I am rooting hard for Zohran Mamdani, but if he’s going to deliver better for less, he needs to be as tough on bureaucratic nonsense as he has been on billionaires. In @vitalcitynyc.bsky.social, I wrote about what that means.
www.vitalcitynyc.org/mamdani-nyc-...
Of the people, who are funny too
Our collective response to Trump generally, and ICE violence specifically, has been wildly inadequate.
Please think about what we should do:
A nationwide (or states willing) strike, in which everything shuts down?
A march on Washington, where millions turn out?
Something else?
What are your ideas?
If you want Zohran Mamdani to succeed, you should want him to fix the crazy way NYC hires.
www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/new...
Not long ago, the idea of polling judges and asking them to cast votes, but not offer reasons, would have seemed reductive. "That's not what judges do."
On the emergency docket today, this is all the Supreme Court does. Red and blue dots are perfect.
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/u...
SCOTUS: considering race as one factor in a college applicant's file is blatantly unconstitutional
ALSO SCOTUS: considering race as one factor in targeting whom to detain and deport is cool cool cool
I read a couple of pieces this week that show how people are not just protesting but actively resisting Trump-era abuses and putting themselves on the line to protect their neighbors. They're well worth your time.
This is a superlative post. All constitutional law professor and students should read it -- and then, of course, go read Richard's great book, too.
I continued to be somewhat amazed/alarmed, however, ... [1]
@williambaude.bsky.social @johnmikhail.bsky.social @jackbalkin.bsky.social
Carving out Jews as the special exception to the general anti-DEI rules of the federal government makes Jews into a specially protected buffer class, which both engenders resentment from others and enables the government to make us scapegoats if things go bad. It’s Court Jews all over again.
🏙️ Cities getting it right: Instead of blanket cuts, smart governments are modernizing! New in @nytimes.com by @pahlkadot.bsky.social @robertgo.bsky.social showcase pioneers using AI & digital tools to improve services, including @innovateus.bsky.social
www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/o...
A $1 Trillion Medicaid Cut Is THIS Close to Happening. Here’s What It’d Look Like. www.thebulwark.com/p/medicaid-c... from @citizencohn.bsky.social
More in my testimony here:
bsky.app/profile/donm...
Little-known, big-government & anti-work story from the Big Beautiful Bill: Literally looking for work can cost you your health care. More here:
Striking and spot-on from a blue-state governor: “Democrats should not shy away from talking about accountability and outcomes,” Kotek said in an interview. “That’s a winning message.”
Similar themes from several other folks, including me.
The bills suspend work requirements based on high unemployment only when the rate gets extraordinarily high: if the national unemployment rate is 7.5%, and the county rate is 11%, the requirements apply.
Under the bill, the process of getting removed from Medicaid takes about three months. But when unemployment gets above 7 percent, most people need more than three months to find their next job. So if they're just looking for work, they'll lose their Medicaid.
"Work program" is a term of art. Big ones have shrunken for decades, more since January. The bill provides no funding for them. There's no reason to think most people will be able to get into them even if they try. It's not clear why should they need to, if they just want to look for work.
To meet the new law's "community engagement" requirement, a person has to work, do community service, go to school half-time, be in an approved "work program," or do a mix of the above, for 80 hours a month.
If an unemployed worker just wants to look for work, that's not good enough.
Millions of working people rely on Medicaid. If they are laid off, spending all day every day looking for a job will not be good enough to meet new work requirements. If they take too long to find a new job--which most people will, when unemployment is high--they'll lose their health care. 1/x
Thanks for posting @donmoyn.bsky.social!
Good vibes and good question in Alexandria today
Here’s a New York Times photo of the Chicago “No Kings” rally. NYT said the march that followed spanned at least 10 blocks.
Got my copy today. The kids are fighting over who gets to read it first. Gonna be me—very excited.
I don't think welfare reform in 1996 is a cause of Medicaid cuts today. They want to cut Medicaid and will do it one way or another. And esp now, progressives don't need to win an argument against work requirements in principle. This is work requirements for health care and food, for families.
But compared to the 1996 debate, the argument for Medicaid work requirements is worse on the merits and the evidence since. There is legit space for people to say they supported welfare reform then but don't support what's on offer now, as I said in @delaneyrules.bsky.social's piece.
what a treat to see your name! hope all is well, at least personally.
I didn't support welfare reform at the time, but it was a closer question than the work requirements in the House reconciliation bill.
On a bad welfare reform analogy:
It's not, "‘Oh, I’m not going to earn cash because I am getting it already.’ Instead, it’s, ‘I’m not going to earn cash because I have health insurance.’ It’s a much weaker theory of the case... and it is wrong,” Gordon said.
www.huffpost.com/entry/work-r...
