The Second 50 Days (And Beyond)
Today marks the halfway period through President Biden's first 100 days. He set a lot of goals for himself during this period, and while no president completes his entire list, Biden certainly seems to be making a lot of progress (the AP ran a handy scorecard today, so you can check the general status of individual promises). Biden's list, to his credit, is a lot wider and deeper than most such lists of presidential campaign promises -- but then again, he had a lot to do to immediately overturn the worst of Donald Trump's disasters and wreckage, both here at home and in the rest of the world as well. Today was a particularly productive day for Biden, because the House just passed his first signature piece of legislation, the American Rescue Plan Act. Biden will sign it by the end of the week, and the breadth of even just this first Biden achievement is truly striking. Not to mention how popular it is with the public, already.
So what will be center stage for Biden's second act? That's the question many are now wondering. Biden did (by all accounts) focus like the proverbial laser on getting the pandemic relief bill through Congress, but not to the exclusion of all else. His appointees are moving through the Senate, and today he got three more cabinet members confirmed, including Merrick Garland as the new attorney general. With more and more of his cabinet in place, moving forward on multiple fronts is going to get a lot easier for Biden.
Biden has taken some flack for postponing several traditional presidential "firsts" until after the pandemic bill passed, but he was probably smart to do so. He'll make his first primetime Oval Office address tomorrow night, and then he'll quickly follow that up with his first full news conference and his first speech to a joint session of Congress. Because he waited on all of these until he had achieved something big, he can now prominently feature the American Rescue Plan in them. Tomorrow night will be his first victory lap, but it won't be his last, to put this another way. But even tomorrow, Biden is expected to begin talking about what will come next (as it relates to the pandemic, at any rate). By the time he gets to the speech to Congress, he'll likely have his laundry list fully ready.
In the both the latter two events, Biden can be expected to give a more in-depth look at what is next on his agenda. Nancy Pelosi's House is already doing a great job of passing good legislation on all sorts of issues, but the Senate was always going to be the tough part for almost all of these.
This is why the current betting is that Biden will next attempt to move on a bill that will gain some genuine bipartisan support. There are two strong candidates for such a bill, on China trade policy and on infrastructure. While infrastructure might seem to be the easier lift (since everyone in Congress loves bringing home the bacon to their home districts or states), the overall price tag of such a bill may prove to be a bigger point of contention than Democrats now expect. They're currently calling for a $3 trillion measure, but it's tough to see how 10 Republicans are going to get on board with that amount of money. Maybe Biden will accept a smaller bill in exchange for true bipartisanship, and maybe he won't -- that remains to be seen. Also remaining to be seen is whether Republicans will actually bargain in good faith in the negotiations -- meaning the real test isn't going to be what they agree to behind closed doors, but how they actually vote. An infrastructure bill would be another huge political victory for a new Democratic president, which means the party pressure on GOP senators to deny him this victory is likely going to be immense.
The China bill may even be a better candidate, as the Washington Post points out today. China is a rare issue (these days) because support for trade measures is not really a purely partisan issue. There are some Democrats both opposing and supporting such measures, and the same is true on the Republican side. The question will be whether Biden and Chuck Schumer can put together enough supportive votes to defeat the inevitable filibuster.
If Biden manages to get either one of these measures signed into law, it will probably strengthen his resolve to attempt more such bipartisanship. If, however, both fail, it will likely force Biden to evolve a bit quicker on the question of reforming or abolishing the Senate's outdated legislative filibuster. Because no matter the ultimate fate of a China trade bill or a large infrastructure bill, the next steps may prove to be impossible with the rules currently in place.
As I said, Nancy Pelosi is lining up all kinds of progressive ideas, with many more to come in the next few weeks. Bills on immigration, taxes, Unions, a minimum wage increase, police reform, criminal justice reform, gun control, boosting L.G.B.T.Q. rights, fighting climate change, statehood for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, voting rights and election reform -- along with all the rest of the progressive agenda will all soon land on Chuck Schumer's plate. And what happens next will be interesting.
Few of these measures are expected to get any Republican support, let alone the 10 votes necessary to move a bill forward. This means that Biden will have to make a choice between making actual progress on these things or merely holding show votes to use against Republicans in the midterm elections -- without getting anything actually accomplished. Is Biden truly going to be a historic and transformative president, or is he going to have to settle only for what he can manage to pass through budget reconciliation?
Since Joe Manchin (and to a lesser extent, Kyrsten Sinema) have essentially taken the "nuke the whole legislative filibuster in one fell swoop" option off the table, some Democrats have gotten creative in suggesting ways the filibuster could be reformed instead of just abolished. Manchin cracked the door a tiny bit open to such changes this past weekend, but he's being awfully vague about what he could eventually support along these lines. He's enjoying being the kingmaker too much to give away his position early, to put it bluntly. But at least he's open to some sort of reform, for now.
This showdown probably won't happen for at least a few months, though -- which may put it outside of Biden's first 100 days. If Biden chooses to court Republicans on a few possibly-bipartisan bills, then that will take up a goodly amount of time (they may come to the bargaining table, but no one is predicting that the negotiations will be easy, to put this another way). After that's all over, Schumer is likely to schedule a few test votes on all those bills Pelosi has been sending him -- perhaps on the two big voting rights and election reform measures the House first sent him. This will offer solid proof that Republicans are in lockstep in their opposition and that negotiating with them on any of it is going to be a gigantic waste of time. Then and only then might Manchin be persuadable on some filibuster reform ideas.
So my prediction is that Biden's first 100 days are going to be seen as a huge success, but with plenty of unfinished business in Congress. Biden's doing all the right things with the power that is solely his (he's wearing out his signing hand issuing executive orders, in other words), but that power is still of a very limited nature. To accomplish the truly big things still left on his extensive agenda, he's going to need Congress. Which means he's going to need things to pass the Senate. Which is almost certainly going to require filibuster reforms of some type or another. But this historic showdown will likely arrive just after Biden's first 100 days, so it won't mar his initial record. That's my best guess at reading the tea leaves at the halfway mark, at any rate.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
This is why the current betting is that Biden will next attempt to move on a bill that will gain some genuine bipartisan support.
I've always been critical of Obama bending over backwards/negotiating against himself in a vain attempt to be "bi-partisan." In fact, I believe that he did so to enhance his chances of reelection. This worked for Obama but not for the bulk of America. In fact, Progressive disappointment likely depressed Obama's poll numbers.
Joe was there and appears to have learned that lesson. I think Joe is going to continue to at least feign resistance to dumping the filibuster, whilst maneuvering the Repugs into increasingly untenable political territory.
Then he can throw up his hands and say, I tried and tried to work with the Republicans but they keep obstructing The People's Business, so I have no choice regarding the filibuster.
Is Biden truly going to be a historic and transformative president, or is he going to have to settle only for what he can manage to pass through budget reconciliation?
Yeppers, that's the $64,000 question.
To accomplish the truly big things still left on his extensive agenda, he's going to need Congress. Which means he's going to need things to pass the Senate. Which is almost certainly going to require filibuster reforms of some type or another.
I think the courting of both Manchin and Sinema in re the filibuster is a process designed to give them political cover in their red and purple states, respectively. They can "hold out to the bitter end" and thence "give in" when Repug obstructionism is more glaringly obvious.
FPC
Before I forget, I think your Here to Help was very incisive, one of my favorite columns of yours.
Oh, and to the Manchins among us (I'm talking to YOU, Elizabeth) who won't dump the filibuster so as to "protect minority rights," the 50 Repug Senators represent 15 million fewer Americans than do the 50 Dems.
That's bleeping plenty of minority rights being represented.
I am surprised that this "100 days" thing is a marker for .. what? Who cares if a bill gets passed on Day 80 or Day 120? It smells a bit like a 'pundit tradition', whereby entire columns can be composed around a familiar, even hallowed, theme that means absolutely nothing.
I would like to see more thought on how many bills the Senate can consider at once, and which ones should be sacrificed to the cause of giving Manchin the cover to change his mind about the filibuster.
And will they be sacrificed? What I mean is, if a Senate bill is defeated on a floor vote or a filibuster drop-box full of 'no' emails from the minority party, can it be brought back for a second go-round after the majority party changes the rules on what constitutes a filibuster?
I like the proposed reform whereby a filibusterer has not only to speak continuously, but must speak on topic or be ruled out of order by the chair. That is, none of this 'reading the phone book' nonsense that reporters are already trying to revive from the earlier era of civil rights filibusters. It has to be about the bill in question, and it has to be non-repetitive, and it has to be continuous with no bathroom breaks. If the senator has something to say to the senate, he may say it for as long as he needs, but the courtesy will only extend so far and then cloture will be invoked and the bill will come to a vote.
Hey, I like having the soapbox all to myself. But Weigantia is an "audience participation" thang. Where are all you East Coast people?
Caddy,
You are speaking for me! I love that I'm not the only Biden fan around here anymore.
And, for the record, I'm not a Manchin fan. Geez Louise!
I believe that Biden is changing the definition of 'bipartisan' to exclude Congress and go directly to the American people. If he can accomplish this, then he will have two terms to move America to the cutting edge.
@liz,
i don't think he called you a manchin fan, but a version of manchin himself.
JL
Well, you know, that's even worse!
Just as long as he continues to give me good advice on my imbending acid trips, it's all good ...
Impending ...
Sheeeeeeeeeeee-it.
Heh.
I'm about done for the evening ...
... over and out.
don't go off on an imbender without company!
Tell me about it!
I know it's early but I just heard Bill Gates talk about how to avoid a climate disaster.
He even sent me his book. Unsigned, of course. :(
microsoft is evil. bill gates is the devil. i can prove it, he taught me to play guitar...
... and this is me stone sober!
No disrespect, Elizabeth, I was just fishing for some response from you. And yes, this Fellow Traveler Progressive is day by day gaining respect for President* Biden.
*Now that Trump is no longer President we can go back to capitalizing "President."
To any and all giving thought to experimenting with cannabis or hallucinogens, I'll be there for you! Phone consultation will be available if and when you decide to check out the dark side of the Force.
As I've said before, these substances are way more cerebral than alcohol, and can be transformative when used properly.
Note to CW, I'm spreading the word, Left Coast style wink wink.
So...am I evil?
(sound of MtnCaddy, cracking himself up in Country-Cali)
nah, i doubt you've got the blues chops.
https://youtu.be/mYOz0XWs7Ps?t=57
[27]
Well...I ain't gonna comment on no deal I might have made with somebody that might have a "bifurcated tail"...
But you should hear me work that Bass Guitar!
A far more effective National Covid strategy is a "show vote?" Passing a massive American Relief Plan is likewise? Sanity in the Whitehouse after Trump?
C'mon, man! That is just as preposterous as, "It didn't matter (to 400,000 dead Americans) that it was Trump in office because they're all big money candidates."
Progressives voting against making progress just because the proposed legislation doesn't pass some imaginary litmus test is simply nonsense.
What would you have Biden do differently? I mean, besides resigning/killing himself so that we can have a One Demand-style re-election, right?
Reaganism has infected the body politic for 40 years now. "Big Money Bernie" moved the Overton Window enough that what's politically possible can now be achieved -- Hillary or any Repug wouldn't have gotten this far.
To quote a favorite troll phrase that you like to use,
Get real.
Get Credible.
Spouting foolishness like this completely kills your argument, just saying.
DH-29
“His job appear to try with without accomplishing much.”
That’s your job description! Pot....kettle black..
CW-
I hope you’re right about Biden’s prospects. The primary mission of the Republicans is to make Biden fail. Making it harder to vote is their target of opportunity.
#2 previous thread - C.R.S.
You are perhaps correct IF you were to expand the money supply just to give it away to folks, although I would argue that is not what is happening here. But if the free money to poor folks were paid for by taxes on rich folks the economy would expand and prosper. Heretofore the prospect of raising the tax rate on rich folks was next to zero but there is another way. This country looses 7 TRILLION Dollars in uncollected taxes, almost all of it from rich folks. For the past decade the IRS has had it's budget cut and this accelerated enormously under Trump, until now there is a three hour wait just to answer the phone. The agency has nowhere near enough staff to audit even a few of the complicated tax returns of the very rich. So the plutocrats can evade taxes with impunity knowing with certainty that they will never be audited. Mr. Trump only paid $750.00 in taxes I would wager everyone on this site paid a good deal more than that. The only returns being audited these days are the very simple returns of single parents claiming the EIC. Biden can raise enough money to fund all the free money programs in the world without the necessity of any legislation. No need to go to congress a raise the tax rate just hire enough auditors to claw back some of the money the plutocrats already owe the treasury. If we were to tax the rich and give it to the poor the economy would boom and the gross distortions in our lives would due to the extreme income inequality would begin to be ameliorated. So the message to Mr. Biden is simple: HIRE MORE AUDITORS!
SF Bear on [33]
I agree that the IRS should be reinforced and given support in recovering unpaid taxes. I doubt we will get enough to substantially fund an economic boom based on redistribution to the poorer sectors.
Most estimates of the 'tax gap' land between $300B and $400B a year, with a slight upward trend in recent years following the undermanning of the IRS. Some projections of a future loss over the next ten years thus max out at $5 Trillion ($500B x 10 yrs) - some more liberal economists project a radical upturn in avoidance and so land at the $7 Trillion number you cited. But that is an 'optimistic' projection, and it's over ten years, not one as you imply.
Finally, the idea of perfect tax collection is a fantasy, no matter how well the IRS might perform, so the $5T or $7T over the next decade certainly isn't just waiting to drop into a happy Democratic government's hands just by boosting the audit rate.
Real tax increases on actual wealth (not income) are the more likely way to fund a general reduction of the Inequality Gap that plagues our society increasingly since the 1980s. There is a constituency for that kind of radical thinking, on the Warren/Sanders wing of the Dems, but it's hard to say what kind of support it will get from the centrists, especially in the next two years of a nearly split Congress.