In classic economist fashion, this hasn’t stopped him from butting in to opine on the matter.
Jason Furman has been relatively quiet in recent months, but last Wednesday he decided to take a potshot at FTC Chair Lina Khan for… doing her job. Quote tweeting a post from Punchbowl News, a Hill rag with very close ties to prominent Republicans, Furman called out Khan for meeting with members of Congress. Despite having spent years of his life working in the White House and for prominent DC think tanks, Furman somehow has managed to reach middle age without learning how government works. Meeting with members of Congress is not only exceedingly common for agency heads, it’s expected.
Henry’s perspective:
As a former Capitol Hill staffer, Furman’s claim that hosting agency leaders at district town halls is campaigning is laughable. I have helped plan countless events with federal agencies ranging from the VA to Social Security and the USDA. I’ve even planned events where Trump-appointed officials came to the district of my then boss, a Democrat, for a listening session with local stakeholders. None of these events were an attempt to co-opt nonpartisan civil servants of the VA or Social Security into a political campaign. Nor did the political officials see it to be a campaign event. After all, if they had, why would a Trump official show up to support a California Democrat? It’s just how members of Congress serve their district; ensuring that federal agencies are aware of the problems their constituents face, and are working to resolve them.
As the FTC’s Director of the Office of Public Affairs Douglas Farrar explained about Khan’s events, she was “attend[ing] official events at the request of Members of Congress.” Largely these events are town halls and listening sessions—things that government officials should be doing in general, regardless of how soon the election is.
Members of Congress inviting the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission out to their district to speak with their constituents about the effects of things like junk fees, monopolization, and other FTC-relevant issues is part of that. Portraying Khan as doing “campaign-like events” with Democrats is disingenuous without proof she’s turning down invitations from Republicans to do similar events. So far, there is no evidence of this.
It’s hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but a lot of the work of being a member of Congress is being the customer service department for the federal government. It’s crucial, non-glamorous, underreported work to ensure that their constituents are taken care of. This is why things like town hall events are able to be paid for with government funds and staffed by government employees rather than campaign staff. Listening to your constituents can be seen as an insidious plot to build your reputation and win reelection, but it’s also just the job of being in Congress. One would have expected an experienced political insider like Furman to know this.
(This is why, frankly, RDP is an antidote to ignorant neoliberal think tanks – we’ve long focused on Congressional oversight of the executive branch as one of the most important and least well understood aspects of how our government falls short.)
What makes this even more galling is Furman’s comparison of the FTC to the Federal Reserve. Furman points to the Federal Reserve’s “norm” of nonpartisanship (without addressing the fact that Federal Reserve Chair Powell has acted suspiciously partisan), but fails to explain how that has been maintained – through budgetary independence. The Federal Reserve is not funded through Congressional appropriations, which allows it to operate quite freely from political interference. We’ve written before about how funding separate from Congress allows for greater independence, but unfortunately, this does not apply to the FTC as it does to the Federal Reserve. As a result, if Chair Khan wants her agency to have the funding necessary to carry out its mission, she must be solicitous of Congress.
In Furman’s defense, Punchbowl News wrote their piece in the most scandalous way possible, but falling prey to Punchbowl’s clickbait-style writing is even more concerning when discussing a supposedly insightful pundit like Furman. Here’s a quick breakdown of the most glaring lines in Punchbowl’s deceptive piece:
- “But the latest headline-grabber to spend the week with members courting votes isn’t an Instagram influencer. It’s Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan.”
Khan is not doing events with members of Congress as they are “courting votes.” Just because you do an event with someone running for office, does not mean you are participating in a campaign.
- “That makes [Gallego] the kind of candidate who might want to echo concerns about the FTC expressed by Silicon Valley figures who are key supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign. Instead, Gallego’s embracing Khan.”
Polls show that being tough on corporations is extremely popular in battleground states, including Arizona. The idea that somehow “Silicon Valley figures” are representative of Arizona swing voters is farcical; they have hardly anything in common.
- “Khan’s events with lawmakers have nominal policy themes, of course.”
The word nominal is doing a lot of editorializing here and Punchbowl lacks any evidence to back up the implication that the policy themes are token. Is Lina Khan such a prominent and popular figure amongst the general public as to make the assumption that she’s there as an electoral rockstar the default?
- “Khan-limbo: The FTC chair’s appearances on the road with Democrats come as her own future in Washington is in doubt. Khan’s term is up, and her hard-charging approach to the job seems to make the chances of a renomination slim no matter who holds the White House.”
As David Dayen has pointed out, Khan doesn’t need to be renominated, she can simply keep doing the job in accordance with FTC statute. This is an intentional part of how independent agencies were designed by Congress; sometimes the work is important enough that it needs to be done regardless of nomination fights.
While Furman may have fallen prey to the bogus piece by Punchbowl, it seems unlikely. Given that Khan is the progressive in the Biden Administration taking the most heat from the center and right in recent months, I’m weary of giving Furman the benefit of the doubt.
We’ve also picked fights with other hacks and flacks. Here’s what we don’t want you to miss:
YIMBYism Doesn’t Mean You Have To Ignore Price Fixing
Matt Yglesias believes that solving the housing issue is simple. So simple in fact that he gets frustrated by anyone who mentions RealPage’s alleged price fixing scheme as a distraction from the “real” issues. We’re as confused as you are.
The Harris Campaign Doesn’t Need Adam Kovacevich’s Advice
Big Tech lobbyist, friend of Senator Tom Cotton, and proud picket line-crosser Adam Kavocevich has issues with RDP’s work to keep corporate stooges like himself out of the executive branch. That’s why this week he lambasted our work in a Twitter thread that both misrepresents our stances and seeks to blame us for… Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo’s failures? Trust us, we’re as confused as you are.
The Institute for Progress is not a democratic socialist think tank. It’s not even a liberal think tank. In fact, its co-founder, Alec Stapp, readily identifies as a neoliberal. So why is he using a Swedish union head to bash American labor leaders? Nothing more than a cynical ploy. He and his organization’s close allies on the right are not interested in Swedish labor laws, just in bashing the US labor movement.
Addressing Readers’ Struggles With Reading Comprehension
One of Hackwatch’s most cherished readers, Matthew Yglesias, seemed to have a hard time understanding some of our work last week. So we responded to his comment with a breakdown of what we meant, and how he should try to understand the trustworthiness of wealthy, self-interested political donors.