Blog No. 278. Inauguration and the First Days of the Biden Administration

In “Blog No. 277. Baghdad on the Potomac: Trump’s Legacy and America’s Disgrace,” I conveyed a gloomy picture of the Capitol on the eve of the inauguration. While that assessment was accurate, I failed to anticipate the restorative sense that the inauguration ceremony would provide and the immediate energy the Biden team would bring to addressing the immense tasks before them. Those tasks remain daunting, but we can at least look forward to the simple pleasure of being governed by officials with experience, ability and empathy.

The Inauguration

The inauguration was a triumph. I have watched many inaugurations, but with the exception of JFK’s, I remember none of them vividly. (When Kennedy was inaugurated, I was living in Washington and, while I only watched the ceremony on television, I felt as though I were right there. Those were exciting days in Washington, and I shared the bitter and snowy weather in which Kennedy spoke.) In any case, I am fairly sure that no previous inauguration moved me to tears as this one did.

Visually, the Biden inauguration was done skillfully and beautifully. The massive security presence was kept almost entirely out of sight and no one watching the ceremony would have known that it was taking place in a Baghdad on the Potomac. Substantively, Biden’s address seemed to me to strike all the right notes. If not larded with eloquent turns of phrase, it was clear, direct and spoken from the heart. While Biden made a passionate plea for unity, he did not ignore the ugliness that we have witnessed over too long a period. It was a solid foundation for the new beginning that he and we are hoping for.

The First Days

In the early days of his administration, Biden has operated with boldness and clarity. He has surely rebutted the qualms of those who sniped at his energy and cognitive capacity. At the same time, while some of his actions and proposals will seem progressive to some, there has been nothing to suggest that he is a closet socialist or a puppet of the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren (let alone AOC) wing of the Democratic Party. Which is not to deny that there are things to question or disagree with. On the whole, though, it is hard to imagine a stronger start.

Appointments. Biden promised a cabinet that looked more like America, and he has fulfilled that promise without a sacrifice in quality. Indeed, the talent or experience of the Biden team compares favorably with any cabinet in recent memory. (Of course talent and experience aren’t everything. I recall being well impressed with the cabinet of George W. Bush, and look where that got us.) I was particularly pleased with the selection of Janet Yellen for Treasury and Merrick Garland for Attorney General. Yellen had a fine record as Chair of the Federal Reserve and Garland is the highly respected circuit judge whose nomination to the Supreme Court by President Obama should have been confirmed. Appointment of Pete Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation seemed an excellent deployment of his conspicuous energy and intellect.

The appointment process has been somewhat fraught with tension, but Biden has maintained a generally centrist course. One example of the appointment dynamics was reported in Monday’s New York Times. Biden is reported appointing Michael Barr, a former Treasury official in the Obama administration, to the position of Comptroller of the Currency, an important regulator of banks. While Barr has wide support, progressives urge the selection of Mehrsa Baradaran, who has written extensively about “how banks treat Black people and the poor.” Progressives are said to be “seething,” and one prominent supporter of Ms. Baradaran has threatened a hunger strike if Barr is appointed.

One appointment I might question is Neera Tanden for Director of OMB. Ms. Tanden heads the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy group, and she has a reputation as a fiercely partisan warrior. In the Obama administration she was one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, but she does not have any experience that would seem to make her particularly well-suited for OMB. Her confirmation will not come easily.

Pandemic Team. In order to combat the pandemic, Biden has assembled a virtual All Star team. The most familiar figure is that of Anthony Fauci, who was named Biden’s chief medical adviser. Appearing with Rachel Maddow on Friday, Fauci seemed positively giddy to be working in an environment where science is respected and candor is expected.

Other key players include Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human services; Jeff Zients, overall coordinator of the Covid-19 response; Dr. David Kessler, chief medical officer for vaccine development, production and distribution; Dr. Vivek Murthy, surgeon general; Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One caution was offered by Irwin Redlener, a Columbia University professor and pandemic-response expert. Dr. Redlener observed that highly competent individuals have been chosen for each position, but we have not yet seen how the various responsibilities of the Covid-19 task force and existing agency positions will fit together.

Foreign Policy and National Security Team. Biden’s foreign policy and national security selections appear quite sound. They seem well suited for the task returning America to a position of world leadership, respected by allies and adversaries alike: Antony Blinken, Secretary of State; Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security; Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence; William Burns, Director of the CIA; Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor. In addition to those appointments, the decision to retain Christopher Wray as Director of the FBI is to be applauded. Wray did a skillful job of protecting the integrity of his agency from assaults by Trump and his henchmen.

If I were in a position to advise Biden, I would urge him to consider recruiting Fiona Hill for a senior position. Hill is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution who served as the Senior Director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council Affairs under Trump. She gave compelling testimony in the House’s impeachment inquiry. and is highly respected in her field.

Press Secretary. Possibly my favorite appointment has been Jen Psaki as Press Secretary. In only a few days, Ms. Psaki has proved to be well-informed, articulate, candid and astonishingly likeable. If she can sustain those qualities when Biden and the administration come under heavy fire, as they inevitably will at some point, she will set a new standard for press secretaries.

Executive Orders. Biden has issued a blizzard of executive orders. By Friday, Biden had issued at least 29 executive orders. In contrast, then-President Barack Obama issued five and Mr. Trump issued one in their first three days in office. In other actions, the United State rejoined the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization. A comprehensive and helpful list of of Biden’s executive actions through Friday was compiled by CNN.

Some Republicans have complained that Biden’s swift use of executive orders and other actions belied his call for unity and bipartisan cooperation. Their objections have little merit. For the most part, their criticism has been generalized, rather than focused on specific actions. No president had made more use of executive action than Donald Trump, and Biden had no reason to seek Congressional approval for beginning to repair the damage Trump wrought. Biden’s orders included canceling a plan to limit the census only to citizens, reversing Trump’s travel ban, halting construction of the border wall (which used emergency funding never authorized by Congress), undoing Trump’s ban on diversity training (that had been struck down by courts), and reversing Trump’s ban on transgender troops in the military. None of Biden’s orders appear to stretch the limits of executive authority as several of Trump’s did: for example the travel ban from majority-Muslim countries, suspending the payroll tax during the pandemic, and diverting emergency funds to construct the border wall.

I have made no attempt to review all of Biden’s executive actions, but on their face there are many that are clearly warranted (rejoining the Paris Accord and the WHO) and none that seem clearly objectionable. Canceling the Keystone Pipeline is debatable and, given the impact on the Canadian economy, it should preferably have followed consultation with the Canadian government. In any case, the real test of Biden’s quest for unity will come with the Congressional consideration of Biden’s legislative proposals.

Legislative Proposals. Biden has made two major legislative proposals, one involving Covid relief and the other immigration. Of these, the Covid relief package is far more urgent, but its consideration may be complicated, and perhaps delayed, by the pending impeachment of Donald Trump. Fortunately, commencement of the impeachment trial has been postponed until February 8. This creates at least a brief window for work on legislation as well as, one hopes, confirmation of Biden nominees.

Covid Relief Proposal. The components of Biden’s proposal were summarized by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:

• Provide $1,400 per person “Recovery Rebates” on top of the $600 already issued $465 billion
• Provide aid to state and local governments $350 billion
• Increase Unemployment Insurance supplement to $400/week and extend emergency UI provisions through September $350 billion
• Provide funding for a national vaccination program, testing, and other COVID containment efforts $160 billion
• Fund school reopening and increase funding to schools and colleges $170 billion
• Expand the Child Tax Credit to a refundable $3,000 per child, $3,600 for children under 6 (assuming one year) $120 billion
• Provide rental and small landlord support $30 billion
• Provide support to childcare providers $25 billion
• Other policy changes $200 billion
• Total Reported Cost $1.9 trillion

The $160 billion of funding proposed for directly combating Covid-19 is clearly needed and is likely to receive broad bipartisan support, as will the $170 billion for funding colleges and schools. Other provisions addressing the economic effects of the pandemic will receive close scrutiny and perhaps reduction or even elimination. Republicans will strongly resist the proposed $350 billion for aid to state and local governments. They have previously argued that it will go to governments that were fiscally irresponsible prior to the pandemic or that do not need the aid. Perhaps, such aid can be narrowed to focus it where the need is clear and the financial impact of the pandemic is demonstrated.

The largest single item is the $465 billion targeted for $1,400 stimulus payments in addition to the $600 payments previously authorized. Ironically, a total stimulus of $2,000 may be the only matter that Trump and Biden agreed on, other than Trump’s decision not to attend the inauguration. While they were both right about the inauguration, they were wrong on this issue. As some observers, both liberal and conservative, have pointed out, the payment are not tied to loss resulting from the pandemic or to any demonstrated hardship. Hence much of the funding will go to individuals and families who do not need it. Although payments are phased out according to income, the phase outs begin at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples and thereafter are gradual; the result is that an estimated 94 percent of households will receive payments, and substantial payments will go to high earners with several dependents.

In the Senate, Republican criticism of the stimulus payments has come from Senators Mitch McConnell and Pat Toomey among others; Democratic critics on Capitol Hill, are hard to find but detailed and cogent critiques have been offered by observers such as former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Catherine Rampell, a liberal columnist in the Washington Post. As Summers wrote in December:

There is no good economic argument for the $2,000 checks, a policy that was not even on the table until the president’s random pronouncement last week. The Democrats seizing this opportunity to pit the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell against each other is fair and good politics — but if it leads to actual implementation, it is bad economics.

Given the broad support for $2,000 payments in the Democratic Party, it is not surprising that they found their way into Biden’s package. I hope however, that they will be significantly limited, if not eliminated, in the bill that emerges from Congress. Setting aside concerns over the burgeoning deficit and fiscal responsibility, the funds could be better applied to increasing unemployment benefits or subsidizing housing costs to reduce evictions and foreclosures.

Immigration Reform. In addition to Covid Relief, Biden made a major legislative proposal in the U.S Citizenship Act of 2021. While the text of the proposed bill has not yet been released, the White House has put out a fact sheet summarizing it. The priority Biden has given to immigration reform is questionable. Immigration reform involves a bundle of exceptionally thorny issue that have escaped legislative consensus for many years.

In 2013, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that, among many other things, established a path to citizenship for “aliens unlawfully in the United States.” The bill was drafted by a bipartisan “gang of eight” (Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake and Democrats Michael Bennet, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer). Although the bill passed the Senate by a wide margin, it failed in the House, a victim of opposition by the Tea Party Caucus who assailed it as providing “amnesty.” Since then, and particularly under the sway of Donald Trump, attitudes among Capitol Hill Republicans toward immigrants have hardly become more welcoming.

One element of the Biden proposal that Congress might approve is relief for the Dreamers, who have been protected under an executive order by President Obama. The Dreamers are, broadly speaking, undocumented aliens who, as minors, were brought to the United States by their parents. (The term Dreamers was derived from the DREAM Act, an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors). The Obama order has survived challenges in court and an attempt by the Trump administration to rescind it, but without Congressional action it remains constrained and vulnerable. The Dreamers have enjoyed wide backing from the public and even from many Congressional Republicans. The latter however have withheld their support for legislation protecting Dreamers by seeking to swap it for other changes they sought in the immigration laws.

Apart from protecting the Dreamers, prospects for the Biden proposal appear highly doubtful. There are many other provisions of the proposal of varying merit that are worthy of discussion, pro and con, but that will await another day.

And Now…

It is fair to say that the Biden administration is off to an impressive start. How matters develop from here, however, is impossible to predict. The many variables, including among others, the dynamics of the Trump impeachment (and how much mischief Trump and his base can then create), the rate of progress in controlling the pandemic, how soon and how well the economy will recover, how successful Biden is in forging relationships with Congressional Republicans and in retaining the support of progressives in the Democratic Party as he deflects their more extreme demands, and whether any of our foreign adversaries—China, Russia, Iran, North Korea—precipitate a major crisis. Moreover, as Donald Rumsfeld once put it, those are only the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns could be even more problematic. And before we know it, the Congressional elections of 2022 will be upon us.