ddayen.bsky.social
Executive editor, The American Prospect. Author, Chain of Title and Monopolized. Tips at ddayen-at-prospect-dot-org or Signal at ddayen.90
4,029 posts
58,552 followers
556 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
They are aggregating proprietary information. It's not what's in the newspaper.
comment in response to
post
All I'm saying is that the politicians most associated with the movement keep permitting things like this!
comment in response to
post
Oops
prospect.org/politics/202...
comment in response to
post
Colorado was a bottom five state in our Blue State Power Index largely because of Polis coloradosun.com/2025/05/29/j...
comment in response to
post
People are mystified by skepticism from anti-monopolists towards Abundance, and then Abundance-friendly politicians give financiers a license to steal. It's not that complicated.
comment in response to
post
It's a common claim often made by the financial services industry when defending overdraft fees or whatever. "You have to let us rip people off or there won't be any access to credit"
comment in response to
post
nobody knows what that means in practice yet
comment in response to
post
Like we wrote about this very subject today!
prospect.org/politics/202...
comment in response to
post
Literally the opposite!!
comment in response to
post
And ran for city council, board of supervisors, and Congress in San Diego
comment in response to
post
Yes that link is in the previous post
comment in response to
post
Believe me, some of us Democrats are not big fans of the Congressional Budget Office!
prospect.org/economy/2023...
comment in response to
post
They didn't get official voter reg data because Virginia, where many CBO employees live, doesn't give that information out. The claim is it came from a "trusted third-party source." Mm-hm.
comment in response to
post
That "84% of CBO is Democrat," by the way, is based on some right-wing fever swamp report that looked at one division with about 1/10th of total CBO employees. The big smoking gun is that one guy gave $300 to the Kerry campaign 21 years ago. Really.
www.foxnews.com/politics/non...
comment in response to
post
Writing about trade is death for traffic and always has been. It's also just procedural morass. Trump has other well-established methods to impose tariffs, so this is not an ending, just a slower beginning.
comment in response to
post
District and appeals court justices across the country have applied the 2023 merger guidelines in over a dozen cases, and the Supreme Court has not intervened in any of those rulings (nor are they required to).
comment in response to
post
I think major questions/nondelegation was included to make it hard for SCOTUS to reverse without looking foolish
comment in response to
post
The bill most definitely does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. It adds a bonus standard deduction for seniors, regardless of whether they are actively taking Social Security or not.
But that's a different issue.
comment in response to
post
"Courts should afford substantial deference and should
not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness."
Now they tell us!
comment in response to
post
@emmarjanssen.bsky.social uncovers a web of salespeople, contractors, & fintech lenders working together to misuse & forge electronic signatures, sign Spanish speakers up with English forms, falsely claim tax credits are guaranteed, etc. Here's an egregious example: prospect.org/environment/...
comment in response to
post
They are invoking Clinton for a reason, to mitigate the damage in the court of public opinion. I'd rather they didn't have that option.
comment in response to
post
But also, of course, it means that the ruling was crafted specifically to put the Supreme Court in a corner. These are doctrines the conservative majority holds dearly, and they generally don't want to reverse precedents they themselves just established.
comment in response to
post
It's bad news that shitty judicial review still rules the nation, but there are also legitimate reasons why an emergency law doesn't confer unlimited tariff authority to a president.
And it highlights how the next Dem majority will need to think hard about jurisdiction stripping to make progress.
comment in response to
post
One thing I didn't get to: the major questions doctrine, nondelegation doctrine, and Biden v. Nebraska (the SCOTUS case throwing out student debt forgiveness) is all over the ruling. The case was brought by libertarians, & these judges, at least, applied their fantasy Lochnerism heavily.
comment in response to
post
With respect:
I don't even think Republicans name-checking Clinton believe what they're doing is totally analogous. But it's a convenient rhetorical defense of the policy. To the extent having a talking point available helps kick people off Medicaid, it's an additional side effect of welfare reform.
comment in response to
post
One thing that is never mentioned in the "Dems should be more moderate" discourse is how this stuff sticks. Welfare reform was nearly 30 years ago and Republicans are still using it to justify their crap. The situational strategy of punching left has long-term consequences for millions.
comment in response to
post
The reality is I reported based on several sources that Senate Democrats would agree to pass the GENIUS Act, and Senate Democrats then agreed to pass the GENIUS Act. Your wholly irrelevant emphasis on *when* that happened is consistent with your status as a paid hack.
comment in response to
post
In a sense, putting the absurdity of the Senate on full display can hasten its demise. But that only works if both sides are willing to be absurd. Protecting millions from losing health care and food benefits to fund tax cuts for the rich is a good reason for absurdity. prospect.org/politics/202...
comment in response to
post
The key here is that Senate Democrats *know about this and have already threatened it.* Time to follow through. prospect.org/politics/202...