3601 - Private Equity's Favorite Democrat w/ David Dayen

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3601 – “Private Equity’s Favorite Democrat” w/ David Dayen
Date: March 16, 2026
Guests: David Dayen (Executive Editor, The American Prospect; Co-Host, Organized Money podcast)
Host: Sam Seder
Co-Hosts/Panel: Jamie, occasional input from Emma
Episode Description:
Sam Seder and crew offer in-depth, independent analysis of the day’s top political stories. In this episode, journalist David Dayen joins to break down the new bipartisan housing bill in the Senate, the anti-tax turn in Democratic politics, and the curious opposition of Senator Brian Schatz—“private equity’s favorite Democrat.” The backdrop includes escalating global conflict, war coverage controversies, and shifting fault lines inside the Democratic Party.

---

Main Theme / Purpose

This episode dives into the politics and policy of a major bipartisan housing bill recently passed by the Senate—its provisions, the unusual alliance that birthed it, and the strange opposition it received from Democratic Senator Brian Schatz. The conversation delves into the influence of private equity in real estate, the intersection of policy and political ambition, and broader debates over taxes and the party’s identity heading into another presidential cycle.

---

Segment Breakdown & Key Insights

Opening Banter, Housekeeping, and Global Headlines

[00:00–07:55]

• Personal banter, sponsorships, and family news (skip)
• Major headlines update:
  • Trump threatens NATO if allies do not help enforce oil shipping through the Straits of Hormuz during the Iran war.
  • Oil prices surge; U.S. war costs approach $2 billion/day.
  • FCC threatens U.S. broadcast licenses over Iran war coverage; coverage of conflict is tightly controlled and limited.
  • Israel’s attacks in Gaza and the West Bank escalate; U.S. internal issues (NIH grant collapse, Afghan refugee deaths in ICE).
• Quote (on 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… the amount of control they have exerted over Twitter and TikTok and CBS… just so much built-in bias of these networks that want to promote war.” — Sam Seder (11:51)

---

Segment 1: The Middle East War & Political Reactions

[07:55–21:14]

• War in Iran: U.S. administration insists everything is “going to plan;” Sam and Jamie sharply question this framing, highlighting its absurdity.
• NATO tension: Trump challenges NATO countries to participate more directly, with aggressive rhetoric.
• **Discussion of the costs—both human and economic—and the media's (lack of) coverage.
• Irony & hypocrisy in messaging: Comparison of how U.S. combat deaths are treated depending on political context.
• Quote:

  “Look, they have shown their true selves by responding to our massive attack on them, by attacking back, by using their leverage. Exactly.” — Sam Seder (18:21)

---

Segment 2: Hair, Bread, and Ad Breaks

[26:13–34:04]

• (Ads and personal banter—skip)

---

Segment 3: Interview with David Dayen – The Bipartisan Housing Bill & Private Equity

[34:04–77:43]

Background on the Housing Bill

[34:40–37:41]

• Unusual bipartisan effort:
  • Bill spearheaded by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) and Sen. Tim Scott (R, Chair of Senate Banking).
  • Merges YIMBY supply-side ideas with increased funding for affordable housing; incentivizes changes to land use/zoning in states.
  • Largest housing initiative in decades, but still modest in scope.
• Quote:

  “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.” — David Dayen (37:49)

Trump’s Private Equity Provision

[37:41–44:31]

• Trump’s surprising demand:
  • Demanded an anti-private-equity provision be added for his support/signature: restricts private equity firms owning more than 350 homes from new purchases unless selling after 7–10 years.
  • This “price paid” for Trump’s blessing is politically potent, but impacts only a small slice of the market (“build-to-rent”).
• Quote:

  “It’s very clear that that was the price paid to get the bill passed. There’s no question about that.” — David Dayen (41:53)

Why Schatz Objected: Political Signals and Private Equity

[44:31–51:00]

• Brian Schatz’s opposition:

  • Only Senator to vote against, delivering a speech calling the provision “positively Soviet” (47:29).
  • Did not attempt to amend the bill; seems to be signaling to private equity donors.
  • Schatz is the heir-apparent for Senate Democratic leadership (minority whip, maybe eventually leader).

• Quote:

  “[Schatz] is 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.” — David Dayen (50:36)

• Progressives respond:

  • The panel points out that this undermines much of Schatz’s progressive facade.
  • Questions around the sincerity and priorities of future Democratic Senate leadership.
  • The “abundance bros” (tech/lib housing reformers) cheerlead Schatz’s stance, despite its emptiness.

The Broader Democratic Leadership Picture

[52:37–62:17]

• Schatz’s pattern:
  • History of undermining big-tech regulation, too (via coalition letters vague enough to spook partners).
  • Kind of duplicity that is “more dangerous” than Schumer’s overt coziness with industry.
• Leadership churn:
  • Difficult to unseat Schumer or produce a genuinely oppositional alternative—many senators have higher office (presidential) ambitions, not institutional reform ambitions.
  • Progressive “fight club” inside caucus is ultimately toothless without votes.
• Quote:

  “With Chuck Schumer, I think even you would agree, Sam, that you know what you’re getting… With Brian Schatz, he puts together a sort of progressive posture on a lot of things, but he occasionally does these things that…can be more dangerous.” — David Dayen (56:39)

Democrats’ Anti-Tax Drift & Policy Crossroads

[62:17–75:13]

• Emerging anti-tax politics within the party:

  • Senators Van Hollen and Booker pushing new “middle class tax cut” ideas.
  • Mechanics: dramatically raising the standard deduction, with little effective cap on high-income benefits.
  • Tension: These cuts make it harder to finance essential social programs, especially after projected reversals of Trump-deepened Medicaid, SNAP, and ACA cuts (~$4 trillion+).

• Policy and messaging dangers:

  • Fear that Democrats are running on Republican-lite messaging (“Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, all over again”).
  • Argument made for redistributive taxes and the “common good,” not simply tax cuts.
  • Both establishment and left critics question the political payoff of rote tax-cutting as opposed to material, ongoing benefits (childcare, health care, etc).

• Quotes:

  “Why would you take some of that money and give it to a middle class tax cut 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.” — David Dayen (66:47).

  “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 and redistribute wealth.” — Jamie (72:39)

  “I think we have to test that assumption that everyone loves tax cuts. And you have to play to… it’s kind of like a popularist theory. Tax cuts are popular, so you better do these tax cuts. But I don’t know that it’s a high-intensity issue…” — David Dayen (74:00)

---

Segment 4: Live Nation, Ticketmaster, and Corporate Power

[75:13–77:43]

• Legal battles against Live Nation (Ticketmaster):
  • DOJ settled, but states (including Texas, Tennessee) continue litigating—jury trial in progress.
  • Revelations of Live Nation execs’ texts (“Robbing them blind, baby…”).
  • Live Nation stock volatility as the trial develops.
  • Importance noted for AG Rob Bonta (California) in pushing these major cases.
• Quote:

  “They started, they restarted the trial after the Department of Justice settled… There were these text messages that came out last week… ‘Robbing them blind, baby. That’s how we do it.’ I mean, that’s verbatim, by the way.” — David Dayen (75:50)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Schatz as “Private Equity’s Favorite Democrat”:

  “In some circles, to schatz 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.” — David Dayen quoting a Hill staffer (54:37)

• On Democratic tax politics and the need for structural reform:

  “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. Progressivity is a dynamic.” — Sam Seder (72:24)

• On political duplicity and leadership:

  “There’s a certain amount of, like, we can’t see behind the veil once you’re in leadership…with Brian Schatz, he puts together a sort of progressive posture, but he occasionally does these kinds of things that…can be more dangerous.” — David Dayen (56:56)

• On the state of Democratic politics:

  “There have to be some core fundamental principles.” — Jamie (73:11)

---

Timestamps & Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment / Content | |------------|------------------| | 00:00–04:19 | Headlines: Iran war, oil, FCC, Israel-Gaza, NIH, ICE deaths | | 10:01–18:55 | Iran war, Strait of Hormuz, Trump/NATO, media bias | | 34:04–37:41 | (David Dayen joins) Housing Bill Overview | | 37:41–44:31 | Trump’s private equity demand; bill’s mechanics | | 44:31–51:00 | Schatz’s opposition and political calculations | | 52:37–62:17 | Democratic leadership power dynamics, progressives’ frustration | | 62:17–75:13 | Democrats’ shifting anti-tax rhetoric, dangers of “tax cut” politics | | 75:13–77:43 | Live Nation court case, impact on corporate power | | 77:43–end | Closing plugs, banter (skip) |

---

Closing Thoughts

This episode explores the intersection of party politics, corporate influence, and public policy through the lens of the Senate’s housing bill and the peculiar dissent of Brian Schatz. With key input from David Dayen, the conversation highlights the ways in which superficially progressive leadership can undercut reform from within, and raises alarms about Democrats drifting into empty tax-cut messaging at a time when robust social programs and redistributive policies are more urgent than ever. For listeners concerned about the future of the party—or the country’s ability to address housing, inequality, and economic power—this is an essential listen.

---

Further Reading & Resources:

• Organized Money podcast
• The American Prospect
• Episode-specific coverage: Look for David Dayen’s reporting on the housing bill and private equity at The American Prospect

---

Summary prepared by: [Podcast Summarizer AI]

Transcript

[Sam Seder]

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. I realized, you know, when I first got cats too, I was like, I'm not a cat person. And I like, slowly, over time, I realized I'm not really even a people person. I did. I just.

[Jamie]

And then you ascended to not even being a person anymore.

[Sam Seder]

Exactly. But, 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.

[Jamie]

Sounds weird.

[Sam Seder]

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 want to 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 packed 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 first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com 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 Smalls cat food. But my cat goes ballistic for the Smalls. Not sauce. What do you call it?

[Jamie]

Juice?

[Sam Seder]

Grape. Yes, the broth.

[Jamie]

Broth.

[Sam Seder]

If I put broth on anything, he will lick it up. It's crazy. He loves it. And now what I'm doing is I'm actually doling it out. I've been giving him a full thing, but I dole it out so that my hand is near it when he gets it, so that he associates it with me.

[Jamie]

Who's giving it to him?

[Sam Seder]

Listen, the bottom line is it's working. Forbes ranked Smalls the best overall cat food, while Buzzfeed says my cats went completely ballistic for this stuff. Exactly what my cats did. And his cat, his coat is shinier. And I think that's because 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, 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 a 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 majority one last time. 60% off your first order plus Free shipping when you head to smalls dot com majority now time for the show. It is Monday, March 16, 2026. My name is Sam Seder. 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, will be here to talk about the housing bill that just passed the Senate, some of the anti tax sentiment brewing in the Democratic Party.

[Jamie]

Yuck.

[Sam Seder]

Live Nation and maybe the meatpacking bill. All that and more. Also on the program today, Trump threatens NATO if they fail 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. Hundred dollar 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 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 US during the Afghan war help 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 at the largest meatpacking plant in the nation. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

[Jamie]

It is Funday Monday and I would

[Sam Seder]

be remiss if I did not start by saying congratulations to Saul Seder on his bar mitzvah this weekend.

[Jamie]

It was wonderful.

[Sam Seder]

He killed It. He did very well.

[Jamie]

Would it be too far for me to say that his speech restored my faith in humanity?

[Sam Seder]

It was bonerous. That's so Sam.

[Jamie]

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.

[Sam Seder]

You may have a better sense of how, how rough the future is. That may have been.

[Jamie]

Maybe, maybe. But he was so. Well, it was Cornelly. 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

[Sam Seder]

and I hadn't heard any of that stuff beforehand.

[Jamie]

And I had known he was a little, you know, nervous about it, but he killed it. He was amazing.

[Sam Seder]

He did very well.

[Jamie]

He was amazing.

[Sam Seder]

He did very well. So very proud of Saul Cedar. And now I can start to ride him even harder about things like homework and other things.

[Jamie]

Well, now he's a man.

[Sam Seder]

Exactly. Yeah. As I said during the. I think a toast. It was Saturday night. It was havdala bar mitzvah. He became a man. And then on Monday, back to seventh

[Jamie]

grade, as you do.

[David Dayan]

Yep, exactly.

[Sam Seder]

All right, let's get into this stuff. And thank you for the well wishes, folks that 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 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 divert 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 were did we were. If we had not had a president and a series of presidents, frankly, who have ignored the problem of manmade climate change and really just also our involvement in the Middle east because of our necessity to protect the old the world's oil supplies, both as a function of our own use and the prices, but also maybe to maintain the petrodollar, we would be much better positioned to deal with this. The world would be because we would

[David Dayan]

have

[Sam Seder]

EV cars all over the place and we'd have charging stations and our EV cars would, would go 5, 600 miles on a charge and etc. Etc. Etc. We would be. Solar would be powering more of our, our grid, wind, maybe water, but we don't. So we have Pete Hegseth explaining like, of course we plan for this.

[David Dayan]

You have said that the US Military has essentially aerial superiority, naval superiority over Iran, yet we're not escorting ships to the Strait of Fort Muth.

[Sam Seder]

Why?

[David Dayan]

How did you not plan for this?

[Military Official]

We planned 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, 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 in chaos ensuing. No, we're actually closing in on grabbing hold of and controlling what, what objectives we want to achieve and how we want to achieve them.

[Sam Seder]

Shape.

[Military Official]

It's called shaping operations and setting the conditions, the environment. 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.

[Sam Seder]

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 the, in some oil thing. I mean, this is the kind of answer you get from people when they clearly, 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, 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 in, 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 and TikTok and CBS and then just sort of the built in bias of a lot of these networks that want to promote war.

[Jamie]

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 networks like CNN are being extra careful because they want to appease the Zionist potential new owners.

[Sam Seder]

Without a doubt. I think that's absolutely true. Here is Hegseth 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.

[Reporter (Alexandra Ingersoll / Nancy Mace)]

Alexandra Ingersoll, one America News can you

[Sam Seder]

tell us a little bit more about

[Reporter (Alexandra Ingersoll / Nancy Mace)]

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?

[Sam Seder]

So I'll pause it for one second. I just really like questions also coming from One America. Iran is aligning with our adversaries regarding nuclear weapons. Like who? Like what, what is she 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. They're aligning with our, I mean, does

[Jamie]

she mean that they're still doing business with China? Because that's not going to stop. This is just going to keep accelerating.

[Sam Seder]

If that's the case, again, one note. Iran said we'll allow ships to go through if they start buying their oil neon instead of the petrodollar. So okay, we plan for that check. We did okay, exactly as we thought.

[Reporter (Alexandra Ingersoll / Nancy Mace)]

And how do we ensure our objective of denying Iran a nuclear weapon if they continue to align with our adversaries?

[Military Official]

So I'll take it and chime in, Mr. Chairman, if you'd like at 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, to destroy the Navy. We understood the ability to interdict shipping is something Iran has done for 40 years.

[Jamie]

I'm sorry, can you pause it? Just.

[Sam Seder]

We don't need to hear anymore.

[Jamie]

But because he's also not even being accurate about the types of warfare that is often used to police the strait, they are primarily doing this, like, there's a lot of coverage about the mines that are being laid, but they do this through drone drones as well. The. The Iranians. And they're able to do it quite cheaply.

[Sam Seder]

Their navy, when it comes to these things are like, literally mini power boats and that just go and drop the mines.

[Jamie]

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 don't wouldn't say that classifies as destroying their navy.

[Sam Seder]

Well, maybe get rid of their entire navy. It's, you know, and then he'll just be. Except for the mines, there's no problem. We couldn't stop the Houthis.

[Jamie]

You narps don't get it.

[Sam Seder]

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.

[Trump Administration Spokesperson]

President Trump says that other countries should

[Jamie]

now step up to safeguard ships and

[Sam Seder]

Straits of War rules.

[Trump Administration Spokesperson]

Why should other countries that were consulted

[Jamie]

about this war, that are involved in

[Trump Administration Spokesperson]

this war, now put their troops in

[Sam Seder]

harm's way in the street of Iraq?

[Trump Administration Spokesperson]

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 our Gulf, 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 Hormuz 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.

[Sam Seder]

That. That last part is my favorite. So we'll start there. Look, they have shown their true selves by responding to our massive attack on them, by attacking back, by using their leverage. Exactly.

[Jamie]

How dare they exercise their sovereignty over the straight of Hormuz or over their own resources, which is, by the way, what this is all about. They are 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.

[Sam Seder]

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 guys, you don't see. This is. You're getting help so much, so much. 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 to talk about how great this is going.

[UK Official]

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 harm's way. That would be two weeks ago. And as soon as we demolished. Essentially pretty much demolished them. Not over yet, but pretty much. We're in great shape, let's put it that way. Everybody knows. He said we'd like to send our aircraft carriers. I said, I don't want them after we win the war. I want them before we start the war. So whether it's. Whether we get support or not, But I can say this, and I said it to them, we will remember.

[Jamie]

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.

[Sam Seder]

That's the thing.

[Jamie]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

He wants them to share in the glory, too.

[Jamie]

Exactly.

[Sam Seder]

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 benchmars in.

[Jamie]

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. And 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.

[Sam Seder]

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. Dozens of people killed on our side and hundreds on the other side. Don't you guys want to tap in?

[Jamie]

Don't you want to die for Jeffrey Epstein, too?

[Sam Seder]

Speaking of US Casualties in this war, it is fascinating how the loss of lives of US 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?

[Reporter (Alexandra Ingersoll / Nancy Mace)]

Well, America's sons and daughters have signed up to give the ultimate sacrifice a 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 their 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, Wolf, 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.

[Sam Seder]

Okay. And now let's. So she knows that they signed up for this to protect American freedom and this and that. And she knows how difficult it is. And we send our prayers. Thirteen is an interesting number because it does not seem like we're going to dwell on the 13 that have died 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 it and we're getting peace. And she doesn't want boots on the ground. That's really important.

[Jamie]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

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's deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan. Here at is this report represents the findings of the committee's majority investigation into the Biden Harris administration withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. The withdrawal culminated in the Abygate terrorist attack on August 26th which killed 13 US service members.

[Jamie]

See, this is their, their deaths were in vain because that's not giving the ultimate sacrifice as Nancy Mace would say, the more worthy sacrifice.

[Sam Seder]

If you're not like at the be

[Jamie]

of the world, it's at the. Yeah, it's worth. 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. Israel, that is what it is all about, baby. Like she's basically saying to us 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.

[Sam Seder]

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 valuable. 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 and 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. Neutral Fall 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 neutrophil 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 upped up. It's I've kicked it up a notch. Nutrafol 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. Nutrafol 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 neutral fall for men 50 plus. Because alas, I am 50 plus. I'm really 50 plus plus, but that doesn't matter. The first and only hair growth product specifically formulated for men 50 Plus, Nutrafol is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand trusted by over 1 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 the 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. Nutrafol 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 Neutral to your daily routine. Easy order online, you don't need a prescription. Automated deliveries, free shipping keep you on track and with a Neutral fall subscription you can save up to 20% and get added perks to support your hair growth journey. Start Nutrafol today. Make the hat optional. Visit nutrafol.com Enter promo code TMR10TMR10 for $10 off first month subscription and free shipping. Find out why Neutral is the best selling hair growth supplement ban [e-mail] spelled n u t r a f o l.com promo code TMR10. TMR10 all no spaces. That's neutral.com promo code TMR10 also

[Jamie]

and

[Sam Seder]

we'll put a link in the podcast and YouTube subscription. And also sponsoring the program today is Wild Grain. And 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 bar mis. You know, what are you gonna do? Just wink something I whipped together. Wild Grain is the first baked 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 was, you know, we got a couple of bagels as well. Not from Wild Grain, but everybody went for the fresh baked stuff because why wouldn't you? It's steaming hot. It's fantastic.

[Jamie]

So it beat out bagels.

[Sam Seder]

I mean destroyed it.

[Jamie]

Wow.

[Sam Seder]

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 5 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 Croissants for Life when you go to wildgrain.com majority to start your subscription today. That's $30 off your first box and free Croissants for Life. When you visit wildgrain.com majority or 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 Dayan. We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Viland on the Majority Report. It is a pleasure to welcome back to the programs as always, David, Dan, the executive editor of the American Prospect and also the co host the Big

[David Dayan]

Money podcast which deals with big money called Organized Money.

[Sam Seder]

Organized.

[David Dayan]

Go to Organized Money fm.

[Sam Seder]

All right, well, change the name and organize Money.

[David Dayan]

I like your work on Jim's Burgers, Sam.

[Sam Seder]

Oh, thank you. All right, Touche.

[David Dayan]

I mean, come on.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, well, and listen people say the Minority Report all the time.

[David Dayan]

Yeah, that was a great, great film. Yeah. I enjoyed your work in that as well.

[Sam Seder]

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, 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.

[David Dayan]

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.

[Sam Seder]

It's a housing bill that was put together by Elizabeth Warren and brought to the floor with Elizabeth Warren and Tim

[Jamie]

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. And it looks like they did.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. 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.

[David Dayan]

Yeah, absolutely.

[Sam Seder]

So

[David Dayan]

at the for about a year now, Warren and Scott, Scott is the chair of the Senate Banking Committee. Warren is the ranking member, have 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, some different grants and things or move forward with some different, you know, zoning changes. So that's, that's the broad outline of the bill.

[Sam Seder]

Is there anything in there that like, you've seen that sort of like, is a red flag for you?

[David Dayan]

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 I think at the margins are going to help increase supply and also increase the ability to finance some of 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 robbing some populist ideas to try to 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. I think there is 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 turn them around as rentals. And there are many, many studies, including from those radicals at the federal res, who have said that 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 is the biggest of these 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, and also jacking 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 doing all cash deals 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 gotta put this in the bill or I'm not gonna sign the bill and I'm not gonna 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 of 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.

[Sam Seder]

And it wasn't really a particularly heavy price. The 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

[David Dayan]

don't know, Just, just to 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, 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, in order to rent them on the market, that's what you can hold for seven years. You can hold those build 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, any institutional investors perspective. But the, those firms and some of their allies in Congress have had a problem with this particular piece of the bill.

[Jamie]

Well, I want to turn to the who has a problem with it because it's infuriating. But how does this impact home prices though, more broadly? 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% 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.

[David Dayan]

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 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 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 there'd be more competition for particular housing units and that could lead to a better circumstance and the ability for individual first time home buyers and things like that to be able to get home. So, you know, 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.

[Sam Seder]

Okay, so 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

[Jamie]

can't have this, called it positively Soviet. I'm not.

[Sam Seder]

And this is a guy who's like, he's been doing this for a while, right? It's shat.

[David Dayan]

So let's say who it is. Yeah, his name's Brian Schatz. 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 competition 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 making people sell properties after whatever period of time, as Emma said is positively Soviet, that this would ruin the housing market, it would stop people from building, would end this asset class. Build to rent and cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. So he made this speech, it 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 would, 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, 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 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, on whatever they care about.

[Jamie]

Well, what, what. Why are you so dismissive of the asset class and the harm that will come to the asset? Like it's unbelievable. Well, I, 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 Reid Hoffman? I'm curious about that.

[Sam Seder]

Right.

[David Dayan]

Well they're, you know, clearly they're very cheap dates because all these bros said go Brian Schatz, 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 trade offs involved of you keep this provision in place and you lose the stuff on manufactured housing, you lose the stuff on financing, you lose the stuff on encouraging states to have better zoning roles. So it seems to me that they were just as comfortable with just signaling to private equity as Brian Schatz was.

[Sam Seder]

So, all right, so if that's the case, I mean, 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 did stick in my bonnet, as it were, was Shat's 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 when, because Chuck Schumer was like, we the way to handle this is just wait until September when all the Republicans are going to abandon Donald Trump. We heard for the maybe, I don't know, Hundreds 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?

[David Dayan]

I think we should be very worried. I think what you're talking about is him being a loyal 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 Grassley and they put together this bill and one of the trickiest, 2022 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, this is gonna destroy content moderation. Schatz 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 gonna 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 Schatz 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 shat, 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 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.

[Sam Seder]

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 interest 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.

[Jamie]

Like, we need that fight club with Warren in it to start to actually take this fight public.

[Sam Seder]

Who potentially a leader in the Senate.

[David Dayan]

I mean, that is the problem. I mean, if you name some of these people who could potentially take over the Democratic caucus and 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, they're looking at the presidential campaign in 2028. Schatz is not, he's looking to be the Democratic leader in the Senate. And Schatz 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, and what the concerns are from someone like a Brian Schatz is important. It's an important thing for people to know as these decisions get made over the next several years. Because, you know, I mean, obviously Chuck Schumer 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 Graham Platner in there, you got other people, Sherrod Brown, somebody else, maybe, that maybe the calculus changes. So we got a couple years to play this out.

[Jamie]

You really think that Schumer is going to retain his leadership if they get the, if they somehow get the majority back with some of these races?

[David Dayan]

You really think so what are, what are the other options? I mean, tell me what the other options would be.

[Jamie]

I mean, I don't know what the other.

[David Dayan]

It's the same issue. It's the same issue with, it's unsafe. You're trying to play out chats in 28 and what might happen then. It's the same dynamic.

[Jamie]

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?

[David Dayan]

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 hand picking to Chuck Schumer.

[Sam Seder]

Right.

[David Dayan]

I mean you go down the line. This is, you know that, 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 in to the Senate. But that's one person. I mean, you're talking about right now a 47 member caucus.

[Sam Seder]

If somebody wins in Michigan, there is also a significant chance that that person will not have been picked by Schumer. Schumer's candidate is Haley Stevens and.

[David Dayan]

Absolutely, Sam, but you Know, I mean that's, that's two out of 47 right there.

[Sam Seder]

We have three. I'm already, 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 2028.

[David Dayan]

Right. Like, this is my last year. This is my last.

[Sam Seder]

Come on, guys.

[David Dayan]

Right, Let me finish.

[Sam Seder]

Because otherwise I might have to run again.

[Jamie]

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 read the social media, his support for Israel is like as toxic as 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 Dayan]

David, I don't disagree with you a bit.

[Sam Seder]

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, I mean, even

[David Dayan]

to this day, Schumer says, like, I am the most successful Democratic leader in the history of the Senate.

[Sam Seder]

It's nice to have confidence in yourself.

[David Dayan]

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?

[Sam Seder]

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?

[Jamie]

He's trying to save humanity from all suffering.

[Sam Seder]

If he's trying to save humanity from all suffering, 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 Hochul 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. Hochul has been reluctant. Even our state assembly is signaling they want to raise taxes. And Hochul would be the sort of the, 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, 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.

[David Dayan]

Yeah. I would argue that what we're seeing with this trend is almost worse than what we're seeing with Hochul because, I mean, with Hochul, it's like, we're not going to tax the rich. I mean, that's, that's what she, her red line is. Right. As I understand it, when you're talk. Although there is a property tax thing. Toca. Right, but.

[Jamie]

And she's a little shaky now. We covered that last week, but.

[David Dayan]

Yeah, right.

[Sam Seder]

Okay.

[David Dayan]

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. Right now, It's, I think, $16,000. And it says 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 would be in 92,000 for households. And with Booker, it's something like 75,000 for 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. But with Booker, people at very high incomes will benefit from this attempt to do a middle class tax cut. And both of them say, also, we're going to raise taxes on the rich. We're just trying to make the tax code 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 gonna 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 gonna 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.

[Sam Seder]

Right.

[David Dayan]

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.

[Sam Seder]

Right.

[David Dayan]

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.

[Jamie]

You're selling an anti tax agenda as a demo, as the Democrats, when like all the.

[David Dayan]

This is the second part. 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 cut 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 Republican. The Republican.

[Military Official]

Right.

[David Dayan]

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 has 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.

[Sam Seder]

It's not just a question like, I don't think it's just a question of, of dullards doing this and saying, like, how do we. I think there's also sort of like a fear. There's. There's essentially two broad categories of how you can position yourself in terms of giving benefits to the Democrat to, 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 ideological perspective on American politics. And these guys purposely, or they're 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 gonna get in the way. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton all over again.

[David Dayan]

I'll try to be fair because I did talk to Senator Van Holland 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 support the wealth tax. I support changing the step up in 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. I think in his perfect world, he would have done an entire rewrite of the tax code. But I guess that got too complicated for him. So you can see what he did, which is 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 that I think, 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. And one really interesting point that was brought up by Alex Jacquez, who's with the Groundwork Collaborative in the story is that it used to be Democrats believed in the common good. And the idea that we all pay in and 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 hundred thousand dollars so depressing of income shouldn't be taxes. That's like 70% of the tax base that you're eliminating.

[Sam Seder]

And here's the thing, if you want to make the tax code more progressive there, 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.

[Jamie]

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 and redistribute wealth. And so like just from a overall messaging perspective, when you see Mamdani trying to restore people's faith in government and saying like this can work for you. We have these programs that are gonna 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.

[David Dayan]

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, they're actually against us too. It's probably for different reasons, but, but you know, I think I've seen across ideological kind of pushback on this idea that is more coming from the political side of the spectrum with this 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. Donald Trump. Yes, but think about this. Donald Trump really thought that he was gonna 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 because of no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on whatever. And is that happening? Is Donald Trump, 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. It's kind of like a popularist theory. Tax cuts are popular, so you better do these tax cuts. But 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.

[Sam Seder]

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 returned to me or I paid out $500 less versus the idea of like I'm getting ongoing childcare 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, two minute.

[David Dayan]

Things 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. Wow. And, you know, I think at some point the states thought, yeah, this is going to be a heavy lift the dust. 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. Kid Rock is 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, you know, still a good shot. What's interesting is Live Nation stocks 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 side of the state attorneys general. It's an important case.

[Sam Seder]

Well, increasingly, Rob Bonta, very important person in the country regarding a whole host of, of cases that he should be operating on. Rob ont, of course, the AG of California, David Dan, always illuminating and a pleasure, if only just to see what you're, what shirt you're wearing that day.

[David Dayan]

Oh, thank you.

[Sam Seder]

That was not the one I had suspected.

[David Dayan]

I'm out here in the desert. I'm trying to look.

[Sam Seder]

I got it. You're looking very much like, like, like you're just, you're about to hit the pool. So appreciate it.

[David Dayan]

I likely am.

[Sam Seder]

Anyway, go ahead.

[Jamie]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

David D. Always a pleasure. We will link to Organize Money, the podcast that you co host with Matt Stoller. And of course, by the way, the

[David Dayan]

episode out today is about Ticketmaster and Live Nation. So if you want to learn more about that case, go to OrganizedMoney FM today.

[Sam Seder]

Can't recommend it enough. I am a regular listener and also a regular reader of the American Prospect, which we will also link [e-mail] David Dayan, always a pleasure.

[David Dayan]

Thanks a lot.

[Jamie]

Thanks, David.

[Sam Seder]

All right, folks, we went longer. We got to, we got to figure something out. We got to cut back on all of it.

[Jamie]

It's not that late. We went like, you know, 15 minutes over.

[Sam Seder]

Really 20. Pretty atypical. David Dayen yeah, I know. We should have started them earlier maybe. Folks, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a [e-mail] when you do, you not 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 long because I have too many people say, like, what's the point of joining the show if you're gonna do an hour and a half up front every day? Join themjorityreport.com Also, Just Coffee, 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 Leckian media two plugs. First one, abolish the Senate. Second one, patreon.com left reckoning, where we talk with Jeff Shirky about his, his book no Neutrals there about the history of US labor and Zionism, which is an interesting history to look at. So check that out. Patreon.com leftreconing. 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 the late 1800s, I think, first in Vilniya, Poland, and then were around to really as late as like, you know, post World War II. But they were adamant that Zionism was fascistic and problematic and. But we're gonna 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. Left is best. Jamie and I may have a disagreement.

[Jamie]

Yeah, you can't just say whatever you want about people just cause you're rich.

[Sam Seder]

I have an absolute right to mock them on YouTube.

[David Dayan]

He's up there buggy whipping like he's the boss.

[Sam Seder]

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 idiot. We're just going to get rid of you.

[David Dayan]

All right?

[Sam Seder]

But dude, dude, dude, dude, dude, dude. You want to smoke this joint? Yes. Do you feel like you are a dinosaur? Good. Exactly. I'm happy now. It's a win, win. It's a win, win, win.

[David Dayan]

Oh, hell yeah.

[Sam Seder]

Now listen to me. 2, 3, 4, 5 times 8479-065014-57238, 56, 27, 1 half. 5, 8. 3.9 billion.

[David Dayan]

Wow.

[Sam Seder]

He's the ultimate math nerd. Don't you see?

[David Dayan]

Why don't you get a real job

[Sam Seder]

instead of stealing vitriol and hatred? You left Ling Limbaugh. Everybody's taking their dumb juice today.

[David Dayan]

Come on, Sammy.

[Sam Seder]

Dance, dance, dance. Hall. I had my first post coital scene with a woman. I'm hoping to add more moves to my repertoire. All I have is the dip and the swirl.

[David Dayan]

Fine.

[Sam Seder]

We double dip. Yes. This is a perfect moment. No, wait. What? You make under a million dollars a year. You're scum. You're nothing. Excuse me. You, you liberal elite. I think you belong in jail.

[David Dayan]

Thank you for saying that, Sam. You're a horrible, despicable person.

[Sam Seder]

All right, gonna take quick break. I want to 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 jabber.

[Jamie]

Classic. I'm feeling more chill already.

[Reporter (Alexandra Ingersoll / Nancy Mace)]

Good.

[Sam Seder]

Donald Trump can kiss all of our asses. Hey, Sam. Hey, Andy. You guys ready to do some evil?

[David Dayan]

Hitler was such an idiot.

[Sam Seder]

I think I might be a Nazi.

[Jamie]

Agree.

[David Dayan]

No.

[Sam Seder]

Death to America. You. Yes.

[David Dayan]

Wow.

[Sam Seder]

Wow. That's weird. No way. Unbelievable. This guy's got a really good hook. 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.

[David Dayan]

Thank you for calling into the majority report. Sam will be with you shortly.