The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3601 - Private Equity's Favorite Democrat w/ David Dayen

Episode Date: March 16, 2026

Sam Seder and Emma Vigeland welcome David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect and co-host of the Organized Money podcast, to discuss his piece on Brian Schatz, Chuck Schumer's heir apparent in the Senate, who attacked a bipartisan housing bill solely to support private equity. David's report: https://prospect.org/2026/03/13/brian-schatz-comfort-with-big-money/ Check out David's podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@OrganizedMoneyPodcast   The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: Today's Sponsors: • JUST COFFEE: Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code MAJORITY for 10% off your purchase! • COZY EARTH: Go to https://cozyearth.com/MAJORITYREPORT for up to 20% off • WILDGRAIN: Get $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to https://Wildgrain.com/MAJORITY to start your subscription • SMALLS: For a limited time, get 60% off your first order, plus free shipping, when you head to https://Smalls.com/majority

Hi, folks. You know, for a long time, I thought I was a dog person. And then I realized I'm not a dog person. And I have a cat. And I realized, you know, when I first got cats, too, I was like, I'm not a cat person. And I was like, slowly over time, I realize I'm not really even a people person. I just want to be. And then you ascend to not even being a person anymore.

Exactly. But here's the thing. I am now developing a very intense relationship with my cat. I don't mean it in a weird way, but like I... Sounds weird. Well, I only see him, you know, I don't see him... I see him less than full-time because he goes back and forth. I have limited...

Well, I have, you know, I don't have total custody of the cat. But I have developed a relationship with him, and I have found the secret. And it is full-on, like, just... I don't say bribery, but... Making them eat as good as you do. Exactly. This podcast is sponsored by Smalls. If the news is making you want to cut up with your cat,

Smalls fresh cat food is protein pack recipes made with preservative-free 100% human-grade ingredients you can find in your fridge, and it's delivered right to your door. That's why Cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food, and for a limited time, you can get 60% off your fridge. your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com slash majority starting with smalls is easy you share info about your cat's diet their health their food preferences smalls puts together a personalized meal plan for your cat no more picking between random brands at the store smalls has the right food to satisfy any of your cat's cravings here's my secret my cat loves small's cat food

but my cat goes ballistic for the smalls nut sauce what do you call it? Juice, crazy. Yes, the the broth. Broth. If I put broth in anything, he will lick it up. It's crazy. He loves it. And now what I'm doing is like I'm actually like doling it out.

I'm giving them a full thing, but I dole it out so that my hand is near it when he gets it. that he associates it would make. He knows who's giving it to him. Listen, the bottom line is it's working. Forbes ranked small is the best overall cat food, while BuzzFeed says my cats went completely ballistic for this stuff. That's exactly what my cats did. And his coat is shinier.

I think that's because of smalls. I mean, he's just eating better. 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements, and of course that's a big deal. The team at Smalls is so confident your cat's going to love their product. You can try it risk-free. That means they'll refund you if your cat won't eat their food. Stop guessing which meals upset their stomach for limited time because you're a majority report.

Listener, you get 60% off your first order plus free shipping when you head to Smalls.com slash majority. One last time, 60% off your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com slash majority. Now time for the show. It is Monday. March 16, 2006. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA.

On the program today, David Dayan, executive editor of the American prospect. co-host of the podcast, organized money, we'll be here to talk about the housing bill that just passed the Senate, some of the anti-tax sentiment brewing in the Democratic Party, Yuck, Live Nation, and maybe the meatpacking bill, all that and more. Also, on the program today, Trump threatens NATO if they failed to help with his disastrous Iran, war. This as oil, now over $100 a barrel again. FCC threatens broadcast licenses over Iran war coverage.

That's always a good sign that things are going well. $100 billion supplemental bill now being now being floated as war is costing almost $2 billion a day. Senate supposedly to take up the Save Act tomorrow. Meanwhile, Israel kills 12 in Gaza, including two children and a pregnant woman, kills four of six family members going on a picnic in the West Bank. This in between bombing the hell out of Lebanon and displacing almost a million internal refugees. there. In this country, NIH NIH research grants

plummet nearly down to zero, almost effectively. Speaking of poor health outcomes, the Kennedy Center to vote today on closing for Trump renovations and an Afghan refugee who

helped the U.S. during the Afghan war helped the special forces dies in ice custody, now making close to 20 who have died in ice custody. All this and more. Oh, and I should say also, 3,800 workers set to strike that the largest meat packing plant in the nation, all this and more on today's majority report.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, it is... Fun Day Monday. And I would be remiss if I did not start by saying, congratulations. Congratulations to Saul Cedar on his bar mitz for this weekend. It was wonderful. He killed it. He did very well. Would it be too far for me to say that his speech restored my faith in humanity?

I was bonarized. I was so sad. I cried like an inappropriate amount, and I was looking around at all the actual family there, and no one was crying as hard as me. I didn't have a tissue or anything, so it was a little. You may have a better sense of how. how rough the future is. That may have been.

Maybe, maybe. But he was so, well, it was, Cornelie, it was sweet to hear, you know, all of his egalitarian sentiments in his speech. It's clear he's your son. He was very, very articulate and smart. I hadn't heard any of that stuff beforehand. And I had known he was a little, you know, nervous about it,

but he killed it. He was amazing. He did very well. He was amazing. He did very well. So very proud of Saul C. and now I can start to ride him even harder about things like homework and other stuff. Well, now he's a man.

Exactly. Yeah, as I said during the, I think a toast, it was Saturday night. It was a Havdala Bar Mitzvah. He became a man. And then on Monday back to seventh grade. As you do. Yep, exactly. All right, let's get into this stuff.

And thank you for the well wishes, folks. We got on Friday. The latest is that Donald Trump now is seeking help from other countries to support ships going through the Straits of Hormuz. Because really, I mean, and you really need to almost to hear like it explicitly, you almost need to listen to sort of like CNN international. or the BBC, like there is increasingly people are saying, as it stands now, we're going to suffer a severe oil shock as this works through the system. All of these different plans that we hear floated about, well, we're going to release strategic reserves.

We're going to ask everybody to release their strategic reserves. Well, you know, Saudi Arabia can re-diver some of its. fuel to the Dead Sea. Some people actually floating the use of limited nuclear weapons to build a canal through Saudi Arabia. Very interesting proposal. Which is, and of course, you know, were we, did we, if we had not had a president and a series of presidents, frankly, who have ignored the problem of, man-made climate change and really just also our involvement in the Middle East because of our necessity to protect the world's oil supplies, both as a function of our own use in the prices,

but also maybe to maintain the petro dollar. We would be a much better position to deal with this. The world would be because we would have EV cars all over the place and we'd have charging stations and our EV cars would go five, six hundred miles on a charge, and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We would be solar, we would be powering more of our grid, wind, maybe in water, but we don't. So we have Pete Higgseth explaining, like, of course we plan for this. You have said that the U.S. military is essentially aerial superiority, naval superiority, over Iran, yet we're not escorting ships to the Strait of Form U. Why? How did you not plan for this?

We plan for it. We recognize it. Because ultimately, we want to do it sequentially in a way that makes the most sense for what we want to achieve and ensure that we're sending the right signals to the world when we do so. So when Chris Wright speaks or we speak, it's based on a full assessment of what we're up against, what we want to say to the world, how we want them to see and understand the conflict. It's like this whole idea of the war widening. That's what the press wants to make it look like, like it's widening and chaos and so it. No, we're actually closing in on grabbing hold of and controlling what objectives we want to achieve and how we want to achieve them. It's called shaping operations and setting the conditions.

Oh. You don't always tell, I mean, foolish political leaders and foolish military leaders of the past will hang an exact deadline on it, or here's exactly when we'll do what we're going to do, or here's how long it's going to take us. And then if you meet that, maybe you meet it. But if you don't, you fail and if you're far beyond, we know exactly what we're shaping and why. We're sending those signals working across the interagency.

The Strait of Hormuz is something we've paid attention to from the beginning. And the American people can rest assured, we will ensure that our interests are advanced, no doubt. Oh, in other words, it was always our plan to have oil go to 100 a barrel because President Trump had just invested probably in, in some oil thing. I mean, this is the kind of answer you get from from people when they clearly

realize they have stepped in shit and they have no response for it, but that's what it is. And he's getting very uptight. Oh, incidentally, a reminder, I headline this. The FCC has a problem with the war coverage. Frankly, I don't know if I've seen less

war coverage. When we've been engaged in a full-on war like this, I mean, even Iraq, you would get mostly embedded reporters who are coming from there, but there would be some independent stuff. But the amount of control they have exerted over Twitter in TikTok and CBS, and then just sort of the built-in bias of a lot of these networks to want to promote war. I mean, even CNN has that built-in. bias, but you can almost tell because there is like hedging that's happening, whether it's, you see Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper going over the top right now in anticipation of the Ellison takeover of the network. And so I think there, networks like CNN are being extra careful because

they want to appease the Zionist potential new owners. Without a doubt, I think that's absolutely true. Here is Hegsseth explaining to all you. ding-dongs out there. You foolish past military and political leaders. Strait of Hormuz is in fine shape. It's just like literally one tiny complication. Alexander Ingersoll on American News. Can you tell us a little bit more about the Strait of Hormuz and when it might be fully operational again? And how do we ensure our objective of denying Iran a nuclear weapon if they continue to, align with our adversaries. So I'll pause it for one second.

I'll ask you for that question is also coming from one America. Iran is aligning with our adversaries regarding nuclear weapons. Like, what? Who is he even referring to? The Soviets could have given Iran a nuclear weapon theoretically, well, decades ago. I mean, who is it that she, like, who is she? even like they're just creating this whole thing like well now it's i mean now it's a whole uh they're aligning with our i mean does she mean that they're still doing business with china because that's not

going to stop this is just going to keep accelerating if that's the case again uh one uh note iran said will allow ships to go through uh if they start buying their oil neon instead of uh the petro dollar so uh okay we plan for that there is it check We did, okay, exactly as we thought. And how do we ensure our objective of denying Iran a nuclear weapon if they continue to align with our adversaries? So I'll take it and chime in, Mr. Chairman, if you'd like it all. I want to emphasize what the chairman said about that. The only thing prohibiting transit in the straits right now is Iran shooting at shipping.

It is open for transit, should Iran not do that. Now, there's a reason why we chose, as one of our primary objectives, destroy the Navy. We understood the ability to interdict shipping is something Iran has done for 40 years. I'm sorry. Can you pause it? We don't need to hear anymore. But because he's also not even being accurate about the types of warfare that is often used to police the straight. They are primarily doing this. Like there's a lot of coverage about the mines that they're being laid.

But they do this through drones as well, the Iranians. And they're able to do it quite cheaply. Their Navy, when it comes to these things, are like literally mini. power boats and that just go and drop the mines. Is he talking about where the United States torpedoed an Iranian vessel that was coming back from a joint training operation and killed dozens of people and left them to drown so the Sri Lankan Navy had to go and help them from drowning, which is something that not even the Nazis did, because I wouldn't say that classifies as destroying their Navy.

Well, we could get rid of their entire Navy. It's, you know, and then he'll just be, except for the minds, there's no problem. We couldn't stop the Houthis. You norps don't get it. Here is Caroline Levitt now. And interesting, we're starting to see a certain amount of like, there's a desperation in this tone where you start to see like, huh, all of my friends seem to be walking away from me. I wonder what that's about as my nose is bleeding. Step up to safeguard ships in the streets of poor rules.

Why should other countries that were consulted about this war that are involved in this war now leave their troops in terms of way to industry? Because these other countries are benefiting greatly from the United States military taking out the threat of Iran. The rogue Iranian regime has long not just posed a threat to the United States of America, but of course to our Gulf and Arab partners in the region, as you see, I believe Iran has struck more than 300 civilian targets in the Gulf region. If you think about Europe, their ballistic missile capability that the United States military is currently wiping out was a direct and imminent threat to our European allies as well as

our bases in the region, which is why President Trump took this action in the first place. So these countries are absolutely benefiting from ensuring that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon. This is something not just the United States, but the entire Western world has agreed with for many, many years. So I think the president is absolutely right to call on these countries to do more, to help the United States to reopen the Strait of Hermuz so that we can stop this terrorist regime from restricting the free flow of energy. And the fact that they are doing so just underscores why President Trump needed to take this action in the first place. That last part is my favorite. So we'll start there. Look at, they have shown their true

selves by responding to our massive attack on them by attacking back. Using their leverage. Exactly. How dare they exercise their sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz or over their own resources, which is, by the way, what this is all about. They are, we're like the administration is upset that Iran is outside of the American capitalist sphere of influence. And that's why we are bombing the hell out of them right now.

And the bottom line is, obviously, our allies don't realize how much we're helping them. I'm doing this for you guys. You don't see. You're getting help so much. So much for this. How could you not see it? This is going so great. And it's so good for you.

You know what you need to do is put your ships there and get blown up. Even though we are so tactically dominant, it's now time for everybody to enjoy. the fun. I'm not getting upset about this at all. Here I am on my airplane, just coming out of the bathroom again, and to talk about how great this is going. I think it's a good thing for other countries to come in. Now, it would have been nice. As I said to the prime minister of the UK, who sort of was reluctant to put his two aircraft carriers into arms way. That would be two weeks ago. And as soon as we demolished essentially pretty much abolished them, not over yet, but pretty much we're in great shape. That way, everybody knows.

He said, we'd like to send our aircraft carries. I said, I don't want them after we went before. I want it before we start the war. So whether it's whether we get support or not, but I can say this and I send it to them, we will remember. Okay, great. Well, so, and so now he's threatening NATO countries if they don't help, but he's also doing it because he cares so much about NATO. That's the thing. Yeah.

He wants them to share in the glory too. Exactly. I don't want to do this all by myself and hog all the glory. I want it to be spread around so you all can feel great about yourselves, too. Put some of the benchwarmers in. They call it the Walter White theory. I'm doing this all for you, all of this drug dealing. Just kidding.

Not until the end. Does he admit that it was all for him? But also, why is, how is Trump able to make this case when the United States isn't even deploying our own Navy to protect the shipping? Because it's way too dangerous. And we're putting American troops in harm's way. So he's literally saying like all these European countries, why don't you go first? You put your people in harm's way. And then we'll see how it goes.

Oh, I'm sorry if I don't want to hog all the glory. I don't like being the only one who is incredibly successful. I want everybody to be successful. We're having so much fun getting dozens of people killed on our side and hundreds on the other side. Don't you guys want to tap in? Don't you want to die for Jeffrey Epstein too? Speaking of U.S. casualties in this war, it is fascinating how the loss of lives of U.S. servicemen can, change depending on the context.

Here is Nancy Mace with the, essentially the Republican line here, is that really there's not going to be, there's no number of U.S. casualties that really will have an impact on this. Now, and let's assume that we're getting the straight numbers from this administration for the sake of argument. And let's, for just the sake of this clip, ignore the fact that we have killed hundreds upon hundreds of Iranian civilians, the ones that were at one point we were liberating. Now that seems to be sort of secondary to just making sure that they allow oil to pass through and stop acting so petulant about being bombarded. But here's Nancy Mace explaining her perspective on the supposed price of U.S. casualties.

Now know, Congresswoman, that all six crew members aboard that refueling aircraft that went down in Iraq have been killed, bringing the total number of U.S. service members killed in this war to 13. What's your message to their families and to others with troops overseas right now who are obviously and understandably worried? A similar fate, God forbid, could happen to their loved ones. Well, America's sons and daughters have signed up to give the ultimate sacrifice to fight for our country. our people, our allies, and freedom and democracy around the world. So as the daughter of an Army veteran, my heart goes out to these families. These families serve just as hard as the soldiers who are deployed overseas.

They sacrifice everything for their families and their country. And so I want to say that my prayers are with them as they walk a very long walk that's going to change our lives forever. But America, we support them, we love them, and we send our blessings to all of these folks across the country, and I hope that we have no more deaths of American soldiers. And I want to say, well, while I'm here talking and discussing this conflict with you, I don't want to see American troops on the ground. I know that one of our senators said the other day he was going back to South Carolina. Okay. And now let's, uh, so, uh, she knows that they signed up for this

to protect American freedom and this and that. And, um, and, and she knows how difficult it is. And we send our, our prayers. Um, I'm 13 is an interesting number because, uh, it does not seem like we're going to dwell on the 13 that have died in this in this conflict. As the conflict moves forward and undoubtedly we're going to lose more American military personnel. But it's okay because they signed up for it and we're getting peace. And she doesn't want boots on the ground. That's really important. Yeah.

Because we don't want to expose more military personnel to the chance of being killed. Here is the Republican report on the end of the Afghanistan war and the withdrawal as the committee's report on the Biden-Harris administration deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan. Here it is. This report represents the findings of the committee's majority investigation into the Biden-Harris' administration withdrawal from Afghanistan at 2021. The withdrawal culminated in the Abbeygate terrorist attack on August 26th, which killed 13 U.S. service members. See, this is their deaths were in vain because that's not giving the ultimate sacrifice, as Nancy Mace would say. The more worthy sacrifice. If you're not like at the beginning of the war.

It's at the, yeah, it's a worthy sacrifice if you're on the offensive side of things. but if people die during a kind of withdrawal of a multi-decade war, then that is a spit in the face of the purpose of the service, which is to die in service of capitalist interests and imperial interests and Israel. That is what it is all about, baby. Like she's basically saying to you as service members, you guys, dying was kind of a part of the deal, okay? And if it's in service of an offensive action, you're good.

You're good. Stop complaining. They were mad at that withdrawal because it meant that the boondoggle of permanent occupation of Afghanistan was over. If you die in service of future deaths, it's much more invaluable. We'll have more to say about this war. Later in a moment, we're going to be talking to David Day, and he's the executive editor of the American prospect, a co-host of the Big Money podcast. First, a couple of words from our sponsors.

Guys, if your hair isn't playing like it did in your 20s, it might be time for a real comeback. Not another workaround because throwing on a hat is no strategy. Neutralfall supports healthier hair from within. It's physician formulated, clinically tested, and recommended by dermatologists, giving you a clear, legitimate plan so you can stop covering up and stop showing up with confidence. I've been taking NutraFal for a couple of years, and it's been, I've seen an impact, both on like the feel of my hair, but frankly, I was feeling a little thinning on this side of my head and much less so now. And it's up to up.

It's, I've kicked it up a notch. Neutrophol now offers hair growth supplements tailored to men at every age because the root causes of thinning hair change over time. and your routine should too. Nutrafall for ages 18 to 49 to help improve their hair growth, achieve thicker, fuller hair in three to six months. And I have recently begun the new NutriFal for Men 50 plus because, alas, I am 50 plus. I'm really 50 plus, but that doesn't matter. The first and only hair growth product specifically formulated for men 50 plus.

Nutrafall is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand, trusted by over one and a half million people. When I first felt like I might be getting a little thinning, I'm seeing a little bit more shedding in my towel after the shower. I was like, I want to take something, but I don't want to take something that's got like drugs. Nutrafall is a hair growth supplement. It's backed by peer-reviewed studies,

NSF content certified, which is the gold standard third-party certification for supplements. Adding a NutraFAL to your daily routine, easy. Order online. You don't need a prescription. Automated deliveries, free shipping, keep you on track. And with a NutraFal subscription, you can save up to 20 percent and get added perks to support your hair growth journey. Start NutraFall today. Make the hat optional. Visit NutraFault.com. Enter promo code TMR10, TMR10 for $10 off first month subscription and free shipping. Find out why NutraFal is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand at neuterfall.com spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code T-M-R-1-0-T-M-R-10,

all no spaces. That's NutraFol.com promo code TMR-10. Also, and we'll put a link in the podcast and YouTube subscription, and also sponsoring the program today is Wildcrain. I literally 24 hours ago, maybe a little, maybe 26 hours ago, after my son's bar mitzvah on Saturday, we had some family who had come in for the weekend and we're heading out Sunday afternoon. So we had a little brunch at my place. And when everybody came into the apartment, they smelled croissant. fresh baked croissant biscuits these ham and cheese

like croissant things I don't know but like a pumpkin biscuit I had regular biscuits and everybody is blown away like Sam how are you baking like aren't you exhausted from the barmecine? You know what are you going to do?

Just a wink something I whipped together Wild grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas. And unlike many store-bought options, wild grain uses simple ingredients you can pronounce, a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants. There's no preservatives.

There's no shortcuts. Plus, all items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less. No thawing required. You set your oven, it's either 350 or 375, depending on which it is. you put these things on a baking sheet. I got a little parchment paper. You drop it in the oven. 22 minutes, 20 minutes, 18 minutes, 25 minutes,

depending on what the thing you're baking is. And it is amazing. Incredibly delicious. I served all of it. It was, you know, we got a couple of bagels as well, not from wild grain, but everybody went for the fresh bake stuff. Because why wouldn't you? It's steaming hot.

It's fantastic. So it beat out bagels. I mean, destroyed it. Wow. Imagine having fresh bakery quality bread, pastries, and pasta at home without any trips to the store. And don't take my word for it. They have over 40,000 five-star reviews and have been voted the Best Food subscription box by USA Today for three years in a row. Not surprised.

For a limited time, wild grain is offering you $30 off your first box, plus free croissant. for life when you go to wildgrain.com slash majority to start your subscription today. That's $30 off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain. com slash majority where you can use the promo code majority at checkout. Check out the podcast or YouTube description and we'll put the links in there. Folks, quick break when we come back, David Dayen. We are back, Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. it is a pleasure to welcome back to the programs.

As always, David Dayne, the executive editor of the American prospect, and also the co-host, the Big Money podcast, which deals with something. Big Money. It's called Organized Money. Organized Money. Go to Organizedmoney.com. All right. Well, Shane's name. And Organized Money. I like your work on Jim's Burgers, Sam. Oh. Thank you.

All right, tchay. I mean, come on. Yeah, well, and listen, people say the minority report all the time. All the time. Yeah. That was a great, great film. Yeah, I enjoyed your work in that as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I was keeping that on the down low. David, let's start with, we saw a bipartisan bill passed the other day, which actually seems to be a positive bill, which I don't know how often. A, we see bipartisan things. But to the extent that we do, it's very rare that it's good. It's usually like, oh, this has got to be the one of the, oh, we've, oh, I know why it's bipartisan because we just added $400 million to our annual, or $400 billion to our annual military budget or something like that.

But this was a good one. Yeah. And not only bipartisan, but 89 votes in the Senate. with this bill and support from the White House. So, I mean, this is a rare bird in Donald Trump's Washington, no doubt. It's a housing bill that was put together by Elizabeth Warren and brought to the floor with Elizabeth Warren and Tim Scott, which is just interesting because it was like two months ago or so. Remember Warren did this video calling out Trump because he had said he wanted to do something about

housing and private equity and she's like, let's have a conversation. it looks like they did. Yeah, we'll talk to us about the genesis of the, and what the bill is, and then we'll get to why there was a Democrat who had a real problem with it. Yeah, absolutely. So for about a year now, Warren and Scott,

Scott is the chair of the Senate Banking Committee. Warren is the ranking member, had been trying to put something together on housing that kind of merges some, YIMBY concerns with also some concerns about funding. It really is kind of a kumbaya, bring everybody together, give everybody a little something kind of bill. And that's been going on for actually quite a while. It almost got into, I believe it was the defense bill. This package almost got into the defense bill. And at the last minute, House Republicans said, no, we don't want that. They kicked it out.

And so they brought it forward as a standalone. And among the things it does, it changes a certain definition that would promote manufactured housing, so prefabricated housing, we get a boost in this bill. It increases a number of funding opportunities, including through the community development block grant to fund affordable housing. And then it also attempts to sort of challenge the states. to do better on land use and zoning things, by sweetening the pot with more money

if they move forward with some different grants and things, or move forward with some different zoning changes. So that's the broad outline of the bill. Is there anything in there that, like, you've seen that sort of like is a red flag for you? I mean, you know, I don't want to get completely over my skis on it. Like you can, both things can be true. It is the biggest boost to housing in 35, 40 years, and it's also pretty modest, right?

Because we haven't done anything on housing in 35, 40 years. So it's not, I don't think it's revolutionary necessarily, but it does some good things that, that I think at the margins are going to help increase supply and also increase the ability to finance some of these, these projects. And then, so that was sort of the bill that was happening on that track. And then separately, Donald Trump comes out of 2025, realizing he's in trouble on the economy. And he comes up with a bunch of ideas, mostly kind of, you know, robbing some populist ideas to, you know, try to, you know, build an agenda or something. And one of these is an executive order that he files to say that private equity should have no place in the single family home market.

And so he puts this executive order together. And this bill doesn't have anything on that at that time. And Trump basically says, well, if you're going to get my signature on this bill, and you're going to get my support for this bill, you're going to have to put in something on private equity. and home buying. You know, I think there's some controversy around this, whether this actually matters to the housing market or not, but it is certainly the case that in some concentrated areas of the country, private equity has bought up,

ever since the financial crisis, private equity firms, have bought up single-family homes for cheap and then, you know, turn them around as rentals. And there are many, many studies, from those radicals at the Federal Reserve, who have said that, you know, the impact of private equity being a landlord means higher rents, more vacancies, more evictions,

and all kinds of junk fees, some of which was regulated by the Federal Trade Commission in 2024 under Lina Khan, which find invitation homes, which the biggest of the, the single-family rental firms. It's owned by Blackstone, or it was owned by Blackstone. Maybe it got spun out. But it find them a significant sum of money,

hundreds of millions of dollars, for routinely adding junk fees, fees on trash services, fees on security deposits, fees on how you can pay your rent. And also, you know, jacking out. up rents and doing illegal evictions and things like that. So clearly single-family rentals are a problem to a certain extent in the housing market. Trump's vision of it is that they're blocking people from buying homes because they're all casual and it's more attractive to the seller. There's some of that. There's some truth to that. I don't think it's the biggest issue in housing right now,

but there's definitely some truth to that. But the point is that Trump said, you got to put this in the bill, or I'm not going to sign the bill, and I'm not going to support the bill. So what happened after that is there was a negotiation between the White House, Tim Scott, and Elizabeth Warren. And it arrived at this solution that went into the bill.

Before that solution was there, Trump and the White House were sending out statements of administration policy that said, we don't support this bill or we're concerned that there's nothing around private equity and housing in it. After this provision got in, they sent a separate statement administration policy that said, we love this bill, we highlight the private equity housing piece, and we would sign this bill, and we strongly support it. So it's very clear that that was the price paid to get the bill passed.

There's no question about that. And it wasn't really a particularly heavy price. idea that private equity, it only applies to private equity that owns over 350 individual homes. So these are big players. And it says that you can, you can only, you are banned from purchasing it unless you sell after seven years of collecting rent and you sell it, which should essentially like, I mean, I don't know. Just be clear. Let's explain. exactly what it is. So private equity is banned from currently buying any, any homes under this provision of the bill. There's a, there's a particular technique that they have turned to,

now that there aren't as many foreclosures on the market, there aren't as many discounted homes out there. They've started to do this thing called build to rent. So they build the homes, build single family homes, specifically to rent them out. This is not a big part of the market. I think it's been growing in recent years, but it's still only about a per year average of maybe 40,000 homes total that are done through build to rent. We have 100 million housing units in the United States. It's not a big number. But it's become a small asset class for private equity. And the restriction in the bill is that if you're doing build to rent, if you're building homes in order,

to sell them or in order to rent them on the market, that's what you can hold for seven years. You can hold those bill to rent homes for seven years. And if the tenant wants to stay in the home, you can hold it for another three years. So it's really 10 years of collecting rent and then you get fair market value for the house. That seems revenue positive to me.

That still seems like something that works out from private equity's perspective or any institutional investor's perspective. But those firms and some of their allies in Congress have had a problem with this particular piece of the bill. Well, I want to turn to who has a problem with it because it's infuriating. But how does this impact home prices, though, more broadly? Like I know that we'll have to see down the line.

But Trump has been insisting and almost, saying the quiet part out loud, like, I don't want your, if you have had your home for 30 years and it's gone up 300%, 400% in value, I don't want you to lose value on that home when you sell it. So he doesn't seem to be able to address his desire to keep his constituency of over 55-year-olds happy and also address housing in a meaningful way. Yeah, there's definitely a tension there between his general desire, you know, in the abstract. to make things cheaper and his specific desire to increase home values for existing incumbent homeowners. That is a hard circle to square, really for anybody, especially for Donald Trump, who doesn't sweat the details.

I mean, he's also come out and said to the House, to House Speaker Mike Johnson reportedly, that, and I quote, I don't give a shit about housing. So, you know, clearly this is not a big deal for him. What is a big deal for him is to get his executive orders codified into law. And it doesn't matter what they are, but he just wants to make sure that his decrees become the law. And that's kind of what's at work in the political dynamic around this provision of the bill. Is this going to lower home prices? I mean, you know, I mean, I think on the margins, there are some good things in here that are going to to lead to more construction.

And if you believe that supply and demand is the major or primary factor in housing, then that would lead to lower prices. I think there's going to be more competition. If, for example, all cash deals are less of a thing, then there's a possibility that would be more competition for particular housing units. And that could lead to a better circumstance and the ability for, you know, the ability for individual for my own buyers and things like that to be able to get home. So, you know, I think, I think there are a lot of factors to this, but I think generally, I think even people who are

these sudden detractors of the bill would say that it's a broadly positive bill. Okay. So that, that said, a broadly positive bill, but somebody really took issue with this provision, which, as you say, is in the great scheme of things, not terribly, at least in a material way, not terribly, the stakes are not terribly high from a material perspective, although they could be, you know, marginally positive. But as a political matter, very, very consequential. But somebody came out and said, we can't have this. Called it positively Soviet. And this is a guy who's like, he's. He's been doing this for a while.

Right. It's Shats. So let's say who it is. Yeah, his name's Brian Shats. He's a senator from Hawaii. And if you didn't know, he is the heir apparent to Chuck Schumer as a Senate Democratic leader. He has locked up the votes to become the next Democratic whip when Dick Durbin retires at the end of this year. And he has all the votes for that.

He's very, very likely to become the number two. And then whatever happens to Chuck Schumer, whether it's in 2028 or beyond, he would be the next in line to be the Democratic leader in the Senate. And so many people, so many Democratic senators look in the mirror and see a president. And this guy looks in the mirror and sees a Democratic leader of the Senate. And I think therein lies the issue is that there's no real comprehensive. for this. So he is probably going to be this leader. And yes, he came out, I believe it was last Wednesday, decides to do a floor speech for the bill, opposing the bill. He voted against it. And he said his entire reason for voting against it was this provision on build to rent,

which he said, you know, making people sell properties after whatever period of time. as Emma said is positively Soviet, that this would, you know, ruin the housing market. It would stop people from building, would end this asset class, build to rent, and, you know, cats and dogs living together mass hysteria. So he made this speech, this was like a five-minute speech, and that's kind of the sum total of what he did.

He did not file an amendment to change this. He said in his speech, This is a two-line fix to fix this bill. He called it a drafting error. He said it's a two-line fix to fix this, but I was told that the bill was closed. Well, the bill wasn't closed. There were opportunities for amendments all the way up to the day that he made this speech, but he never filed an amendment, according to Senate aides that I talked to.

He never filed an amendment to change the bill. he did not change anybody's vote before he made this speech. There were 88 votes for the bill. After he made the speech, there were 89 because Cory Booker flipped the yes. This is the guy who's going to be the minority whip in the Senate, and he's not very good at whipping votes on this particular thing. So the question is, you know, why did he do this? He's not trying to change the bill, at least by the normal processes.

he's not trying to change votes. He's not trying to change minds. But this is something that's very important to the private equity industry. And here we have someone who's a very ambitious politician who wants to be a leader in the Senate and, you know, loudly giving a speech on the floor for five minutes talking about an issue important to the private equity industry kind of signals that you're with them on whatever they care about. out. Well, what, why are you so dismissive of the asset class and the harm that will come to the asset? Like, it's unbelievable. Well, is, is this, how did the abundance bros react to this? How did the financing behind that kind of so-called

movement react to this? Someone like Reed Hoffman, I'm curious about that. Right. Well, they're, you know, clearly they're very cheap dates because, uh, all these bros said, Go Brian Chats, fix this bill. They don't care if he's not actually trying to fix the bill, but they were very excited that he was talking about it in public. And so apparently that's all it's needed from these allegedly savvy people who, you know, know how politics work much more than us wild-eyed radical progressives.

They seem to have not understood whatsoever how you change a bill, A, B, how things work in terms of a negotiation that was carefully crafted and that the choices really kind of are this bill or nothing. They aren't looking at the tradeoffs involved of, you know, you keep this provision in place and you lose the stuff on manufactured housing, you lose the stuff on, you know, financing, you lose the stuff on, you know, financing, you lose the stuff on encouraging state. to have better zoning rules. So, you know, it seems to me that they were just as comfortable with just signaling to private equity as Brian Schatz was. So, all right. So if that's the case, I mean, because Schatz has been in the Senate since 2012 or so. And for the most part, like, I found him at least rhetorically to be pretty good.

But the one thing that sort of just stick in my bonnet, as it were, was Shats voting with a half a dozen Democrats? About a year ago, I guess it was a year ago, maybe it was 10 Senate Democrats who voted to keep the government open. Because Chuck Schumer was like, the way to handle this is just to wait until September, when all the Republicans are going to abandon Donald Trump. we heard for the maybe, I don't know, hundreds of times since 2008 that the Republicans' fever was going to break in some fashion. And of course, it didn't. But what was that part of that too?

Is he like signaling? Who is he signaling to and what is he signaling? And how worried should we be about this guy getting into a leadership position? I think we're very worried. I think what you're talking about is him being a lawyer. foot soldier for the leadership. I mean, this was Schumer's idea, and he's second in command, and he's just sort of going along with Schumer.

I will give you a different example. And this was a few years ago when Democrats were trying to pass a bill that would regulate big tech platforms. And they had a compromise going. It was Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Rassley, and they put together this bill. And one of the trickiest, 2020. And one of the trickiest parts of it was this thing around content moderation. Now, there was some controversy over whether this bill would prevent certain types of content moderation.

People who actually drafted the bill said, no, that's not true. But there was this agitation from people who really care about this stuff who said, you know, this is going to destroy content moderation. Shats signed a letter with a bunch of other Democrats saying, this bill, as written, would ruin content moderation. I point you to this section of the bill. And then later on, he said, I got an assurance from Amy Klobuchar

that this bill will not stop content moderation in any way. Well, the point of him saying that out loud was to get Republicans to hear it so that they would break from the bill. Because content moderation, obviously, to Republicans, means we're going to censor Republicans, and if that's in a bill, they're not going to be for it. And it was a very sneaky kind of clever way of Shats

trying to undermine this bill while he looked to be supporting it. So I got a quote from a former Hill staffer, and I just want to read the quote. In some circles, to Shats something, is starting to be used as a verb, by which I mean undermining bills that take on corporate power, pretending to be motivated by progressive concerns when it is transparent to everyone involved that he is just trying to build chits with powerful industries. And that's the through line between the big tech bill and this thing on housing and private equity.

That seems to be what connects those two things to keep. together. And it's, you know, I mean, look, with Chuck Schumer, I think even you would agree, Sam, that you know what you're getting. Like we know exactly what's going on when you have Chuck Schumer as the leader. With Brian Schatz, he puts together a sort of progressive posture on a lot of things, but he occasionally does these kinds of things that I think are in some ways, even though they're more subtle, they can be more dangerous. Right. Because there's a certain amount of like we can't see behind the veil once you're in leadership

on some level. And Schumer, it's pretty predictable. I mean, he goes out and he, you know, he announces his interests more often than not. So what can we do about it? I mean, is it really just, I mean, honestly, like, I mean, if he's already secured the votes to be whip, how like we need that fight club with Warren in it to start to actually take this fight public who else is potentially a leader in the Senate I mean that is the problem I mean if you name

some of these people who could potentially take over the Democratic caucus in the Senate they all sort of are at least flirting with being a presidential candidate you're talking about Chris Murphy you're talking about Chris Van Hollen you know those kind of guys they're they're looking at the presidential campaign in 2028. Shats is not. He's looking to be the Democratic leader in the Senate. And Shats and Murphy are apparently also very good friends. So I don't see that kind of contest happening.

So it's early days, but I think the awareness of kind of where how this thing is playing out and what the concerns are from someone like a. like a Brian Shatz, is important. It's an important thing for people to know as these decisions get made over the next several years because, you know, obviously Chuck Schooner is going to be Democratic leader in all likelihood next year. You know, there are new people coming into the Senate that can change the calculus. You got a grand platinum in there.

You got, you know, other people, Sherrod Brown, somebody else. maybe the calculus changes. So we have a couple of years to play this out. You really think that Schumer is going to retain his leadership if they somehow get the majority back with some of these races? You really think so? What are the other options? I mean, tell me what the other options would do.

I mean, I don't know what the other. It's the same issue with, you know, you're trying to play out chats in 28. and what might happen then, it's the same dynamic. But then what's this eight-person fight club and they're leaking to the times? We haven't heard anything about this for three months with Murphy, with Warren, with Bernie, that's supposedly taking on this leadership structure. Is that just nothing? Do they not have the votes they need?

I mean, the thing about Chuck Schumer that we know is that every or practically every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus owes their position in some way or another, at least monetarily, if not handpicking to Chuck Schumer, right? I mean, you go down the line. This is, you know, that's why actually the platinum race is very interesting and could be, could signal a real change because he would be someone who would not be handpicked by Chuck Schumer who could potentially get into the, Senate. But that's one person. I mean, you're talking about right now a 47 member coffee.

If somebody wins in Michigan, there is also a significant chance that that person will not have been picked by Schumer. Schumer's Canada is Haley, Stevens. And absolutely, Sam. But, you know, I mean, that's two out of 47, right? Dan Osborne. There we have three. I'm already building this. But yes. I mean, I think it's Most likely, I think, what we would see is Chuck Schumer promise everybody he's going to retire in 28. Right. Like, this is my last year.

This is my last dance. Right. Let me finish. Because otherwise, I might have to run again. I don't understand why I'm expecting base political competence from the Democrats, but it is actually astounding when you look at his favorables. He's like one of the most unpopular politicians in the country and the positions he supports. His support for Israel is like as top.

is anything within the party that he supposedly is the leader of. Like, there's nothing keeping him there except the awful institutionalism of the Senate that I know you're well aware of, David. I don't down with this very few bit. All he has to do is say, like, look at Mitch McConnell. The base hated him and he was the most accomplished Senate majority leader ever. Maybe that'll happen with me. I mean, even to this day, Schumer says, like, I am the most successful Democratic leader in the history of the Senate. Nice to have confidence in yourself.

Yeah. So, you know, I mean, it's these, I think these dynamics were much stronger earlier in the year, or last year, I should say. I think at this point, you know, and some of it is the person who would step up and defy Chuck Schumer and have that leadership is probably someone who's going to run for president in 2020. That's, I think, the big issue. It's what's the alternative. All right.

I want to briefly just talk about a couple other bills or developments. You mentioned the presidential election. We're starting to see some of the would-be presidential candidates, Van Hollen, others. Booker, I think, may jump back in because why not? He's trying to save humanity from all suffering. If he's trying to save humanity from all suffering, it would be being president, be a good position for him to do that from.

There is a burgeoning sort of like, like anti-tax sentiment. I mean, look, we're seeing this like with Kathy Hochel in this state right now. New York City is in a hole because of Eric Adams spent too much time in Turkey or wherever it was that he was visiting. And we're in a hole here. And of course, Mamdani got elected with and now appears to have about as much of a mandate as I've ever seen a New York City mayor have for providing more services, needs more tax dollars. Hockel has been reluctant.

Even our state assembly is signaling they want to raise taxes. And Hockel would be the sort of the Andrew Cuomo in this scenario, if you will. hearkening back to an old dynamic that existed in New York. But there's also some of that in the Democratic Party. And it's coming out either in the form of like, let's have no, you know, like a significant portion of people pay no taxes. And it bleeds into other areas like property taxes too. Talk about that.

Yeah, I would argue that what we're seeing with this trend is almost worse than what we're seeing with Hockel. Because I mean, at Hockel, it's like we're not going to tax the rich. I mean, that's what she, her red line is, right? As I understand it. When you're talking, although there is a property tax thing, but, but. And she's getting a little shaky now. We covered that last week, but yeah.

Right. Okay. So my understanding of, you know, these new proposals that we've seen in the last week or two, you know, this is about cutting taxes in a big way. allegedly for the middle class, but because of the way it's being done, depending on the plan that you're looking at, for example, the Booker plan,

most of the benefits go to people from the 40th to the 90th percentile. Because what he's doing is he's raising significantly the standard deduction, and he's not capping it at any kind of income levels. And the standard deduction is what you take. We're in tax season. It's what you take,

you know, right now it's I think $16,000. And it says, you know, you get the standard deduction or you can itemize. And both Van Hollen and Booker want to raise that significantly up to something like, I think for Van Hollen, it's $46,000 for individuals. The standard deduction will be in 92,000 for households. And with Booker, it's something like $75,000 for individuals. households. Now, Van Hollen at least caps it so that when you start to make a lot of money, you don't actually get that benefit because everybody can take the standard deduction, right?

So, but with Booker, people at very high incomes will benefit from this attempt to do a middle class tax cut. And, you know, both of them say also we're going to raise taxes on the rich. We're just trying to make the tax go more progressive. But then the question becomes a question of priorities. So if you think about what a Democrat is going to face in 2029, they're going to need to reverse the cuts to Medicaid, the cuts to food stamps, the cuts to the ACA subsidies that Trump put in, that's probably a couple trillion dollars to reverse those cuts. Then they're maybe going to want to do something to reverse the tariffs. That's another trillion dollars or a couple trillion dollars. That's before you get to any affirmative

agenda, right? So if you're going to, and because we know that, you know, maybe Joe Manchin isn't there, but there's always somebody on the Democratic side that says everything has to be paid for, you know that at some level it's going to be hard to not offset a significant portion, if not all of this spending, and that it's going to be hard to get tax cuts on the wealthy through, even though everybody says they want to, because everybody has an objection. You're selling an anti-tax agenda as the Democrats when like all this is the second part. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me just finish this in it.

But this is the second part. But if you think about it, you got $4 trillion. That's before you get to your affirmative agenda, child care, you know, new expanding Medicare, anything else. You got trillions of dollars that you need to, in some way, offset. Why would you take some of that money and give it to a middle-class tax? when we're a low tax country to begin with. And the idea is that, yes, if you want quality services, you need broad-based taxes to pay for them.

So that's kind of the idea. And then what Emma says, you're trying to out-Republic and the Republicans. You're saying I can give a, because a lot of this is in reaction to Trump doing no tax on tips and no tax on car loans or whatever, all that stuff. there is a sort of strategy brain in the Democratic Party that says, we can't let Donald Trump get to the other side of us on tax cuts for working Americans. We have to react to this.

We have to respond to this. And we have to give a better tax cut for the middle class than Trump is given. And you get into this game and you're inside your head thinking about, how can I do a better middle class tax cut? And suddenly it's like, what's the difference? between you and the party you're supposed to be opposing. It's a really troubling scenario. I think, too, it's not just a question.

I don't think it's just a question of Dullards doing this and saying, like, how do we, I think there's also sort of like a fear. There's essentially two broad categories of how you can position yourself in terms of giving benefits to the American public. One is through tax cuts. We're going to clear the, we're going to get government out of the way. We're going to let you keep more of your money and we're going to trust the market to deal with it.

Or you can say that government can provide benefits in a more efficient way, both in terms of like volume, you know, because it provides services on a volume level, but also in a way of saying, look, all governments pick winners and choosers, all governments redistribute money. The question is, to whom are we going to redistribute? That those are like the, that's almost like the most foundational, like ideological perspective. Right. On American politics.

And these guys purposely or they are lining up on the bill, Clinton, we're going to, you know, we're going to make a leaner, meaner government and we're not going to get in the way. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, all over again. I'll try to be fair, because I did talk to Senator Van Hollen about this, and I put these arguments to him. And he did say, look, this is not the end-all, be-all. This is not the only thing that I want to do. I want to, I support the wealth tax. I support changing the step-up and basis. which is when you die, all your assets get revalued to the current level, rather than, and all those capital gains that you didn't cash in on your securities,

they go away. He, you know, I think, I think in his perfect world, he would have done an entire rewrite of the tax code. But, you know, I guess that got too complicated for him. So, you know, you can see what he did, which is, you know, he does this change to the standard deduction, but he also has a huge millionaire surtax in his bill. To say, look, Americans pay payroll taxes,

they pay state taxes, those are very flat. We need to make the federal tax income tax code more progressive to balance out the flattening that comes from, you know, everybody pays the same payroll tax, everybody pays the same. And actually, the federal payroll tax is regressive because it stops at $160,000 in income. So, you know, that I think, you know, just to give him his argument, and we do it in the piece, we talk to both sides,

that is kind of the argument that he's making. Now, I would tend to say that, you know, and one really interesting point that was brought up by Alex Jack Kez, who's with the Groundwork Collaborative in the story, is that, you know, it used to be Democrats believed in sort of a common good and the idea that we all pay in, we all get something out of it. That's how Social Security works, right? So, you know, if you're kind of saying, no, these people don't get to be taxed, then where does it end?

I mean, Katie Porter out here running here in California for governor said the first $100,000 of income shouldn't be taxes. That's like 70% of the tax base that you're eliminated. And here's the thing. if you want to make the tax code more progressive, you can do it not by getting rid of taxes on one end, but by increasing taxes for even wealthier people. Right. It's progressiveness is a dynamic. But that's the cowardliness of this is like it's avoiding the very central question. And the one that's existential when we're seeing how concentrated wealth is destroying our democracy and way of life,

which is that we need to use the tax code to break these billionaires. redistribute wealth. And so, like, just from a overall messaging perspective, when you see Mom Donnie trying to restore people's faith in government and saying, like, this can work for you, we have these programs that they're going to assist you, to have Democrats on the other end, even Van Hollen, if he's well-intentioned, on the federal level, making anti-tax arguments, there's no, like, this is where the big tent becomes, like, makes the party completely inscrutable to people. There have to be some core fundamental. principles. And I think it actually has been interesting to see you have really across the ideological

spectrum. Like I'm not here to be nice to the abundance dudes, but they're actually against us too. It's probably for different reasons. But, you know, I think I've seen a cross ideological kind of pushback on this idea that is more coming from the political side of the spectrum. with the sort of assumption that is untested that middle class tax cuts are the way to get back into power. I mean, think about this right now. That's built true. Yes, but think about this. Donald Trump really thought that he was going to be saved by all of this, no tax on tips,

all of the Trump tax cuts coming into play right now, because people are getting their refund checks right now, and their refund checks are supposed to be larger, cause of no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on whatever. And is that happening? Is Donald Trump now getting... Is Donald Trump suddenly getting higher approval ratings because he did a middle-class tax cut or what he thinks to be a middle-class tax cut?

No. I think we have to test that assumption that everyone loves tax cuts and you have to play to, you know, it's kind of like a popularist theory. like everyone tax cuts are popular, so you better do these tax cuts. But I think I don't know that it's a high intensity issue. And there are other issues regarding like affordability, like you talked about, Emma, other issues in the economy that I think are more important to people than whether or not they get another $500 in their refunds. Which is not to say that $500 isn't significant for a lot of people, but the idea of a one time, I got $500 back in April return to me or I paid out $500 less versus the idea of like,

I'm getting ongoing child care or I get paid sick leave or whatever it is. All right. Well, listen, I wanted to get into Live Nation, but we're going to have to hold that for another day. And maybe, you know, perhaps it's just one more essentially Live Nation was left off the hook. I don't know. Quick, quick, quick, two minute things. States are in court today. Right.

States are in court today. They started, they restarted the trial after the Department of Justice settled. Some states went along with the Department of Justice. Others didn't on a bipartisan basis. Texas, Tennessee, they're still in the case. There were these text messages that came out last week from Live Nation executives saying, robbing them blind baby that's how we do it I mean that's that's verbatim by the way

and you know I think at some point the states thought yeah this is going to be a heavy lift the Justice Department was really running this case but if these kind of text messages are out there doesn't this case litigate itself so they are in court he's now pissed too so they're in court today

Kid Rock might be called to the stand and very very possible he's on the witness list and I think there's still a good shot. What's interesting is Live Nation stock soared when the settlement was announced. By the end of last week,

it was lower than it was at the beginning of last week. So the market has judged that Live Nation is still in some trouble here. And this is a jury trial, by the way. This is not about a judge who's like squeamish about breaking up a company. This is a jury trial. And I think that works to the,

the side of the state attorneys general. It's an important case. Well, increasingly, Rob Bonta, a very important person in the country regarding a whole host of cases that he should be operating on. Rob Bont, of course, the AG of California. David Dan, always illuminating and a pleasure, if only just to see what you're what sure you're wearing that day. Oh, thank you. That was not the way. one I had suspected. I'm out here in the desert. I'm trying to look apart.

I got it. You're looking very much like you're just about to hit the pool. So appreciate it. I likely am. Anyway. Go ahead. David Day, and always a pleasure.

We will link to organize money, the podcast that you co-hosts with Matt Stoller and of course. By the way, the episode out today is about Ticketmaster and Live Nation. So if you want to learn more about that case, go to organized money.fm.m. Can't recommend it enough. I'm a regular listener and also a regular reader of the American Prospect, which we will also link to at prospect.org.

David Day, and always a pleasure. Thanks a lot. Thanks, David. All right, folks, we went longer. We got to figure something out. We got to cut back on all of it. It's not that late. We went like, you know, 15 minutes over.

Really? 20. Pretty a typical David Dayan. Yeah, I know. We should have started them earlier maybe. Folks, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member at JoinThe Majority Report.com. When you do, you only get the free show free of commercials.

You also get the fun half. And you can make it less agitating for me personally when we go along. Because I have too many people. I say, like, what's the point of joining the show? if you're going to do an hour and a half up front every day. Join the Majority Report.com. Also, just coffee.coffey. Co-op, Fair Trade coffee, hot chocolate.

Use the coupon code. Majority, get 10% off. All sorts of great coffee there. Matt, what's happening in the Matt Lechian Media universe? Two plugs. First one, abolish the Senate. Second one, Patreon.com slash left reckoning, where we talk with Jeff Shirky about his book,

No Neutrals There, about the history of U.S. Labor and Zionism. which is an interesting interesting history to look at. So check that out, patreon.com slash left reckoning. Oh, I went to a talk the other day.

Molly Crabapple has a book coming out. We're going to interview her on this about the Bund, which is a leftist sort of like movement of Jews who were very, very anti-Zionist that came from like

late 1800s, I think first in Vilnia, Poland, and then we're around to really as late as like, you know, post-World War II. But they were adamant that Zionism was fascistic and problematic. But we're going to have her on to talk about that book. I'm starting to read the book now. And we'll do, I think we may do some type of promotion about it, but more on that later. See you in the fun half. Jamie and I may have a disagreement.

Yeah, you can't just say whatever you want about people just because you're rich. I have an absolute right to mock them on YouTube. He's up there buggy whipping like he's the boss. I am not your employer. You know, I'm tired of the negativity. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you. You're nervous.

You're a little bit upset. You're riled up. Yeah. Maybe you should rethink your defense of that. You fucking. We're just going to get rid of you. All right. But dude.

Dude. Dude. Dude. Dude. You want to smoke this joint? Yes. Do you feel like you are a dinosaur? Some good shit.

Exactly. I'm happy now. It's a win-win. It's a win-win-win. Uh, hell yeah. Now listen to me. Two, three, four, five times. 847-906-501-4-4.

501, 457, 2, 38, 56, 27, 1 half, 5 eighths, 3.9 billion. Wow. He's the ultimate math, nerd. Don't you see? Why don't you get a real job instead of steering vitriol and hatred you left wing limb? Everybody's taking their dumb juice today. Come on, Sammy. Dance, dance, dance.

Ooh. My first post-coital scene with a woman. I'm hoping to add more moves to my room. All I have is the dip and the swirl. Fine, we can double dip. Yes, this is a perfect moment. No. Wait, what?

You make under a million dollars a year. You're scum. You're not saying. Excuse me? Fuck you. You fucking liberal elite. I think you belong in jail. Thank you for saying that, Sam.

You're a horrible, despicable person. All right. Got to take a quick break. I'll take a moment to talk to some of the libertarians out there. Take whatever vehicle you want to drive to the library. What you're talking about is jibber japs. Classic. I'm feeling more chill already.

Donald Trump can kiss all of our asses. Hey, Sam. Hey, Andy. You guys ready to do some evil? Hitler was such an idiot. You think I might be a Nazi. Agree. No.

Death to America. You. Yes. Wow. Wow, that's weird. No way! Unbelievable. This guy's got a really good hook.

Throw her hands up. Man, I've got to get off. No worries. I want to just flesh this out a little bit. I mean, look, it's a free speech issue if you don't like me. Hey, hey, hey, hey, shut up. Thank you for calling into the majority report. Sam will be with you shortly.