Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPresident Joe Biden issued the first veto of his presidency Monday in an early sign of shifting White House relations with the new Congress since Republicans took control of the House in January—a move that serves as a prelude to bigger battles with GOP lawmakers on government spending and the nation’s debt limit.
Biden sought to kill a Republican-authored measure that would ban the government from considering environmental impacts or potential lawsuits when making investment decisions for people’s retirement plans. In a video released by the White House, Biden said he vetoed the measure because it “put at risk the retirement savings of individuals across the country.”
His first veto represents a more confrontational approach at the midway of Biden’s term in office, as he faces a GOP-controlled House that is eager to undo parts of his policy legacy and investigate his administration and his family. Complicating matters for Biden, several Democratic senators are up for re-election next year in conservative states, giving them political incentive to put some distance between them and the White House.
The measure vetoed by Biden would have effectively reinstated a Trump-era ban on federal managers of retirement plans considering factors such as climate change, social impacts or pending lawsuits when making investment choices.
The veto could also help calm some anger from environmentalists who have been upset with the Biden administration for its recent decision to greenlight the Willow oil project, a massive and contentious drilling project in Alaska.
“The president vetoed the bill because it jeopardizes the hard-earned life savings of cops, firefighters, teachers, and other workers,” White House spokesperson Robyn Patterson said.
But critics say so-called environmental, social and governance investments allocate money based on political agendas, such as a drive against climate change, rather than on earning the best returns for savers. Republicans in Congress who pushed the measure said environmental or social considerations in investments by the government are just another example of being “woke.”
“In his first veto, Biden just sided with woke Wall Street over workers,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tweeted on Monday. “Tells you exactly where his priorities lie.” He said “it’s clear Biden wants Wall Street to use your retirement savings to fund his far-left political causes.”
Biden’s veto is likely to prevail. Just three Democrats in Congress — one in the House, and two in the Senate—supported Republicans in the matter, making it unlikely a two-thirds majority in both chambers could be assembled to overcome Biden’s veto.
Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, was the sole Democrat to back the resolution in the House, while Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., supported it in the Senate. Golden is a perennial target of Republicans seeking to oust him from his conservative district, while Tester and Manchin are both up for re-election next year.
“This administration continues to prioritize their radical policy agenda over the economic, energy and national security needs of our country, and it is absolutely infuriating,” Manchin said in a statement.
Though Biden swiftly vetoed the investment resolution, other measures coming from Capitol Hill in the weeks and months ahead could be a tougher call for the White House.
The administration initially signaled that Biden would reject a Republican-authored measure that would override a crime measure passed by the District of Columbia Council, but the president later said he would sign it and did so Monday. He also signed a bill directing the federal government to declassify intelligence related to the origins of COVID-19.
Biden’s immediate predecessor, Donald Trump, vetoed 10 bills during his term in office, while Barack Obama vetoed 12, according to the the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Both had one of their vetoes overridden by Congress.
The president with the most vetoes was Franklin Delano Roosevelt—who was elected to four terms before a constitutional amendment limited all presidents to two—with 635 vetoes. Six U.S. presidents never vetoed any legislation in office.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Good
Are you saying we need more results like SVB and Signature?
From the article – “This administration continues to prioritize their radical policy agenda over the economic, energy and national security needs of our country, and it is absolutely infuriating,” Manchin said in a statement.
Thomas, please provide the data or evidence that ESG investing caused the bank failures. Without that, the claim is classic causal fallacy. The quotation is from a conservative Democratic Senator, representing a R+22 state, up for reelection next year. Hardly a beacon of objectivity.
What is a “beacon of objectivity” Timothy?
Manchin is a “conservative Democratic Senator”, who, if you transposed his views to the 1990s, would still be on the extreme left end of the party. I respect Manchin for stopping his party’s lemmings from jumping on the cliff in a few instances, but he’s only “conservative” because if he went any further left he’d get trounced by his own constituents–in a state that was as Democrat as they come in the 1990s.
I know one example does not define a major corporation, but when a bank like SVP promotes Jay Ersapah as the “head of Financial Management & Model Risk”, it does lead one to wonder what other decisions have elevated identitatrian principles over merit. Is Mx. Ersapah well schooled in finance? Does xie have an MBA, or at least a bachelors in Economics? We’ll never know. Xir primary qualities, as listed on various profiles, is “LGBTQ+ queer person of color immigrant”.
I know I’m a raging bigot and all, but seriously–if you’re going to put money in a bank, wouldn’t the first thing most reasonable people care about would be the following: do they understand markets and risk management? Are they going to make sound investment decisions? Are they going to do things that will grow the company? And if they choose niche identity groups over expertise in the subject that is the basis of their business, why would reasonable people think the bank will continue to flourish. Any business that wishes to out-compete SVB would simply be one notch less woke and would get competence where SVB clearly lacked it.
Objectivity of the reporting be danged: SVB clearly had other policies. And our asterisk president wants to shift business more in that direction, even to the point of vetoing a bill that had bipartisan approval.
Hard times ahead.
Is it fun living in an alternate reality? Manchin would be considered a mainstream rural Democrat if this were the 90’s. He certainly wouldn’t have been considered part of the extreme left. It’s obvious that the Republicans have shifted further right than the Democrats have shifted left.
Both parties are moving further from the middle, but the Republicans have drifted so far right that they’re resembling an authoritarian party. This is why you’re seeing the wealthy and highly educated continue moving from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Wealthy suburbs like Fishers, Carmel, and Zionsville are trending blue, while declining rural areas are trending red. I definitely don’t mean that as an insult either, it’s just an objective fact. This was the opposite situation decades ago.