I think I must be missing something here...

[TDale313]

Regarding the Senate. I know it’s 50/50, but we do have the tie break. Why do we need a power sharing agreement? Are we trying to seem reasonable or is there a procedural reason we have to clear this hurdle?

[drray23]

1. every new congress, they have to hash out the rules.

Its standard procedure to do so. We will have all chairmanships and of course the majority, we are not really sharing anything.
What those rules say is formalize that and say how many of each party will be in committees, etc..

[TDale313]

4. Ok. So basic housekeeping to the start of a session

But McConnell saying if we put in removing the filibuster he’ll try and block it (which presumably means you can’t move forward til that’s hashed out) Does that sound like what’s playing out?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Same deal as Mitch denying Merrick Garland & then rushing Barrett through at last minute. Hypocrisy.

[LizBeth]

5. +1

[bigtree]

3. it's for committees

...which advance legislation, appointments to the floor for votes.

Right now the committees are the same composition as before we gained control. The percentages need adjusting to 50/50, and there's the question of chairmanship.

Although we have a 51st vote in the VP, it can only be cast in the event of a tie on the floor, not at all in committees.

Although the proportion of the committees is to be decided on the number of Senators apportioned to each party, the percentage is 'subject to negotiation.' The lack of an agreement leaves the current balance in committees (tilted to republicans) in place.

But it's not as critical to bringing votes or nominations to the floor as it might suggest, as the Majority leader can call anything up for a vote that he wishes.