Radio Free never accepts money from corporations, governments or billionaires – keeping the focus on supporting independent media for people, not profits. Since 2010, Radio Free has supported the work of thousands of independent journalists, learn more about how your donation helps improve journalism for everyone.

Make a monthly donation of any amount to support independent media.





Instead of Repeating the Obama Administration, Biden Must Do Better. Here's How. – A successful Biden presidency will require immediately making working people's lives better—and this is where to start.

Twelve years ago, in the midst of an epochal eco­nom­ic cri­sis, Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma and the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty were over­whelm­ing­ly swept into pow­er on a wave of hope, opti­mism and good­will, win­ning a fil­i­buster-proof major­i­ty in the Sen­ate and a 79-seat major­i­ty in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. Two years lat­er, the Democ­rats faced a ​shel­lack­ing” in the midterms, depriv­ing them of their House major­i­ty, and effec­tive­ly clos­ing the door on Obama’s ambi­tious agen­da for the remain­der of his time in office. 

Today, Demo­c­rat Joe Biden is set to ascend to the pres­i­den­cy in the midst of an even larg­er eco­nom­ic cri­sis, one that, as in 2008, has been presided over and accel­er­at­ed by the Repub­li­can Par­ty — though under very dif­fer­ent circumstances. 

When he takes office in Jan­u­ary, Biden won’t have the ben­e­fit of a super­ma­jor­i­ty in the Sen­ate, and may not even have a major­i­ty at all. Far from the blue waves of 2008 and 2018, the Democ­rats were dec­i­mat­ed down-bal­lot, los­ing seats in the House and in state races across the coun­try. With Repub­li­cans gain­ing on the back of mas­sive pro-Trump turnout — and even poach­ing a not-insignif­i­cant share of the tra­di­tion­al Demo­c­ra­t­ic vot­er base — there is pal­pa­ble momen­tum for anoth­er pos­si­ble GOP-led ​shel­lack­ing” in 2022

It hard­ly needs to be said what an out­come like this could mean for the country’s most vul­ner­a­ble, includ­ing immi­grants and the poor, let alone for urgent mat­ters like pre­vent­ing cat­a­stroph­ic cli­mate change. So avoid­ing a repeat of the Oba­ma years should be the num­ber-one imper­a­tive of the Biden admin­is­tra­tion, includ­ing pre­vent­ing anoth­er midterm ​shel­lack­ing” that cre­ates two more years of divid­ed, grid­locked government. 

That requires mov­ing aggres­sive­ly to not just con­tain the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, but, per­haps even more impor­tant­ly, mea­sur­ably improv­ing the lives of work­ing Amer­i­cans and revers­ing the long stag­na­tion of their liv­ing stan­dards that helped lead to Don­ald Trump’s rise in the first place.

Lessons from Obama

The first item on Pres­i­dent Biden’s agen­da will be pass­ing a mas­sive coro­n­avirus relief and stim­u­lus bill. The sit­u­a­tion par­al­lels that of Oba­ma, who spent the ear­ly part of his first term pre­oc­cu­pied with (and ulti­mate­ly belea­guered by) the sim­i­lar task of car­ry­ing out a vast stim­u­lus program. 

Accord­ing to Reed Hundt, a for­mer Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion offi­cial and mem­ber of Obama’s 200809 tran­si­tion team, Oba­ma leaned more on the neolib­er­al econ­o­mists he had sur­round­ed him­self with than with his polit­i­cal advi­sors. It was, iron­i­cal­ly, the same mis­take a young Bill Clin­ton had made as he pre­pared to take the pres­i­den­cy in 1993, ignor­ing his polit­i­cal team’s pleas to make good on his cam­paign promis­es and instead turn­ing his atten­tion to the deficit. For Oba­ma, this meant shap­ing his stim­u­lus accord­ing to con­ser­v­a­tive eco­nom­ic for­mu­las rather than polit­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions, while shy­ing away from using the full pow­er of the pres­i­den­cy to make Amer­i­cans as whole as possible.

Large­ly absent from the eco­nom­ic recov­ery plan … were pro­pos­als for uni­lat­er­al exec­u­tive action,” Hundt wrote in his 2019 book, A Cri­sis Wast­ed: Barack Obama’s Defin­ing Deci­sions.

The rest was his­to­ry: the 2009 stim­u­lus was too small, and the administration’s efforts to pro­tect Amer­i­cans from eco­nom­ic calami­ty too tepid, for vot­ers to reward Oba­ma and the Democ­rats by the midterms. But a Biden admin­is­tra­tion isn’t doomed to fol­low this tra­jec­to­ry, even if the size of any stim­u­lus bill is con­strained by a GOP-led cam­paign to con­tin­ue tank­ing the economy. 

For one, Trump, a Repub­li­can pres­i­dent, has already expand­ed the polit­i­cal bound­aries of exec­u­tive pow­er in a time of eco­nom­ic cri­sis. Through exec­u­tive orders this year, Trump leap-frogged a chron­ic do-noth­ing Con­gress and extend­ed a mora­to­ri­um on fed­er­al stu­dent loan repay­ment, paid hos­pi­tals for the treat­ment of unin­sured patients with Covid-19, put in place an evic­tion ban until the end of the year, briefly extend­ed enhanced unem­ploy­ment ben­e­fits to the tune of $300 a week, and, more dubi­ous­ly, let 1.3 mil­lion fed­er­al work­ers off the hook for pay­roll tax­es.

These mea­sures were often inad­e­quate, or even lat­er under­mined by Trump. Many patients and providers didn’t know about his fund­ing for cov­er­ing the unin­sured, his extend­ed unem­ploy­ment ben­e­fits last­ed bare­ly longer than a month, his stu­dent loan mora­to­ri­um left out a whole cross-sec­tion of bor­row­ers, his evic­tion ban had loop­holes you could dri­ve a truck through, and the pay­roll tax defer­ral was just typ­i­cal Repub­li­can non­sense to slash tax­es and defund Social Security. 

Still, in the scope of recent U.S. his­to­ry, these were bold and often cre­ative uses of state pow­er to shield Amer­i­cans from eco­nom­ic mis­ery while Con­gress was grid­locked. In his first two years, Oba­ma had reject­ed both wide­spread calls for a fore­clo­sure mora­to­ri­um and ​cram­down,” or allow­ing bank­rupt­cy judges to reduce mort­gages, as the admin­is­tra­tion was wor­ried it would weak­en the hous­ing mar­ket and make them appear too radical. 

Did you want to be so mas­sive­ly trans­form­ing your finance sec­tor dur­ing the mid­dle of a finan­cial cri­sis?” Fan­nie Mae CEO Herb Alli­son lat­er said, explain­ing the think­ing of Obama’s team. ​We’re going to try to get through this peri­od. We don’t want to appear as though we’re socialists.”

No won­der some Repub­li­cans were alarmed at Trump’s orders. If the CDC could force land­lords to ​give away their prod­uct for free,” won­dered Sen. Pat Toomey (R‑PA), could the gov­ern­ment now force Gen­er­al Motors to give peo­ple cars?

What future admin­is­tra­tion, what future pres­i­dent, cer­tain­ly what future Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­dent is going to want to be accused of being less gen­er­ous than Don­ald Trump?” he asked.

And he’s right. Trump’s rel­a­tive bold­ness on exec­u­tive action has opened up space for Pres­i­dent Biden to go even fur­ther, par­tic­u­lar­ly if he faces an obstruc­tion­ist Sen­ate. Biden is report­ed­ly already plan­ning a series of exec­u­tive orders to reverse some of Trump’s own most out­ra­geous ones, but that is the bare minimum. 

Momen­tum is build­ing to can­cel a large chunk of bor­row­ers’ stu­dent loans beyond the $10,000 Biden had ini­tial­ly promised. Biden could also poach sev­er­al ideas from his pri­ma­ry con­test rival Bernie Sanders, such as can­cel­ing fed­er­al con­tracts with firms that pay less than $15 an hour, or who fail to meet a host of stan­dards set by the order: cli­mate bench­marks, for instance, or base­line labor stan­dards like paid time off and hol­i­day pay. U.S. gov­ern­ment con­tracts are enor­mous­ly lucra­tive, and such a threat could force a much-need­ed about-face by some of the country’s biggest and most abu­sive employ­ers, includ­ing Ama­zon and Wal-Mart, which was so des­per­ate to avoid a fed­er­al con­tract black­list over a bribery scan­dal that it paid a $300 mil­lion fine in 2017

Trump has shown there’s a wide lat­i­tude for a pres­i­dent to expan­sive­ly and cre­ative­ly use exec­u­tive pow­er in the mid­dle of a cri­sis. His order on cov­er­ing the unin­sured drew on Covid-19 relief mon­ey autho­rized by Con­gress, his exten­sion of unem­ploy­ment insur­ance redi­rect­ed FEMA funds, and his evic­tion ban was based on author­i­ty grant­ed to the CDC under an obscure 1944 dis­ease pre­ven­tion statute. Pres­i­dent Biden’s team could do what Oba­ma wouldn’t and find the legal author­i­ty to declare a nation­al mora­to­ri­um on fore­clo­sures, on util­i­ty shut-offs, or even, if not cram­down, direct­ing bank­rupt­cy courts to treat ordi­nary debtors with more lenien­cy, as they’re already doing for busi­ness­es. Some­times, get­ting out ahead at the exec­u­tive lev­el can spur oth­er action: in 1933, Min­neso­ta Gov. Floyd Olson issued a not exact­ly legal­ly robust fore­clo­sure mora­to­ri­um, which, thanks to pub­lic pres­sure, the leg­is­la­ture quick­ly moved to authorize. 

These orders may well face legal chal­lenges and even end up being struck down by Trump’s hard-right Supreme Court. But while the admin­is­tra­tion should cer­tain­ly pick its bat­tles, his­to­ry shows there’s a ben­e­fit to forc­ing a con­fronta­tion with the Court, which has finite polit­i­cal cap­i­tal of its own, as illus­trat­ed in 2012 when Chief Jus­tice John Roberts decid­ed at the last minute against strik­ing down Oba­macare, at least par­tial­ly to save the Court’s pub­lic stand­ing. We might also look to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tus­sle with the Supreme Court, whose relent­less inval­i­da­tion of his agen­da cul­mi­nat­ed in the court-pack­ing threat that reversed its intransigence. 

If they sur­vive judi­cial review, these orders can, and like­ly would be, reversed by the next Repub­li­can pres­i­dent. But that’s to be expect­ed. The goal of the Biden administration’s first two years isn’t to craft air­tight, bipar­ti­san orders that will sur­vive any future change in gov­ern­ment. Rather, it’s to stim­u­late the econ­o­my, and improve work­ing people’s lives — or, at least, pub­licly demon­strate they’re try­ing to — in the face of GOP obstinacy. 

To that end, the admin­is­tra­tion needs to not just do these things, but make sure the pub­lic knows about it. Trump’s insis­tence on stamp­ing his sig­na­ture on the $1,200 coro­n­avirus stim­u­lus checks was wide­ly mocked in the press, but it was a can­ny move, and it’s clear that doing so engen­dered good­will and loy­al­ty among at least some vot­ers. Biden can resort to sim­i­lar, if less gaudy, mea­sures to make sure Amer­i­cans are aware of what their gov­ern­ment is doing for them. 

On the leg­isla­tive side, if the cur­rent progress of the pres­i­den­tial tran­si­tion is any­thing to go by, a Mitch McConnell-held Sen­ate will once again turn to the tried-and-true Repub­li­can strat­e­gy of crip­pling both the administration’s agen­da and eco­nom­ic recov­ery efforts in advance of the midterms. But the Biden admin­is­tra­tion can turn this strat­e­gy on its head by forc­ing a high­ly pub­lic stand­off over one issue: expand­ing Social Security. 

Biden had already pledged to make Social Secu­ri­ty ben­e­fits more gen­er­ous before the pan­dem­ic struck, and now there’s even more rea­son to push for it — not just to shield the elder­ly from pover­ty in a time of eco­nom­ic cri­sis, but as a much-need­ed stim­u­lus for the econ­o­my. Seniors are not just a vital part of the Repub­li­can vot­er coali­tion, but the most reli­able vot­ers in midterm elections. 

A high­ly pub­lic bat­tle over this issue is there­fore a win-win. Block­ing Social Secu­ri­ty expan­sion could hurt Repub­li­cans and strength­en the case for vot­ers to give Biden a more coop­er­a­tive Con­gress in 2022. Pass­ing it, mean­while, not only takes aim at the shame­ful epi­dem­ic of elder pover­ty in the Unit­ed States, but would engen­der good­will among a vot­ing bloc Biden made inroads with, and it would help boost the econ­o­my. But to be suc­cess­ful, Biden should jet­ti­son, tem­porar­i­ly, the parts of his plan aimed at shoring up the program’s sol­ven­cy by rais­ing tax­es on high-earn­ers, which would pro­vide an open­ing for McConnell and Repub­li­cans to frame it as an attack on seniors. 

On the world stage

As with all pres­i­dents, Biden will have the most room to maneu­ver with­out Con­gress on for­eign policy. 

Biden has already promised to end U.S. sup­port for the geno­ci­dal war in Yemen, some­thing he could do via exec­u­tive action on day one. In fact, he could poten­tial­ly draw it to a close even ear­li­er, by mak­ing his inten­tions clear to the Saud­is, and push­ing them to nego­ti­ate its end. 

But as on domes­tic pol­i­cy, Biden should go much fur­ther. He could imme­di­ate­ly fol­low up on his cam­paign promise to with­draw from the 19-year con­flict Afghanistan, now the longest war in U.S. his­to­ry, and one that last year’s release of the Afghanistan papers showed is a mud­dled, direc­tion­less fail­ure. He could also bring to a close Trump’s steady draw­down of troops in Iraq, defin­i­tive­ly end­ing an unpop­u­lar war that was already meant to have been end­ed in 2011, and reverse Trump’s dan­ger­ous esca­la­tion in Syr­ia, piv­ot­ing instead to a diplo­mat­ic solu­tion.

Pres­i­dent Biden could do all this on day one. While it’s true Con­gress has increas­ing­ly assert­ed its involve­ment in for­eign pol­i­cy under Trump, to the point of repeat­ed­ly try­ing to pre­vent him from end­ing wars, it’s far from clear that Biden would need to be con­strained by sim­i­lar efforts. Pres­i­dents, includ­ing Oba­ma, have been hap­py to ignore Con­gress to launch fool­ish wars, and they’re on far stronger legal ground to do the same thing to end them. 

There would be sig­nif­i­cant polit­i­cal ben­e­fits to this. A plu­ral­i­ty of the U.S. pub­lic wants to decrease the num­ber of troops sta­tioned over­seas and agrees that glob­al peace is best sus­tained by ​keep­ing a focus on domes­tic needs and the health of Amer­i­can democ­ra­cy, while avoid­ing unnec­es­sary inter­ven­tion.” And Amer­i­cans, includ­ing vet­er­ans and their fam­i­lies, over­whelm­ing­ly sup­port bring­ing troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. 

The admin­is­tra­tion could frame the with­drawals, from wars that have cost more than $2 tril­lion each since the start of the War on Ter­ror, as part of a piv­ot to focus­ing on prob­lems at home, while also neu­tral­iz­ing Repub­li­can charges of fis­cal irre­spon­si­bil­i­ty. Mean­while, Trump’s rhetor­i­cal oppo­si­tion to for­eign inter­ven­tion was part of the key to his 2016 vic­to­ry and con­tin­u­ing appeal.

Alter­nate­ly, if Trump does indeed pull troops out of Afghanistan and pos­si­bly even Syr­ia before Christ­mas in the lame-duck ses­sion, Biden should not undo this. Trump offi­cials want his pos­si­ble last-minute with­draw­al from Afghanistan to estab­lish Democ­rats as the par­ty of ​for­ev­er war,” and play­ing into this by send­ing troops, ​advi­sors,” or what­ev­er oth­er euphemism one can think of back into these coun­tries a month, a year, or even two years into Biden’s pres­i­den­cy would be a colos­sal unforced polit­i­cal error. 

The same goes for rejoin­ing the Trans Pacif­ic Part­ner­ship ​free trade” deal. Its sig­na­to­ries inten­tion­al­ly left the door open for the Unit­ed States to sign up after Trump lost, and Biden has repeat­ed­ly sig­naled he would rene­go­ti­ate and rejoin the deal. But unless the Unit­ed States is able to com­plete­ly over­haul the agree­ment, this would pro­vide an easy polit­i­cal open­ing for Biden’s opposition.

Oth­er steps Biden could take is to end arms sales and oth­er mil­i­tary aid to repres­sive states. Biden has already ruled out doing so for Israel, but he could still do this for coun­tries like Sau­di Ara­bia, Egypt and the Unit­ed Arab Emi­rates, all among the top 10 pur­chasers of U.S. weapons from 2002 to 2016. It is both the moral thing to do, and the polit­i­cal­ly smart thing to do — draw­ing a con­trast with the pre­de­ces­sor he and oth­ers accused of being unique­ly friend­ly with for­eign despots. 

At the same time, Biden could swift­ly end a host of mur­der­ous sanc­tions against offi­cial Wash­ing­ton ene­mies — such as Cuba, Iran and Venezuela — that have proven inef­fec­tive at their intend­ed goal of régime change, and only bru­tal­ized civil­ian pop­u­la­tions while inflam­ing anti-Amer­i­can sen­ti­ment. And while Biden has made clear he won’t chal­lenge Israel, he could at least re-ori­ent pol­i­cy toward Pales­tini­ans from the out­ward­ly hos­tile approach that exists now, restor­ing the flow of aid to Pales­tini­ans and reim­burs­ing them all the aid they lost dur­ing the Trump years. 

Using the pow­er of the presidency

There are sev­er­al more issues Biden could move on to heal the ail­ing state of Amer­i­can life while plac­ing the Democ­rats in a good posi­tion come the midterms. One of the most obvi­ous is crim­i­nal justice. 

The pas­sage of bal­lot mea­sures around the coun­try legal­iz­ing mar­i­jua­na, even in Trump-vot­ing states, is a stark demon­stra­tion of the Biden campaign’s unnec­es­sary con­ser­vatism on this issue. While instant, full legal­iza­tion at the stroke of a pen is not like­ly to hap­pen and will prob­a­bly run into sev­er­al legal road­blocks, sim­ply mak­ing an effort would send the right sig­nal, while poten­tial­ly spurring renewed action at the state lev­el. Obama’s zeal­ous raid­ing of pot dis­pen­saries, a futile attempt to appeal to con­ser­v­a­tives, was one of the great unforced errors of his ear­ly pres­i­den­cy, and Biden could quick­ly and eas­i­ly sig­nal a more pro­gres­sive break by mov­ing in the oth­er direc­tion (and drop­ping his idea of manda­to­ry rehab). As pres­i­dent, Biden could make the case for mar­i­jua­na legal­iza­tion at the state lev­el the same way Roo­sevelt did for end­ing alco­hol pro­hi­bi­tion dur­ing the Depres­sion: to stim­u­late the econ­o­my and increase revenue. 

On health­care, a major con­cern for vot­ers dur­ing the elec­tion, there are also steps the Biden admin­is­tra­tion can and should take to help work­ing peo­ple. Even with­out a Sen­ate major­i­ty to pass a ​pub­lic option,” there’s still much Biden could do. Under the Medicare Pre­scrip­tion Drug, Improve­ment, and Mod­ern­iza­tion Act of 2003, the Health and Human Ser­vices sec­re­tary already has the pow­er to allow the impor­ta­tion of cheap­er pre­scrip­tion drugs from Cana­da, but the effort has stalled under Trump. This was already a Biden cam­paign promise, as was allow­ing the gov­ern­ment to nego­ti­ate drug prices, an idea that has some bipar­ti­san appeal — though it remains to be seen if any Repub­li­cans will play ball in Congress. 

Sen­ate obstruc­tion­ism means Biden is like­ly lim­it­ed on meet­ing his promis­es on cli­mate, absent being able to slip cer­tain pro­vi­sions into the coro­n­avirus stim­u­lus and infra­struc­ture bills that the admin­is­tra­tion will almost assured­ly pur­sue. But Biden can and must go fur­ther on the issue with exec­u­tive action than sim­ply rejoin­ing the Paris Cli­mate Accord that Trump pulled out of. 

Biden could, again, build on Trump’s prece­dent by declar­ing the cli­mate cri­sis a nation­al emer­gency. This would acti­vate a host of obscure statutes not usu­al­ly acces­si­ble to the pres­i­dent, and allow him to divert mil­i­tary con­struc­tion funds to renew­able ener­gy projects and oth­er cli­mate-relat­ed con­struc­tion, use the Defense Pro­duc­tion Act to order busi­ness­es to pro­duce renew­able ener­gy tech­nol­o­gy, or even invoke claus­es in oil and gas leas­es on fed­er­al lands to sus­pend them, among oth­er things. This may not be polit­i­cal­ly fea­si­ble on day one, but the apoc­a­lyp­tic cli­mate chaos we’ve seen over the last few years will only get more dead­ly and destruc­tive, pro­vid­ing the occa­sion for declar­ing an emergency. 

Give them some­thing to vote for

There is some indi­ca­tion that the cor­po­rate cen­trists at the top of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty real­ize the urgency of the moment, at least in word, if not deed. Biden has made vague ges­tures at an FDR-style pres­i­den­cy, and even Sen­ate Minor­i­ty Leader Chuck Schumer, the quin­tes­sen­tial Wall Street Demo­c­rat, is talk­ing about the need for an ambi­tious agen­da sur­pass­ing past Demo­c­ra­t­ic efforts. 

It is now incon­tro­vert­ible that, despite an alliance with plu­to­crat­ic big­ots like John Kasich dur­ing the cam­paign, Biden received a small­er share of the Repub­li­can vote this year than Hillary Clin­ton did in 2016. And, due to the Democ­rats’ fail­ure to make a robust eco­nom­ic pitch coun­ter­ing Trump’s, Biden lost a chunk of vot­ers from key groups of the for­mer Oba­ma coali­tion to the GOP, includ­ing some African-Amer­i­cans, Lati­nos, Asian-Amer­i­cans, LGBTQ vot­ers and even Mus­lims, as well as low­er- and mid­dle-income house­holds. But what put Biden over the top was the tire­less work of grass­roots pro­gres­sive groups in key states and cities, and mas­sive turnout by young peo­ple, par­tic­u­lar­ly young peo­ple of color. 

In oth­er words, polit­i­cal suc­cess for the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty lies not in con­tin­u­ing to appeal to the Repub­li­can vot­ers they’ve imag­ined in their heads, but by con­struct­ing a pop­u­lar, bread-and-but­ter agen­da that works for a broad swath of Amer­i­cans, and by excit­ing their base. Stop­ping a far-right come­back in the years ahead means get­ting Demo­c­ra­t­ic vot­ers to turn out in sim­i­lar num­bers in the 2022 midterms, with­out the threat of Trump to moti­vate them.

In 2010, after fail­ing to suf­fi­cient­ly respond to the pain felt around the coun­try, Democ­rats spent the run-up to the midterms hec­tor­ing vot­ers for not being more enthu­si­as­tic. ​You can’t shape your future if you don’t par­tic­i­pate,” Oba­ma told vot­ers, while Biden hit the trail and lec­tured their ​base con­stituen­cy to stop whin­ing and get out there and look at the alter­na­tives.” They were reward­ed with a drub­bing at the bal­lot box. 

This approach didn’t cut it then, and it cer­tain­ly won’t cut it this time. The par­ty bare­ly scraped through this year’s elec­tion under his­tor­i­cal­ly favor­able con­di­tions. To avoid this fate, Democ­rats will have to give vot­ers some­thing to actu­al­ly turn out for. Even with an obstruc­tion­ist Con­gress, there is more than enough Pres­i­dent-elect Biden can do if he has the courage and the polit­i­cal will. The moment is his, to seize or squander.

Print
Print Share Comment Cite Upload Translate Updates

Leave a Reply

APA

Branko Marcetic | Radio Free (2020-11-13T17:57:00+00:00) Instead of Repeating the Obama Administration, Biden Must Do Better. Here's How. – A successful Biden presidency will require immediately making working people's lives better—and this is where to start.. Retrieved from https://www.radiofree.org/2020/11/13/instead-of-repeating-the-obama-administration-biden-must-do-better-heres-how-a-successful-biden-presidency-will-require-immediately-making-working-peoples-lives-better-and-thi/

MLA
" » Instead of Repeating the Obama Administration, Biden Must Do Better. Here's How. – A successful Biden presidency will require immediately making working people's lives better—and this is where to start.." Branko Marcetic | Radio Free - Friday November 13, 2020, https://www.radiofree.org/2020/11/13/instead-of-repeating-the-obama-administration-biden-must-do-better-heres-how-a-successful-biden-presidency-will-require-immediately-making-working-peoples-lives-better-and-thi/
HARVARD
Branko Marcetic | Radio Free Friday November 13, 2020 » Instead of Repeating the Obama Administration, Biden Must Do Better. Here's How. – A successful Biden presidency will require immediately making working people's lives better—and this is where to start.., viewed ,<https://www.radiofree.org/2020/11/13/instead-of-repeating-the-obama-administration-biden-must-do-better-heres-how-a-successful-biden-presidency-will-require-immediately-making-working-peoples-lives-better-and-thi/>
VANCOUVER
Branko Marcetic | Radio Free - » Instead of Repeating the Obama Administration, Biden Must Do Better. Here's How. – A successful Biden presidency will require immediately making working people's lives better—and this is where to start.. [Internet]. [Accessed ]. Available from: https://www.radiofree.org/2020/11/13/instead-of-repeating-the-obama-administration-biden-must-do-better-heres-how-a-successful-biden-presidency-will-require-immediately-making-working-peoples-lives-better-and-thi/
CHICAGO
" » Instead of Repeating the Obama Administration, Biden Must Do Better. Here's How. – A successful Biden presidency will require immediately making working people's lives better—and this is where to start.." Branko Marcetic | Radio Free - Accessed . https://www.radiofree.org/2020/11/13/instead-of-repeating-the-obama-administration-biden-must-do-better-heres-how-a-successful-biden-presidency-will-require-immediately-making-working-peoples-lives-better-and-thi/
IEEE
" » Instead of Repeating the Obama Administration, Biden Must Do Better. Here's How. – A successful Biden presidency will require immediately making working people's lives better—and this is where to start.." Branko Marcetic | Radio Free [Online]. Available: https://www.radiofree.org/2020/11/13/instead-of-repeating-the-obama-administration-biden-must-do-better-heres-how-a-successful-biden-presidency-will-require-immediately-making-working-peoples-lives-better-and-thi/. [Accessed: ]
rf:citation
» Instead of Repeating the Obama Administration, Biden Must Do Better. Here's How. – A successful Biden presidency will require immediately making working people's lives better—and this is where to start. | Branko Marcetic | Radio Free | https://www.radiofree.org/2020/11/13/instead-of-repeating-the-obama-administration-biden-must-do-better-heres-how-a-successful-biden-presidency-will-require-immediately-making-working-peoples-lives-better-and-thi/ |

Please log in to upload a file.




There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.

You must be logged in to translate posts. Please log in or register.