Falling Approval Ratings Are Not Inevitable
Newsletter 92: Here’s what Biden can do to reverse the trend
Seven months after taking office, Biden’s approval rating has fallen to just shy of the break even point. Judging by every recent presidency, this post-inauguration slide was to be expected. But that doesn’t mean that the administration is powerless to slow, stop, or even reverse it. To do so, however, will require a strategic recalibration. Specifically, they need to stop shrinking from conflict and start unabashedly wielding executive branch power to advance their agenda. There should be no doubt that they are fighting as hard as possible, against whatever corporate or political foe may stand in their way, to deliver for the public.
Just consider the fact that, if it had not been for a herculean shove from Rep. Cori Bush, the Biden administration would have laid down arms and refused to fight to keep millions of Americans in their homes for another (at least) three weeks rather than face Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s scolding. This is among the most high-profile illustrations of the administration’s conflict aversion, but it’s far from the only one. Fear of a fight has seen them backing new oil projects, ducking humanitarian responsibilities, retaining Trump-era leaders, and turning a blind eye to the lingering damage deeper within agencies’ ranks. These choices are bad on the policy merits and there’s no reason to believe that they’ll help Biden at all politically (and they may actively hurt him).
See, for example, the administration’s failure to remove a Bush-era (yes, you read that right) holdover at the head of the Executive Office of U.S. Trustees (EOUST). As our former Research Assistant Sion Bell explained for the American Prospect last week, EOUST’s current head is making bankruptcy harder for the poorest filers. Keeping him in place will have severe consequences. It also carries absolutely zero political advantage. Biden should remove White, even (and especially) if it risks Republican backlash.
We’re hiring! We’re currently looking for a Research Assistant and a Research Intern. Come join our dynamic team! Or, share the announcement with those who you think would enjoy working with us. The application period closes on September 1 for the Research Assistant position. We are accepting intern applications on a rolling basis.
Personnel
Eyes are on the Federal Reserve this week as leaders meet virtually for the conference that would normally be held in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. That attention and the fast approaching end of summer has led to a flurry of new reporting and speculation about Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s chances at reappointment. So far, it has surfaced relatively little that’s new. The White House generally likes Powell but the President has not yet given the matter more consideration. We did learn recently that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is supportive of a Powell renomination although, as our Jeff Hauser told Politico Morning Money, that’s “Not surprising. Yellen has been a very risk averse, macro-economy focused Treasury Secretary, while we believe her Department should be operating more aggressively on distinct, parallel tracks which of course includes macro but is not artificially limited to such concerns.”
We’re hoping that, when the White House does finally get around to making its decision, it will recognize the following: the Federal Reserve has many tools, including but not limited to monetary policy, to advance a transformative agenda in line with Biden’s priorities and, under Jerome Powell, there’s no reason to believe that it will deploy them fully. At the Federal Reserve, as elsewhere, we’re asking Biden to think bigger and raise the bar with his personnel choices. The Fed is too important an institution to simply settle on a leader because of (already broken) norms or inertia. We need Fed leadership that (1) doesn’t just gesture at problems like racial inequality and climate change for political points, but actually does the hard work of tackling them with all the tools available; (2) acts as aggressively and creatively to help the most vulnerable communities as it traditionally has to aid Wall Street; and (3) sees its various responsibilities -- full employment, financial stability, supervision, etc -- as inextricably linked. Frankly, this should not be a radical proposition.
Governance
When it comes to the federal workforce and government capacity, the Biden administration has consistently rejected old paradigms. Gone are the days of bemoaning a lazy civil service. Gone too is the crippling fear of cries of “big government” from the other side. One notable trend, however, has gone largely unchallenged. There’s no indication so far that this administration will tackle the federal government’s reliance on contractors. A recent piece of reporting on contractors’ role in the vaccine rollout demonstrates why that must figure into any plan to rebuild the public sector’s capacity to act in the public interest.
Faced with the task of getting shots into arms as quickly as possible, many states and the federal government turned to contractors to supplement an attrited public health workforce or to somehow “improve” their efforts, with mostly lackluster results. It’s possible that this reliance on consultants was necessary in the short-term. Decades of attrition can not be reversed overnight and there was a clear time imperative at work here (although at the federal-level we saw some agencies hire permanent staff at a rapid speed, so it’s not a given that contractors were the only option). But leaning on these contracts comes at a clear cost. States that outsource this essential work will fail to develop in-house expertise that can be deployed quickly in the face of future crises. When private companies perform the bulk of public work, the general public loses out in terms of transparency and accountability. Unsurprisingly then, reliance on contractors consistently seems to result in higher costs and inferior results.
Lawmakers have periodically taken aim at portions of the problem through enhanced accountability and reporting mechanisms. After widespread failures at state-level veterans care homes last year, including many where operations were contracted out, Congress has pushed measures to increase oversight of these facilities. As Rep. Ed Case told Politico, however, “What Congress did is not the big picture fix. What Congress did is address this specific crisis as best as we could then. But fundamentally — is this the best way to operate a veterans care system across the country?”
The same question could be asked for any number of governmental functions. Is contracting really the best way for us to operate so many services? I think not. The question is, will the Biden administration do something about it?
Want more? Check out some of the pieces that we have published or contributed research or thoughts to in the last week:
The Bush Appointee Still on the Job Making Bankruptcy Even Harder
An Advocate, A Hack, And An Ethics Law Violator Walk Into A Social Security Office...
Biden's Food Stamp Expansion Will Help Millions Of Struggling Americans
Key Points On Jerome Powell's Union-Busting, Fossil Fuel-Investing Private Equity Record
The Fed's Municipal Lending Failed Black Public-Sector Workers
Biden confirms plan to nominate Rahm Emanuel as ambassador to Japan
Should top executives be held personally liable after for-profit colleges collapse?