Senate Leaders Negotiate the Biden Presidency

Plus, the inauguration that could be held, I don’t know, with two people in a room.

by

It’s January 20, 2021 and welcome to First 100, a chronicle of a presidency yet to be foretold. We begin with…

The Chief

The focus today will be on the Capitol. Specifically, the outside of the Capitol, where Joseph R. Biden, Jr. will become the 46th President. But the outcome of that presidency, in very real terms, will be decided in an office inside the Capitol. And Biden won’t be involved in the discussion.

That discussion will take place between Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell, and it will set the rules for the Senate in the 117th Congress. By about 4:30pm today, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock will be seated as Senators (check out our great piece from Eli Day out today about how populism won in Georgia), and between them and Vice President Kamala Harris, Democrats will have the advantage in the chamber, and full control of Congress and the White House. But Schumer and McConnell have to decide how that 50-50 Senate will operate. And that’s where the future of the Biden presidency will be decided.

Schumer and McConnell have been negotiating a power-sharing agreement. It’s likely that it will run similar to 2001, when there was also a 50-50 Senate. You’ll see an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on committees, but Democrats, in control of the White House, will control the floor schedule. (Equal committees does not mean that legislation will endlessly get bottled up; you can send a bill that tied in committee to the Senate floor.) But McConnell is asking for something more.

Specifically, he wants Schumer to commit to maintaining the legislative filibuster. And so far, Schumer is resisting this, and rightly so. There’s no reason to make this commitment. First of all, the Senate is a continuing body, and the filibuster is in its rules until it isn’t. A new commitment doesn’t do anything. Second of all, it can’t possibly be binding. If Schumer wants to nuke the filibuster and he has the votes, he can just take the vote. And nobody in America will care, a belief I base on all of American history, when Senate procedure was not the stuff of deep import in the populace.

The third reason Schumer shouldn’t agree to maintain the legislative filibuster is that there shouldn’t be a legislative filibuster. Joe Biden released an immigration proposal today that includes a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people. It’s not worth talking about, because 10 Republican Senators are never going to vote for it. H.R. 1 and its Senate companion S.1, which would expand voting rights, ban dark money and gerrymandering, and create a public financing system, is also not worth talking about, because 10 Republican Senators are never going to vote for it. The majority of the Congress is willing to advance some version of these two bills, but the minority of Congress has a lock on their passage.

There’s always budget reconciliation, of course. But the first word of that phrase—“budget”—explains how limited such a procedure would be. In fact it has created the modern way of thinking about the legislative branch as mostly a taxing and spending authority, without the means to attend to anything else in the policy orbit. This narrows the focus of corporate lobbyists, and it orients Congress toward tax breaks and other odd kludges that can get through the process. (There’s also the Day One Agenda, which I wrote about today. But Biden seems lukewarm at best on using the power of the presidency to implement existing law to the fullest extent possible.)

It doesn’t befit a modern democracy. And it frustrates accountability, the idea that people get what they vote for. Joe Biden, of course, is a creature of the filibustered Senate, and he apparently still believes it’s 1973 and that the two parties can come together in bipartisan comity and work for the common good. I’m… skeptical. The best thing you can say is that Biden is putting this on as a show, to make clear to the public who is denying progress. But that’s not generally how he’s operated for 48 years in Washington. His belief in a past that wasn’t all that great, and grafting it onto a present that’s a political knife fight, will sow confusion and frustration.

The public has whipsawed back and forth between Democrats and Republicans because neither side has been able to produce material tangible benefits for them. Nuking the filibuster could establish the unique idea that America votes and then actually gets what they vote for, and can decide the success or failure of that agenda based on actual information.

While some people try to make this about Joe Biden, it’s really not. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and every another Democratic Senator who benefits from being the deciding vote are the issue. If Democrats kill the filibuster they would be more responsible for actually doing their job. They don’t really want the responsibility. They’re the ones who need to be persuaded, either with a lesser reform (like requiring 41 votes against rather than 60 votes for) or just torching the damn thing.

Either way, Mitch McConnell doesn’t really have a say in the matter. And he shouldn’t be given one. This is a stupid ploy to try to trap Democrats into a failed system, to go part of the way to kneecap a presidency. It should be rejected.

Why Are We Doing This Again?

The President-elect will take the oath of office today, in front of a sea of… well, National Guard troops. And yet the scene, from the camera vantage point, will have all the trappings of a normal inauguration: Biden taking the oath on a family Bible, giving an inaugural address, the military band playing, greetings and congratulations coming from members of Congress and other well-wishers. And the big question is: why?

Why is there going to be a public inaugural on the Capitol steps? I ask this not because of the security situation. Yes, the rehearsal of the inauguration was postponed a day due to threats, but the Federal District in D.C. is essentially an armed fortress right now, with not only National Guard and the Secret Service but actual Pentagon troops deployed on U.S. soil. Everyone’s on edge, hyping up stories about an evacuation that was actually due to a fire in a homeless encampment, or about the removal of a tiny number of Guard troops with ties to the far right. But in reality, D.C. is incredibly secure (I hope I don’t have to eat my words, but I’m pretty certain); in fact, too much so, as security measures like these, once put on, are rarely taken off. I’d be more worried about statehouses across the country.

That’s not the reason to cancel the public inauguration. The pandemic is the reason. D.C. is actually doing pretty good, relatively speaking. But 20 Capitol police have tested positive since the Capitol Riot, and several members of Congress. Dignitaries from across the political spectrum will be on or near the dais. I’m sure it will be very socially distanced and superficially safe. But there’s no reason to subject the leaders of the government, and more important all the workers and support staff, to potential exposure. For what? Some macho concept of not letting the (domestic) terrorists win? Some visual signal to the world? Since when does that outrank public health?

Biden has not taken the bait throughout his presidential campaign and transition, staying mostly confined to his basement and a theater in Wilmington, Delaware, conducting his duties virtually. The throng won’t mass on the mall (and maybe that’s only thanks to the Capitol attack?), but enough people will be in enough of a confined space, if only security personnel, to create needless danger, in the name of spectacle. It’s dumb.

See also Matt Cooper.

What Day of Biden’s Presidency Is It?

Day 1. That of course means it’s time for the Day One Agenda. I wrote a roundup of what executive actions Biden will take on Day One, but one came out a little later that’s worth noting. Biden is re-establishing the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, and directing it to issue an interim rule. This is something we specifically called for in the Day One Agenda in a piece by Steve Novick. In setting the social cost of carbon, it will be much easier to “justify the kind of dramatic regulatory action that’s necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change,” as Novick writes. So score one for the Day One Agenda!

Today I Learned

You can count on the Prospect, can we count on you?

There's no paywall here. Your donations power our newsroom as we report on ideas, politics and power — and what’s really at stake as we navigate another presidential election year. Please, become a member, or make a one-time donation, today. Thank you!