democracynow--2020-12-22--We Must Reject Austerity Politics: Economist Darrick Hamilton on Why $900B Stimulus Is Not Enough

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Congress voted Monday night to pass a $ 900 billion coronavirus relief package , the first new aid since April .
The measure is part of a $ 2.3 trillion package that includes $ 1.4 trillion to fund the government .
The combined legislation is among the largest relief packages in U.S. history .
President Trump has until December 28th to sign it .
The coronavirus relief part of the bill includes $ 300-per-week federal unemployment assistance for 11 weeks ; a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who earn up to $ 75,000 , with another $ 600 per child ; more money for schools and hospitals ; and an extension of an eviction moratorium by a month .
It also includes $ 284 billion for another round of small business aid through the Paycheck Protection Program , as well as $ 20 billion to buy vaccines and make , quote , “ the vaccine available at no charge for anyone who needs it.
” It offers an additional $ 8 billion for vaccine distribution .
The package includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out-of-network medical providers ; a restoration of Pell grants for incarcerated students ; $ 35 billion for fund wind , solar and other clean power sources ; and $ 15 billion to U.S. airlines to bail them out .
The government funding part of the bill also allocates nearly $ 1.4 billion for the border wall .
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont told CNN the COVID relief bill is a step forward but does not go far enough .
AMY GOODMAN : Meanwhile , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on CNBC hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaching people as early as next week .
AMY GOODMAN : To talk more about this $ 900 billion stimulus package , that ’ s half the size of the $ 2.2 trillion stimulus law passed in March , we ’ re joined by Darrick Hamilton , professor of economics at The New School , where he ’ s also founding director of the newly created Institute for the Study of Race , Stratification and Political Economy .
He was a surrogate and economic adviser on Bernie Sanders ’ 2020 presidential campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden-Sanders joint task force .
Darrick , welcome back to Democracy Now !
Can you start off by just reacting to the overall stimulus bill ?
What ’ s in there ?
What do you feel needs to be in there ?
DARRICK HAMILTON : Well , it ’ s long overdue .
I ’ m glad it ’ s here .
It needs to be thought of as a relief bill , as a bridge to get us to a Biden presidency , where we can do something that is far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — here ’ s the key point — that becomes leading into transformative policy , so that we will be less vulnerable to the next pandemic or the next economic crisis for everyday vulnerabilities that many Americans live with .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : My concern is , while I see some excellent provisions in this bill that were not in the previous bill — for instance , there is now an allowance for a family where perhaps one person , one wage earner in the family , does not have a Social Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they would be able to count in terms of being able to get payments and actually even retroactively claim it on their next year ’ s taxes for the previous stimulus that they were not eligible for — but at 5,600 pages , this bill obviously has a lot of stuff that we have not yet clearly heard about .
We ’ re told we ’ re not going to get the final version possibly until sometime next week .
And I ’ m wondering : Do you have any concerns about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already come forward ?
For instance , apparently now they ’ re increasing the deductions that businesses can take for business meals to 100 % from 50 % .
They ’ re allowing controlled foreign corporations to be able to bring back their income from abroad without having to pay taxes that they ’ ve been sheltering abroad .
There ’ s all kinds of other provisions , including an expansion of the new markets tax credit , which has always been , to me , a scam for real estate investors to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion expansion of the new markets tax credit .
And we don ’ t know much of what ’ s still in the bill .
Your concerns about that ?
DARRICK HAMILTON : I mean , you ’ re spot-on , Juan .
We certainly know that Washington politics includes pork-barrel politics and some cronyism , where we ’ re going to get things into the bill , and that ’ s problematic .
And the fact that it is so long , and we just — it just got released , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dissect it , these are all problems .
But there are also some positive things in there that we should recognize .
And the politics of having those positive things in the bills becomes very useful as we get rid of that politics of the past where we load bills with all sorts of special interests that aren ’ t aimed at the American people .
You know , for example , a recognition that education itself needs to be an industry that we invest in , so there ’ s $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s a relief set aside for transportation .
You and I both know that there needs to be some money in there for state and localities , as well , and that ’ s not in the bill .
So there ’ s a lot of problems .
It was definitely necessary that we had this bill passed .
And what I like is the precedent of interventions in some areas — like you pointed out , undocumented people , families having access to some relief ; like you also pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gig workers when we think about the unemployed .
In fact , why should that ever be a distinction ?
Going forward , we need to provide unemployment relief for all American workers , period .
We know this new classification of putting vulnerability onto workers , where they ’ re not formally employed in firms as we traditionally employ them , the fissuring of the workforce .
We need to rethink how we design unemployment , so that all American workers , documented and undocumented — in fact , we need pathways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undocumented .
But the last point I ’ ll make — and I ’ m sorry if I ’ m rambling on — is that this sets a precedent for us to build upon .
And that ’ s what it needs to be thought of .
It is inadequate .
Senator Sanders is exactly right .
But we need a new politics .
And there ’ s optimism , because if we look at people going into Congress , they are , I think , standing firm and promoting industrial policy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the lack of provisions for local governments and state governments ?
New Jersey , for instance , is just this week having to deal with borrowing over $ 4 billion to deal with its expected budget gap this year .
Could you talk about the plight of states and municipalities right now ?
DARRICK HAMILTON : Yeah .
I mean , the plight is such that state and localities are constrained to balance their budget in a way that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government has the power of the purse and can fund us through a relief , but yet we ’ ve imposed a great deal of burden on state and localities to take care of their citizens , with our increasing federalism , where state and localities are responsible for their residents , as well as balancing their budget .
It ’ s really problematic , that .
And the impact is going to be dramatic , if we think about who is receiving the benefits at local levels , as well as who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mean .
It ’ s going to mean layoffs for teachers if we don ’ t get relief from federal government .
It ’ s going to be reductions in benefits such as contributions to food security , such as contributions to school .
So it is critical and vital that when we get the next package , when Biden takes office , that there ’ s relief directed to state and locality .
AMY GOODMAN : Professor Hamilton , last month Public Citizen tweeted a comparison of the wages subsidized by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whereas Japan stood at close to 100 % , the U.S. has subsidized 0 % of wages due to the pandemic .
DARRICK HAMILTON : Yeah .
I mean , a Paycheck Protection Program is what we have right now .
But if we had a paycheck guarantee , that would be more direct , bigger in scale , and provide more security .
So , if we look at our international comparisons , we ’ re not doing what we should be doing .
And we have a greater public power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clear narrative is that this was a necessary ingredient , but it ’ s still far short , that there ’ s a lot more work we need to do .
I think that ’ s the resounding message .
AMY GOODMAN : Now , the issue of corporate liability , what Mitch McConnell and others were holding up this bill for , that corporations would be protected from consumers or workers during the pandemic , being sued , that ultimately was dropped out of this .
There are many interesting things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that , and also the no-surprise-medical-bill procedures ?
This is an amazing accomplishment , pushed by grassroots health advocates around the country .
They ’ ve worked on this for years .
When you go to an emergency room , you ’ re getting an operation , you have no idea which doctors are working on you .
Some can be out of network .
And then you end up with , instead of a $ 600 emergency room bill , something like $ 10,000 .
Private equity groups have bought up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could go out of network and make this fortune .
This is now becoming illegal ?
DARRICK HAMILTON : Yeah .
I mean , ideally , Medicare for All would address all of this , if we had a single-payer health insurance system .
But we know we don ’ t have that at this point .
And I agree with you , Amy .
I think that we have made some progress on the progressive side .
So , there is a lot to be disturbed about in this bill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the conversation describing some of this pork-barrel politics that still exists .
But progressives should be vigilant and steadfast and also feel some sense of accomplishment , and the sense of accomplishment that we were able to keep out corporate liabilities as an emphasis , so , you know , it signals that we need to put workers first .
And with the provision that you just described , so that people aren ’ t hit with a surprise medical bill that they didn ’ t anticipate , that ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we ’ re sending direct checks to American people as relief , that ’ s an accomplishment , albeit too small .
Three hundred dollars is not enough — yeah , $ 600 is not enough ; neither is $ 300 supplemental for [ unemployment ] compensation .
But the fact that we ’ re doing it sets a precedent and can set a tone of what government can actually do .
What we should not be concerned about right now is austerity politics , some notion of deficit constraint .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly the left side of the aisle , needs to recognize that PAYGO is a problem , particularly in pandemic , that constraining the use of the public purse for relief for Americans is absolutely not what we should be doing .
In fact , we need to be doing more to ensure , as I said earlier , that not only will we have protections during a pandemic , that we have a structure that — when we ’ re not in a peculiar economic crisis , where people can have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JUAN GONZÁLEZ : One of the other positive aspects of the bill , it seems to me , and that can be credited to the pressure of the Sanders campaign and the left of the Democratic Party , are the provisions on addressing climate change , in terms of actually , apparently , expansion of credits for solar installations and for research into wind power and longer-serving batteries .
Could you talk about some of those provisions ?
DARRICK HAMILTON : Yeah .
I mean , to be frank , Juan , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it , but I think it goes right back to that narrative that , you know , we were — there was ridicule directed at Bernie Sanders as if he was holding the bill up .
But as we can see , there are provisions in there , and he ’ s not alone .
There ’ s a whole conglomerate within Congress right now that ’ s fighting for the rights of Americans .
And I think that momentum is illustrated in this bill .
And that , to me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focusing on also , the fact that we do have a pathway forward .
And you cited one : climate change .
Clearly , if we think about this pandemic in isolation , that ’ s a missed opportunity , that this economic despair , this health risk , we ’ re still going to be vulnerable after this pandemic , after the dissemination of the vaccine .
We have climate catastrophe looming and waiting if we don ’ t do anything about it .
AMY GOODMAN : Finally , Professor Hamilton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should do , President Biden should do first thing when he is in office , both through executive action and just pushing forward economic recovery ?
What ’ s most critical ?
DARRICK HAMILTON : Yeah .
I mean , in earnest , there is no silver bullet policy , so we need to be thinking about economic protection across almost a Bill of Rights , various aspects .
But if I were to single out some , well , one , he can address student debt , right ?
We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — you know , the pandemic legislation included a moratorium on evictions , moratorium on foreclosure , as well as some relief for students with regards to paying back their debt .
So I would certainly recommend , through executive order , if Congress doesn ’ t act , some relief with regards to student debt that ’ s been accumulated .
But if I have to focus on something , it is jobs , public jobs , public jobs that are building a better human and physical infrastructure for Americans , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decent wage and benefits , that put pressure on the private sector to ensure that they also have to have decent wages and benefits if they want to compete in the marketplace for American workers .
AMY GOODMAN : Darrick Hamilton , thanks so much for being with us , professor of economics at The New School , where he ’ s also founding director of the Institute for the Study of Race , Stratification and Political Economy .
Next up , as hospitalizations from COVID hit another record high here in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is cut off from the rest of Europe because of a variant of the coronavirus , we ’ re going to speak to a Virginia doctor who was among the first to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine .
We ’ ll ask him a lot of questions .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Congress voted Monday night to pass a $900 billion coronavirus relief package, the first new aid since April. The measure is part of a $2.3 trillion package that includes $1.4 trillion to fund the government. The combined legislation is among the largest relief packages in U.S. history. President Trump has until December 28th to sign it.
The coronavirus relief part of the bill includes $300-per-week federal unemployment assistance for 11 weeks; a round of $600 stimulus checks for people who earn up to $75,000, with another $600 per child; more money for schools and hospitals; and an extension of an eviction moratorium by a month. It also includes $284 billion for another round of small business aid through the Paycheck Protection Program, as well as $20 billion to buy vaccines and make, quote, “the vaccine available at no charge for anyone who needs it.” It offers an additional $8 billion for vaccine distribution.
The package includes a ban on surprise medical bills from out-of-network medical providers; a restoration of Pell grants for incarcerated students; $35 billion for fund wind, solar and other clean power sources; and $15 billion to U.S. airlines to bail them out. The government funding part of the bill also allocates nearly $1.4 billion for the border wall.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont told CNN the COVID relief bill is a step forward but does not go far enough.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Now, this bill, to be honest, has a lot of very important stuff in it. I mean, we worked very hard — I worked with Senator Hawley — to make sure there would be direct payments. I wanted 1,200 bucks; we ended up with $600, which, for a family of four, the average family of four, will be $2,400. Will that help? Yes, it will. Is it enough? No, it is not.
We managed to extend unemployment for another 11 weeks at a supplement of $300 on top of normal unemployment. Is that enough? No, it should have been for four months, and that number should have been higher.
We provided zero financial aid to states and localities all over this country who are suffering devastating financial problems, which will mean they’ll have to lay off firemen and police officers and teachers and so forth and so on.
So, this is a step forward. It is better than nothing. But it is nowhere near, in my view, where it should be going.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on CNBC hundreds of dollars in direct payments could begin reaching people as early as next week.
TREASURY SECRETARY STEVEN MNUCHIN: So, I think, as you know, you know, we were worried about, you know, something like a Great Depression again, earlier in the year. But this is now much more targeted. I expect it’s needed in a short period of time. And I think this will take us through the recovery.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about this $900 billion stimulus package, that’s half the size of the $2.2 trillion stimulus law passed in March, we’re joined by Darrick Hamilton, professor of economics at The New School, where he’s also founding director of the newly created Institute for the Study of Race, Stratification and Political Economy. He was a surrogate and economic adviser on Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign, also one of Sanders’ appointees to the Biden-Sanders joint task force.
Darrick, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you start off by just reacting to the overall stimulus bill? What’s in there? What do you feel needs to be in there?
DARRICK HAMILTON: Well, it’s long overdue. I’m glad it’s here. It needs to be thought of as a relief bill, as a bridge to get us to a Biden presidency, where we can do something that is far more intense and larger in scale and — here’s the key point — that becomes leading into transformative policy, so that we will be less vulnerable to the next pandemic or the next economic crisis for everyday vulnerabilities that many Americans live with.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: My concern is, while I see some excellent provisions in this bill that were not in the previous bill — for instance, there is now an allowance for a family where perhaps one person, one wage earner in the family, does not have a Social Security number, may possibly be undocumented, that they would be able to count in terms of being able to get payments and actually even retroactively claim it on their next year’s taxes for the previous stimulus that they were not eligible for — but at 5,600 pages, this bill obviously has a lot of stuff that we have not yet clearly heard about. We’re told we’re not going to get the final version possibly until sometime next week.
And I’m wondering: Do you have any concerns about some of the stuff that’s already come forward? For instance, apparently now they’re increasing the deductions that businesses can take for business meals to 100% from 50%. They’re allowing controlled foreign corporations to be able to bring back their income from abroad without having to pay taxes that they’ve been sheltering abroad. There’s all kinds of other provisions, including an expansion of the new markets tax credit, which has always been, to me, a scam for real estate investors to make super profits — a $5 billion expansion of the new markets tax credit. And we don’t know much of what’s still in the bill. Your concerns about that?
DARRICK HAMILTON: I mean, you’re spot-on, Juan. We certainly know that Washington politics includes pork-barrel politics and some cronyism, where we’re going to get things into the bill, and that’s problematic. And the fact that it is so long, and we just — it just got released, and we haven’t had a chance to dissect it, these are all problems.
But there are also some positive things in there that we should recognize. And the politics of having those positive things in the bills becomes very useful as we get rid of that politics of the past where we load bills with all sorts of special interests that aren’t aimed at the American people. You know, for example, a recognition that education itself needs to be an industry that we invest in, so there’s $82 billion in there for education. There’s a relief set aside for transportation.
You and I both know that there needs to be some money in there for state and localities, as well, and that’s not in the bill. So there’s a lot of problems.
It was definitely necessary that we had this bill passed. And what I like is the precedent of interventions in some areas — like you pointed out, undocumented people, families having access to some relief; like you also pointed out, having a bill that includes gig workers when we think about the unemployed. In fact, why should that ever be a distinction? Going forward, we need to provide unemployment relief for all American workers, period. We know this new classification of putting vulnerability onto workers, where they’re not formally employed in firms as we traditionally employ them, the fissuring of the workforce. We need to rethink how we design unemployment, so that all American workers, documented and undocumented — in fact, we need pathways to having citizenship for people that are undocumented.
But the last point I’ll make — and I’m sorry if I’m rambling on — is that this sets a precedent for us to build upon. And that’s what it needs to be thought of. It is inadequate. Senator Sanders is exactly right. But we need a new politics. And there’s optimism, because if we look at people going into Congress, they are, I think, standing firm and promoting industrial policy that focuses on workers.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the lack of provisions for local governments and state governments? New Jersey, for instance, is just this week having to deal with borrowing over $4 billion to deal with its expected budget gap this year. Could you talk about the plight of states and municipalities right now?
DARRICK HAMILTON: Yeah. I mean, the plight is such that state and localities are constrained to balance their budget in a way that the federal government is not. The federal government has the power of the purse and can fund us through a relief, but yet we’ve imposed a great deal of burden on state and localities to take care of their citizens, with our increasing federalism, where state and localities are responsible for their residents, as well as balancing their budget. It’s really problematic, that.
And the impact is going to be dramatic, if we think about who is receiving the benefits at local levels, as well as who is employed and what austerity is going to mean. It’s going to mean layoffs for teachers if we don’t get relief from federal government. It’s going to be reductions in benefits such as contributions to food security, such as contributions to school. So it is critical and vital that when we get the next package, when Biden takes office, that there’s relief directed to state and locality.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Hamilton, last month Public Citizen tweeted a comparison of the wages subsidized by different governments during the coronavirus crisis. Whereas Japan stood at close to 100%, the U.S. has subsidized 0% of wages due to the pandemic.
DARRICK HAMILTON: Yeah. I mean, a Paycheck Protection Program is what we have right now. But if we had a paycheck guarantee, that would be more direct, bigger in scale, and provide more security. So, if we look at our international comparisons, we’re not doing what we should be doing. And we have a greater public power to do so. So, I think the clear narrative is that this was a necessary ingredient, but it’s still far short, that there’s a lot more work we need to do. I think that’s the resounding message.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, the issue of corporate liability, what Mitch McConnell and others were holding up this bill for, that corporations would be protected from consumers or workers during the pandemic, being sued, that ultimately was dropped out of this. There are many interesting things in this. If you could respond to that, and also the no-surprise-medical-bill procedures? This is an amazing accomplishment, pushed by grassroots health advocates around the country. They’ve worked on this for years. When you go to an emergency room, you’re getting an operation, you have no idea which doctors are working on you. Some can be out of network. And then you end up with, instead of a $600 emergency room bill, something like $10,000. Private equity groups have bought up emergency room doctor groups just so that they could go out of network and make this fortune. This is now becoming illegal?
DARRICK HAMILTON: Yeah. I mean, ideally, Medicare for All would address all of this, if we had a single-payer health insurance system. But we know we don’t have that at this point.
And I agree with you, Amy. I think that we have made some progress on the progressive side. So, there is a lot to be disturbed about in this bill, and, you know, Juan started off the conversation describing some of this pork-barrel politics that still exists. But progressives should be vigilant and steadfast and also feel some sense of accomplishment, and the sense of accomplishment that we were able to keep out corporate liabilities as an emphasis, so, you know, it signals that we need to put workers first. And with the provision that you just described, so that people aren’t hit with a surprise medical bill that they didn’t anticipate, that’s an accomplishment. I mean, the fact that we’re sending direct checks to American people as relief, that’s an accomplishment, albeit too small. Three hundred dollars is not enough — yeah, $600 is not enough; neither is $300 supplemental for [unemployment] compensation. But the fact that we’re doing it sets a precedent and can set a tone of what government can actually do.
What we should not be concerned about right now is austerity politics, some notion of deficit constraint. And I think both sides of the aisle, particularly the left side of the aisle, needs to recognize that PAYGO is a problem, particularly in pandemic, that constraining the use of the public purse for relief for Americans is absolutely not what we should be doing. In fact, we need to be doing more to ensure, as I said earlier, that not only will we have protections during a pandemic, that we have a structure that — when we’re not in a peculiar economic crisis, where people can have social mobility, a moral economy.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: One of the other positive aspects of the bill, it seems to me, and that can be credited to the pressure of the Sanders campaign and the left of the Democratic Party, are the provisions on addressing climate change, in terms of actually, apparently, expansion of credits for solar installations and for research into wind power and longer-serving batteries. Could you talk about some of those provisions?
DARRICK HAMILTON: Yeah. I mean, to be frank, Juan, I don’t know the specific details on it, but I think it goes right back to that narrative that, you know, we were — there was ridicule directed at Bernie Sanders as if he was holding the bill up. But as we can see, there are provisions in there, and he’s not alone. There’s a whole conglomerate within Congress right now that’s fighting for the rights of Americans. And I think that momentum is illustrated in this bill. And that, to me, is what we should be celebrating and focusing on also, the fact that we do have a pathway forward. And you cited one: climate change. Clearly, if we think about this pandemic in isolation, that’s a missed opportunity, that this economic despair, this health risk, we’re still going to be vulnerable after this pandemic, after the dissemination of the vaccine. We have climate catastrophe looming and waiting if we don’t do anything about it.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Professor Hamilton, what do you think the Biden administration should do, President Biden should do first thing when he is in office, both through executive action and just pushing forward economic recovery? What’s most critical?
DARRICK HAMILTON: Yeah. I mean, in earnest, there is no silver bullet policy, so we need to be thinking about economic protection across almost a Bill of Rights, various aspects. But if I were to single out some, well, one, he can address student debt, right? We’re going to have this benefit cliff even — you know, the pandemic legislation included a moratorium on evictions, moratorium on foreclosure, as well as some relief for students with regards to paying back their debt. So I would certainly recommend, through executive order, if Congress doesn’t act, some relief with regards to student debt that’s been accumulated. But if I have to focus on something, it is jobs, public jobs, public jobs that are building a better human and physical infrastructure for Americans, as well as putting Americans to work with a decent wage and benefits, that put pressure on the private sector to ensure that they also have to have decent wages and benefits if they want to compete in the marketplace for American workers.
AMY GOODMAN: Darrick Hamilton, thanks so much for being with us, professor of economics at The New School, where he’s also founding director of the Institute for the Study of Race, Stratification and Political Economy.
Next up, as hospitalizations from COVID hit another record high here in the United States, and as Britain is cut off from the rest of Europe because of a variant of the coronavirus, we’re going to speak to a Virginia doctor who was among the first to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. We’ll ask him a lot of questions. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-12-22--Headlines for December 22, 2020

Headlines for December 22, 2020

On Monday , the first doses of Moderna ’ s newly approved COVID-19 vaccine arrived at medical centers around the U.S. One of the very first to receive the Moderna vaccine was 44-year-old Arlene Ramirez , a nurse from Queens , New York , who became ill with COVID-19 in March and lost her father to the disease .
Arlene Ramirez : “ As a healthcare worker , seeing what we saw — people clinging on to life , death after death — having endured all at the same time — illness of my father-in-law , being severely ill myself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the intensive care unit here — this vaccine is hope .
It ’ s hope that we will cease this pandemic .
It ’ s hope that we will live a better life.
” President-elect Joe Biden received an injection of Pfizer ’ s COVID-19 vaccine in a televised event Monday , urging Americans to line up for their shots when the vaccine becomes available to them .
Meanwhile , the Vatican has told Catholics around the world it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that were developed using cell lines @ @ @ @

On Monday, the first doses of Moderna’s newly approved COVID-19 vaccine arrived at medical centers around the U.S. One of the very first to receive the Moderna vaccine was 44-year-old Arlene Ramirez, a nurse from Queens, New York, who became ill with COVID-19 in March and lost her father to the disease.
Arlene Ramirez: “As a healthcare worker, seeing what we saw — people clinging on to life, death after death — having endured all at the same time — illness of my father-in-law, being severely ill myself, 36 days of my father being in the intensive care unit here — this vaccine is hope. It’s hope that we will cease this pandemic. It’s hope that we will live a better life.”
President-elect Joe Biden received an injection of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in a televised event Monday, urging Americans to line up for their shots when the vaccine becomes available to them.
Meanwhile, the Vatican has told Catholics around the world it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that were developed using cell lines from aborted fetuses.


democracynow--2020-12-23--California Is 40% Latinx. In Alex Padilla, It Will Finally Have Its First Latinx Senator

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
California Governor Gavin Newsom has appointed California ’ s Secretary of State Alex Padilla to replace Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in the U.S. Senate .
Padilla will make history as the first Latinx senator to represent California , a state with a population that ’ s 40 % Latinx .
He was first elected to public office at 26 years old when he joined the Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve two terms in the state Senate , followed by two terms as the state ’ s secretary of state .
Alex Padilla is the son of Mexican immigrants .
In a video posted by Governor Newsom to Twitter , Padilla talked about how his family ’ s background has shaped his political work .
AMY GOODMAN : Alex Padilla is a close ally of Governor Gavin Newsom .
He has not taken a public stance on popular progressive issues such as Medicare for All , the Green New Deal , abolishing ICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enforcement .
For more on his appointment , we go to Los Angeles , where we ’ re joined by Fernando Guerra .
He ’ s a professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University , where he ’ s also director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles .
We welcome you to Democracy Now !
, Professor Guerra .
It ’ s great to have you back after a number of years .
Can you start off by talking about the significance of this appointment and who Alex Padilla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for many , many years ?
FERNANDO GUERRA : Well , obviously , the significance is very historic and symbolic that Latinos now have this position .
There ’ s been tremendous amount of Latino political mobilization , and you ’ ve seen Latino mayors , like Antonio Villaraigosa ; lieutenant governor ; secretary of state , like Alex Padilla .
You ’ ve seen Latinos be the head of the Legislature as speaker or as a president pro tem of the Senate .
Really , the only two positions that Latinos haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Senate , which they ’ ve never held in California , and governor .
There was a Latino governor back in the 1870s .
But this is really a reflection of the historic importance of Latinos .
Also politically , you know , we think about Latinos are 40 % of the population , and they ’ re also a significant number of the electorate .
It is because of Latino political mobilization that California is deeply blue .
Without that Latino mobilization , California would be purple , and maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole dynamics of national politics .
You know , I remind people that for many presidential elections , Republicans always won California .
It wasn ’ t until 1992 that Democrats started winning , and barely winning , because of — we all know the Ross Perot factor there .
But after that , it really depended on the Latino vote .
And the Latino vote is the backbone of California being Democratic , which becomes the backbone of the Democrats having a chance in the Electoral College .
And so , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also political significance .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Professor Guerra , Alex Padilla , from what I can tell , is part of this whole sort of generation of key Latino leaders in California — and I include in that Antonio Villaraigosa ; Gil Cedillo , the city councilman from L.A. ; Xavier Becerra ; Kevin de León — who all came , sort of , of age in the fight against Proposition 187 in the mid-'90s and really began to exercise their leadership .
But he 's not necessarily one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Could you talk about his sort of political leanings ?
FERNANDO GUERRA : Sure .
You are right , and it ’ s a great point .
Alex Padilla is part of the original resistance to the Republican anti-immigrant policies of the early 1990s .
Many of your viewers remember , in 1994 , there was a proposition in California , Proposition 187 , which was anti-immigrant , anti-Latino .
Out of that resistance came people like Kevin de León , Gil Cedillo , Fabian Núñez and Alex Padilla .
At that time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had just graduated from MIT with an engineering degree , and he had started his career in engineering and decided to get involved in the public sector .
And he grows out of 1994 , as do a ton of progressive Latinos .
But you ’ re right in terms of his politics .
He is much more moderate .
He is not a progressive in the same sense that an AOC or someone like that .
Now , he will not be against the New Green Deal .
He will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think he will be in the forefront of those issues .
I think the most important issues to him are going to be , yes , immigrant rights , yes , equity in economics and education , and , most importantly , voting rights , because that is his one area of expertise .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And in terms of — there was a whole lot of jockeying within the political forces in California on Gavin Newsom .
There were those who wanted an African American woman , either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace Kamala Harris .
What ’ s your sense of how Gavin Newsom dealt with those competing pressures on him ?
FERNANDO GUERRA : Well , at the end of the day , he dealt with them masterfully .
It just shows what a politician , great politician , he is in terms of the inside game .
You are , you know , absolutely right that there was tremendous amount of pressure on him to appoint a Latino , to appoint an African American female , to appoint someone from the LGBT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California versus Northern California , to appoint a woman .
And there were newspaper ads taken out in the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento newspapers from different constituent groups , all urging him to appoint someone that they were obviously supporting .
At the end of the day , he understood the historic significance for Latinos .
He also had other variables , number one , that Alex Padilla has been a strong ally of the governor for many years .
Not only did he endorse him for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsed Newsom for governor in 2010 , when Newsom was thinking about running against Jerry Brown .
Also , you know , they share a lot of the same perspective .
In addition , he also thinks that Alex Padilla can hold the seat in 2022 .
You don ’ t want , as a governor , to appoint somebody , and then they quickly lose the seat .
He ’ s held statewide office before , and he ’ ll have a good shot at staying in that seat in '22 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] .
He ’ ll have [ inaudible ] .
He ’ ll probably have Vice President Kamala Harris ’ s endorsement .
Now , he is vulnerable to a progressive candidate , like Congressman [ Ro Khanna ] , someone like that , and so he has to be careful .
But again , he will be a strong ally of Biden .
He will be very much in the liberal Democrat , but don ’ t expect him to be the leader of progressives .
AMY GOODMAN : So , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , Gavin Newsom has named state Assemblywoman Shirley Weber .
If confirmed , she would become the first Black secretary of state in California ’ s history .
If you can comment on this , and what this means for the landscape of the Senate to have a — if you wouldn ’ t say progressive , would you say liberal Democratic Senator Alex Padilla — AMY GOODMAN : — when you look at the other Latinx senators , from Cruz to Rubio to Menendez ?
FERNANDO GUERRA : Yeah .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weber , I mean , this is what I was referring to in the past , how brilliant Governor Newsom was .
He was able to deflect criticism about not appointing an African American woman to the U.S. Senate by simultaneously appointing an African American woman to secretary of state .
It was a brilliant move .
And so , it ’ s difficult for someone to say , “ Hey , this was terrible .
You didn ’ t appoint an African American woman.
” He ’ s like , “ Hey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first African American woman secretary of state.
” FERNANDO GUERRA : Yeah .
And so , yes , he ’ s going to be a moderate .
He ’ s going to be a lot more liberal than the Latino U.S. senators that exist .
You have two Cubans , in Cruz and Rubio , who are also Republican .
But you have now four Democrats — Menendez and in Nevada and a new one in Luján in New Mexico .
He will , I think , be more progressive than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I want to thank you , Fernando Guerra .
We ’ ll be getting back in touch with you , professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University , director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles .
That does it for our show .
On [ Thursday ] , tune in to our documentary Four Days in Western Sahara ; on Friday , our interview with the late John le Carré .
Remember , wearing a mask is an act of love .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , @ @ @ @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has appointed California’s Secretary of State Alex Padilla to replace Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in the U.S. Senate. Padilla will make history as the first Latinx senator to represent California, a state with a population that’s 40% Latinx. He was first elected to public office at 26 years old when he joined the Los Angeles City Council. He went on to serve two terms in the state Senate, followed by two terms as the state’s secretary of state. Alex Padilla is the son of Mexican immigrants. In a video posted by Governor Newsom to Twitter, Padilla talked about how his family’s background has shaped his political work.
SECRETARY OF STATE ALEX PADILLA: I can’t tell you how many pancakes my dad flipped or eggs he scrambled trying to provide for us, or the many, many years of my mom cleaning houses, doing the same thing. It’s why I try so hard to make sure that our democracy is as inclusive in California as we built. And it’s a hell of an important perspective to bring to Washington.
AMY GOODMAN: Alex Padilla is a close ally of Governor Gavin Newsom. He has not taken a public stance on popular progressive issues such as Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, abolishing ICE — that’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
For more on his appointment, we go to Los Angeles, where we’re joined by Fernando Guerra. He’s a professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University, where he’s also director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Professor Guerra. It’s great to have you back after a number of years. Can you start off by talking about the significance of this appointment and who Alex Padilla is, someone you’ve known for many, many years?
FERNANDO GUERRA: Well, obviously, the significance is very historic and symbolic that Latinos now have this position. There’s been tremendous amount of Latino political mobilization, and you’ve seen Latino mayors, like Antonio Villaraigosa; lieutenant governor; secretary of state, like Alex Padilla. You’ve seen Latinos be the head of the Legislature as speaker or as a president pro tem of the Senate. Really, the only two positions that Latinos haven’t gained in modern times is the U.S. Senate, which they’ve never held in California, and governor. There was a Latino governor back in the 1870s. But this is really a reflection of the historic importance of Latinos.
Also politically, you know, we think about Latinos are 40% of the population, and they’re also a significant number of the electorate. It is because of Latino political mobilization that California is deeply blue. Without that Latino mobilization, California would be purple, and maybe even red, and would change the whole dynamics of national politics. You know, I remind people that for many presidential elections, Republicans always won California. It wasn’t until 1992 that Democrats started winning, and barely winning, because of — we all know the Ross Perot factor there. But after that, it really depended on the Latino vote. And the Latino vote is the backbone of California being Democratic, which becomes the backbone of the Democrats having a chance in the Electoral College. And so, it’s a historic significance, but also political significance.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Professor Guerra, Alex Padilla, from what I can tell, is part of this whole sort of generation of key Latino leaders in California — and I include in that Antonio Villaraigosa; Gil Cedillo, the city councilman from L.A.; Xavier Becerra; Kevin de León — who all came, sort of, of age in the fight against Proposition 187 in the mid-'90s and really began to exercise their leadership. But he's not necessarily one of the most progressive of this group. Could you talk about his sort of political leanings?
FERNANDO GUERRA: Sure. You are right, and it’s a great point. Alex Padilla is part of the original resistance to the Republican anti-immigrant policies of the early 1990s. Many of your viewers remember, in 1994, there was a proposition in California, Proposition 187, which was anti-immigrant, anti-Latino. Out of that resistance came people like Kevin de León, Gil Cedillo, Fabian Núñez and Alex Padilla. At that time, Alex Padilla was a young 20-year-old who had just graduated from MIT with an engineering degree, and he had started his career in engineering and decided to get involved in the public sector. And he grows out of 1994, as do a ton of progressive Latinos.
But you’re right in terms of his politics. He is much more moderate. He is not a progressive in the same sense that an AOC or someone like that. Now, he will not be against the New Green Deal. He will not be against abolishing ICE. But I don’t think he will be in the forefront of those issues. I think the most important issues to him are going to be, yes, immigrant rights, yes, equity in economics and education, and, most importantly, voting rights, because that is his one area of expertise.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of — there was a whole lot of jockeying within the political forces in California on Gavin Newsom. There were those who wanted an African American woman, either Barbara Lee or Karen Bass, to replace Kamala Harris. What’s your sense of how Gavin Newsom dealt with those competing pressures on him?
FERNANDO GUERRA: Well, at the end of the day, he dealt with them masterfully. It just shows what a politician, great politician, he is in terms of the inside game. You are, you know, absolutely right that there was tremendous amount of pressure on him to appoint a Latino, to appoint an African American female, to appoint someone from the LGBT community, to appoint someone from Southern California versus Northern California, to appoint a woman. And there were newspaper ads taken out in the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento newspapers from different constituent groups, all urging him to appoint someone that they were obviously supporting.
At the end of the day, he understood the historic significance for Latinos. He also had other variables, number one, that Alex Padilla has been a strong ally of the governor for many years. Not only did he endorse him for governor in 2018, Alex Padilla actually endorsed Newsom for governor in 2010, when Newsom was thinking about running against Jerry Brown. Also, you know, they share a lot of the same perspective.
In addition, he also thinks that Alex Padilla can hold the seat in 2022. You don’t want, as a governor, to appoint somebody, and then they quickly lose the seat. He’s held statewide office before, and he’ll have a good shot at staying in that seat in '22. He'll definitely have the [inaudible]. He’ll have [inaudible]. He’ll probably have Vice President Kamala Harris’s endorsement. Now, he is vulnerable to a progressive candidate, like Congressman [Ro Khanna], someone like that, and so he has to be careful. But again, he will be a strong ally of Biden. He will be very much in the liberal Democrat, but don’t expect him to be the leader of progressives.
AMY GOODMAN: So, to replace Alex Padilla as California secretary of state, Gavin Newsom has named state Assemblywoman Shirley Weber. If confirmed, she would become the first Black secretary of state in California’s history. If you can comment on this, and what this means for the landscape of the Senate to have a — if you wouldn’t say progressive, would you say liberal Democratic Senator Alex Padilla —
FERNANDO GUERRA: Oh, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — when you look at the other Latinx senators, from Cruz to Rubio to Menendez?
FERNANDO GUERRA: Yeah. So, first, the appointment of Shirley Weber, I mean, this is what I was referring to in the past, how brilliant Governor Newsom was. He was able to deflect criticism about not appointing an African American woman to the U.S. Senate by simultaneously appointing an African American woman to secretary of state. It was a brilliant move. And so, it’s difficult for someone to say, “Hey, this was terrible. You didn’t appoint an African American woman.” He’s like, “Hey, what are you talking about? The first African American woman secretary of state.”
AMY GOODMAN: We have 20 seconds.
FERNANDO GUERRA: Yeah. And so, yes, he’s going to be a moderate. He’s going to be a lot more liberal than the Latino U.S. senators that exist. You have two Cubans, in Cruz and Rubio, who are also Republican. But you have now four Democrats — Menendez and in Nevada and a new one in Luján in New Mexico. He will, I think, be more progressive than any of those.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you, Fernando Guerra. We’ll be getting back in touch with you, professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles.
That does it for our show. On [Thursday], tune in to our documentary Four Days in Western Sahara; on Friday, our interview with the late John le Carré. Remember, wearing a mask is an act of love. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.


democracynow--2020-12-23--Diane Ravitch: Biden's Pick for Education Secretary Must Overturn DeVos's Attack on Public Schools

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González , as we look at President-elect Joe Biden ’ s nomination of Connecticut public schools commissioner Miguel Cardona as the next secretary of education , tapping a third Latinx person to join his Cabinet — the first time ever .
Cardona is a Puerto Rican , grew up in public housing , spoke Spanish only when he first entered public schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a fourth grade teacher , rose to be Connecticut ’ s youngest school principal at age 28 , then assistant superintendent of a school district with just 9,000 students in his hometown of Meriden , Connecticut .
He became the state ’ s top schools official just last August and its first Latinx person to hold the position .
During the pandemic , Cardona has advocated for the reopening of schools , though only about one-third of Connecticut ’ s public school students are currently able to attend in-person classes .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid to buy personal protective equipment for teachers and classrooms .
And his administration allocated federal funds to purchase laptops and internet access for students who remain at home .
If confirmed , Cardona will replace Trump ’ s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos , who urged career employees at the Education Department earlier this month to , quote , “ be the resistance ” when the Biden administration comes into power next month , according to a recording of her meeting obtained by Politico .
Well , for more , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as assistant secretary of education under President George H.W .
Bush .
She ’ s a historian of education , best-selling author .
Her most recent book is Slaying Goliath : The Passionate Resistance to Privatization and the Fight to Save America ’ s Public Schools .
She blogs at DianeRavitch.net .
Welcome back to Democracy Now !
, Diane Ravitch .
We ’ re going to talk about DeVos ’ s record , but we want to start off by talking about the significance of what , for many , was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
DIANE RAVITCH : Well , yes , it was a surprise pick , because Dr. Cardona is not known outside of Connecticut .
And in the early discussions about who might be selected as commissioner , his name was not mentioned .
The good thing is , first of all , he ’ s not Betsy DeVos , and every educator in America , or almost every educator , will be thrilled about that .
But , secondly , he ’ s a public school person .
He went to public schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s been in public schools throughout his career .
And that ’ s a big plus for many people who have been watching the attacks on public education and on teachers for the past four and more years .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Diane Ravitch , I ’ m wondering — as you were saying , it was a surprise , the Miguel Cardona pick .
Many , of course , progressives for years have been pushing for Democratic presidents to name Linda Darling-Hammond , the California educator , as secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transition group that eventually , apparently , pushed for Cardona .
And I believe — I believe Cardona may be — he ’ s not the first Latino to be named secretary of education .
Back when you were in the White House administration , there was Lauro Cavazos , who was President H.W .
Bush ’ s secretary of education .
But I believe that Cardona may be the first Puerto Rican , person of Puerto Rican ancestry , ever to serve on a U.S .
Cabinet , on a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly a breakthrough in terms of Latino representation in federal government , but especially in light of the reality that so much of the public school system in the United States is increasingly Latino .
Fifty-five percent of all the public school pupils in California today are Hispanic ; 53 % in Texas , of the entire state ; 40 % of New York ’ s public school population ; and even North Carolina , 16 % of the entire public school population of North Carolina is Latino .
So , really , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Latino children in public schools are really at the heart of improving public education .
So , in this sense , do you think that there might be a real potential for progress with Cardona running the Education Department ?
DIANE RAVITCH : Well , Dr. Cardona took his bachelor ’ s degree in bilingual and bicultural education , so he certainly knows the problems very well .
He has worked on them in his role as the superintendent , then for the period of time that he ’ s been commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he has a lot of pluses in terms of his experience with the Latino and Hispanic population .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And in terms of the whole issue of charter schools , you and I have talked often , and we agree on a lot of the errors in the drastic turn that the country has taken to charter schools .
Do you get any sense of where Cardona stands on the issue of federal impetus or underwriting of the development of more charter schools ?
DIANE RAVITCH : Well , here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that , in part , Cardona was chosen because he ’ s noncontroversial .
In the end , as I understand it , the choice came down to between Dr. Cardona and Dr. Leslie Fenwick , who is the dean emeritus of Howard University .
Dr. Fenwick is an outspoken critic of Teach for America , of charter schools and of , basically , the federal policy of the past 20 years .
And I happen to agree — she is a progressive .
I publicly supported her on my blog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upended federal policy .
And I don ’ t think the Biden administration wanted to upset the so-called reformers by choosing someone who was so unspoken .
Dr. Cardona , on the other hand , has been very low-profile .
It ’ s hard to know if he ’ s for or against charters .
He has said , in Connecticut , that he wants the testing to go forward this spring .
And I think progressives understand that the testing has gotten completely out of control and that the mandated — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the George W. Bush No Child Left Behind era .
So , for 20 years , we have been following the No Child Left Behind Texas miracle , which was a hoax .
There was no Texas miracle .
And yet the federal government , year after year , continues to require every child , from third grade to eighth grade , to take the same standardized test , or their own — in most cases , their state test or a test designed by Pearson or some other big manufacturer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen of his tweets and public comments , he thinks that testing has been too much , which is certainly right , but he has said nothing about suspending it for this spring .
Even Betsy DeVos suspended it last year , but she said she wouldn ’ t suspend it if she were in office this year , which , thank goodness , she ’ s not .
And I think that , on day one , the Biden administration should announce that there will be no mandated testing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to education over this past several months has been dramatic .
And I can save the country hundreds of millions of dollars by telling you what the results will be .
I already know what the results will be : The rich kids will have high scores , and the poor kids will have low scores .
And the kids who have the least access through technology or in-person learning will have the lowest scores .
So , there , I just saved hundreds of millions of dollars .
We really don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMY GOODMAN : So , Diane Ravitch , for people who don ’ t know who you are , a former assistant secretary of education under President George H.W .
Bush , you then took a very different turn after the data started coming in on charter schools , and fiercely opposed them .
You wrote on your blog that Connecticut , where Dr. Cardona is from , experienced some of its worst charter scandals in the nation .
I was wondering if you could tell us that history .
And then let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right ?
— sister of Erik Prince , his company ’ s four people , mercenaries , just pardoned by President Trump for the murder of Iraqis at the Nisoor Square massacre , but Betsy DeVos , the education secretary , talking about people having to join “ the resistance ” against Biden when he comes in , inside the Education Department .
But start with Connecticut and what happened there .
DIANE RAVITCH : OK. Back in about 2014 , Connecticut had a massive scandal .
The governor at that time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was a huge — although he was a Democrat , he was very supportive of charters , and he encouraged charters to open .
Connecticut doesn ’ t have a lot of charters .
I think they have 21 , which is a small number compared to a state , for example , like California , which has over a thousand , or even New York state , which has hundreds of charters .
But Connecticut had a huge scandal .
There was something called the FUSE — F-U-S-E — charters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it turned out that they were being run by someone who was a convicted felon , and his record was never reviewed by the state .
There were also charges of nepotism .
And basically , a chunk of that charter chain closed down , but it ’ s still there , and it had to clean up its act .
But having experienced that scandal , Connecticut should have looked very closely at the whole charter idea .
Instead , they ’ ve contained it .
Connecticut happens to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the no-excuses charter chains .
“ No excuses ” means that kids are disciplined in a very harsh manner .
They look to me not like innovation , but rather like a school from a hundred years ago , where school was almost like , in many respects , a penal institution .
Kids are not allowed to talk to each other in the hallways .
They ’ re disciplined for the smallest things .
And that chain is called Achievement First .
It ’ s since spread into Rhode Island .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now are on probation .
They were put there last spring because of their — they have high test scores because they kick out the kids who don ’ t get high test scores , but they have very harsh discipline .
And the state said that they really had to act more like public schools .
So , he was the commissioner at that time the state Board of Education took a strong stand against the Achievement First disciplinary practices .
And so I ’ m hoping that he will — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of education , will expect more of charter schools .
To me , the big issue with charter schools is this : There ’ s very little the federal government can do about them .
I mean , Arne Duncan , who was Obama ’ s secretary of education , required states to open more and more charter schools , if they wanted access to a huge pot of federal money , $ 5 billion in the Race to the Top Fund .
And what the secretary does now is to hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open new charter schools .
Most of that money , under Betsy DeVos , has gone to corporate chains , and it ’ s gone to states that didn ’ t want the money and don ’ t want new charter schools .
And then they open anyway because the money is there .
So , I think that the first priority for the — in terms of charters , is to defund that $ 440 million slush fund , which DeVos used for her own private passion , which is undermining public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Betsy DeVos ’ s statement to the career staff at the Department of Education , I can tell you , having worked there , that the career staff is committed to the mission of providing support for public education , that with the exception of the people that she brought with her , who I hope will all be gone with her , the career staff does not share her goals and will not be resisting .
I expect , if anything , that they will identify Trumpers who have been embedded into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact are political people .
And they know the difference , and they ’ ll share that with the incoming Biden team .
They do not share her mission of undermining public education .
AMY GOODMAN : Diane Ravitch , we want to thank you for being with us , education historian , author , former assistant secretary of education under President George H.W .
Bush .
When we come back , the appointment to the Senate seat in California , the first Latinx U.S. senator from California .
Stay with us @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we look at President-elect Joe Biden’s nomination of Connecticut public schools commissioner Miguel Cardona as the next secretary of education, tapping a third Latinx person to join his Cabinet — the first time ever.
Cardona is a Puerto Rican, grew up in public housing, spoke Spanish only when he first entered public schools. He began his career in education as a fourth grade teacher, rose to be Connecticut’s youngest school principal at age 28, then assistant superintendent of a school district with just 9,000 students in his hometown of Meriden, Connecticut. He became the state’s top schools official just last August and its first Latinx person to hold the position.
During the pandemic, Cardona has advocated for the reopening of schools, though only about one-third of Connecticut’s public school students are currently able to attend in-person classes. He’s also pushed to use federal aid to buy personal protective equipment for teachers and classrooms. And his administration allocated federal funds to purchase laptops and internet access for students who remain at home.
If confirmed, Cardona will replace Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who urged career employees at the Education Department earlier this month to, quote, “be the resistance” when the Biden administration comes into power next month, according to a recording of her meeting obtained by Politico.
Well, for more, we’re joined by Diane Ravitch, who served as assistant secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush. She’s a historian of education, best-selling author. Her most recent book is Slaying Goliath: The Passionate Resistance to Privatization and the Fight to Save America’s Public Schools. She blogs at DianeRavitch.net.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Diane Ravitch. We’re going to talk about DeVos’s record, but we want to start off by talking about the significance of what, for many, was a surprise pick to be the education secretary.
DIANE RAVITCH: Well, yes, it was a surprise pick, because Dr. Cardona is not known outside of Connecticut. And in the early discussions about who might be selected as commissioner, his name was not mentioned.
The good thing is, first of all, he’s not Betsy DeVos, and every educator in America, or almost every educator, will be thrilled about that. But, secondly, he’s a public school person. He went to public schools. His children go to public schools. He’s been in public schools throughout his career. And that’s a big plus for many people who have been watching the attacks on public education and on teachers for the past four and more years.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Diane Ravitch, I’m wondering — as you were saying, it was a surprise, the Miguel Cardona pick. Many, of course, progressives for years have been pushing for Democratic presidents to name Linda Darling-Hammond, the California educator, as secretary of education, but she was on the transition group that eventually, apparently, pushed for Cardona. And I believe — I believe Cardona may be — he’s not the first Latino to be named secretary of education. Back when you were in the White House administration, there was Lauro Cavazos, who was President H.W. Bush’s secretary of education. But I believe that Cardona may be the first Puerto Rican, person of Puerto Rican ancestry, ever to serve on a U.S. Cabinet, on a president’s Cabinet. So that is certainly a breakthrough in terms of Latino representation in federal government, but especially in light of the reality that so much of the public school system in the United States is increasingly Latino. Fifty-five percent of all the public school pupils in California today are Hispanic; 53% in Texas, of the entire state; 40% of New York’s public school population; and even North Carolina, 16% of the entire public school population of North Carolina is Latino. So, really, the problem of solving the education obstacles to Latino children in public schools are really at the heart of improving public education. So, in this sense, do you think that there might be a real potential for progress with Cardona running the Education Department?
DIANE RAVITCH: Well, Dr. Cardona took his bachelor’s degree in bilingual and bicultural education, so he certainly knows the problems very well. He has worked on them in his role as the superintendent, then for the period of time that he’s been commissioner in Connecticut. So, you know, he has a lot of pluses in terms of his experience with the Latino and Hispanic population.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of the whole issue of charter schools, you and I have talked often, and we agree on a lot of the errors in the drastic turn that the country has taken to charter schools. Do you get any sense of where Cardona stands on the issue of federal impetus or underwriting of the development of more charter schools?
DIANE RAVITCH: Well, here’s the thing, is that I think that, in part, Cardona was chosen because he’s noncontroversial. In the end, as I understand it, the choice came down to between Dr. Cardona and Dr. Leslie Fenwick, who is the dean emeritus of Howard University. Dr. Fenwick is an outspoken critic of Teach for America, of charter schools and of, basically, the federal policy of the past 20 years. And I happen to agree — she is a progressive. I publicly supported her on my blog, because I think she would have upended federal policy. And I don’t think the Biden administration wanted to upset the so-called reformers by choosing someone who was so unspoken. Dr. Cardona, on the other hand, has been very low-profile. It’s hard to know if he’s for or against charters.
He has said, in Connecticut, that he wants the testing to go forward this spring. And I think progressives understand that the testing has gotten completely out of control and that the mandated — the annual mandated federal testing is a leftover from the George W. Bush No Child Left Behind era. So, for 20 years, we have been following the No Child Left Behind Texas miracle, which was a hoax. There was no Texas miracle. And yet the federal government, year after year, continues to require every child, from third grade to eighth grade, to take the same standardized test, or their own — in most cases, their state test or a test designed by Pearson or some other big manufacturer. Dr. Cardona thinks — from what I’ve seen of his tweets and public comments, he thinks that testing has been too much, which is certainly right, but he has said nothing about suspending it for this spring. Even Betsy DeVos suspended it last year, but she said she wouldn’t suspend it if she were in office this year, which, thank goodness, she’s not.
And I think that, on day one, the Biden administration should announce that there will be no mandated testing this spring, because the inequality of access to education over this past several months has been dramatic. And I can save the country hundreds of millions of dollars by telling you what the results will be. I already know what the results will be: The rich kids will have high scores, and the poor kids will have low scores. And the kids who have the least access through technology or in-person learning will have the lowest scores. So, there, I just saved hundreds of millions of dollars. We really don’t need to do these tests.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Diane Ravitch, for people who don’t know who you are, a former assistant secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush, you then took a very different turn after the data started coming in on charter schools, and fiercely opposed them. You wrote on your blog that Connecticut, where Dr. Cardona is from, experienced some of its worst charter scandals in the nation. I was wondering if you could tell us that history. And then let’s pivot to Betsy DeVos — right? — sister of Erik Prince, his company’s four people, mercenaries, just pardoned by President Trump for the murder of Iraqis at the Nisoor Square massacre, but Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, talking about people having to join “the resistance” against Biden when he comes in, inside the Education Department. But start with Connecticut and what happened there.
DIANE RAVITCH: OK. Back in about 2014, Connecticut had a massive scandal. The governor at that time, whose name I can’t recall, was a huge — although he was a Democrat, he was very supportive of charters, and he encouraged charters to open. Connecticut doesn’t have a lot of charters. I think they have 21, which is a small number compared to a state, for example, like California, which has over a thousand, or even New York state, which has hundreds of charters. But Connecticut had a huge scandal. There was something called the FUSE — F-U-S-E — charters and the Jumoke charters. They were interconnected. And it turned out that they were being run by someone who was a convicted felon, and his record was never reviewed by the state. There were also charges of nepotism. And basically, a chunk of that charter chain closed down, but it’s still there, and it had to clean up its act.
But having experienced that scandal, Connecticut should have looked very closely at the whole charter idea. Instead, they’ve contained it. Connecticut happens to be home to one of the earliest of the no-excuses charter chains. “No excuses” means that kids are disciplined in a very harsh manner. They look to me not like innovation, but rather like a school from a hundred years ago, where school was almost like, in many respects, a penal institution. Kids are not allowed to talk to each other in the hallways. They’re disciplined for the smallest things. And that chain is called Achievement First. It’s since spread into Rhode Island. And three of the Achievement First charter schools right now are on probation. They were put there last spring because of their — they have high test scores because they kick out the kids who don’t get high test scores, but they have very harsh discipline. And the state said that they really had to act more like public schools.
So, he was the commissioner at that time the state Board of Education took a strong stand against the Achievement First disciplinary practices. And so I’m hoping that he will — as he comes into the position of secretary of education, will expect more of charter schools. To me, the big issue with charter schools is this: There’s very little the federal government can do about them. I mean, Arne Duncan, who was Obama’s secretary of education, required states to open more and more charter schools, if they wanted access to a huge pot of federal money, $5 billion in the Race to the Top Fund. And what the secretary does now is to hand out $440 million every year to open new charter schools. Most of that money, under Betsy DeVos, has gone to corporate chains, and it’s gone to states that didn’t want the money and don’t want new charter schools. And then they open anyway because the money is there. So, I think that the first priority for the — in terms of charters, is to defund that $440 million slush fund, which DeVos used for her own private passion, which is undermining public schools and advancing privatization.
As for Betsy DeVos’s statement to the career staff at the Department of Education, I can tell you, having worked there, that the career staff is committed to the mission of providing support for public education, that with the exception of the people that she brought with her, who I hope will all be gone with her, the career staff does not share her goals and will not be resisting. I expect, if anything, that they will identify Trumpers who have been embedded into what appear to be career jobs but in fact are political people. And they know the difference, and they’ll share that with the incoming Biden team. They do not share her mission of undermining public education.
AMY GOODMAN: Diane Ravitch, we want to thank you for being with us, education historian, author, former assistant secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush.
When we come back, the appointment to the Senate seat in California, the first Latinx U.S. senator from California. Stay with us.