Who's More Likely To Grant Biden A Honeymoon-- The Republicans Or The Progressives?

 

In her powerful Washington Post OpEd-- Working People Delivered Biden His Victory; Now He Needs To Deliver For Them-- early this morning, former Ohio state Senator Nina Turner noted that is was Black, brown and white families making under $100,000, along with the vast majority of young people who delivered Biden his victory. "These voters," she wrote, "are the heart and the future of a massive progressive movement inside and outside of the Democratic Party, and it is to them that Joe Biden and Kamala D. Harris must answer."

And in a letter to his supporters this afternoon, Bernie had a very similar message: while everyone claims credit for Biden's victory, it "multi-racial, multi-generational progressive grassroots organizations all across this country played an extraordinary role in helping to make this victory possible. We made phone calls, we texted, we registered voters, we did virtual rallies, we distributed literature and we knocked on doors when possible. Knowing the importance of this election we did everything that we could, and more. Together, we built widespread support for Biden among young people, people of color and the working class. In my view, Biden's success would not have been possible without those extraordinary efforts... [O]ver 53% of young people ages 18 to 29 voted, which not only eclipses 2016's turnout rate, but would be the highest youth turnout rate in American history. And those young people voted overwhelmingly for Biden and other Democrats... Further, the strong economic agenda that the progressive movement fought for helped bring out low-income working people to vote for Biden. National exit polls show that voters with an annual family income under $50,000 voted against Trump by a 15-point margin... [W]e're going to have to do everything possible to make sure that Congress and the new president move rapidly and aggressively to address the enormous crises facing our country."

On Thursday, Paul Krugman was already urging Biden to "claim that he has been given a strong mandate to govern the nation" (even though most of his votes were anti-Trump votes more than pro-Biden votes. Krugman warned that "there are real questions about whether he will, in fact, be able to govern. At the moment, it seems likely that the Senate-- which is wildly unrepresentative of the American people-- will remain in the hands of an extremist party that will sabotage Biden in every way it can." He then explained why divided government is such a problem and points to GOP obstruction during the Obama years.

Republicans used hardball tactics, including threats to cause a default on the national debt, to force a premature withdrawal of fiscal support that slowed the pace of economic recovery. I’ve estimated that without this de facto sabotage, the unemployment rate in 2014 might have been about two percentage points lower than it actually was.

And the need for more spending is even more acute now than it was in 2011, when Republicans took control of the House... We desperately need a new round of federal spending on health care, aid to the unemployed and businesses, and support for strapped state and local governments. Reasonable estimates suggest that we should spend $200 billion or more each month until a vaccine brings the pandemic to an end. I’d be shocked if a Senate still controlled by Mitch McConnell would agree to anything like this.

Even after the pandemic is over, we’re likely to face both persistent economic weakness and a desperate need for more public investment. But McConnell effectively blocked infrastructure spending even with Donald Trump in the White House. Why would he become more amenable with Biden in office?

Krugman is not without influence but it is Mohamed El-Erian, president of Cambridge's Queens' College, who is probably the single most respected voice in the world in the circle of serious investors and, like Krugman, he warns that A divided electorate spells trouble for the US economy. "The 2020 election," he wrote, "has confirmed that the US remains a deeply divided country facing mounting challenges that threaten both this and future generations. Despite a collective wake-up call in the form of a severe health and economic crisis, the country seems both unwilling and unable to embark on the decisive measures needed. The unwillingness comes from fundamental differences of views on how best to pursue economic and financial reforms while urgently dealing with the threats from COVID-19. The inability is due to a probably divided Congress, where the damage of the past few years to the most basic of cross-party working relationships has been accentuated by the past month's rush to approve a new Supreme Court justice."

What is at risk here is not just the longer-term oriented reforms seeking to limit another move down in productivity, yet more household economic insecurity, and a worsening in inequality. Also at risk is the short-term health and economic effort to help the nation recover from the considerable damage that the first COVID-19 wave left in its wake.

...[T]he Federal Reserve will be pushed yet again to do more with increasingly ineffective and inevitably distortionary policy tools. The traditional monetary policy mindset will continue to give even more ground as the Fed faces pressure to insure risks that are difficult to price, let alone underwrite properly.

This venturing into even bigger experimental unconventional monetary policies will do little to genuinely stimulate the economy. Instead, it is likely to create further distortions in financial markets, increase incentives for irresponsible risk-taking and lead to the misallocation of resources throughout the economy. This will heighten the threat of financial instability. In the process, the already large disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street will widen, adding political and social challenges.

...[This] translates into a more difficult outlook for both the short and longer term. It means less dynamic supply and less buoyant demand. The growth in the economic pie will not just be less than what's needed. It will also fall short of what the two sides of the political divide believe is possible under their different approaches, fuelling a messy blame game that will further undermine the social fabric.

The US plight is also problematic for a global economic recovery that is now more likely to become more uneven and more uncertain. America's internal divisions will preclude the early resumption of its traditional role in informing, influencing and sometimes imposing outcomes in multilateral economic co-ordination forums. They will also increase the risk of deglobalisation and the further weaponisation of economic and investment tools.

Ultimately, the combination of another health emergency, a weakening economy and increased financial instability will force the US government into decisive action-- but not before considerable damage to the lives, livelihoods and mental wellbeing of this generation, and perhaps future ones as well.

Not very cheerful-- and quite ominous, considering the source. Matt Viser, Seung Min Kim and Annie Linskey reported for the Washington Post over the weekend that Biden plans immediate flurry of executive orders to reverse Trump policies. He'll start on January 20 by having the country rejoin the Paris climate accords, reversing Trump’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization, repealing the ban on Muslims, and reinstateing the DREAMER program. "Biden’s top advisers have spent months quietly working on how best to implement his agenda, with hundreds of transition officials preparing to get to work inside various federal agencies. They have assembled a book filled with his campaign commitments to help guide their early decisions." That's good-- since his campaign commitments are much better than his instincts. It's good that his team recognizes that pushing major legislation through Congress is pretty much off the table with McConnell running the Senate. [Reminder: this.]

Biden is planning to set up a coronavirus task force on Monday, in recognition that the global pandemic will be the primary issue that he must confront. The task force, which could begin meeting within days, will be co-chaired by former surgeon general Vivek H. Murthy and David Kessler, a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner.

...“The policy team, the transition policy teams, are focusing now very much on executive power,” said a Biden ally who has been in touch with his team who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “I expect that to be freely used in a Biden administration at this point, if the Senate becomes a roadblock.”

A Republican-held Senate-- or even one with a narrow Democratic majority-- probably will affect Biden’s Cabinet picks given the Senate’s power to confirm nominees.

One option being discussed is appointing Cabinet members in an acting capacity, a tactic that Trump also used.

“Just by virtue of the calendar and how many positions are filled, that’s always a possibility,” the person said. “Because the Senate moves so slowly now, so much more slowly than it used to.”

...If Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stays as majority leader, he would be trying to manage a conference torn between two factions with different interests, but neither necessarily eager to help Biden-- one with senators running for reelection in swing states in 2022 [Note: Lisa Murkowski, Rubio, Chuck Grassley seat, Richard Burr seat, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey seat, and Ron Johnson] and another with those seeking the national spotlight as they vie for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination [Note: Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz].

“In the old days, the mandate meant that the other side would be more amenable, or feeling they had an impetus to work,” said Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA). “I’m not sure that applies any longer.”

It is unclear whether Biden has communicated with McConnell yet directly; aides have not commented on any conversation.

A closely divided Congress could hamper Biden’s efforts to do sweeping legislative actions on immigration changes. He has also said he would send a bill to Congress repealing liability protections for gun manufacturers, and close background-check loopholes. He has pledged to repeal the Republican-passed tax cuts from 2017, an effort that could be stymied if Republicans hold the Senate majority.

Without congressional cooperation, however, Biden has said that he plans to immediately reverse Trump’s rollback of 100 public health and environmental rules that the Obama administration had in place.

He would also institute new ethics guidelines at the White House, and he has pledged to sign an executive order the first day in office saying that no member of his administration could influence any Justice Department investigations.

...Much of Biden’s early agenda-- including which pieces of legislation to prioritize-- will be determined in the coming weeks as his transition team begins taking on a far more prominent role.

Biden’s transition effort is being overseen by Ted Kaufman, one of his closest advisers. Kaufman, who was appointed to replace Biden in the Senate when Biden became vice president in 2009, also helped co-write an update to the law governing the transition process, which was passed in 2015 and signed by President Barack Obama.

Biden’s transition team has been given government-issued computers and iPhones for conducting secure communications, and 10,000 square feet of office space in the Herbert C. Hoover Building in Washington, although most of the work is being done virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic. His advisers have been granted temporary security clearances and undergone FBI background checks to fast-track the processing of personnel who can receive briefings on intelligence.

But one important next step is for the head of the General Services Administration to rule that the election results are final, enabling Biden’s transition team to expand its work and gain access to government funds. Biden officials are prepared for legal action if that administrator-- Emily W. Murphy, a Trump political appointee-- delays that decision, according to officials familiar with the matter.

Trump has so far not conceded defeat, falsely claiming Saturday that he won the election.

Pamela Pennington, a GSA spokeswoman, said that Murphy would ascertain “the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution.” Until that decision is made, she said, the Biden transition team would continue to receive limited access to government resources.

The transition from Trump to Biden would have few historic parallels, rivaled perhaps only by 1860-1861, when southern states seceded before Abraham Lincoln took office, and 1932-1933, when Herbert Hoover sought to undermine Franklin D. Roosevelt and prevent him from implementing his New Deal policies.

The last time there was a prolonged delay in a transfer of power was in 2000, when uncertainty over the results in the contest between then-Vice President Al Gore (D) and then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) stretched out until the Supreme Court ended a Florida recount that gave Bush the victory on Dec. 12.

The Bush administration’s sluggish start and lack of qualified personnel in place was cited by the 9/11 Commission Report as a critical vulnerability to U.S. national security for the attacks that occurred less than eight months after the inauguration. That prompted changes to the law and the granting of access at an earlier date following the political conventions.

“When George W. Bush left he made clear to his Cabinet that this is going to be the best transition of power that’s ever occurred. Because we weren’t treated very well when we came into power,” said Michael Leavitt, who at the time was the outgoing secretary of Health and Human Services. “Barack Obama to his credit said the same thing. There was a spirit of cooperation that went on and needs to continue. Whether it will or not I don’t know. But we’re better prepared.”

Chris Lu, the executive director of the Obama-Biden transition in 2008, said that within two hours of the election being called in 2008 he had a formal letter beginning the transition process.

“We literally at 9 a.m. the next morning walked into a transition office and had access to it,” he said. “It was the model for the smoothest transition of power.”

Making a clear break from the Trump administration's adversarial posture toward the civil service is also a top priority for the Biden transition team.

The Trump administration's suspicion of career officials and early calls for them to “get with the program” or “go” created tensions with incoming political appointees that never dissipated. Biden officials are hoping to create a positive atmosphere by avoiding some of the terminology and labels they think contributed to the mistrust.