Pelosi and Biden Still Have Lessons to Learn
Newsletter 41: Trump & Obama presidencies alike reveal how critical executive branch appointments are on issues from economic recovery to police brutality.
With states and localities opening across the country, it’s tempting to feel that we’re coming out from the other side of this crisis. But there is good reason to resist that feeling. First, there’s the fact that this new normal still looks pretty bleak, with elevated unemployment, high sustained death counts, and rising case levels in some states. Then there’s the fact that the economic situation could still get worse for many. On Tuesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell painted a bleak economic picture for members of the Senate Banking Committee. The strength and timing of a recovery remain deeply uncertain and it will disproportionately be this country’s lowest-income and most vulnerable people who bear the brunt of that pain.
A big reason why the recession will be felt disproportionately by the most vulnerable? The decision making of the executive branch, from the private equity/hedge fund alumni running the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Commerce (Powell, Mnuchin, Ross) to the corrupt Department heads from Agriculture to Transportation and nearly everywhere in between.
Appointments, and the executive branch, matter. A LOT.
Congressional Oversight
Congress’ rescue package, for all of its flaws, did succeed in somewhat dampening the economic downturn’s initial shock. But many of its programs may end soon, long before the need for them disappears.
Even with the country slowly reopening, we are still a long way off from a return to normal. Businesses are operating at partial capacity and millions remain out of work. None of these conditions are likely to dissipate before July when relief measures like enhanced unemployment assistance, eviction and foreclosure moratoria, mortgage relief, and payroll assistance will expire. In the absence of congressional action, people across the country face hunger, deprivation, and foreclosure or eviction. In other words, we’re barreling towards a cliff that even Mitch McConnell cannot ignore.
So, with the next round of stimulus jockeying rapidly approaching, are Democrats prepared to make the most of it? After repeatedly insisting that they will push for priorities (like oversight, post office funding, vote by mail, and major aid for states and localities) in the next package, it appears that their time for procrastination has run out. McConnell has insisted that this will be the last set of stimulus measures, and we’re certainly not advocating that Democrats wait and find out if he is bluffing.
Unfortunately, we cannot express any confidence that Democrats are well-positioned to seize the moment. Almost 5 months after COVID-19 first began to spread in the US and over two months after the CARES Act’s passage, Democratic leadership still has not prioritized oversight. Just consider the fact that the Bailout Oversight Commission -- Democrats’ crowning oversight achievement in the CARES Act -- still does not have a chairperson. Without the commission’s fact-finding, lawmakers are ill-prepared to close loopholes in the CARES Act or to rectify other mistakes.
It seems likely that Senate Majority Leader McConnell, who must agree jointly with Speaker Pelosi on a name, and who has shown approximately zero interest in scrutinizing this administration, is standing in the way. But, if that’s the case, Pelosi should publicly protest loudly and frequently. Remaining silent achieves nothing.
It might be marginally easier to accept this surrender if Pelosi had already made clear that she took oversight seriously by choosing a champion to fill her slot on the commission. But instead, she chose Rep. Donna Shalala. In past newsletters, we’ve highlighted Shalala’s lack of financial expertise, her conflicts of interest, and her failure to abide by the STOCK Act for over a year. In April, Revolving Door Project and Demand Progress called on Pelosi to ask for Shalala’s resignation. She did not, of course, abide. And since then, the story has only gotten worse.
Shalala filed a periodic transaction report at the beginning of May that chronicled her stock sales from her almost year and a half in Congress (under the STOCK Act, members of Congress are required to file these disclosures within 45 days of any transaction). Soon after, the American Prospect’s David Dayen reported that Shalala appeared to still be holding equity in several companies, including those specializing in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. In a recent Twitter thread, Dayen revealed that Shalala’s Press Secretary had protested after the story went to press, claiming that there were “innocent explanations” for the trades. But two weeks later, she filed another periodic transaction report showing that, as her press person pushed back on Dayen’s reporting, she was dumping those shares. Neither plausible explanation for this series of events is particularly flattering; either she was willfully hanging on to those positions and only sold after being caught, or she can’t keep track of her financial positions (something that hardly inspires confidence in her ability to monitor bailout spending). Either way, it is clearer now than ever that she should have no place on the commission.
After observing Democratic leadership’s indifference to oversight over the past several months, is it really any wonder that Mnuchin thought he could get away with withholding the disclosure of Paycheck Protection Program recipients? As it turns out, Mnuchin was suffering from a bit of overconfidence -- members of both parties balked at his reversal prompting Mnuchin to agree to “bipartisan discussions” on disclosure practices. But it remains the case that Democrats would be much better positioned for these discussions if they had signalled any willingness to take on the administration heretofore.
For all of these complaints, we would be remiss not to note that within the House Democratic caucus some are making a valiant effort to deliver oversight. Last week, for example, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on police brutality (see some of our suggestions for further hearings in that vein here). Others, like Katie Porter, are pushing ahead alone and seem to be everywhere these days. Whatever wins these efforts score, however, only serve to underline how much more could be accomplished with the full weight of the caucus backing them up.
Independent Agencies
The ongoing crisis at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) was the feature of a 60 Minutes story over the weekend - an unusually high-profile spot for this regularly overlooked agency. The MSPB has been without a quorum for over three years and without any members since March of 2019, grinding its important work to a halt. What is that work? The MSPB hears and decides on appeals for civil servants who have been disciplined, demoted, or fired (many of whom are whistleblowers). With the Trump administration openly retaliating against all those who question or threaten the official line, this little agency’s job is more important than ever.
As we speak, however, there are 2900 pending cases awaiting board members’ review. Even after members are confirmed, it is likely to be years before they can dig out from that backlog. For the thousands of civil servants awaiting decisions, that means years of their lives put on hold. Surely, this is a deterrent to civil servants who are considering coming forward with complaints even as we all need their insights now more than ever.
Trump and McConnell are, of course, primarily responsible for this state of affairs, but this does not mean that Democrats have been powerless to act. They could have, for example, drawn attention to these vacancies via hearings or secured commitments to confirm nominees in exchange for votes on must-pass legislation. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts to elevate this problem via the Agency Spotlight and regular updates on the deteriorating state of independent agencies, Democrats have made clear that these positions are simply not a priority.
2020 (and Potentially 2021)
As the Biden campaign slowly begins to share details about the Veepstakes, other aspects of its apparatus remain cloaked in mystery. Although periodic leaks have provided clues, the composition of Biden’s full economic advisory team remains couched in secrecy. This lack of transparency is troubling, especially as we once again face down a severe, and likely sustained, economic crisis.
It is clear that Biden is getting competing advice from this collection of experts. Following the primary’s end and the onset of the pandemic, Biden has struck a notably Rooseveltian tone out of step with his more muted primary season persona. But, at other times, he has reverted to old patterns of triangulation.
Take, for example, this op-ed he penned in USA Today last week in response to widespread protests against police brutality. The solutions proposed can be described more as tinkering than as structural changes. For one, in the face of calls to “defund the police,” Biden offered to increase federal funding for police departments (no one expected Biden to embrace this call, but he probably could have handled these demands with more tact). He also proposed expanding tax credits for small businesses and commended House leaders for introducing the Justice in Policing Act, which takes steps like banning chokeholds, improving training and mandating data collection on use of force violations.
That last one is particularly notable because a similar provision has been on the books but unenforced since 1994. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act required the attorney general to “acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers” and to “publish an annual summary of the data acquired.” Attorneys general in successive administrations, unsurprisingly, anticipated significant resistance when they sought this data. So they gave up. Obama’s final Attorney General Loretta Lynch declared, shamefully, “One of the things we are focusing on at the Department of Justice is not trying to reach down from Washington and dictate to every local department how they should handle the minutiae of record keeping.”
This example makes clear that Biden’s particular positions on questions of police reform likely matter less than his resolve to take on police departments. Any new legislation, no matter how good, will likely not be successful without an administration that is committed to seeing it enforced and executed, no matter the political headwinds. Biden should have used his op-ed to vow to commit to appointing an Attorney General who will actually enforce laws that rein in police brutality specifically and systemic racism more generally. Biden would likely do better to emphasize that commitment in this moment.
For ideas about what Biden should be looking for in other Cabinet Secretaries, not just the Attorney General, check out Data For Progress’ Progressive Cabinet Project, featuring input from the project’s Jeff Hauser.