Hello Matt! Welcome back to blogging, I'm really enjoying it. While my instinct is to stay away from comments sections-as generating great heat with little light-I'll give it a shot here in light of your appeal for comments.
The cabinet position most on my mind is AG. Reason is like many Democrats on Twitter I feel strongly that the crimes and abuse of Trump and his GOP co-conspirators should be fully investigated and if called for, prosecuted. But an NBC News article this week really worried many of us as it seems to show Joe has no interest in any investigations as it's 'too divisive.'
Seems this is the mistake Democrats always make-thinking there will be 'unity' without accountability. Anyway any thoughts you might have on what signals we could see on AG or from advisers regarding this-or any thoughts you have on if there will be any such investigations-would be appreciated.
I don't know if Joe and his team get it but many Dem voters are not going to drop this and will be bitterly disappointed if this is yet another whitewash-why should the GOP stop it's anti democratic behavior if there's never any price to pay?
Why do people believe the GA races are still winnable?
Biden outperformed the D party and got Rs to split the ticket yet the D candidates still failed to win and without the motivation of anti-Trump to boost turnout the Ds are going to get a lower vote share in a red state.
Perdue almost won outright and I don't see how he gets beaten in the runoff.
Warnock did better but still only got 33% against the weaker of the two Rs.
I'm genuinely curious if anyone has an argument that isn't just wishful thinking and blind faith in Stacey Abrams to work miracles with voter registration? Serious question.
I donated to Warnock (believed the polls that he could win!) but as far as I can see he lost and I'd be throwing good money after bad to give him more.
Potentially, republican turnout will be lower without Trump on the ticket. Also, there is some chance that the claims the Republicans are making about the election having been "rigged" will make their voters less likely to vote, if their voters think voting doesn't matter.
Any chance one of the progressive favs like a Warren taking a job in the White House in an advisory capacity? Warren to me has always seemed the type who cared more for accomplishing things than having the right title.
It would be great to hear more about what happens if no cabinet secretary is confirmed -- what tools, if any, does the President have to direct that agency still? What can the agency no longer do? Etc.
In general, I'd also just say that having relatively progressive people at the top of these agencies makes a big difference to local and state advocacy efforts, over and above rule-making and policy. If you've got a friendly ear at HUD, your Fair Housing complaint on exclusionary zoning is much more likely to at least trigger some investigation. Or a police department running roughshod over protestors or shooting unarmed black men and women might face DOJ scrutiny. Or environmental complaints that get filed with the EPA against highway expansions might see a real exploration of the environmental impact. Etc, etc, etc.
In places with lax state regs (like Texas, where I'm at), the feds are the main game in town for getting outside scrutiny on shady stuff. Not that the Obama administration took up even half of what got put out there, but it's a much more credible threat under Biden than it ever was under Trump.
What happens at the CFPB? I haven't seen much speculation. Trump proved you can fire the CFPB director, right? That's going to be a place that could have a big effect on people's lives. Everything from payday lending to bank fees to debt collection.
Matt, thanks for covering this! Large part of why I subscribed.
My hot take, if the senate is at loggerheads, just let the civil service run things for a while. The authority exists to rotate in acting civil servants of GS-15 or SES. If there isn't law being passed through the legislature we might benefit from neutral implementation of existing law. After years of political interference and bending EOs to their breaking point it might be interesting.
How much use does donating to Ossoff/Warnock actually have? All the donating done to Senate candidates in the general election don't seem to have gotten us very far.
"But there is something we can do in response to that, and it has to do with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345. Under 5 U.S.C. § 3345 the President can appoint an acting official; we’ve seen Donald Trump do this."
"They created a brand-new position at the Department of Homeland Security called the “Principal Deputy Director. Then they appointed Ken Cuccinelli to that position, then immediately transferred him to make him the Acting Director, but the problem was he wasn’t there for 90 days and he’d never been confirmed by the Senate. I’m 100% serious about this, they would have gotten away with it if they had just waited three months."
I did find this piece from Slate to be informative about how Joe Biden could play a little hardball of his own in staffing his cabinet, although I would be interested if there are any clear holes to it.
Especially with Dems in control of the House, the ability to recess appoint does seem pretty airtight to me.
"The recess appointment clause, meanwhile, allows presidents to install “acting” officials while the Senate is in adjournment for at least 10 days. It too has been used regularly in the recent past: George W. Bush made 179 recess appointments, 99 of which were to full-time positions. Moreover, Biden can force the Senate into recess if McConnell attempts any blockade of his Cabinet. Under the Constitution’s presidential adjournment clause, if the Senate and House cannot agree on whether or not to adjourn, the president can adjourn Congress “for such time as he shall think proper.” With an allied speaker of the House, Biden can instigate an adjournment standoff, resolve it, and make his appointments in the interim."
My big worry is while-as you say-I think there are tools available-certainly Trump has proved you can just bypass the confirmation process altogether-Joe already seems very reluctant to play any kind of hardball. TBH I sort of wish he was just a hypocrite on all this 'unity' stuff. It's going to be pretty hard to unify with a GOP party denying he even won the election
If you want to help Ossoff and Warnock, volunteering to write letters to people who are qualified to vote, but might not, seems more useful than donating money: https://votefwd.org/
Phonebanking, and if you're local, door-to-door canvassing, will also matter. The campaigns have "I want to volunteer" signup forms on their websites. There is some speculation that Dems' reluctance to do door-to-door canvassing in the pandemic may have contributed to losing some marginal races, especially in the House. And really, as long as you wear your mask and you stay well back from the door after knocking/ringing, it seems relatively safe.
So cabinet members aren't super important but Republicans will spend all their energy in blocking appointments? Seems like Biden would play hard ball and not nominate Treasure/Defense, etc. until he gets his other nominees confirmed.
in concept, agreed. if biden tried that, however, something tells me that repubs would enjoy bringing the mid aughts yellow ribbons back and saying biden doesn't support the troops.
I agree that Cabinet secretaries tend to play lesser roles in setting policy (and they're constrained in other ways as this post details). However, attention needs to be paid to the role of departments -- including their leadership up to the Secretary level -- in implementing policy. The White House staff obviously doesn't do that, so successful policy depends on what the departments do. And I argue that department leadership can play a big role here.
Whatever Kathleen Sibelius's personal role in the rollout of Healthcare.gov was, the failure happened under her leadership and so it was her responsibility. She justifiably lost her job as a result of that. Trump can order the withdrawal of forces from Syria, but as we just found out, if DoD's leadership doesn't want to do that, they have ways of "implementing" that policy to their satisfaction.
I think what you want in your Cabinet are people who first agree with the President's policies but, more importantly, are excellent managers who can get the job done.
Hello Matt! Welcome back to blogging, I'm really enjoying it. While my instinct is to stay away from comments sections-as generating great heat with little light-I'll give it a shot here in light of your appeal for comments.
The cabinet position most on my mind is AG. Reason is like many Democrats on Twitter I feel strongly that the crimes and abuse of Trump and his GOP co-conspirators should be fully investigated and if called for, prosecuted. But an NBC News article this week really worried many of us as it seems to show Joe has no interest in any investigations as it's 'too divisive.'
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/president-elect-biden-wary-trump-focused-investigations-sources-say-n1247959?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
Seems this is the mistake Democrats always make-thinking there will be 'unity' without accountability. Anyway any thoughts you might have on what signals we could see on AG or from advisers regarding this-or any thoughts you have on if there will be any such investigations-would be appreciated.
I don't know if Joe and his team get it but many Dem voters are not going to drop this and will be bitterly disappointed if this is yet another whitewash-why should the GOP stop it's anti democratic behavior if there's never any price to pay?
Matt, how do you feel about copying/pasting the content with a link?
I want to help you get your writing out there as widely as possible but without infringing on your intellectual property rights.
Why do people believe the GA races are still winnable?
Biden outperformed the D party and got Rs to split the ticket yet the D candidates still failed to win and without the motivation of anti-Trump to boost turnout the Ds are going to get a lower vote share in a red state.
Perdue almost won outright and I don't see how he gets beaten in the runoff.
Warnock did better but still only got 33% against the weaker of the two Rs.
I'm genuinely curious if anyone has an argument that isn't just wishful thinking and blind faith in Stacey Abrams to work miracles with voter registration? Serious question.
I donated to Warnock (believed the polls that he could win!) but as far as I can see he lost and I'd be throwing good money after bad to give him more.
Potentially, republican turnout will be lower without Trump on the ticket. Also, there is some chance that the claims the Republicans are making about the election having been "rigged" will make their voters less likely to vote, if their voters think voting doesn't matter.
Any chance one of the progressive favs like a Warren taking a job in the White House in an advisory capacity? Warren to me has always seemed the type who cared more for accomplishing things than having the right title.
Loved that you shared one of these long form SB posts with the free userbase. It encouraged me to pull the trigger and get the full subscription.
It would be great to hear more about what happens if no cabinet secretary is confirmed -- what tools, if any, does the President have to direct that agency still? What can the agency no longer do? Etc.
In general, I'd also just say that having relatively progressive people at the top of these agencies makes a big difference to local and state advocacy efforts, over and above rule-making and policy. If you've got a friendly ear at HUD, your Fair Housing complaint on exclusionary zoning is much more likely to at least trigger some investigation. Or a police department running roughshod over protestors or shooting unarmed black men and women might face DOJ scrutiny. Or environmental complaints that get filed with the EPA against highway expansions might see a real exploration of the environmental impact. Etc, etc, etc.
In places with lax state regs (like Texas, where I'm at), the feds are the main game in town for getting outside scrutiny on shady stuff. Not that the Obama administration took up even half of what got put out there, but it's a much more credible threat under Biden than it ever was under Trump.
What happens at the CFPB? I haven't seen much speculation. Trump proved you can fire the CFPB director, right? That's going to be a place that could have a big effect on people's lives. Everything from payday lending to bank fees to debt collection.
Matt, thanks for covering this! Large part of why I subscribed.
My hot take, if the senate is at loggerheads, just let the civil service run things for a while. The authority exists to rotate in acting civil servants of GS-15 or SES. If there isn't law being passed through the legislature we might benefit from neutral implementation of existing law. After years of political interference and bending EOs to their breaking point it might be interesting.
How much use does donating to Ossoff/Warnock actually have? All the donating done to Senate candidates in the general election don't seem to have gotten us very far.
It may be some small silver lining that it's pretty hard to influence an election with out-of-state donations.
Opening Arguments had an episode about what cabinet appointments may look like if Democrats do not control the Senate (https://openargs.com/transcript-of-oa437-how-to-play-hardball-if-we-dont-win-the-senate/)
"But there is something we can do in response to that, and it has to do with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345. Under 5 U.S.C. § 3345 the President can appoint an acting official; we’ve seen Donald Trump do this."
"They created a brand-new position at the Department of Homeland Security called the “Principal Deputy Director. Then they appointed Ken Cuccinelli to that position, then immediately transferred him to make him the Acting Director, but the problem was he wasn’t there for 90 days and he’d never been confirmed by the Senate. I’m 100% serious about this, they would have gotten away with it if they had just waited three months."
I did find this piece from Slate to be informative about how Joe Biden could play a little hardball of his own in staffing his cabinet, although I would be interested if there are any clear holes to it.
Especially with Dems in control of the House, the ability to recess appoint does seem pretty airtight to me.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/mitch-mcconnell-cannot-veto-joe-biden-cabinet.html
To quote:
"The recess appointment clause, meanwhile, allows presidents to install “acting” officials while the Senate is in adjournment for at least 10 days. It too has been used regularly in the recent past: George W. Bush made 179 recess appointments, 99 of which were to full-time positions. Moreover, Biden can force the Senate into recess if McConnell attempts any blockade of his Cabinet. Under the Constitution’s presidential adjournment clause, if the Senate and House cannot agree on whether or not to adjourn, the president can adjourn Congress “for such time as he shall think proper.” With an allied speaker of the House, Biden can instigate an adjournment standoff, resolve it, and make his appointments in the interim."
My big worry is while-as you say-I think there are tools available-certainly Trump has proved you can just bypass the confirmation process altogether-Joe already seems very reluctant to play any kind of hardball. TBH I sort of wish he was just a hypocrite on all this 'unity' stuff. It's going to be pretty hard to unify with a GOP party denying he even won the election
If you want to help Ossoff and Warnock, volunteering to write letters to people who are qualified to vote, but might not, seems more useful than donating money: https://votefwd.org/
Phonebanking, and if you're local, door-to-door canvassing, will also matter. The campaigns have "I want to volunteer" signup forms on their websites. There is some speculation that Dems' reluctance to do door-to-door canvassing in the pandemic may have contributed to losing some marginal races, especially in the House. And really, as long as you wear your mask and you stay well back from the door after knocking/ringing, it seems relatively safe.
The letter writing is a great idea. And yes if you’re local may as well try canvassing.
Regarding OIRA, the Prospect had an article worrying that the tech monopolists might be burrowing in people there who would push back against efforts to regulate them: https://prospect.org/economy/bidens-first-appointees-are-a-mixed-bag/
So cabinet members aren't super important but Republicans will spend all their energy in blocking appointments? Seems like Biden would play hard ball and not nominate Treasure/Defense, etc. until he gets his other nominees confirmed.
in concept, agreed. if biden tried that, however, something tells me that repubs would enjoy bringing the mid aughts yellow ribbons back and saying biden doesn't support the troops.
I agree that Cabinet secretaries tend to play lesser roles in setting policy (and they're constrained in other ways as this post details). However, attention needs to be paid to the role of departments -- including their leadership up to the Secretary level -- in implementing policy. The White House staff obviously doesn't do that, so successful policy depends on what the departments do. And I argue that department leadership can play a big role here.
Whatever Kathleen Sibelius's personal role in the rollout of Healthcare.gov was, the failure happened under her leadership and so it was her responsibility. She justifiably lost her job as a result of that. Trump can order the withdrawal of forces from Syria, but as we just found out, if DoD's leadership doesn't want to do that, they have ways of "implementing" that policy to their satisfaction.
I think what you want in your Cabinet are people who first agree with the President's policies but, more importantly, are excellent managers who can get the job done.