Johnson for The Dispatch: Affordability Theater Is a Band-Aid, Not a Cure

There’s a particular type of lie that dominates American political discourse these days. It’s not a factual lie, but a conceptual mistruth: the promise that you can make life more affordable without actually making anything cheaper. Call it affordability theater.

It’s easy to propose ideas that make things feel more affordable without actually making them less expensive. And while both parties traffic in this kind of theater, the GOP— especially under President Donald Trump—has turned it into a governing ethos.

The formula is simple. First, Trump will create an affordability problem through his own policies. Then, instead of fixing the underlying cause, he will propose to paper over the problem with a subsidy, a tax gimmick, or a check.

Tariffs are the most obvious example. Trump returned to office in 2025 in no small part because of voter anger about inflation and the cost of living. And his signature policy move was to tariff nearly everything Americans buy from abroad. Tariffs are taxes that raise prices, and analysis from the Budget Lab at Yale shows the costs of tariffs mostly manifest as higher prices for consumers. How does Trump aim to square this circle? Tariff stimulus checks. After worsening the cost-of-living crisis, Trump and his allies floated the idea of sending rebate checks to offset the pain.

It’s hard to imagine a cleaner example—make life more expensive, then offer to partially compensate you for the pain while taking credit for both moves. But after the check is spent, life is still more expensive than it was before.

Read more in The Dispatch

Statement of PPI’s Diana Moss to the California Assembly, Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism, Hearing on AB 1720 (Ticket Sellers)

My thanks to Chair Ward and members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear and present remarks in opposition to AB 1720. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) urges the Committee to reject invasive regulatory price controls in the resale ticket market.

The economics of price caps on resale ticket prices and fees are simple. Price caps will eliminate the only source of competition in ticketing, driving fans back to Live Nation-Ticketmaster where they have been ripped off by monopoly ticket fees for decades.

Price caps will decimate the resale market. The resale market serves as “clean-up” hitter for primary market ticket shortages caused by the exercise of Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly power, underpricing of tickets, and ticket “holdbacks.”

Resale provides fans with a functional, competitive alternative for buying tickets – not to mention putting more “fans in seats,” for the benefit of artists and fans alike.

All of this will come crashing down under resale price caps. Invasive price controls will replace balancing supply and demand with resale ticket shortages, driving up ticket prices, guaranteeing half-full concert halls, and prompting the exit of online marketplaces from the market.

With a resale market that is debilitated by invasive price controls, ticket buyers will have two highly undesirable alternatives. The first is to go back to shadow markets, where fans will be subject to the fraud and abuse that occurred before the advent of competitive, online resale marketplaces.

The second outcome of a hamstrung resale market is that fans will have no choice but to go but back to Live Nation-Ticketmaster. There, the monopoly will sell more tickets and collect more in monopoly ticket fees. Price caps, therefore, hand the monopoly even more market power.

Finally, any state regulatory system that displaces competition in resale could legally immunize market participants from antitrust liability. This includes Live Nation-Ticketmaster, which is currently ensnarled in one of the largest antitrust cases in U.S. history.

PPI urges the Committee to be skeptical of “support” for resale price cap proposals, which are running aground in multiple states. Live Nation-Ticketmaster supports resale price cap regulation because it protects their monopoly profits.

Venues support price cap regulation because it guarantees a continued share of monopoly profits from their exclusive contracts with Live Nation-Ticketmaster. Artists support price cap regulation because their revenues come largely from the primary market and they dislike resale because they do not collect revenue “royalties.”

The only stakeholders in the market that do not like resale ticket price caps are consumers. And without consumers, there would be no live events ecosystem.

For all these reasons, resale price caps will put consumers, artists, and the entire live events ecosystem at even more risk. PPI urges the Committee to reject AB 1720, avoid invasive and distortionary regulation of the resale ticket market, and instead focus on genuine consumer protection such as price transparency, ticket transferability, and banning bots and speculative ticketing.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and I urge you to read PPI’s recent report, State Regulation of the Resale Ticket Market: Risks to Competition, Fans, and Antitrust Enforcement that I submitted into the record with my written testimony.

Read the full testimony.

Manno for Washington Monthly: Making Apprenticeships Part of Civic Infrastructure

In an economy where opportunity increasingly depends on demonstrated knowledge rather than inherited advantage, rebuilding the first rung of the career ladder has become a public responsibility.

From the colonial era through the early republic, apprenticeship was a civic institution. Young people entered structured, multi-year relationships with master craftsmen and professionals, learning skills, discipline, and responsibility in tandem. Apprenticeship prepared individuals for economic independence and democracy. It was one way the young republic ensured that opportunity did not depend solely on inheritance.

That changed over time with industrialization, mass schooling, and the expansion of higher education, shifting that developmental burden. The first rung increasingly came from after-school jobs, summer shifts, clerical roles, and assistant positions. These jobs weren’t glamorous. But they were formative. They taught punctuality, collaboration, judgment, and accountability. They introduced young people to institutional life and adult expectations.

Read more in Washington Monthly

PPI Statement on the Firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi

WASHINGTON — PPI President Will Marshall released the following statement on the firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi:

“We cheer the news that President Trump has fired Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General. It was evident from the beginning that she was utterly unsuited by experience and temperament for the post and was picked only for her willingness to do the president’s bidding, no matter how virulently partisan or lawless it is.

“Which of course points to the bad news: Reportedly, the president pushed her out because she wasn’t aggressive enough in criminalizing political differences and launching spurious prosecutions of people he considers enemies or obstacles. Given the many ‘vengeance prosecutions’ by Bondi’s Department of Justice, the prospect of even more MAGA lawfare should alarm Congress.

“We can only hope that Republican Senators will not be derelict in their Constitutional duties again as they prepare to confirm her successor. The nation needs an Attorney General dedicated to defending the impartial rule of law, not bending it to the breaking point to punish Trump’s critics or reward his friends.”

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Manno for Flypaper: Gen Z talks about life after high school

High school graduation is often treated as the pivotal moment when one becomes an adult. But for many young people today, adulthood unfolds unevenly over time, through a mix of work, further education, financial pressure, stalled plans, and gradual independence.

Turning the Tassel: What Generation Z Says About Life After High School Graduation focuses on that post-graduation reality. It’s a first-time survey by a nonprofit called Agency, as well as The Harris Poll. They queried more than 5,000 district and charter high school Gen Z students born between 1997 and 2012 who graduated between 2015 and 2025, examining outcomes such as salary, postsecondary degree attainment, homeownership, and civic engagement.

The findings are mixed, which is why the report deserves attention. Most survey respondents are working full-time. Most have pursued some further education or training after high school. And three in four say they believe they are headed in the right direction. But many also say they were underprepared for what they’re doing, financially fragile, and trying to find stable footing in work and adult life.

That picture fits what other recent Gen Z research has found. Gallup, Jobs for the Future, and the Walton Family Foundation reported in 2025 that fewer than 30 percent of high school students feel “very prepared” to pursue the postsecondary pathways they are considering, and even among students very interested in a pathway, fewer than half feel very prepared to follow it. Too many are trying to plan their futures without enough clarity, guidance, or confidence.

Read more in Flypaper.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Ukraine’s Way of War is Coming to the Persian Gulf

Donald Trump has long sought to disguise his dislike of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But his contempt showed through in mid-March when he rebuffed Kyiv’s offer to help defend the U.S. and its allies in the Persian Gulf. The “last person we need help from is Zelensky,” the 47th president said scornfully in two news interviews. “We know more about drones than anybody. We have the best drones in the world, actually.”

American allies in the Gulf see things differently. Nearly a dozen Middle Eastern countries have approached Kyiv in recent weeks seeking cooperation as they struggle to fend off Iranian drones and missiles. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu has called Kyiv to initiate talks. Even traditionally pacifist Japan is considering buying Ukrainian drones, and Zelensky has sent some 230 drone experts—advisers and pilots—to the Gulf. Last week, he signed long-term security agreements with Saudi Arabia and Qatar and promised more were on the way.

What everyone but Trump seems to understand: After more than four years of fiercely competitive drone warfare, Ukraine is the world’s drone superpower with some of the best weaponry and an agile, innovative defense industrial base to back it up.

But the opening this creates—for Ukraine, the U.S., and its allies—will be squandered if the parties fail to seize the opportunity.

Read more in Washington Monthly

U.S. Gasoline Prices Rose from $2.98 to $4.02 per Gallon Last Month

FACT: U.S. gasoline prices rose from $2.98 to $4.02 per gallon last month.

THE NUMBERS: Price increases since late February –

Crude oil 90%
Polyethylene (plastic base) 37%
Gasoline 36%*
Urea (fertilizer base) 12%

American Automobile Association (AAA) calculations for the United States, regular grade.

WHAT THEY MEAN: 

Named for a medieval Arab kingdom famous enough for its 17th-century wealth to serve as a chapter headline in Paradise Lost, the Strait of Hormuz connects the mostly land-locked Persian Gulf to the open-water Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean. A look at the implications, and the impact to date, of its closure:

  1. Geography: The Strait is one of 24 narrow, heavily traveled ocean channels (“maritime chokepoints”) supply-chain analysts identified in Nature last November as posing special global-economy risk from natural disasters, shipping accidents, pirate attacks, and conflicts. Shaped like an upside-down “U,” it is about 110 miles long and 30 miles wide — Iran’s Bandar Abbas port on the north, Oman’s Musandam governate on the south — and 200 meters deep. A large ship needs about two hours for the transit.
  2. Use: The Strait is the maritime outlet for nearly all the energy the four small Gulf monarchies (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates) produce, and for about 90% of Iranian and Iraqi output. About 100 vessels a day transited last year, like cars on a highway, with incoming ships using a two-mile-wide northern “lane” near Iran and outgoing vessels a similar “lane” on the southern side. Container ships and roll-on/roll-off vessels ferry in consumer goods and cars, while oil tankers and bulk carriers carry out aluminum, fertilizer, crude oil, and natural gas. Tanker traffic usually totaled about 35 vessels per day, carrying an average of 40 million barrels of oil to customers abroad. A table of energy exports drawn from World Trade Organization data covers more than crude and LNG, but gives a sense of scale:

 

World Fuel Exports, 2024  $3,122 billion
Via Strait of Hormuz     $592 billion
United Arab Emirates      $286 billion
Iraq      $100 billion
Qatar        $78 billion
Kuwait        $69 billion
Iran        $47 billion
Bahrain        $12 billion

 

  1. Disruption: Persian Gulf energy mainly goes to Asian customers — India, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, ASEAN members — with Europe and a smaller buyer, but the market disruption affects the world. As one illuminating data point, insurance for a Strait transit was about 0.2% of the value of a tanker last winter, and is now said to be 4% to 10%. In practical terms, that would mean insurers were charging shipping lines about $200,000 for a transit a month ago, and now $4 million to $10 million.

Since the Trump administration opened its campaign at the end of February, Strait transits have dropped by about 96%, and tanker transits appear to be running at one or two per day. This implies about 280 million “barrels” of oil taken out of the world market, or roughly 20% of the worldwide oil supply. With a sudden contraction in energy supply, and no change in Asia’s need for it, prices have risen fast. Crude oil jumped from $55 per barrel at the end of February to about $100 per barrel by mid-March, and stayed there.

  1. Prices: As crude oil prices rise, refined fuels and petroleum-based manufactured goods — plastics, synthetic fabrics, dyes, and some chemical fertilizers — follow them up. Crude oil costs are half the cost of gasoline, where prices are especially easy to track, and markets respond quickly. According to the American Automobile Association, U.S. gas prices averaged $2.98 per gallon (for “regular” quality gasoline) the week before the war, and topped $4.00 yesterday. Using this morning’s $4.06 average, the near-doubling of crude oil prices has now raised gas prices by more than a third. Diesel prices are up a bit more, by 45%, to a $5.38 average. Sustained for a year, this would cost a middle-income family about $950 (assuming no change in driving habits), a bit more than their spending on “personal care products” like soaps, makeup, and shaving supplies. The common use of petroleum in these things – paraffin wax in lipstick, skin creams, plastic packaging — means their prices will be rising too.

FURTHER READING

PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:

  • Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
  • Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
  • Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
  • Offer a positive alternative.

Straits: 

In Nature last November, supply-chain analysts Jasper Verschuur, Johannes Lumma, & Jim Hall review risk premiums at 24 maritime chokepoints, including the Straits of Hormuz, Taiwan, Dover, and Malacca; the Suez and Panama Canals; the Bab al-Mandeb, the Windward Passage, etc. They think Russia, Central Asia, and the Middle East are especially vulnerable to chokepoints, the U.S. and Western Europe are less than most, and China and Japan are in the middle.

Lloyds Intelligence has an eye-catching graph of day-by-day transits since January 1.

And the U.S. Naval Institute looks at ship transits, missile strikes, and risk premiums.

Country perspectives:

Oman’s Foreign Ministry, watching from very close, offers analysis.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry is the current intermediary.

And a mid-March 35-country policy statement from the UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, et al.

Food:

The Strait carries not only energy, but about 30% of world fertilizer trade. Carnegie Endowment scholars Noah Gordon and Lucy Corthell assess the implications of Strait closure for fertilizer and food production.

…while U.S. Farm Bureau officers fear yet another shock to American agriculture.

Energy:

AAA tracks gasoline prices.

The Energy Information Administration (a DOE branch) explains the role of crude prices in consumer gas costs.

And for those wanting details, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey explains American spending patterns. They say that America’s literal “middle class” — the 27 million households in the third, or middle, of five income quintiles — earned on average $74,474 in 2024. (Most recent year for which data is available.) Gasoline and other vehicle fuels cost them $2,645. If they don’t scale back, driving a 36% price increase sustained for a year would cost them about $950. Here’s where gas fits into the budget:

Income $74,474
Tax payments: ~$4,662
Savings ~$2,912
All spending $66,900
Home/apartment $15,257
Food (not including restaurants):   $5,820
Health expenses   $5,676
All non-food/housing/health spending $40,147
Restaurants (“food away from home”)   $3,277
Entertainment   $2,764
Gasoline/other auto fuel   $2,645
Clothes   $1,642
Personal care products (e.g., soap, makeup)      $892

* Tax payments are estimated based on the results in 2023, as the BLS hasn’t yet published a 2024 figure. The third-quintile family’s 2023 tax payment averaged $4,451, including federal, state, local, and property taxes. This was 6.3% of that year’s $71,507 mean income. The $4,662 above assumes that taxes accounted for the same 6.3% share in 2024.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Manno for The 74: Why Social Capital Is the Missing Link in K-12 and College Curriculum

America’s schools and colleges rightly devote attention to what young people should know. They focus on developing human capital: the knowledge, skills and credentials needed for the labor market. That matters, but it’s not enough, because knowledge, skills and credentials don’t exist in a vacuum. They move through relationships and networks.

This social capital — the knowledge of how to forge connections that make opportunities visible and attainable — is the missing curriculum in American K-12 and postsecondary education. And it’s a shortcoming with consequences.

Young people from well-connected families absorb social capital almost by osmosis when it comes to learning things like how to ask for help, follow up and signal ambition without arrogance. Others, equally capable but from less-connected families, must figure this out alone. The result is unequal starting lines and unequal outcomes — a yawning gap between social wealth and social poverty.

Social wealth means having not only knowledge and credentials, but relationships that open doors, including mentors who give advice, supervisors who challenge us when we need to grow and networks that surface opportunities. Social poverty is the absence of those assets. It is being a talented individual without advocates.

Read more in The 74

Kahlenberg and Lin in Chronicle of Higher Education: Can American Studies Save Itself?

[…]

I recalled this moment recently, when I came across a report from the Progressive Policy Institute: “The Distortion of American Studies: How the Field’s Leading Journal Has Embraced a Worldview as Slanted as Donald Trump’s.” The report excoriates American studies for painting “a one-sided and unrelentingly negative portrait” of the United States. Reviewing almost 100 articles over three years in American Quarterly, the authors coded their orientation as “critical,” “neutral,” or “positive.” Eighty percent were critical; zero were positive. I am a historian of the political culture of the United States, and my colleagues in American studies are, it seems, unlikely to adorn their cars with American flags, or even to take seriously the impulse to do so.

The responses to the report have been predictable but fail to offer a productive path forward. The right-wing anti-woke crowd seized on the new evidence to cheer the dismantling of the humanities with renewed vigor. On the other hand, the president of the American Studies Association, Alex Lubin, made no effort to deny the leftist slant of the field. Instead, he swiped at the “purportedly ‘progressive’ policy institute” that published the report, insinuating that its authors, Richard D. Kahlenberg and Lief Lin, were colluding with the Trump administration (the uncritical patriotism of which they condemn outright) at an especially “dangerous moment.” Academics, Lubin argued, should be focused on the White House’s authoritarianism rather than taking a hard look inward at their own disciplines.

Egging on the destruction of the humanities, infusing more patriotism into scholarly study, or denying there’s any merit to these criticisms are all indefensible responses. As The Chronicle Review’s Len Gutkin argued in these pages, the “ritual political posturing” common in American studies is undeniable, but the solution to the field’s “credibility problem” does not lie in balancing it with more positive depictions of the American past but rather in a recommitment to dispassionate scholarly rigor.

Furthermore, the sharp analysis of American ideas, images, experiences, and aspirations has never been more urgent. American studies, one would think, is exactly where such work should transpire — but for several of the reasons the institute’s report lays out and others, the field can feel more symptomatic of academe’s well-documented alienation from much of the American public than a place to understand the full range of American experience.

[…]

Read more in Chronicle of Higher Education

Fung in the Nevada Current: Vying to be a leader in allowing autonomous vehicles, Nevada is a lagger in regulating them

[…]

Surveys suggest that many Americans are distrusting of fully autonomous vehicles. But Andrew Fung, a senior analyst at the Progressive Policy Institute who is focused on economics and technology, says that is likely to change, and that it’s likely to change very quickly.

He referenced a study that found a 45 percentage point shift in public opinion in San Francisco between 2023 and 2025. San Francisco, like Las Vegas, has been a hub of AV testing.

“It seems like when people get their hands on these cars and can actually experience them and what they’re like, they’re generally very positive of them,” said Fung. “When they think about them as kind of an abstract thing, the sentiment is much less positive.”

Those findings could serve as a warning to state lawmakers: Get ahead of statutory and regulatory issues around safety, taxation and legal liability now because trying to do so after rapid adoption will be far more difficult.

“I would recommend legislators not take their eye off the ball,” Fung said. “Think about how to get ahead of the issues. How do we set ourselves up for success, so that you’re not chasing behind after the rollout comes?”

[…]

Read more in the Nevada Current

PPI Comments on FDA Guidance for Flavored Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the draft guidance for Flavored Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) Premarket Applications – Considerations Related to Youth Risk. We appreciate that the draft guidance clarifies FDA’s position on flavored ENDS, including what the agency describes as a “sliding scale” regarding the evidentiary burden for various ENDS flavorings. Importantly, the draft guidance makes it clear that the agency does not have a de facto flavor ban for e-cigarettes. Despite this appreciation, the draft guidance fails to account for critical real-world factors that should inform FDA’s perspectives on the potential risks and benefits associated with flavored ENDS.

The draft guidance suggests “FDA’s current approach to PMTA review for determining whether a flavored ENDS product is ‘appropriate for the protection of the public health’ (APPH) includes evaluating the risks and benefits, considering all relevant evidence and circumstances associated with the new product to the population as a whole.” However, the draft guidance does not sufficiently acknowledge the following “relevant evidence and circumstances” or describe how these factors were considered when FDA conceptualized the evidentiary burden necessary to authorize flavored ENDS:

  1. The agency fails to adequately acknowledge that youth ENDS use declined rapidly and dramatically while illicit flavored products were widely available.
  2. The agency fails to acknowledge that existing FDA-authorized ENDS products do not sufficiently meet adult consumer demand, which sustains the illicit market for flavored ENDS

By not adequately accounting for these factors, the proposed framework is likely to overestimate the risks flavored ENDS pose to youth, undervalue their potential benefits to adults who smoke cigarettes, and fall short in helping address the illicit ENDS marketplace. In the context of declining rates of youth use and growing public safety concerns with illicit tobacco products, FDA guidance should provide clear pathways that are likely to accelerate the authorization of flavored ENDS products that benefit adult smokers, better meet adult consumer demand, and begin to draw consumers away from unregulated products and the illicit market.

Read the full letter

Marshall in The New York Times: It’s Not Going to Get Any Easier for Democrats After Trump

[…]

“Marshall, the founder and president of the Progressive Policy Institute and a key adviser to Bill Clinton as policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council, is deeply suspicious of third parties:

‘I’m skeptical of third parties, especially ones purporting to represent independents or centrists. Even if you could organize one, it would only give the Democratic establishment another excuse not to make the changes necessary to stop shrinking their coalition and start expanding it.’

Party leaders, in Marshall’s view, “need to reject progressive purity tests and develop a new reform blueprint that accommodates the moral sentiments and economic aspirations of working families.”

There is, Marshall maintained, “no deus ex machina that’s going to save the party; the change has to come from within as rank-and-file Democrats get tired of losing.

Marshall did call for a specific reform:

‘Replace the party’s primary and caucus system with ranked-choice (also called instant runoff) voting. The current system empowers well-organized activists and interest groups to elect their favorites on the basis of narrow pluralities rather than broad political appeal. Under ranked choice, nominees would have to win an outright majority. This would introduce a centrist bias into candidate selection and change the balance of power within the party.’

Jentleson, Kessler and Marshall bring a combination of extensive experience in the political trenches, years of pondering the Democratic future and a deep interest in finding solutions to improve the party’s future prospects.”

[…]

Read more in The New York Times

Ritz on The New Liberal Podcast: Do Democrats have a ‘Slopulism’ problem?

 

Democratic senators are proposing plans that would drastically reduce taxes on the middle and upper middle class. Tax cuts are always popular with the people who receive them – but are they a good idea? Ben Ritz joins the podcast to discuss why Democrats keep proposing ‘slopulism’ ideas about the budget, why the budget math for huge tax cuts doesn’t work, and why this approach is politically dangerous for Democrats.

Marshall for The Hill: Bashing Billionaires Isn’t Helping Progressives Win the Working Class

Whether they march to the MAGA drumbeat or roost on the progressive left, populists share a need for scapegoats. To inflame public passions and convert them into votes, each side vows to stop nefarious villains from destroying America.

President Trump has built his political career upon demagogic attacks on “criminal aliens” and “radical left lunatics” who “hate America.” Progressive politicians, clearly envious of Trump’s grip on working-class voters, believe they can pry it loose by focusing their ire on billionaires instead.

That’s a long shot. Trump is the greatest of all time when it comes to mastering what author William Galston, in an illuminating new book, calls the “dark passions” shaping today’s politics — anger, fear and domination.

Trump’s populist elixir is more potent because it fuses working Americans’ cultural and economic grievances. While progressives fixate on the uneven distribution of wealth and power, non-college voters have more immediate concerns — the high cost of living — and worry that Democrats still lean too far left on social issues.

Read more in The Hill

Willett for Buffalo News: Another Voice: Protecting kids, supporting adults: a smarter path forward on tobacco policy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently released results from the National Youth Tobacco Survey showing that youth tobacco use is down across the board. Remarkably, the rate of monthly tobacco and nicotine use among teens has been cut by two-thirds in the past six years.

Even youth use of nicotine pouches, which several advocacy groups frame as the latest nicotine-delivery villain, has remained very low. In fact, the Albany Times Union last week reported that, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released … data that show about 1.6% of middle and high school students reported using nicotine pouches monthly last year, down slightly from 1.8% the year before.”\

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul should take note. Her proposed budget includes a 75% excise tax on nicotine pouches that she says is meant to help reduce youth use. However, there is little evidence that a 75% tax on a legal, regulated product would meaningfully reduce youth uptake of a product they are not already using at high rates.

Excessive tobacco taxes have a well-documented history of fueling illicit trade, pushing products out of regulated retail settings and into unregulated channels. New York knows this well — unlicensed sellers and illicit products cost the state more than $2 billion per year.

Read more in The Buffalo News

Moss in the Columbia Journalism Review: The Art of the Mega-Merger

[…]

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice approved the merger. The resulting behemoth will control two hundred and sixty-five television stations, reaching 80 percent of US households—more than double the 39 percent national audience cap allowed by law. “It’s a grotesque violation of the cap,” Diana Moss, the vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, a liberal Washington think tank, told me. “So bottom line, Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, who clearly does the bidding of the White House, said that he would wave this merger through, and that has in fact come to pass.”

US antitrust laws are more than a hundred years old and can be split into two big statutes—the Sherman and Clayton Acts, passed in 1890 and 1914, respectively—and three areas of concern: monopolies, mergers, and anticompetitive agreements like price-fixing, Moss told me. She is part of a center-left, pro-enforcement movement founded in the 1990s by antitrust advocates in the nonprofit, academic, and enforcement communities with concerns about the economic consequences of concentration and consolidation. “Mergers that really concentrate markets and create dominant players are generally thought to be harmful to consumers,” she said. “We worked very hard in advancing that movement to get stronger guidelines, better cases, and better legal precedents.” Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

[…]

Read more in Columbia Journalism Review