Preview

In the first five weeks of the Biden administration, we’ve already gone through two diametrically opposed meta-narratives, both of which happen to be wrong. It’s some impressive work from the traditional media, taking its cues from a flailing conservative movement.

Amid a flurry of executive orders in the first couple weeks, the argument was that Biden was going too fast and trying to do too much. The New York Times editorial board set the tone a week after Inauguration Day by counseling, “Ease Up on the Executive Actions, Joe.” This was of course absurd and wrong on two counts.

First, executive actions are literally the job description of the president in the Constitution. Every decision a president makes is an executive action. Second, Biden was perfunctorily reversing some of the worst Trump actions but not doing anything close to pushing the envelope of his authority. Just look at our Executive Action Tracker and you’ll see that Biden’s only taken action on 13 of the 77 items we’ve identified as available to a president without Congress. If there was anything to complain about, it’s that Biden wasn’t doing enough on this front.

This has completely reversed. Now the complaint is that Biden isn’t getting anything done. Here’s Politico with the trend-setting “Biden’s Slow Start.” The savvy have pointed to a lack of cabinet confirmations and no legislative achievements. Here also we have a dumb, context-free narrative.

There are two factors in the slow start completely out of Biden’s control. First, the Senate was not under Democratic control until the Democratic winners in Georgia were seated on January 20, and an elongated negotiation of the organizing resolution that actually put committees in Democratic hands didn’t resolve until February 3. Rather than two months at this point, the Senate has been a functioning body for three weeks, and one of them was spent on Trump Impeachment II. They’re now playing catch-up on nominations.

Second, Biden decided—and this is partially on him—to put together a $1.9 trillion comprehensive COVID relief package that includes about a year’s worth of policy, and to do it by reconciliation, and mechanically that’s a time-consuming process. It involved most of the attention of the House in the past few weeks. They will pass the bill tomorrow, the Senate’s on track a couple weeks later (pending a couple things), and the narrative will shift again to “how can Biden do so much so fast.”

There’s also the point that “trying to vaccinate the entire country in the largest logistical project in modern history” is, you know, happening right now. Not getting anything done?

Now, you can definitely say that Biden had the opportunity for an early legislative victory, simply by putting the most urgent couple pieces of the American Rescue Plan through immediately and daring Republicans to oppose them. That would be the checks and shots strategy, and I’m still convinced it would have worked and been good politics. It wouldn’t have stopped an ice storm from blunting vaccination momentum, but it would have funded a ramp up in capacity. It would have ended the dissonance over Biden’s Georgia campaign remarks about “immediate” check delivery. And it would have robbed oxygen from this narrative about not doing enough.

And one other thing: it would have avoided a looming, pointless fight on the rescue bill. Right now the bill is locked into the $1.9 trillion figure, as per reconciliation instructions. So everything inserted must lead to something else taken out. The House just added three new measures worth about $12 billion (foreign aid, tribal assistance and National Science Foundation funds), and will have to find offsets. In fact, the House bill was already $31 billion over the limit. And because the House added a fix to multiemployer pensions, it had to reduce the extension of unemployment by one month, at a time when 11.4 million people rely on that extension for benefits.

The tactical mistake here was to put the reconciliation instructions right at the $1.9 trillion line, without any built-in slack. But if you took out checks and shots, that’d be $600 billion of wiggle room, probably making it easier for a bigger number in the reconciliation bill.

I recognize that these complaints—“should have engaged in more aggressive executive action,” “should have built more slack into the reconciliation instructions”—aren’t satisfying bumper stickers like “doing too much” or “not doing enough,” as if there’s a Goldilocks and the Three Bears just-right amount of executive speed. But it has the benefit of being correct.

That $1.9 trillion rescue bill, by the way, is extraordinarily popular. As in the most popular major piece of legislation in my memory. According to Morning Consult, 76 percent of all voters back the bill, including a whopping 60 percent of Republicans. Meanwhile Republicans in Congress are trying hard to keep their support for the bill to 0 percent. They obviously believe they cannot be hurt by unpopular policy in a divided country where structural advantages all favor them (gerrymandering, Senate disproportionality, the Electoral College).

It’s impossible for Republicans to muster up much response to a bill three-quarters of the country supports. (The “Schumer bridge,” which Trump Transportation Department approved, is particularly ham-handed.) But it’s also going to be really tough for Democrats.

For instance, moderates are trying to cut into the $350 billion state and local aid fund, primarily redirecting some of the money to longer-lasting infrastructure for broadband. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) previewed this for us on Left, Right & Center last week. I think this is a mistake, for the reasons Josh Bivens gives: states have higher safety net spending right now because low-wage workers have borne the brunt of this crisis, and public investment needs to be higher than the constrained budgets of the past. But the biggest problem for the moderates is that 76 percent. They’re running into the vast majority of their own constituents by trying to change this bill.

That’s going to play out on the $15/hour minimum wage increase as well. It’s not quite as popular as the overall bill, but at 61 percent it’s pretty popular. If this comes down to a fight between moderates trying to cut back on the level, and progressives demanding $15, public opinion will play a role. AOC has been previewing this, saying that progressives will “take a stand” against moderate efforts.

You get the feeling the Democratic leadership would love to sidestep this fight by having the Senate parliamentarian kick the minimum wage hike out of the reconciliation bill. But if they don’t, the public’s voice will matter. We don’t have a lot of experience of the usual centrists running up against a bill with 76 percent support. I don’t think they understand the kind of heat they’ll bring upon themselves.

Biden named three nominees to the Postal Service Board of Governors, which would be enough to depose Louis DeJoy as Postamaster General on a party-line vote. But at least one holdover Democrat, Donald Moak, has publicly defended DeJoy. (HuffPost)
Current OMB deputy nominee Shalanda Young has gained favor as the possible replacement for Neera Tanden as OMB director. (CNN)
Biden reversed Trump’s policy preventing immigrants from obtaining green cards during the pandemic. (New York Times)
On the other hand, removals for health reasons continue, while over 700 unaccompanied minors are in custody without their parents. (Axios)
Biden will send 25 million masks to community centers and food pantries in low-income communities. (NBC News)
The U.S. report on Jamal Khashoggi’s death will lay blame at the feet of the crown prince Mohammad bin Salman. (Reuters)
Most Americans want teachers to be vaccinated before school reopens. (The Hill)
The F-35 doesn’t work, in case you’re worried about wasteful spending. (Forbes)