From generally slothful
congressional oversight to residual corporate capture, leading Democrats have
mostly disappointed in 2019
2019 was supposed to be
different. Democrats would
have “subpoena cannons.” Trump would face a serious countervailing
force.
2019 is not, however,
different. Instead, Nancy Pelosi continues to seek to “protect” the base from
its “misguided” belief that normal politics are inadequate to the moment. A
rightly frightened, angry populace has been demobilized because,
activists are told implicitly and
explicitly alike, that “Democrats have got this.”
What is the strategy of
Pelosi, Schumer, and their consultants? 18 more months of
passing decent center-left legislation in the House destined to get no vote in
the Senate, no attention from traditional media, and no penetration in social
media.
We focus on executive branch
personnel, and we’d like to see both Congress and candidates alike do the same.
So as we turn more to the presidential race in the coming months, we will be
examining to what extent various presidential candidates promulgate an
appropriately urgent and reformist-minded agenda or, instead, fall into a
Pelosi-style “this is basically normal” fallacy.
Are candidates being pressed
to reveal plans to activate the executive branch to take on economic
inequality, the climate crisis, and systemic racism? Have any candidates
demonstrated they will address how expertise and the civil service have for too
long been subordinated within the executive branch to revolving door
corporatist appointees of each party? What can we infer from the individuals
and institutions funding candidates for president, as well as the support
networks for each candidate’s policy teams?
Congressional Oversight and
the Executive Branch
Fortunately, Pelosi has not
been able to stop all congressional oversight. Strong work by House Energy and
Commerce Democrats is compelling the resignation of an EPA air pollution chief
whose web of revolving door influences was so great it required violating a
typically lax Trump-era “ethics agreement.” Too unethical for Trump’s EPA is…
an accomplishment?!?!?
And, as always, Chairwoman
Maxine Waters is pursuing the misuse of economic power. Waters just announced a
broad set of July
hearings featuring several interesting convenings, including an
inquiry into a problematic bank merger (Branch Banking and Trust Company
(BB&T) and SunTrust Bank) and Facebook’s dystopic endrun
on democracy, Libra. (Here was
our May 2019 comment to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and
the Federal Reserve System Board of Governors regarding the proposed merger)
But so much is not getting done
and so many opportunities to make a difference are being left on the table.
For example, the House Armed
Services Committee should issue subpoenas to follow up on Senator
Warren’s inquiry into
fraud at the Defense Department.
The somnolent House
Agriculture Committee should investigate how Trump’s Department of Agriculture
is undermining the
professional public servants working to address the dramatic impact of climate
change on farmers and farming.
More broadly, several
committees need to explore how Trump’s war on public service involves moving
positions across the country in order to coerce
talented public servants into quitting their jobs.
Trust us -- we can go on and
on. If you’re ever looking for story ideas on congressional oversight -- or,
especially, the lack thereof -- please be in touch!
2020 (and Potentially 2021)
As we bemoaned in our
debate follow-up (and
on twitter as it
was happening), the 2020 conversation generally, and the debates specifically,
include little discussion of how these presidential hopefuls would use their
executive branch power. And indeed, the hodge-podge of questions and topics
undermined all substantive debate, which is why we agree with climate
activists arguing that the DNC ought to host a debate devoted to
climate issues.
For a sense of what we would
like to see more of in coming debates and throughout the campaign, read The
Revolving Door Project’s Debate (& Campaign) Watch Guide.
And while 2020 candidates
generally are not giving executive branch management as much attention as we
would like, many are offering more than was on display at last week’s debates.
Two positive developments worth highlighting:
Senator Amy Klobuchar did a
great job highlighting her plans for executive action in her new “first 100
days” plan.
Senator Warren now has a plan for
addressing the erosion of US State Department capacity that began decades ago
and has been accelerated dramatically by Trump, Tillerson, and Pompeo. This
plan is useful for illustrating how ostensibly “domestic” issues such as
systemic racism and money in politics undermine foreign policy -- e.g., US
diplomats are on the whole too white and male to understand the world fully,
and too many Ambassadors secure their jobs through campaign contributions
rather than diplomatic experience.
For those who haven’t made
promises regarding executive branch appointments, however, there is a
continuing cause for concern. Last week in the American Prospect we
wrote about how Buttigieg’s closeness with big Silicon Valley and Wall
Street donors makes his strategic ambiguity on so many critical policy details
especially worrisome. (and indeed Buttigieg seems likely
to be one of the top 1-3 fundraisers this quarter despite weak
polling).
Independent Agencies
This month, five people were
confirmed to independent agency boards, including Allison Lee to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (finally!). Additionally, two new members and one old
one were confirmed to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)
while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) gained a new chairperson,
Heath Tarbert. This brings the total number of confirmations this year to
fifteen.
President Trump also made six
nominations this month, to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSHIB), Federal Maritime
Commission (FMC), National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), Postal Regulatory
Commission (PRC), and the United States International Trade Commission
(USITC).
However, while these
advancements are welcome, they remain insufficient to even keep up with the
pace at which seats are expiring and commissioners are leaving their posts. In
June alone, 5 commissioners’ terms expired. Since January 3, 2019, eleven
people have left their seats and six people have had their seats expire but
have continued to serve.
Of course, we cannot solely
blame Trump for these delays; Mitch
McConnell bears some of the burden for the holdup. For example,
nominations to the Merit Systems Protection Board have all been voted out of
committee (two since February), but have gone nowhere.
Nonetheless, there is no doubt
that President Trump is dragging his feet. We are in the process of learning
just how much (i.e. how long on average Trump has taken to make nominations for
vacant or expired seats) and will be releasing our findings in the next couple
of days in our monthly independent agency update. Be sure to watch out
for that, and please reach out if you have any questions about this pernicious
strain of Trump-era corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment