for him to personally become

wealthy or push some type of greed agenda,
capitalism is not the permission structure

to become a greedy person indefinitely.

Adam Smith did not envision a random
founder going into founder mode and being

toxic and obnoxious a war tourist and
locust on topics in order to quickly make

money to then sell it or whatever else.

But ultimately it's about
money, worship of money.

But in the military.

You worship different things and
ultimately these two worlds are

not gonna be able to see eye to
eye attempts from the startups.

Some have worked, many have
worked, but more have not because

at the end of the day it's not in
earnest aligned with the mission.

There is a concept of operations where you
envision your technology, being employed.

If you can't do that.

Figure it out.

That's step one, not a lobbyist.

A lobbyist has no idea
how to solve that problem.

Some do, some don't.

And if they do and they're good, they're
not gonna work with you if you have

no idea what you're even trying to do.

Raising money to go after a problem,
'cause you think of some sort of cash

land grab not gonna work ultimately,
and it doesn't service the US interest.

If you're serious about the US interest,
if you're serious about the military

dominating cross domains at war.

If you don't even know what those
words mean and you think those are

buzzwords you will ultimately fail.

If your inclination is to start
on the hill, then you are a

loser and you're backwards.

Clearly nobody wants to talk to
you and you think this is a game,

and it's us first, them mentality.

It's just not the reality don't want to
engage others and want to sit back and

make everything a game and cyber bully or
whatever else, and do podcasts and talk

about lobbying, for example, or talk about
other things and distort them to a degree,

In your sort of fantasy of an aristocratic
paradigm of which you live, you don't,

and you can't be cynical at the
system and then say you need to lobby.

Solve a problem.

Focus on what the mission needs.

Figure all of that out.

That ain't easy.

It's problem solving.

Not everyone does it.

Most don't.

That's why most don't succeed, not because
they don't have access to some lobby.

You need to find what you provide in a
particular scenario and be as niche as

possible to leave no stone unturned and
be incredibly clear about what you do.

The smallest missions still get
contracts if they impact the mission.

If your technology has a concept
that enhances the mission,

people are gonna take you on.

If you don't, they're
not gonna take you on.