Mediaboss Marketing

Progressives are raising objections to the Biden teams pick for overseeing the transition at a key regulatory agency in the White House, arguing the official has been too sympathetic toward President TrumpDonald John TrumpUSAID administrator tests positive for COVID-19 Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams among nominees for Time magazine's 2020 Person of the Year DOJ appeals ruling preventing it from replacing Trump in E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit MOREs deregulatory efforts.

Bridget C.E. Dooling, a research professor at George Washington University, has been tapped to help with the agency review team at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which reviews all executive branch regulations before they can be enacted.

Critics say theyre concerned with Doolings prominent role given that the center where she works, George Washingtons Regulatory Studies Center, has received funding from both the Charles Koch Foundation and ExxonMobil and has long been viewed as conservative-leaning.

The center is run by Susan Dudley, who led the OIRA during part of the George W. Bush administration, and its scholars have offered sympathetic analysis for some of Trumps regulatory rollbacks.

Its just kind of surprising to see a Democrat reach out to someone in charge of reviewing OIRA whose work in this space is funded by the Koch network, which is so opposed to the regulation of corporate America, said Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project, a progressive group.

You would expect a Koch-funded person to be conducting an OIRA agency view in the Trump administration that wouldn't be surprising but this is supposed to be a transition, a change, he added.

When reached for comment, Dooling referred questions to the Biden transition team.

The transition team defended Dooling's role among the many individuals assisting the incoming administration.

"Over 500 policy experts serve on the Biden-Harris Transition agency review teams to ensure the policy goals of President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris are met. Bridget Dooling has decades of experience, is well-respected in her field and like all members of the transition, has values that align with President-elect Biden's," the transition team said in a statement.

Dooling comes to the transition team with more than a decades worth of experience at the OIRA, starting with the George W. Bush administration and ending in the early days of the Trump administration.

In the past few years at the Regulatory Studies Center, shes reviewed a number of Trumps regulatory directives, at times suggesting how they could be improved for implementation purposes.

When Trump issued his order to strike down two regulations for every new one implemented, Dooling co-authored a report that included 10 recommendations for making the order stronger.

That did not sit well with progressives who expected members of the regulatory community to unequivocally condemn Trumps order.

The order, one of Trumps first actions upon taking office, was embraced by the right kicking off four years of deregulation. But for critics, it was seen as an arbitrary target imposed by a president with little regard for what rules and regulations might get eliminated in the process.

She's basically an apologist for it. Shes written about how it could be improved but she never said it's been a bad idea. She said it could be improved, but never said categorically its a bad idea and should be gotten rid of, said James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst with the Center for Progressive Reform.

I would expect from Biden there should be a litmus test on that executive order, and if youre not categorically opposed to that executive order you shouldnt be allowed in the parking lot of OIRA, Goodwin added.

Doolings colleagues say the criticism from the left is unwarranted.

I do not see Bridgets affiliation with the Regulatory Studies Center as evidence of a conservative bias, said Stuart Shapiro, a regulatory studies professor at Rutgers University and an affiliated scholar with the GW center.

Shapiro, who worked at the OIRA before Dooling and considers himself a progressive, said she is smart and qualified.

He added that the Regulatory Studies Center is always willing to consider views across the political spectrum, and they always invite Democrats to their panels.

Progressives are eager to see the Biden administration reform the OIRA, an agency they view as a frequent roadblock to implementing ambitious regulations.

But Bidens eventual pick to lead the agency will need to be confirmed by the Senate, and Republicans are in a strong position to retain control of the chamber next year. That would make it harder for Biden to pick someone favored by progressives.

One of the main concerns among progressives is that the OIRA, even under Biden, could hamstring regulatory efforts with its reviews of policies crafted by technical experts at other agencies, potentially delaying implementation of some regulations.

Not everyone who has interest in an agency rule should be able to delay or weaken or undo that rule, said Lisa Heinzerling, an environmental and administrative law professor at Georgetown University.

Dooling has long backed the use of cost-benefit analyses to ground regulations and assess their worth, an approach that gained favor under the Reagan administration.

It's also been a useful tool for the Trump administration, which has reduced how it weighs the costs of carbon pollution and the benefits of fighting climate change on a global scale, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now seeking to codify some of those changes.

But cost-benefit analyses havent always helped the Trump administration. In some cases, theyve shown that regulatory efforts like rolling back vehicle mileage rules will cost more than they save a finding likely to be brought up in court challenges.

If EPA's cost-benefit rules are finalized, it could create a significant hurdle for future administrations by making it tougher to implement regulations that limit pollution. That would be problematic for Biden, who wants to put the U.S. on track to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 as part of his climate plan.

Cost-benefit analysis as performed by the government disfavors actions on problems that extend into the future, so climate change would be the premier example, said Heinzerling.

For progressives, Doolings pick signals that many of the OIRA practices from previous administrations are likely to continue under Biden.

If you were interested in making a dramatic change at OIRA, you probably wouldn't choose someone who has had a quite traditional role at OIRA, Heinzerling said.

For Goodwin, that represents a significant roadblock.

Ive always had reservations about how the Biden administration would address regulation, and Im left reading the tea leaves as they come out, and every tea leaf I see, like Bridget Doolings name coming out, is indicative that things are not going to be great, and that is going to be a huge missed opportunity, Goodwin said.

Shapiro countered that the OIRA will continue to carry out its duties under Biden, much like it has during previous administrations.

OIRA has had a regulatory review function under six presidents now of both parties. It is unrealistic to expect that that regulatory review function will disappear under a Biden administration, he said.

Therefore we should expect a transition team member to figure out how to make OIRA work as effectively as possible rather than eliminate that regulatory review function.

See more here:
Progressives see red flags in regulatory official on Biden transition team | TheHill - The Hill

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the Senates oldest member, said on Monday that she would relinquish the top Democratic spot on the Judiciary Committee next year, bowing to intense pressure by progressives who said she was not up to the task of leading a crucial panel at the forefront of the partisan war over the courts in a new Biden administration.

After serving as the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee for four years, I will not seek the chairmanship or ranking member position in the next Congress, Ms. Feinstein, 87, said in a statement. Ms. Feinstein, the former chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, said she did not intend to pursue committee leadership at all, but would focus more intently instead on the dual threats of wildfire and drought threatening her state.

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, who is next in seniority, intends to pursue the position, according to his spokeswoman. Mr. Durbin is also the Democratic whip, but caucus rules do not preclude him from doing both jobs.

Progressives had been pushing Democratic leaders hard in recent weeks to bar Ms. Feinstein from returning to her post next year, when Democrats hope they will control the committee. They believed that despite her towering status in the Senate, Ms. Feinsteins record as a genteel deal-maker made her the wrong fit for an increasingly bruising partisan arena on the Judiciary Committee. Those stylistic differences have been exacerbated by Ms. Feinsteins advancing age.

Progressives were livid, for instance, when Ms. Feinstein praised Republicans for their handling of Justice Amy Coney Barretts Supreme Court nomination hearings last month, even though G.O.P. leaders had broken with precedent and their own professed opposition to election-year confirmations to fast-track the approval of President Trumps choice before he faced voters. A photograph of the California Democrat hugging the committees Republican chairman, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, after Justice Barretts nomination was approved ricocheted across the internet, drawing condemnation from liberal groups.

They feared that under President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.s leadership, Ms. Feinstein would be too gentle with Republicans who would seek to block his appointments to the federal courts.

Brian Fallon, the director of the progressive organization Demand Justice, which called for Ms. Feinsteins removal after the hearings, warned that her replacement cannot wishfully cling to a bygone era of civility and decorum.

It will take someone committed to undoing the damage Trump and McConnell have done to our courts, no matter what it takes, he said, referring to Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, who led a concerted strategy to pack the federal courts with conservatives during Mr. Trumps tenure.

Ms. Feinstein said she would use her perch as a senior Democrat on four influential committees Judiciary, Intelligence, Appropriations and Rules to work with the Biden administration on priorities like gun safety, immigration reform and addressing inequities in criminal justice.

I will continue to do my utmost to bring about positive change in the coming years, she said.

Follow this link:
Feinstein, under fire by progressives, says she will step down as top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. - The New York Times

By Ari Natter on 11/25/2020

(Bloomberg) --Progressive environmentalists are mounting a long-shot bid to get President-elect Joe Biden to go beyond naming a climate czar and declare an environmental national emergency, borrowing a tactic employed by President Donald Trump to fund part of his border wall.

Invoking a climate emergency could give Biden the authority to circumvent Congress and fund clean energy projects, shut down crude oil exports, suspend offshore drilling and curtail the movement of fossil fuels on pipelines, trains, and ships, according to a research note by consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners.

The presidents powers to address climate change through an emergency are very, very large, said Kassie Siegel, an attorney with the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, which is lobbying Bidens team to act. This is No. 1 on the list of things the Biden administration should do.

In a statement, Bidens transition team didnt explicitly address the question of a climate emergency, saying only that he plans to follow through on his policy platform to fight the climate crisis while creating millions of jobs. Bidens climate platform includes no mention of declaring a climate emergency.

The national emergency question could be an early potential source of tension between climate groups and Biden. It signals the tough fights ahead for the new president, as he walks a line between satisfying activists who backed his campaign and not promoting measures that would draw opposition from more moderate Democrats.

Many environmentalists were pleased to see Biden this week name former Secretary of State John Kerry as special presidential envoy for climate, fulfilling the campaign promise to elevate the issue of global warming to the highest levels of the White House.

In addressing the climate crisis, President-elect Joe Biden is determined to seize the future now and leave a healing planet to future generations, Kerry said Tuesday after being introduced as part of Bidens national security team.

Yet progressives want his administration to go further. They see the emergency declaration as a way to achieve his ambitious climate agenda, even if legislation is blocked by a Senate potentially controlled by Republicans. But such a move may fall victim to the political realities left by the election.

Declaring a climate emergency will radicalize climate protection, alienating the very moderate Senators needed to pass infrastructure and other bills with carbon-reducing provisions, said Paul Bledsoe, a former climate official in the Clinton White House, now with the Progressive Policy Institute. Why would Biden borrow from Trumps polarizing playbook, when Bidens trying to actually unite the country to act on climate?

While Biden has vowed to decarbonize the electricity sector by 2035 as part of a goal to reach zero net emissions by 2050, many elements of his plan would require Congress to act. And other policy shifts he promised, such as halting fracking on federal land, would have to go through a cumbersome, slow-moving regulatory process that complicated some of Trumps own ambitions.

That may not be good enough for progressive environmentalists who say they are counting on Biden to follow through on campaign rhetoric that appealed to climate-minded voters, such as calling global warming an existential threat to humanity.

Greenpeace, along with the Center for Biological Diversity and groups like Friends of the Earth, were among 500 organizations that called for the next president to declare a national climate emergency last December. Two candidates who sought the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders and Tom Steyer, vowed on the campaign trail to declare climate change a national emergency.

Some are skeptical that Biden will declare a climate emergency given the election results and deepening crises with coronavirus and the economy -- at least not until the end of his presidency. Possible actions Biden could take under an emergency declaration -- such as suspending offshore drilling or trying to shutdown pipelines -- would almost certainly be held up in lengthy court battles brought by opponents. While the Trump administration was similarly challenged over its diversion of funds for the border wall, it ultimately prevailed at the Supreme Court.

It would be a pretty egregious sign of weakness right out of the gate; an acknowledgment that legislative and regulatory regular order were destined to fail, said Mike McKenna, who previously served in Trumps White House as deputy assistant to the president. That strikes me as something that might happen in year three or year four, as part of an effort to goose the re-elect, or the election, of whoever is running.

Trump declared a national emergency in February 2019, a move that allowed him to divert some $3.5 billion to start construction on the wall along the southern border after Congress refused to appropriate the funding. The move drew criticism from members of his own party, such as Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who said he was overstepping into the legislative prerogative.

Supporters of the move note that presidents have used emergency declarations in the past, which are designed to give the executive branch special, temporary powers to deal with a crisis, and dozens of active national emergencies remain.

The border wall declaration completely re-conceptualizes what constitutes an emergency -- and that genie never goes back in the bottle, said Benjamin Salisbury, a senior policy analyst at Height LLC.

Original post:
Progressives want Biden to sidestep Congress with green 'national emergency' - WorldOil

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Caution! Navel gazing ahead.

So Joe Biden has decided on Tony Blinken as his secretary of state. What should we think of this?

On the one hand, I think we all have a pretty low bar these days. Blinken is a fairly ordinary human being. Hes experienced and knowledgable. He doesnt have any desire to destroy the State Department. Foreign leaders will get along with him just fine. Based on this, hooray! Good choice.

On the other hand, Blinken is fairly hawkish, having supported both the Libya incursion and some kind of military intervention in Syria. Barack Obama, who had finally started to understand the national security blob a little better by then, vetoed any action in Syria, so we dodged that bullet. Unfortunately, its not clear if Blinken has learned any of the same lessons. Based on this, meh. We could do better. Why not someone like Sen. Chris Murphy instead?

Joe Biden is not a hard lefty, so its hardly surprising to see him choosing pretty mainstream aides so far. Thats what we collectively voted for, and thats what were going to get, especially in the highest profile appointments. Whats more, Im willing to cut him substantial slack with national security appointments. There is, literally, no progressive wing of the national security establishment with any real influence. Behind all the yelling and screaming, Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same on NatSec issues, with smallish differences on the margin and not much else. This means that even if Biden did appoint someone more progressive, theyd just run into a brick wall of opposition: in the White House, in Congress, in the intelligence agencies, in the military, and in think tanks. Its all but impossible to buck this, and Biden probably doesnt really want to in the first place. Hes got bigger fish to fry.

This is a dangerous way of thinkingwhew, at least its not a Trumpie!and it will apply less and less once we get past the top three or four cabinet positions. In other areas, there are big differences between Democrats and Republicans and there are plenty of progressives with real clout. We should expect to see some riskier appointments at Labor, HHS, Energy, EPA, and so forth. If we dont, it would mean Biden is basically kissing off the progressive wing of the party.

Well start to hear more about those appointments in early December, and thats when well truly be able to get a concrete idea of just what Bidens administration will look like. Until then, Id resist jumping to any conclusions.

Original post:
How Progressive Will Joe Biden's Administration Be? Mother Jones - Mother Jones

Theres been a great deal of introspection and handwringing by North Carolina progressives in recent weeks in the aftermath of the election. After having spent much of the summer and fall reveling in the notion that the state was poised to issue a strong, across-the-board repudiation of Trumpism on Nov. 3, the final results were, on many fronts, a disappointment.

While voters re-elected Gov. Roy Cooper by a healthy margin and added two Democratic women (Deborah Ross and Kathy Manning) to the states now slightly-less-gerrymandered congressional delegation, Republicans swept most of the other high-profile races from the presidential race to the U.S. Senate to the Council of State to the judiciary to the General Assembly.

So what should progressives make of this outcome? Is the picture, as some analysts and politicos have opined, utterly bleak? Especially with legislative leaders Phil Berger and Tim Moore set to craft yet another collection of rigged electoral maps, is it time for progressives to move to right in hopes of winning over more Trump voters?

Here are five reasons progressives should keep calm and stay the course:

1. The North Carolina vote was hardly a ringing endorsement of Trumpism. Despite his unique and visceral connection with his supporters, and having mounted a feverish campaign in which he and his surrogates were a constant physical presence in the state during the campaigns closing weeks, Donald Trump an incumbent president who was using every tool of the office at his disposal won just 49.93% of the vote.

And while the GOP ultimately prevailed in numerous other statewide races, in virtually every instance, the margin was extremely narrow. Simply put, North Carolinas status as a sharply divided 50-50 purple state has not changed. A few thousand votes could have changed everything.

Indeed, theres a strong case to made that by forcing Trump to devote so much energy to holding the state, Biden supporters here helped keep Trump from spending the time in Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania that might have made the difference for him there.

2. The pandemic ended up being a big disadvantage for Democrats. As I noted in a column a couple weeks back, Republicans were able to generate a much higher degree of last-minute campaign enthusiasm by throwing caution to the wind when it came to staging high energy, in-person, non-socially-distanced rallies often headlined by Trump himself.

Democrats simply werent willing to take such a risk a move that no doubt saved lives, but almost certainly cost them thousands of votes. With any luck, this unique situation will not be repeated in the future.

3. Cal Cunninghams implosion was a big problem. North Carolina voters were clearly unenthusiastic about sending Sen. Thom Tillis back to Washington. Even in victory, he secured just 48.69% of the vote.

Ultimately, however, Cal Cunninghams massive political pratfall served as just the last-minute lifesaver Tillis needed. And not only did the revelations about Cunninghams maddening personal behavior help doom his own candidacy, they almost certainly played a role in dampening Democratic enthusiasm across the board. As with No. 2, this figures to be a unique situation.

4. Demographic trends remain positive. While it will continue to be gradual and uneven process, there is every reason to believe that North Carolinas population will (like much of the rest of the nation) continue to trend more urban and diverse as the years go by two factors that have helped turn Virginia, and more recently and famously Georgia, in a progressive direction.

And while such a turn is no guarantee of perpetual success for progressive candidates or policies, progressives are more likely to achieve success by working hard to capitalize on this trend (see, for example, Stacy Abramss voter turnout work in Georgia) than by devoting big resources to converting Trumps stubborn but slowly ebbing base of supporters.

In 1988, California voted for a Republican presidential candidate for the fifth consecutive election. Earlier this month, Biden defeated Trump in the Golden State by 63.6% to 34.2%.

5. Most voters are with progressives on the issues. Look at the list. Americans want higher taxes on the rich. They understand the reality of the climate emergency and want immediate action. They oppose racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. They favor a the protections of the Affordable Care Act. They want to raise the minimum wage. They favor abortion rights. They believe in public schools. They want reasonable gun control laws.

In other words, while Donald Trump and his ilk have clearly demonstrated that appeals based on tribe race, culture and religion can convince Americans to vote against their own economic interest and, indeed, counter to their views on any number of issues, its hard to see how progressives combat such a phenomenon by abandoning what amount to wise and popular stances.

The bottom line: Transforming the politics and policies of an historically conservative state like North Carolina was always going to be a marathon. Just because the breaks went against them in one 50-50 election is no reason for progressives to abandon the race.

Rob Schofield, director of NC Policy Watch, has three decades of experience as a lawyer, lobbyist, writer and commentator. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Originally posted here:
Five reasons NC progressives should remain bullish about their political future - The Robesonian