democracynow--2020-10-28--"A Desire Rooted in Revolt": Chileans Vote Overwhelmingly to Rewrite Pinochet-Era Constitution

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González , as we turn to Chile , where an overwhelming majority voted to rewrite the Chile ’ s Pinochet dictatorship-era constitution Sunday .
One year after mass protests rocked Chile , many hope the historic referendum will lead to changes in social and economic inequalities , address police brutality , expand access to education , and Indigenous sovereignty .
Tens of thousands of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around Chile Sunday evening to celebrate .
This is resident María Cecilia Castillo .
AMY GOODMAN : For more on Chile ’ s historic vote to rewrite the constitution and what happens next , we ’ re joined by two guests .
In Santiago , Javiera Manzi is with us , spokesperson for Chile ’ s largest feminist advocacy group .
And in Toronto , we ’ re joined by Pablo Vivanco , a Chilean-born journalist , former director of teleSUR English .
We welcome you both to Democracy Now !
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both of you got to vote , in Chile , as well as in Canada as a Chilean .
Javiera Manzi , can you talk about the significance , what led to this vote , and the results of it , what they mean ?
Well , first of all , I would like to make a distinction .
We finished the constitution that was imposed in 1980 under the dictatorship of Pinochet with a revolt that broke out a year ago , the 18th of October .
It wasn ’ t just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we experienced this October 25th marks two preferences with an absolute majority .
We voted for a new constitution , with a majority of 78,2 % .
And together with that , we voted for a constituent body that will be made up exclusively by members of this — for this function , with a 78,9 % .
This is a demonstration of a majority that goes far beyond the margins of all post-dictatorship elections , a margin never before seen in an election in Chile .
For us , this vote marks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broke out in October .
We overthrew a tyrant ’ s constitution , but not only that .
This is a vote that challenges the continuity for more than 30 years of the neoliberalism implanted during the dictatorship with the Chicago Boys ’ doctrine shock .
Today , we can say that what political parties of the governments of these 30 years didn ’ t do , the peoples did with a revolt .
Who is behind the option of rejection , who loses with this plebiscite with a 21,7 % , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three , in the communities of the highest income of the country — in Vitacura , in Providencia , in Lo Barnechea — the same people who voted in 1982 — ’ 88 yes for the continuity of the dictatorship , those of the 1 % , those who are the extreme right , those who concentrate the wealth in Chile .
Those are who are behind the other option of rejection .
Those are the ones who lost this plebiscite .
JAVIERA MANZI : One of the main slogans of the revolt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I wanted to ask you what were — could you talk about what were some of the parts of the old constitution that were most objectionable and most hated by the population ?
Could you talk specifically about what it did to distort the possibility of democracy in Chile ?
JAVIERA MANZI : Well , this constitution that was imposed during the dictatorship was done precisely to protect a model .
It was a constitution then designed for — with the implementation of neoliberalism in Chile .
So the revolt that started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have said that the neoliberalism will start and end in Chile , has a lot to do precisely with this change , with this desire of a radical transformation and with this necessity to change this constitution .
In this Constitution , there is a lot of — makes like an institutional framework that has , in all sort of senses , has privatized human social rights .
It ’ s a constitution that also denies for women our right to choose for our own bodies .
It ’ s a constitution that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where precisely it ’ s not human rights , it ’ s social rights that are in the front , but , other than that , the private accumulation of the few .
So , of course , this is a very important challenge that we are starting now in Chile , a challenge that for us in the social movements , we know that must be held through with constant mobilization , because we know that what starts now , it ’ s a dispute , an open dispute from different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are going to try to save the continuity of this model , and from all of those from the revolt and the people who are out nowadays , that we have rights precisely to change everything and in terms of how our lives have been precarized and administrated along these 30 years .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : We ’ re also joined by Pablo Vivanco , a Chilean-born journalist and former director of teleSUR English .
Welcome to the program , Pablo .
Could you talk about — you were able to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how the United States has sold Chile as a neoliberal model in Latin America now for decades , and the impact of this vote ?
PABLO VIVANCO : Yeah , absolutely , and myself , along with Chileans from all over the diaspora in the world , a vast majority of which are folks that left because of the dictatorship , people that were forced to flee for their lives , or other folks , like my family , who were forced to flee in the 1980s , fleeing the economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in a situation where they had to leave , you know , which is another thing which is seldom talked about because Chile is , like you said , upheld as a model , not only since its return to civilian government , but also throughout the 1980s .
Neoliberalism was a disaster in Chile , you know , even well before the 1990s or the current day .
But yeah , Chile has been upheld throughout the region as the model to follow .
It ’ s been held as , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries follow market-based reforms , if they allow the private sector to do what it wants , then you ’ ll achieve some measure of development .
And all across Latin America , like in most places that I ’ ve been to , which is most of the countries in Latin America , invariably you come across people that , you know , when they find out I ’ m from Chile , they ’ ll say , “ Oh , yeah , Chile is well-off , right ?
” and compare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , now with this vote , where , like Javiera said , close to four in five Chileans voted to reject this model , to reject the institutionalization of neoliberalism through the 1980 constitution , and have now also rejected politicians being the ones to draft the next page in the country ’ s history , it really sends a signal throughout the region that this selling of the Chilean model and of the neoliberalism , the neoliberal state , is a lie and is something that Chileans know is a lie , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve come out and said overwhelmingly that they reject it .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Chile ’ s president , Sebastián Piñera , responding to the landslide vote to rewrite the Pinochet dictatorship-era constitution .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Pablo Vivanco , I wanted to ask you — there you are in Canada , but you did get to vote , and you voted alongside your parents and your aunts and uncles .
For people who aren ’ t familiar with the history of Chile , I mean , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 11th , 1973 , when the democratically elected president of Chile died in the palace as the Pinochet forces rose to power .
Pinochet would reign for years , thousands of Chileans killed .
And then , through Operation Condor , thousands of people around Chile were killed also as a result of the Pinochet dictatorship .
Can you talk about how that impacted your family , and what it meant for you to vote with your family , that had gone into exile in Canada ?
PABLO VIVANCO : Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t part of the — my immediate family , that is , my parents and myself , my sisters , weren ’ t part of the exile community .
I grew up around the exile community , and I had various family members who also were forced to leave .
My family stayed in Chile .
I was born under dictatorship .
My mother was working in the hospitals of Santiago , seeing the bodies come in on September 11th .
For obviously myself and my family , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around , my community here , you know , it was very important .
It was something that had a lot of symbolic meaning to be able to go out and vote , to finally bury one of the last main remnants of the dictatorship .
And you mentioned September 11th .
It should also be noted that this constitution , the one that Chileans now overwhelmingly voted to just rip up , was passed on September 11th , 1980 , which is no coincidence .
The dictatorship specifically put this plebiscite in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was imposed on Chileans through , you know , a vote .
You can ’ t have a democratic vote under dictatorship .
And that ’ s what the dictatorship did in 1980 , September 11th , when they passed this plebiscite , imposed this constitution on Chile .
So , if you look at the diaspora of Chilean émigrés and exiles located in North America or in Europe , Australia , France , Sweden — all the places where the majority of Chileans went to in the 1970s and ’ 80s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authoritarianism of the dictatorship or the economic collapse — overwhelmingly , Chileans voted also outside of the country to do away with this constitution and to start a new chapter in the country .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Javiera , could you talk to us about what this vote means , specifically in terms of grassroots movements , such as the feminist movement , in Chile and also the Indigenous populations of Chile ?
JAVIERA MANZI : Well , for a start , what we voted Sunday begins with the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be a constitution that will be drafted between men and women in equal basis .
This means that for the first time 50 % of this constituent organ will be women and the other 50 % men .
This is historical .
And this is a gain of the feminist movement , a gain that has been — because this is the first constituent process that we are holding in South America , in Latin America , in this last cycle of feminist politicization and mobilizations , with the feminist strikes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a protagonist of this moment and of this process .
And for us , that is a major concern , because we ’ re — our major concern now is knowing that it ’ s not — the 50 % of women in this process doesn ’ t guarantee that feminism will be a protagonist .
For us , it ’ s a necessity that feminism is all — it ’ s in the institutional process , but also outside in the streets mobilizing this desire and this need for a social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s important to protagonize this process with our demands , with our program , with what we ’ ve held during the feminist strikes .
For the Mapuche movements today , precisely during these hours , there ’ s a very important vote that ’ s being — in the Congress being discussed , because the revolt — AMY GOODMAN : We just have 10 seconds , Javiera .
JAVIERA MANZI : Yes , revolt in Chile is plurinational revolt .
And now there ’ s the — they are discussing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a part — to participate in this convention .
It ’ s indispensable for democracy .
AMY GOODMAN : Javiera Manzi , I want to thank you so much for being with us , with the Coordinadora Feminista 8M , and also Pablo Vivanco , speaking to us from Canada .
This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we turn to Chile, where an overwhelming majority voted to rewrite the Chile’s Pinochet dictatorship-era constitution Sunday. One year after mass protests rocked Chile, many hope the historic referendum will lead to changes in social and economic inequalities, address police brutality, expand access to education, and Indigenous sovereignty. Tens of thousands of people poured into the streets of Santiago and around Chile Sunday evening to celebrate. This is resident María Cecilia Castillo.
MARÍA CECILIA CASTILLO: [translated] I thought it was a historic day that I wouldn’t get to see again in my lifetime. I lived through the yes-or-no referendum and the first presidential election after many years of dictatorship. It seemed to me that participation was very high, and the most important thing is that the newer generations made their voices heard, were up for discussion. Political parties and political associations are now institutionally obsolete, and we all have to understand this. So we have to find new paths. And I think that the youth and social organizations are fundamental for this new era.
AMY GOODMAN: For more on Chile’s historic vote to rewrite the constitution and what happens next, we’re joined by two guests. In Santiago, Javiera Manzi is with us, spokesperson for Chile’s largest feminist advocacy group. And in Toronto, we’re joined by Pablo Vivanco, a Chilean-born journalist, former director of teleSUR English.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! We’re going to Santiago first, although both of you got to vote, in Chile, as well as in Canada as a Chilean. Javiera Manzi, can you talk about the significance, what led to this vote, and the results of it, what they mean?
JAVIERA MANZI: Yes. Hi, Amy.
Well, first of all, I would like to make a distinction. We finished the constitution that was imposed in 1980 under the dictatorship of Pinochet with a revolt that broke out a year ago, the 18th of October. It wasn’t just a vote. The popular victory that we experienced this October 25th marks two preferences with an absolute majority. We voted for a new constitution, with a majority of 78,2%. And together with that, we voted for a constituent body that will be made up exclusively by members of this — for this function, with a 78,9%.
This is a demonstration of a majority that goes far beyond the margins of all post-dictatorship elections, a margin never before seen in an election in Chile. For us, this vote marks a desire rooted in the revolt that broke out in October. We overthrew a tyrant’s constitution, but not only that. This is a vote that challenges the continuity for more than 30 years of the neoliberalism implanted during the dictatorship with the Chicago Boys’ doctrine shock. Today, we can say that what political parties of the governments of these 30 years didn’t do, the peoples did with a revolt.
Who is behind the option of rejection, who loses with this plebiscite with a 21,7%, those of the 1%, concentrated in three, in the communities of the highest income of the country — in Vitacura, in Providencia, in Lo Barnechea — the same people who voted in 1982 — ’88 yes for the continuity of the dictatorship, those of the 1%, those who are the extreme right, those who concentrate the wealth in Chile. Those are who are behind the other option of rejection. Those are the ones who lost this plebiscite.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Javiera —
JAVIERA MANZI: One of the main slogans of the revolt — mm-hmm?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Javiera, I wanted to ask you what were — could you talk about what were some of the parts of the old constitution that were most objectionable and most hated by the population? Could you talk specifically about what it did to distort the possibility of democracy in Chile?
JAVIERA MANZI: Well, this constitution that was imposed during the dictatorship was done precisely to protect a model. It was a constitution then designed for — with the implementation of neoliberalism in Chile. So the revolt that started and that we have said — we have said that the neoliberalism will start and end in Chile, has a lot to do precisely with this change, with this desire of a radical transformation and with this necessity to change this constitution. In this Constitution, there is a lot of — makes like an institutional framework that has, in all sort of senses, has privatized human social rights. It’s a constitution that also denies for women our right to choose for our own bodies. It’s a constitution that guarantees a state, a subsidiary state, where precisely it’s not human rights, it’s social rights that are in the front, but, other than that, the private accumulation of the few.
So, of course, this is a very important challenge that we are starting now in Chile, a challenge that for us in the social movements, we know that must be held through with constant mobilization, because we know that what starts now, it’s a dispute, an open dispute from different sectors, of course from the ones who are going to try to save the continuity of this model, and from all of those from the revolt and the people who are out nowadays, that we have rights precisely to change everything and in terms of how our lives have been precarized and administrated along these 30 years.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We’re also joined by Pablo Vivanco, a Chilean-born journalist and former director of teleSUR English. Welcome to the program, Pablo. Could you talk about — you were able to vote from Canada. And could you talk about how the United States has sold Chile as a neoliberal model in Latin America now for decades, and the impact of this vote?
PABLO VIVANCO: Yeah, absolutely, and myself, along with Chileans from all over the diaspora in the world, a vast majority of which are folks that left because of the dictatorship, people that were forced to flee for their lives, or other folks, like my family, who were forced to flee in the 1980s, fleeing the economy, which had bottomed out and put working people in a situation where they had to leave, you know, which is another thing which is seldom talked about because Chile is, like you said, upheld as a model, not only since its return to civilian government, but also throughout the 1980s.
Neoliberalism was a disaster in Chile, you know, even well before the 1990s or the current day. But yeah, Chile has been upheld throughout the region as the model to follow. It’s been held as, you know, the example that if countries follow market-based reforms, if they allow the private sector to do what it wants, then you’ll achieve some measure of development. And all across Latin America, like in most places that I’ve been to, which is most of the countries in Latin America, invariably you come across people that, you know, when they find out I’m from Chile, they’ll say, “Oh, yeah, Chile is well-off, right?” and compare it to their own country.
Well, now with this vote, where, like Javiera said, close to four in five Chileans voted to reject this model, to reject the institutionalization of neoliberalism through the 1980 constitution, and have now also rejected politicians being the ones to draft the next page in the country’s history, it really sends a signal throughout the region that this selling of the Chilean model and of the neoliberalism, the neoliberal state, is a lie and is something that Chileans know is a lie, Chileans know has failed, and now they’ve come out and said overwhelmingly that they reject it.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Chile’s president, Sebastián Piñera, responding to the landslide vote to rewrite the Pinochet dictatorship-era constitution.
PRESIDENT SEBASTIÁN PIÑERA: [translated] Today, Chileans have freely expressed their will at the ballot box, choosing the option of a constituent constitution, which for the first time will have full equality between men and women, in order to agree on a new constitution for Chile. Today, citizens and democracy have triumphed. Today, unity has prevailed over division, and peace over violence. And this is a triumph for all Chileans who love democracy, unity and peace, without a doubt.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Pablo Vivanco, I wanted to ask you — there you are in Canada, but you did get to vote, and you voted alongside your parents and your aunts and uncles. For people who aren’t familiar with the history of Chile, I mean, you had your own September 11th, September 11th, 1973, when the democratically elected president of Chile died in the palace as the Pinochet forces rose to power. Pinochet would reign for years, thousands of Chileans killed. And then, through Operation Condor, thousands of people around Chile were killed also as a result of the Pinochet dictatorship. Can you talk about how that impacted your family, and what it meant for you to vote with your family, that had gone into exile in Canada?
PABLO VIVANCO: Well, just to clarify, my family wasn’t part of the — my immediate family, that is, my parents and myself, my sisters, weren’t part of the exile community. I grew up around the exile community, and I had various family members who also were forced to leave. My family stayed in Chile. I was born under dictatorship. My mother was working in the hospitals of Santiago, seeing the bodies come in on September 11th.
For obviously myself and my family, as well as the people that I’ve grown up around, my community here, you know, it was very important. It was something that had a lot of symbolic meaning to be able to go out and vote, to finally bury one of the last main remnants of the dictatorship.
And you mentioned September 11th. It should also be noted that this constitution, the one that Chileans now overwhelmingly voted to just rip up, was passed on September 11th, 1980, which is no coincidence. The dictatorship specifically put this plebiscite in 1980, like Javiera said, something that was imposed on Chileans through, you know, a vote. You can’t have a democratic vote under dictatorship. And that’s what the dictatorship did in 1980, September 11th, when they passed this plebiscite, imposed this constitution on Chile.
So, if you look at the diaspora of Chilean émigrés and exiles located in North America or in Europe, Australia, France, Sweden — all the places where the majority of Chileans went to in the 1970s and ’80s, fleeing the human rights abuses and the authoritarianism of the dictatorship or the economic collapse — overwhelmingly, Chileans voted also outside of the country to do away with this constitution and to start a new chapter in the country.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Javiera, could you talk to us about what this vote means, specifically in terms of grassroots movements, such as the feminist movement, in Chile and also the Indigenous populations of Chile?
JAVIERA MANZI: Well, for a start, what we voted Sunday begins with the first time in the world history that there will be a constitution that will be drafted between men and women in equal basis. This means that for the first time 50% of this constituent organ will be women and the other 50% men. This is historical. And this is a gain of the feminist movement, a gain that has been — because this is the first constituent process that we are holding in South America, in Latin America, in this last cycle of feminist politicization and mobilizations, with the feminist strikes and with all the massive demonstration of feminism as a protagonist of this moment and of this process.
And for us, that is a major concern, because we’re — our major concern now is knowing that it’s not — the 50% of women in this process doesn’t guarantee that feminism will be a protagonist. For us, it’s a necessity that feminism is all — it’s in the institutional process, but also outside in the streets mobilizing this desire and this need for a social transformation. And for us, it’s important to protagonize this process with our demands, with our program, with what we’ve held during the feminist strikes.
For the Mapuche movements today, precisely during these hours, there’s a very important vote that’s being — in the Congress being discussed, because the revolt —
AMY GOODMAN: We just have 10 seconds, Javiera.
JAVIERA MANZI: Yes, revolt in Chile is plurinational revolt. And now there’s the — they are discussing the possibility of Mapuche people and Indigenous people to have a part — to participate in this convention. It’s indispensable for democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: Javiera Manzi, I want to thank you so much for being with us, with the Coordinadora Feminista 8M, and also Pablo Vivanco, speaking to us from Canada. This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.


democracynow--2020-10-28--Breonna Taylor Grand Jurors Say Police Actions Were "Criminal"; Never Given Chance to Indict Cops

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to end our discussion not in Pennsylvania , Marc , but you cover police brutality issues all over the country .
And I wanted to end in Louisville with this latest development .
You have a judge ruling that members of the grand jury can speak .
And so , two members of the grand jury convened after the police killing of Breonna Taylor have spoken on camera for the first time , calling the actions of the Louisville officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal.
” The two jurors say Kentucky ’ s Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron never gave them the option to consider murder or manslaughter charges against the Louisville police officers involved in Taylor ’ s killing .
The pair had their identities concealed as they spoke to CBS ’ s Gayle King in an interview that ’ s airing today .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Professor Marc Lamont Hill , can you talk about the significance of this , given that Daniel Cameron , Kentucky ’ s attorney general , who spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held his news conference , he said this was an independent grand jury , they made the decision .
The only charges that were brought were against one of the white police officers , not for the death of Breonna Taylor , but because some of his bullets went into the apartment of the neighbors , who were white .
MARC LAMONT HILL : Neighbor , yeah .
It ’ s disturbing , and it ’ s disgusting , but , unfortunately , it ’ s not surprising .
From the very beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevarication , of dishonesty , of outright just , you know , neglect of any semblance of justice for Breonna Taylor or for her family .
When Daniel Cameron came out after the decision was made not to do anything , he had the crocodile tears .
He had the explanation that he did all that he could .
And he gave us the impression that the grand jury was acting independently , that they were simply acting on their own volition and that they looked at all the evidence and made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we always had skepticism .
No one believed him .
And now what we have is evidence , hardcore evidence , that proves that .
But this does stand to reason , given that Daniel Cameron is a Republican prosecutor who is attempting to leverage this moment into a bigger moment .
And the way to leverage a bigger moment as a Black Republican , quite frankly , is to show that you ’ re willing to lock up Black people , that you ’ re indifferent to their suffering , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , and specifically law enforcement , in cases like this .
So he will ascend very quickly if , God forbid , there were another Trump administration .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised to see him as an AG .
I mean , that ’ s how far he could go , given this process .
And so , again , I ’ m not saying it ’ s a conspiracy .
I ’ m saying that there ’ s a very clear — there ’ s a very clear angle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardcore evidence to suggest that Breonna Taylor should have gotten — let ’ s not call it “ justice.
” Justice would be her being alive .
But at the very least , there should be some sense of accountability for those who killed her , that even the grand jurors are saying .
And I think the more we unravel this , the more ugliness we ’ re going to find .
And hopefully we can get another crack at this , because this is one of the most sort of gross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called criminal justice system .
AMY GOODMAN : Marc Lamont Hill , we want to thank you for being with us , professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University in Philadelphia , his forthcoming book , We Still Here : Pandemic , Policing , Protest , and Possibility .
When we come back , we will go to Chile to talk about the precedent-setting vote that just took place for a new constitution .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to end our discussion not in Pennsylvania, Marc, but you cover police brutality issues all over the country. And I wanted to end in Louisville with this latest development. You have a judge ruling that members of the grand jury can speak. And so, two members of the grand jury convened after the police killing of Breonna Taylor have spoken on camera for the first time, calling the actions of the Louisville officers responsible for Taylor’s death “criminal.” The two jurors say Kentucky’s Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron never gave them the option to consider murder or manslaughter charges against the Louisville police officers involved in Taylor’s killing. The pair had their identities concealed as they spoke to CBS’s Gayle King in an interview that’s airing today.
GAYLE KING: Can I ask you what you both think of the police behavior and actions that night?
JUROR 1: Negligent.
GAYLE KING: Negligent?
JUROR 1: They couldn’t even provide a risk assessment. And it sounded like they hadn’t done one. So their organization leading up to this was lacking. That’s what I mean by they were negligent in the operation.
GAYLE KING: Number two?
JUROR 2: They were criminal. Leading up to this, in everything that they — the way they moved forward on it, including the warrant, was deception.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Professor Marc Lamont Hill, can you talk about the significance of this, given that Daniel Cameron, Kentucky’s attorney general, who spoke at the Republican convention, when he held his news conference, he said this was an independent grand jury, they made the decision. The only charges that were brought were against one of the white police officers, not for the death of Breonna Taylor, but because some of his bullets went into the apartment of the neighbors, who were white.
MARC LAMONT HILL: Neighbor, yeah. It’s disturbing, and it’s disgusting, but, unfortunately, it’s not surprising. From the very beginning, we have seen a campaign of prevarication, of dishonesty, of outright just, you know, neglect of any semblance of justice for Breonna Taylor or for her family.
When Daniel Cameron came out after the decision was made not to do anything, he had the crocodile tears. He had the explanation that he did all that he could. And he gave us the impression that the grand jury was acting independently, that they were simply acting on their own volition and that they looked at all the evidence and made the best choice that they could. And we always had skepticism. No one believed him. And now what we have is evidence, hardcore evidence, that proves that.
But this does stand to reason, given that Daniel Cameron is a Republican prosecutor who is attempting to leverage this moment into a bigger moment. And the way to leverage a bigger moment as a Black Republican, quite frankly, is to show that you’re willing to lock up Black people, that you’re indifferent to their suffering, and that you’re willing to support the state, and specifically law enforcement, in cases like this. So he will ascend very quickly if, God forbid, there were another Trump administration. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him as an AG. I mean, that’s how far he could go, given this process.
And so, again, I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy. I’m saying that there’s a very clear — there’s a very clear angle here politically. And there’s hardcore evidence to suggest that Breonna Taylor should have gotten — let’s not call it “justice.” Justice would be her being alive. But at the very least, there should be some sense of accountability for those who killed her, that even the grand jurors are saying. And I think the more we unravel this, the more ugliness we’re going to find. And hopefully we can get another crack at this, because this is one of the most sort of gross and disturbing public demonstrations of injustice in the so-called criminal justice system.
AMY GOODMAN: Marc Lamont Hill, we want to thank you for being with us, professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University in Philadelphia, his forthcoming book, We Still Here: Pandemic, Policing, Protest, and Possibility.
When we come back, we will go to Chile to talk about the precedent-setting vote that just took place for a new constitution. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-10-28--Marc Lamont Hill: Trump Is Counting on His White Nationalist Base & Supreme Court to Win Reelection

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to turn to Election Day , talking about possibly something different , or not .
In the final week of this election season , both presidential candidates are heavily campaigning in battleground states , like Pennsylvania , where you are , where the Supreme Court ruled Friday mail-in ballots with mismatched signatures can not be rejected .
The ruling is seen as a victory for voting rights and Democrats .
Republicans in Pennsylvania are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to block the counting of mailed-in ballots received up to three days after Election Day .
So far this week , Trump has held three campaign rallies in Pennsylvania .
At a rally in Allentown Monday , he accused Democratic Governor Tom Wolf of making it hard for him to campaign in the state , and suggested voters can not trust their ballots will be counted .
AMY GOODMAN : This comes as the president ’ s son Donald Trump Jr. has taken to social media to call , quote , “ able-bodied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ army ” for his father .
AMY GOODMAN : Pennsylvania ’ s Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro has warned Trump ’ s reelection campaign representatives to stop filming voters dropping off their ballots .
Shapiro said in a statement , quote , “ Pennsylvania law permits poll watchers to carry out very discrete and specific duties — videotaping voters at drop boxes is not one of them.
” For more , we ’ re continuing with Marc Lamont Hill , professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University in Philadelphia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We Still Here : Pandemic , Policing , Protest , and Possibility .
Marc , is the president sanctioning voter intimidation ?
Clearly , the courts now are moving against him on Pennsylvania .
MARC LAMONT HILL : That ’ s exactly right .
You know , Trump has been weaving a kind of really interesting narrative about what ’ s happening in Pennsylvania and in Philadelphia .
He said that Mitt Romney got zero votes in Philadelphia , kind of — although he got 15 % — framing this all as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency .
And so , when he calls for people to come and form this sort of army , when he calls for people to be his security force , he ’ s calling in his white nationalist base .
This is the favor he ’ s calling in .
This is the “ Proud Boys , stand back and stand by ” kind of part two , right ?
He ’ s calling them in to engage in voter intimidation and also to create chaos on Election Day .
Donald Trump very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After the court decision for Pennsylvania , he sees that the courts are against him in some of these swing states .
He looks at the early ballot , and he sees that it ’ s a lot of young folk voting , a lot of people who are not his demographic voting .
The early ballots are against him .
And so , what he ’ s trying to do is create enough chaos and hope that he can get a photo finish that he can then allow the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a second term , because he knows , on the ground , ultimately , if everybody votes , he doesn ’ t win , and they lose the Senate .
And so , he is going to do everything he can to create chaos and crisis to make some Americans even stay home .
And he hopes that his cult-like base will come out and continue to push him toward victory .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Marc , both the president and Joe Biden have been repeatedly now in Pennsylvania over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often talks about how the suburbs — how he needs the suburbs , that they don ’ t show him any love anymore .
Could you talk about how the suburbs of Philadelphia have so dramatically changed ?
I lived there many years ago for about 15 years .
And the suburbs there — Montgomery County , Bucks County , Delaware County , Chester County — were almost all white .
How have the suburbs around Philadelphia changed in the recent decades ?
MARC LAMONT HILL : Oh , yeah , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All around the country we ’ ve seen suburbs shift .
We ’ ve seen the suburbanization of poverty .
We ’ ve seen sort of — we ’ ve seen people in the city pushed out because of gentrification and other factors .
So , a place like Darby or Upper Darby , which is right outside of Philadelphia , which may have been white even 20 , 25 years ago , is now largely Black , and they ’ re voting Democrat , because of a set of — and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have pushed them there .
And so , Trump , at one point , would have hoped that , “ Yeah , I ’ ll lose Philadelphia , I ’ ll lose Pittsburgh , but I ’ ll get everything in the middle of the state — what they call Pennsyltucky — and I ’ ll get the suburbs of these urban sites , right outside of Pittsburgh and right outside of Philadelphia.
” But that ’ s no longer the case .
It ’ s not a conspiracy , but rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have pushed people out .
And we have to remember the word “ suburb ” doesn ’ t mean white and idyllic .
Compton is a suburb .
Ferguson was a suburb .
And now we see these other places that are suburbs , and they ’ re not serving Trump ’ s interests .
But again , Trump ’ s problem is not the suburbs of Philadelphia .
Trump ’ s problem is that people in Philadelphia , in Pittsburgh , people within Ohio , people in places like Cleveland are seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re seeing they ’ re dying from COVID , and their friends are and family members are .
They don ’ t have access to living-wage jobs .
And that ’ s why they ’ re having the problem .
But one more thing on Pennsylvania , what you are going to see is an interesting conversation in the middle of the state around fracking .
And this is why , you know , Trump is coming back .
That ’ s why Biden is coming back and trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because he understands that the middle of the state may have a very different political disposition than what we ’ re seeing in Philadelphia , and because of that , Pennsylvania could still be up for grabs .
I think Biden wins this by a couple hundred thousand votes , but it ’ s still up for grabs in terms of the political debate .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Election Day, talking about possibly something different, or not. In the final week of this election season, both presidential candidates are heavily campaigning in battleground states, like Pennsylvania, where you are, where the Supreme Court ruled Friday mail-in ballots with mismatched signatures cannot be rejected. The ruling is seen as a victory for voting rights and Democrats. Republicans in Pennsylvania are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up their case, attempting to block the counting of mailed-in ballots received up to three days after Election Day. So far this week, Trump has held three campaign rallies in Pennsylvania. At a rally in Allentown Monday, he accused Democratic Governor Tom Wolf of making it hard for him to campaign in the state, and suggested voters cannot trust their ballots will be counted.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Think of it. So, we have a venue. And the governor, that counts the ballots, right? The governor counts the ballots. And we’re watching you, Governor, very closely in Philadelphia. We’re watching you. A lot of bad things. A lot of bad things happen there with the counting of the votes. We’re watching you, Governor Wolf, very closely. We’re watching you.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. has taken to social media to call, quote, “able-bodied” people to join an election security “army” for his father.
DONALD TRUMP JR.: The radical left are laying the groundwork to steal this election from my father, President Donald Trump. They are planting stories that President Trump will have a landslide lead on election night but will lose when they finish counting the mail-in ballots. Their plan is to add millions of fraudulent ballots that can cancel your vote and overturn the election. We cannot let that happen. We need every able-bodied man, woman to join Army for Trump’s election security operation.
AMY GOODMAN: Pennsylvania’s Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro has warned Trump’s reelection campaign representatives to stop filming voters dropping off their ballots. Shapiro said in a statement, quote, “Pennsylvania law permits poll watchers to carry out very discrete and specific duties — videotaping voters at drop boxes is not one of them.”
For more, we’re continuing with Marc Lamont Hill, professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University in Philadelphia. Again, his forthcoming book is We Still Here: Pandemic, Policing, Protest, and Possibility.
Marc, is the president sanctioning voter intimidation? Clearly, the courts now are moving against him on Pennsylvania.
MARC LAMONT HILL: That’s exactly right. You know, Trump has been weaving a kind of really interesting narrative about what’s happening in Pennsylvania and in Philadelphia. He said that Mitt Romney got zero votes in Philadelphia, kind of — although he got 15% — framing this all as a big left-wing conspiracy to take away his presidency.
And so, when he calls for people to come and form this sort of army, when he calls for people to be his security force, he’s calling in his white nationalist base. This is the favor he’s calling in. This is the “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by” kind of part two, right? He’s calling them in to engage in voter intimidation and also to create chaos on Election Day.
Donald Trump very clearly knows the numbers are against him. After the court decision for Pennsylvania, he sees that the courts are against him in some of these swing states. He looks at the early ballot, and he sees that it’s a lot of young folk voting, a lot of people who are not his demographic voting. The early ballots are against him.
And so, what he’s trying to do is create enough chaos and hope that he can get a photo finish that he can then allow the Supreme Court to bring him home into another — into a second term, because he knows, on the ground, ultimately, if everybody votes, he doesn’t win, and they lose the Senate. And so, he is going to do everything he can to create chaos and crisis to make some Americans even stay home. And he hopes that his cult-like base will come out and continue to push him toward victory.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Marc, both the president and Joe Biden have been repeatedly now in Pennsylvania over the last few weeks. And Trump often talks about how the suburbs — how he needs the suburbs, that they don’t show him any love anymore. Could you talk about how the suburbs of Philadelphia have so dramatically changed? I lived there many years ago for about 15 years. And the suburbs there — Montgomery County, Bucks County, Delaware County, Chester County — were almost all white. How have the suburbs around Philadelphia changed in the recent decades?
MARC LAMONT HILL: Oh, yeah, and it’s not just in Philadelphia. All around the country we’ve seen suburbs shift. We’ve seen the suburbanization of poverty. We’ve seen sort of — we’ve seen people in the city pushed out because of gentrification and other factors. So, a place like Darby or Upper Darby, which is right outside of Philadelphia, which may have been white even 20, 25 years ago, is now largely Black, and they’re voting Democrat, because of a set of — and there’s a set of economic policies that have pushed them there.
And so, Trump, at one point, would have hoped that, “Yeah, I’ll lose Philadelphia, I’ll lose Pittsburgh, but I’ll get everything in the middle of the state — what they call Pennsyltucky — and I’ll get the suburbs of these urban sites, right outside of Pittsburgh and right outside of Philadelphia.” But that’s no longer the case. It’s not a conspiracy, but rather a set of neoliberal economic policies that have pushed people out. And we have to remember the word “suburb” doesn’t mean white and idyllic. Compton is a suburb. Ferguson was a suburb. And now we see these other places that are suburbs, and they’re not serving Trump’s interests. But again, Trump’s problem is not the suburbs of Philadelphia. Trump’s problem is that people in Philadelphia, in Pittsburgh, people within Ohio, people in places like Cleveland are seeing economic policies that have not benefited them. They’re seeing they’re dying from COVID, and their friends are and family members are. They don’t have access to living-wage jobs. And that’s why they’re having the problem.
But one more thing on Pennsylvania, what you are going to see is an interesting conversation in the middle of the state around fracking. And this is why, you know, Trump is coming back. That’s why Biden is coming back and trying to walk that tightrope on environmental issues, because he understands that the middle of the state may have a very different political disposition than what we’re seeing in Philadelphia, and because of that, Pennsylvania could still be up for grabs. I think Biden wins this by a couple hundred thousand votes, but it’s still up for grabs in terms of the political debate.


democracynow--2020-10-28--Care Not Cops: Marc Lamont Hill Makes Case for Abolition After Philadelphia Police Kill Walter Walla

Care Not Cops: Marc Lamont Hill Makes Case for Abolition After Philadelphia Police Kill Walter Wallace Jr.

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This story today — a warning to our audience — it contains descriptions of police violence and disturbing images .
Protesters took to the streets of Philadelphia for a second night on Tuesday to condemn the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr .
The National Guard has been deployed to Philadelphia as outrage grows after two Philadelphia police officers shot and killed the 27-year-old Black father on Monday while he was having a mental health crisis .
Both police officers were reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said Tuesday she does not know if she will release bodycam footage of the killing .
Wallace ’ s lawyer said Tuesday his family has called for an — was calling for an ambulance to help him with a mental health crisis , but police arrived on the scene instead .
Cellphone video of the fatal shooting shows Walter Wallace Jr. 's mother trying to restrain him before he pushes her away and walks toward the officers , who then shot Wallace at least 10 times .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ knife he was holding .
Wallace was at least 10 feet away from the police officers when they shot him .
At least one witness told The Philadelphia Inquirer the officers were , quote , “ too far from him , ” and said bystanders were trying to deescalate the situation .
On Tuesday , Walter Wallace Jr. 's mother Cathy Wallace told reporters the officers knew her son was in a mental health crisis , because they had been to the family ’ s house three times on Monday .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news conference , the Wallace family ’ s attorney , Shaka Johnson , said Wallace ’ s wife Dominique , who witnessed his killing , is pregnant and scheduled to have labor induced today .
Johnson said Wallace had nine children .
Several of his young sons introduced themselves .
AMY GOODMAN : One of the sons of Walter Wallace Jr .
He was killed Monday by Philadelphia police .
For more , we go to Philadelphia , where we ’ re joined by Marc Lamont Hill , professor of media studies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forthcoming book , We Still Here : Pandemic , Policing , Protest , and Possibility .
He was at Monday night ’ s protest .
Marc , welcome back to Democracy Now !
Can you talk about everything you understand at this point that has unfolded , beginning with Monday , when the mom said that the police knew full well her son was in a mental health crisis because they had been to the house three times that day ?
And they said that night they were calling for an ambulance for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Well , that ’ s exactly the point .
When the police began to release their statements and tell their version of events , they left out that they had been to the house three times earlier that day .
They said , “ Oh , we had no way of knowing that he had a mental health episode.
” One , it was clear from the previous phone calls , but it was also clear from what his mother told them on the scene , not to mention anyone chasing police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or , walking — he wasn ’ t actually chasing the police — walking around with a knife , is clearly having an episode .
And so , from all those elements , it was clear that the police did not respond as if someone were having a mental health episode .
Instead , they decided to shoot him , instead of exercising deescalation , any kind of negotiation .
And again , the parents weren ’ t calling the police .
They were calling for an ambulance .
They were calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the fundamental problem of society right now , is that the police become the response to all of our social crises and contradictions .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Marc , specifically , I wanted to ask you about that .
There ’ s so many incidents we ’ ve seen , not only over the last year or two , but over decades , of police responding to what are essentially mental health issues , and very few cities have the structure by which there can be mental health professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police , and it always becomes a situation where violence is , unfortunately , used .
MARC LAMONT HILL : That ’ s exactly right .
If all you have is a hammer , then every problem looks like a nail , right ?
If the only solution we have is policing , then we ’ re going to have a militarized and a policing type of — and criminalized response to the problem .
For decades what we ’ ve seen is a sort of raid of the social resources .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , schooling , housing , education .
All these things are taken out of the public good and replaced by more militarization , replaced by more policing .
And so the police become the response to all of our social problems and crises .
The police aren ’ t equipped to do this .
The police aren ’ t equipped to handle a situation for mental health .
And we ’ ve seen this since the 1970s , beginning with Reagan and into President Carter ’ s — I ’ m sorry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and entering Reagan ’ s administration .
We ’ ve seen the stripping of mental health resources .
And so we see the criminalization of mental health , as mentally ill people end up on the street and then get locked up for loitering .
We see the killing of people with mental illness when they have confrontations with police .
And in many ways , Juan and Amy , this is more emblematic of the crisis of policing than even when unarmed people die , because for every George Floyd that gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of people with mental illness that are forced to be criminalized and have these types of engagements with law enforcement every single day .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Marc , I wanted to ask you about the response of President Trump immediately because of the protests , and also there was some violence and looting that occurred , but there have been now pretty credible reports that there have been agents provocateurs in many of these protests across the country .
I recommend the article that CounterPunch had early this month that detailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention in Philadelphia in June , numerous reports circulated that peaceful protests across the state were being infiltrated by white supremacists .
And they quoted there the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission director Chad Dion Lassiter , who said , “ What I saw was a coordinated effort of looting encouraged by white supremacists who [ hide ] behind signs demanding justice while promoting anarchy.
” Could you talk about the violence that has erupted now in the last couple of days from these protests , and also how President Trump is responding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here to say that there are definitely now poll watchers needed in Philadelphia , trying to utilize this violence as part of his campaign in Philadelphia ?
MARC LAMONT HILL : Yeah , a couple of things .
First , yeah , there are agents provocateurs .
We saw it on the ground in Ferguson .
I saw it with my own eyes .
I saw it in June with my own eyes .
I saw it Monday — excuse me , Tuesday , with — Monday , excuse me , with my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s happening on the ground , it ’ s often not the people who are righteously rebelling who are engaged in these wanton acts of reckless violence .
And it ’ s important to acknowledge that .
It ’ s important to acknowledge that this then becomes the pretext for people like Donald Trump — and Governor Wolf , for that matter — calling in more military — calling for more militarization , calling in more police , calling in more troops , as a means of engaging in more violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s also important to say that even when people on the ground are engaged in acts of resistance , that this is righteous resistance .
I don ’ t want to simply dismiss all acts of pushback and rebellion to provocateurs .
It ’ s important to say that the state is killing us , and we have a right to respond .
We have a right to scar public tissue .
We have a right to have our voices heard .
These aren ’ t riots ; these are rebellions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about in my book We Still Here .
These are rebellions that are intended to force the world to pay attention , because no one pays attention to Black death unless it affects their money or they think their lives or their safety is threatened .
I ’ m not suggesting we go out and kill people .
What I am saying , though , is that we have to use some form of resistance , some form of rebellion , if we are to have our voices heard .
AMY GOODMAN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we are seeing one arrest after another that the initial breaking of the glass , the initial fires that are set — now there are actually arrests of those white supremacists involved .
In fact , we talked about this yesterday with Alicia Garza .
It was Vice President Mike Pence who , in his Republican National Convention address , brought in the relative of a federal security guard who was killed in Oakland as if he was killed by Black Lives Matter activists , but he was killed by a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it was well known .
But your point is not lost , Marc , how — the response to these killings , the responses within the protests , and what you think needs to happen now ?
We were looking at some of your tweets over the last days .
On Monday , you wrote , “ Abolition now.
” Can you talk about Wallace ’ s killing in light of the movement to defund the police ?
I mean , as you said , every — when you have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think something like half the city budget of Louisville — that ’ s , of course , where Breonna Taylor was killed by police — half the budget is for the police .
MARC LAMONT HILL : And that ’ s exactly the problem .
An abolitionist vision , of course , ultimately is a world without policing and prisons .
And that builds on the work of Critical Resistance , the wonderful work of Angela Davis and Mariame Kaba and Ruth Wilson Gilmore and other important Black feminist voices , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have these ambitious sort of freedom dreams of what the world could be .
It ’ s important to think about that .
But it ’ s not just about what we ’ re getting rid of .
It ’ s what we want .
We want a world where people ’ s needs are met , where people can have access to jobs , where people can have access to mental health support .
And without those things , then we ’ re going to continue to end up with circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I say an example like what we see with Walter Wallace is exactly why we need abolition , because the money we ’ re spending for policing should be spent to provide mental health .
When people call for defunding , they ’ re saying , “ What would it mean for a public safety force to come out rather than police ?
What would it mean to have a social worker or a therapist on the scene instead of these police who are trained to shoot first and ask questions later ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to reimagine what the world looks like .
And we need to reimagine our social arrangement .
For me , that is abolition .
So , as we fight on the ground — and we saw this in June — we went from a call to abolition , to a call to defunding , to a call to integrate police forces , to a call to reform , to police taking knees and members of Congress wearing kente cloth , right ?
We ’ ve watered down our freedom dream .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the radical demand .
We need to return to this vision of a future without policing and without prisons .
And to start , we begin with this defunding .
Defunding is a step toward abolition , if we ’ re doing this the right way .
And so , in Philadelphia , in Milwaukee , in Louisville , we need to be calling to take money out of these police force budgets and place them in places where people can actually have their needs met .
That ’ s the key here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says : good love , healthy choices and second chances .
We need a structure that allows for those things to happen .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Marc , along that line , how do you assess how the city of Philadelphia has handled this particular shooting now of Walter Wallace ?
And often you find progressive politicians — you supposedly have one in Philadelphia in Mayor Kenney — and they end up , little by little , being influenced sharply by the enormous power that police unions and their supporters have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city municipal governments or at the state level .
How do you see the city handling not only this situation , but the whole issue of defunding police ?
MARC LAMONT HILL : Yeah , Mayor Kenney has essentially thrown his hands up .
Larry Krasner , maybe one of the most progressive district attorneys in the country , I think , has made tremendous moves forward .
But the question right now is : How do you engage once there ’ s a police shooting ?
It ’ s one thing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing to eliminate cash bail .
These are all necessary moves toward abolition .
But what we have right now is a situation where the police union continues to lead a path toward reinforcing militarization , toward justifying bad shoots .
We have a Black police commissioner , who I think and who I know cares about Black people , but , again , the structure is the problem .
And unfortunately , the mayor , the City Council and many people around the city can ’ t imagine a world without policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reorient them .
That means our call on the ground has to be consistent , because what politicians are doing right now is saying we need community policing .
What they ’ re saying right now is we need body cameras .
But these are all reform measures that can convince the world that policing , as an institution , is still a viable possibility .
And what we see in the case of Walter Wallace , as opposed to , say , a George Floyd or Breonna Taylor , is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , when a George Floyd happens , which is a moral atrocity , everybody agrees that that ’ s bad , and they say , “ Let ’ s get rid of the crazy cops that did it.
” With Breonna Taylor , they can say , “ Let ’ s get rid of the bad apples.
” But when you see Walter Wallace Jr. laying on the ground and his mother crying for help as the police shoot her baby down in front of her , what we see is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deal with mental illness or homelessness or domestic violence or rape culture or any of the other extraordinary social ills that we wrestle with .
We need something different .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This story today — a warning to our audience — it contains descriptions of police violence and disturbing images.
Protesters took to the streets of Philadelphia for a second night on Tuesday to condemn the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr. The National Guard has been deployed to Philadelphia as outrage grows after two Philadelphia police officers shot and killed the 27-year-old Black father on Monday while he was having a mental health crisis.
Both police officers were reportedly wearing body cameras when they shot Wallace. Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said Tuesday she does not know if she will release bodycam footage of the killing.
Wallace’s lawyer said Tuesday his family has called for an — was calling for an ambulance to help him with a mental health crisis, but police arrived on the scene instead. Cellphone video of the fatal shooting shows Walter Wallace Jr.'s mother trying to restrain him before he pushes her away and walks toward the officers, who then shot Wallace at least 10 times. Police allege Wallace refused to drop a knife he was holding. Wallace was at least 10 feet away from the police officers when they shot him. At least one witness told The Philadelphia Inquirer the officers were, quote, “too far from him,” and said bystanders were trying to deescalate the situation. On Tuesday, Walter Wallace Jr.'s mother Cathy Wallace told reporters the officers knew her son was in a mental health crisis, because they had been to the family’s house three times on Monday.
REPORTER 1: Did you tell the police about his condition when you called 911?
CATHY WALLACE: Yeah. They already knew about that. They already knew [inaudible]. They already know.
REPORTER 2: They were there earlier in the day, right?
CATHY WALLACE: Huh?
REPORTER 2: Were they there earlier that day?
CATHY WALLACE: Yeah, they was there early that day, and they were standing out there laughing at us. They weren’t trying to help us. They didn’t give a damn about us. And my son said, “Look at them. They’re standing there laughing at us.”
REPORTER 2: What do you want the —
CATHY WALLACE: So I took my son, and I walked, and I left them standing out there. That’s what me and my son — we walked down the street and left the cops standing out there. That’s it. I’m done.
AMY GOODMAN: During Tuesday night’s emotional news conference, the Wallace family’s attorney, Shaka Johnson, said Wallace’s wife Dominique, who witnessed his killing, is pregnant and scheduled to have labor induced today. Johnson said Wallace had nine children. Several of his young sons introduced themselves.
ZAMIR JOHNSON: Zamir.
REPORTER: What’s your name?
ZAKA WALLACE: Zaka [phon.] Wallace.
REPORTER: What’s your name, bud?
ZENA WALLACE: Zena [phon.].
REPORTER: Can you tell us about your dad?
ZAMIR JOHNSON: OK. So, we used to always hang out, and we used to always go places, and we used to always play around.
SUPPORTER: That’s all right, son. Keep it going. Keep going. Be strong.
ZAMIR JOHNSON: And we used to — and he looked to always teach me how to be a man.
SUPPORTER: Praise God! Praise God! That’s right. That’s right.
ZAMIR JOHNSON: And these white racist cops got my own dad, because — and Black lives still matter.
AMY GOODMAN: One of the sons of Walter Wallace Jr. He was killed Monday by Philadelphia police.
For more, we go to Philadelphia, where we’re joined by Marc Lamont Hill, professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University, his forthcoming book, We Still Here: Pandemic, Policing, Protest, and Possibility. He was at Monday night’s protest.
Marc, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you talk about everything you understand at this point that has unfolded, beginning with Monday, when the mom said that the police knew full well her son was in a mental health crisis because they had been to the house three times that day? And they said that night they were calling for an ambulance for him.
MARC LAMONT HILL: Right. Well, that’s exactly the point. When the police began to release their statements and tell their version of events, they left out that they had been to the house three times earlier that day. They said, “Oh, we had no way of knowing that he had a mental health episode.” One, it was clear from the previous phone calls, but it was also clear from what his mother told them on the scene, not to mention anyone chasing police around a car with a knife — or, walking — he wasn’t actually chasing the police — walking around with a knife, is clearly having an episode. And so, from all those elements, it was clear that the police did not respond as if someone were having a mental health episode. Instead, they decided to shoot him, instead of exercising deescalation, any kind of negotiation.
And again, the parents weren’t calling the police. They were calling for an ambulance. They were calling for mental health support. And this is part of the fundamental problem of society right now, is that the police become the response to all of our social crises and contradictions.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Marc, specifically, I wanted to ask you about that. There’s so many incidents we’ve seen, not only over the last year or two, but over decades, of police responding to what are essentially mental health issues, and very few cities have the structure by which there can be mental health professionals responding. It’s always the police, and it always becomes a situation where violence is, unfortunately, used.
MARC LAMONT HILL: That’s exactly right. If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail, right? If the only solution we have is policing, then we’re going to have a militarized and a policing type of — and criminalized response to the problem. For decades what we’ve seen is a sort of raid of the social resources. We no longer have access to mental health, schooling, housing, education. All these things are taken out of the public good and replaced by more militarization, replaced by more policing. And so the police become the response to all of our social problems and crises.
The police aren’t equipped to do this. The police aren’t equipped to handle a situation for mental health. And we’ve seen this since the 1970s, beginning with Reagan and into President Carter’s — I’m sorry, beginning with President Carter’s administration and entering Reagan’s administration. We’ve seen the stripping of mental health resources. And so we see the criminalization of mental health, as mentally ill people end up on the street and then get locked up for loitering. We see the killing of people with mental illness when they have confrontations with police. And in many ways, Juan and Amy, this is more emblematic of the crisis of policing than even when unarmed people die, because for every George Floyd that gets killed unarmed, there are dozens and hundreds of people with mental illness that are forced to be criminalized and have these types of engagements with law enforcement every single day.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Marc, I wanted to ask you about the response of President Trump immediately because of the protests, and also there was some violence and looting that occurred, but there have been now pretty credible reports that there have been agents provocateurs in many of these protests across the country. I recommend the article that CounterPunch had early this month that detailed several of these cities, including they mention in Philadelphia in June, numerous reports circulated that peaceful protests across the state were being infiltrated by white supremacists. And they quoted there the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission director Chad Dion Lassiter, who said, “What I saw was a coordinated effort of looting encouraged by white supremacists who [hide] behind signs demanding justice while promoting anarchy.” Could you talk about the violence that has erupted now in the last couple of days from these protests, and also how President Trump is responding, trying to use what’s happened here to say that there are definitely now poll watchers needed in Philadelphia, trying to utilize this violence as part of his campaign in Philadelphia?
MARC LAMONT HILL: Yeah, a couple of things. First, yeah, there are agents provocateurs. We saw it on the ground in Ferguson. I saw it with my own eyes. I saw it in June with my own eyes. I saw it Monday — excuse me, Tuesday, with — Monday, excuse me, with my own eyes. When you look at what’s happening on the ground, it’s often not the people who are righteously rebelling who are engaged in these wanton acts of reckless violence. And it’s important to acknowledge that. It’s important to acknowledge that this then becomes the pretext for people like Donald Trump — and Governor Wolf, for that matter — calling in more military — calling for more militarization, calling in more police, calling in more troops, as a means of engaging in more violence and really squelching the dissent.
But it’s also important to say that even when people on the ground are engaged in acts of resistance, that this is righteous resistance. I don’t want to simply dismiss all acts of pushback and rebellion to provocateurs. It’s important to say that the state is killing us, and we have a right to respond. We have a right to scar public tissue. We have a right to have our voices heard. These aren’t riots; these are rebellions. That’s what I talk about in my book We Still Here. These are rebellions that are intended to force the world to pay attention, because no one pays attention to Black death unless it affects their money or they think their lives or their safety is threatened. I’m not suggesting we go out and kill people. What I am saying, though, is that we have to use some form of resistance, some form of rebellion, if we are to have our voices heard.
AMY GOODMAN: On that point of the white supremacists, we are seeing one arrest after another that the initial breaking of the glass, the initial fires that are set — now there are actually arrests of those white supremacists involved. In fact, we talked about this yesterday with Alicia Garza. It was Vice President Mike Pence who, in his Republican National Convention address, brought in the relative of a federal security guard who was killed in Oakland as if he was killed by Black Lives Matter activists, but he was killed by a “boogaloo boi,” who was arrested, and it was well known. But your point is not lost, Marc, how — the response to these killings, the responses within the protests, and what you think needs to happen now? We were looking at some of your tweets over the last days. On Monday, you wrote, “Abolition now.” Can you talk about Wallace’s killing in light of the movement to defund the police? I mean, as you said, every — when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I think something like half the city budget of Louisville — that’s, of course, where Breonna Taylor was killed by police — half the budget is for the police.
MARC LAMONT HILL: And that’s exactly the problem. An abolitionist vision, of course, ultimately is a world without policing and prisons. And that builds on the work of Critical Resistance, the wonderful work of Angela Davis and Mariame Kaba and Ruth Wilson Gilmore and other important Black feminist voices, radical Black feminists, who encourage us to have these ambitious sort of freedom dreams of what the world could be. It’s important to think about that.
But it’s not just about what we’re getting rid of. It’s what we want. We want a world where people’s needs are met, where people can have access to jobs, where people can have access to mental health support. And without those things, then we’re going to continue to end up with circumstances like this.
That’s why I say an example like what we see with Walter Wallace is exactly why we need abolition, because the money we’re spending for policing should be spent to provide mental health. When people call for defunding, they’re saying, “What would it mean for a public safety force to come out rather than police? What would it mean to have a social worker or a therapist on the scene instead of these police who are trained to shoot first and ask questions later?” This is the problem. We need to reimagine what the world looks like. And we need to reimagine our social arrangement. For me, that is abolition.
So, as we fight on the ground — and we saw this in June — we went from a call to abolition, to a call to defunding, to a call to integrate police forces, to a call to reform, to police taking knees and members of Congress wearing kente cloth, right? We’ve watered down our freedom dream. We’ve taken the teeth out of the radical demand. We need to return to this vision of a future without policing and without prisons.
And to start, we begin with this defunding. Defunding is a step toward abolition, if we’re doing this the right way. And so, in Philadelphia, in Milwaukee, in Louisville, we need to be calling to take money out of these police force budgets and place them in places where people can actually have their needs met. That’s the key here. It’s like Kiese Laymon says: good love, healthy choices and second chances. We need a structure that allows for those things to happen.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Marc, along that line, how do you assess how the city of Philadelphia has handled this particular shooting now of Walter Wallace? And often you find progressive politicians — you supposedly have one in Philadelphia in Mayor Kenney — and they end up, little by little, being influenced sharply by the enormous power that police unions and their supporters have, whether it’s in the city municipal governments or at the state level. How do you see the city handling not only this situation, but the whole issue of defunding police?
MARC LAMONT HILL: Yeah, Mayor Kenney has essentially thrown his hands up. Larry Krasner, maybe one of the most progressive district attorneys in the country, I think, has made tremendous moves forward. But the question right now is: How do you engage once there’s a police shooting? It’s one thing to decriminalize things. It’s one thing to eliminate cash bail. These are all necessary moves toward abolition. But what we have right now is a situation where the police union continues to lead a path toward reinforcing militarization, toward justifying bad shoots. We have a Black police commissioner, who I think and who I know cares about Black people, but, again, the structure is the problem. And unfortunately, the mayor, the City Council and many people around the city can’t imagine a world without policing and prisons. And so we have to reorient them. That means our call on the ground has to be consistent, because what politicians are doing right now is saying we need community policing. What they’re saying right now is we need body cameras. But these are all reform measures that can convince the world that policing, as an institution, is still a viable possibility.
And what we see in the case of Walter Wallace, as opposed to, say, a George Floyd or Breonna Taylor, is that it’s not, because, again, when a George Floyd happens, which is a moral atrocity, everybody agrees that that’s bad, and they say, “Let’s get rid of the crazy cops that did it.” With Breonna Taylor, they can say, “Let’s get rid of the bad apples.” But when you see Walter Wallace Jr. laying on the ground and his mother crying for help as the police shoot her baby down in front of her, what we see is that the institution of policing is not designed to deal with mental illness or homelessness or domestic violence or rape culture or any of the other extraordinary social ills that we wrestle with. We need something different.


democracynow--2020-10-28--Headlines for October 28, 2020

Headlines for October 28, 2020

The United States recorded nearly 75,000 coronavirus cases on Tuesday as the confirmed death toll from COVID-19 neared 227,000 .
@ @ @ @ @ a half-million new coronavirus cases over just the last week .
More than half of @ @ @ @ @ record levels of infections , and no state in the union is seeing a decline @ @ @ @ @ the grim news , the Trump administration declared victory over the coronavirus on Tuesday .
@ @ @ @ @ the release of a 62-page report , the White House Office of Science and Technology @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 pandemic ” as one of President Trump ’ s first-term accomplishments .
In Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus deaths and nearly 5,300 new daily cases Tuesday , shattering previous records .
Just @ @ @ @ @ President Trump rallied his supporters in western Wisconsin , where thousands packed shoulder to shoulder @ @ @ @ @ few people wore masks .

The United States recorded nearly 75,000 coronavirus cases on Tuesday as the confirmed death toll from COVID-19 neared 227,000. The U.S. has recorded over a half-million new coronavirus cases over just the last week. More than half of states are at or near record levels of infections, and no state in the union is seeing a decline in new cases.
Despite the grim news, the Trump administration declared victory over the coronavirus on Tuesday. In a news release accompanying the release of a 62-page report, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy cited “ending the COVID-19 pandemic” as one of President Trump’s first-term accomplishments.
In Wisconsin, health officials reported 64 coronavirus deaths and nearly 5,300 new daily cases Tuesday, shattering previous records. Just hours after that announcement, President Trump rallied his supporters in western Wisconsin, where thousands packed shoulder to shoulder at a campaign event where few people wore masks.


democracynow--2020-10-29--Pandemic Poverty: The CARES Act Kept Millions from Going Hungry. Why Won't the Senate Renew It?

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh , as we continue to look at growing poverty in the United States .
This week , Majority Leader Mitch McConnell adjourned the Senate without a new stimulus bill and won ’ t reconvene until November 9th .
President Trump said Tuesday any deal on a new relief package would have to wait until after the election .
This comes as more than 54 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food , according to the hunger relief organization Feeding America , and a new report finds more than 8 million people have been forced into poverty just since May .
That ’ s when the additional federal aid that kept millions afloat during the early months of the pandemic ended .
Black and Latinx people , as well as children , have been particularly impacted .
A new report finds the massive $ 2 trillion CARES Act , which sent households one-time payments and boosted unemployment checks with $ 600 additional a week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of poverty .
But since the additional aid has ended , the number of poor people has surged .
For more , we ’ re joined by Megan Curran with the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University .
She has co-authored the report on increasing poverty rates in the U.S. during the pandemic .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Megan .
It ’ s great to have you with us .
Just lay out the report ’ s horrific findings .
MEGAN CURRAN : Sure .
Thanks very much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my colleagues at the Columbia Center on Poverty have been trying to do is track the real-time effect on families of the continuing crisis .
One of the biggest challenges is that the way we traditionally measure poverty in this country is on an annual basis , and there ’ s usually a time delay .
So , that ’ s imperfect in normal times , but we know that 2020 is far from normal , and so it ’ s something that calls for new tools .
What we ’ ve tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monthly poverty rates in the U.S. , so trying to look at what happened when families went out of work very sharply , but also what happened when the federal relief came in .
And we found three main things .
The first is that Congress did the right thing early on , with the CARES Act , in particular — the stimulus checks and the expanded unemployment benefits .
The combination prevented what could have basically been the worst spike in poverty in 50 years .
The second thing , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these successes are quickly being lost .
The relief was temporary , and much of it has now expired .
And so now we ’ re seeing poverty rise again .
But the third piece is kind of a silver lining in that we know what works now , you know , getting cash out to households directly , and so we know that families can be protected again , but it does require action at the federal level .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Megan , can you talk specifically about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Two-and-a-half million children have been pushed into poverty since May .
Is that right ?
MEGAN CURRAN : Yeah .
So , you know , the important thing to note is that child poverty in the U.S. even before the crisis hit was high and , you know , arguably much too high for as wealthy a nation as we are .
You know , in the years coming up to it , even when the economy appeared strong , we had more than 13 million children living below the poverty line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context , we ’ re talking about trying to get by on about $ 28,000 a year for a family of four if you ’ re in sort of an average-cost city .
And so , it ’ s not a generous level that we ’ re talking about , but so many children were already living below that number .
And we have now seen yet another two-and-a-half million children fall below that income level just since May .
And we know that also it ’ s not hitting all kids equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between — for Black and Latino children , it ’ s two-and-a-half times higher than it is for whites , for white children .
And so , we need to recognize that this was a problem beforehand , but it has been seriously exasperated — excuse me , it has been seriously magnified by this crisis .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Megan , as you mentioned , Congress made the right decision early on in passing the CARES Act , which was the largest economic stimulus package in U.S. history , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were excluded from the CARES Act .
Could you talk about who was excluded and what the impact of that exclusion has been on them ?
MEGAN CURRAN : Yeah , the CARES Act , in our analysis and other researchers who have been looking at this , is found to be , you know , so important and really temporarily successful for families that were able to receive it .
But we know that , unfortunately , some , even though they were technically eligible , were at risk of not receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals identified who were at risk of maybe not receiving the stimulus check even though they were eligible for it .
And that ’ s because they may not have filed taxes recently , because they have such low incomes that they were not required to do so , that it required a lot of extra steps and the onus on the families themselves to figure out that they actually needed to apply for it .
That put them at risk for not receiving it .
But there were also a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the legislation when it was passed .
So , that ranged across a couple different population groups .
We saw high school and college students left out of the stimulus checks .
If they were over the age of 17 and still claimed as a dependents for tax purposes , which most of them were because they ’ re still in school , by their families , they were left out of the checks , right at the same time that they were facing rapidly increasing costs with having to switch to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things .
We know some — and that was about 10 million 17-to-24-year-olds across the country who were left out .
We know another 5 million older adults with serious health issues also were left out of the stimulus checks , again because they ’ re claimed as dependents .
They can ’ t live alone , in many instances .
They and their carers did not receive emergency assistance for them .
And one of the biggest populations that was excluded was children and adults in immigrant families .
And about 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals in immigrant families were left out .
And , you know , most of these kids would have been U.S. citizen children .
But the exclusions were particularly harsh here , because if just one adult in the family did not have a Social Security number , no one in the family , regardless of citizenship status or green card status , were able to receive the payment .
And so , that has huge applications for families in every state .
AMY GOODMAN : What should a new stimulus package look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minute , Megan Curran .
I mean , you have , since the beginning of the pandemic , enormous wealth inequality .
The wealth of U.S. billionaires has surged $ 931 billion .
And yet , when you look at the number of people who have not only plunged into poverty , but hunger , how do you correct this ?
And we ’ ve seen also an enormous corporate bailout .
MEGAN CURRAN : Yeah , I think what we need to recognize is that we need to get more cash to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accessible to as many families as possible , without exclusions , and it needs to be consistent .
We know that another one-time check , while very welcome for many families , isn ’ t going to be enough .
Continuing unemployment benefits , the $ 600 top-up weekly payments , along with the expansions that included those who are usually not covered , need to be continued .
We need to get regular cash assistance on a monthly basis , if not more frequent , if possible , to families who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to make sure that there are other protections in place , increased access to food for kids .
You know , you can increase the SNAP benefit levels .
You can put in more housing protections so that there ’ s rent relief and protections against evictions .
And basically , you just need to make sure that families know that they can count on this for the duration of the crisis , because we ’ re seeing , with continued unemployment claims and continued surges in cases , this crisis is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so the relief needs to be in place for as long as families need it .
AMY GOODMAN : Megan Curran , we want to thank you for being with us , at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University .
We ’ ll link to your report on increasing poverty in the U.S. during the pandemic .
And a reminder : This Tuesday , November 3rd , election night , Democracy Now !
will air a three-hour election night special from 9 p.m. Eastern to midnight .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election to congressional and state races , as well as ballot initiatives .
You can watch it at democracynow.org , or you can ask your station to run it , as many are across the country .
That does it for our broadcast .
Special thanks to Julie Crosby , Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey , Nermeen Shaikh .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
Thanks so much for joining us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, as we continue to look at growing poverty in the United States. This week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell adjourned the Senate without a new stimulus bill and won’t reconvene until November 9th. President Trump said Tuesday any deal on a new relief package would have to wait until after the election.
This comes as more than 54 million U.S. residents are struggling to afford food, according to the hunger relief organization Feeding America, and a new report finds more than 8 million people have been forced into poverty just since May. That’s when the additional federal aid that kept millions afloat during the early months of the pandemic ended. Black and Latinx people, as well as children, have been particularly impacted. A new report finds the massive $2 trillion CARES Act, which sent households one-time payments and boosted unemployment checks with $600 additional a week through July, helped keep millions out of poverty. But since the additional aid has ended, the number of poor people has surged.
For more, we’re joined by Megan Curran with the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. She has co-authored the report on increasing poverty rates in the U.S. during the pandemic.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Megan. It’s great to have you with us. Just lay out the report’s horrific findings.
MEGAN CURRAN: Sure. Thanks very much for having me.
What myself and my colleagues at the Columbia Center on Poverty have been trying to do is track the real-time effect on families of the continuing crisis. One of the biggest challenges is that the way we traditionally measure poverty in this country is on an annual basis, and there’s usually a time delay. So, that’s imperfect in normal times, but we know that 2020 is far from normal, and so it’s something that calls for new tools.
What we’ve tried to do most recently is estimate the monthly poverty rates in the U.S., so trying to look at what happened when families went out of work very sharply, but also what happened when the federal relief came in. And we found three main things.
The first is that Congress did the right thing early on, with the CARES Act, in particular — the stimulus checks and the expanded unemployment benefits. The combination prevented what could have basically been the worst spike in poverty in 50 years.
The second thing, however, is the bad news, which is that these successes are quickly being lost. The relief was temporary, and much of it has now expired. And so now we’re seeing poverty rise again.
But the third piece is kind of a silver lining in that we know what works now, you know, getting cash out to households directly, and so we know that families can be protected again, but it does require action at the federal level.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Megan, can you talk specifically about the impact of this poverty on children? Two-and-a-half million children have been pushed into poverty since May. Is that right?
MEGAN CURRAN: Yeah. So, you know, the important thing to note is that child poverty in the U.S. even before the crisis hit was high and, you know, arguably much too high for as wealthy a nation as we are. You know, in the years coming up to it, even when the economy appeared strong, we had more than 13 million children living below the poverty line. And just to put that in context, we’re talking about trying to get by on about $28,000 a year for a family of four if you’re in sort of an average-cost city. And so, it’s not a generous level that we’re talking about, but so many children were already living below that number. And we have now seen yet another two-and-a-half million children fall below that income level just since May. And we know that also it’s not hitting all kids equally. The gap in poverty is stark between — for Black and Latino children, it’s two-and-a-half times higher than it is for whites, for white children. And so, we need to recognize that this was a problem beforehand, but it has been seriously exasperated — excuse me, it has been seriously magnified by this crisis.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Megan, as you mentioned, Congress made the right decision early on in passing the CARES Act, which was the largest economic stimulus package in U.S. history, but there were a number of people who were excluded from the CARES Act. Could you talk about who was excluded and what the impact of that exclusion has been on them?
MEGAN CURRAN: Yeah, the CARES Act, in our analysis and other researchers who have been looking at this, is found to be, you know, so important and really temporarily successful for families that were able to receive it. But we know that, unfortunately, some, even though they were technically eligible, were at risk of not receiving it. There were about 12 million individuals identified who were at risk of maybe not receiving the stimulus check even though they were eligible for it. And that’s because they may not have filed taxes recently, because they have such low incomes that they were not required to do so, that it required a lot of extra steps and the onus on the families themselves to figure out that they actually needed to apply for it. That put them at risk for not receiving it.
But there were also a number of folks who were just explicitly left out of the legislation when it was passed. So, that ranged across a couple different population groups. We saw high school and college students left out of the stimulus checks. If they were over the age of 17 and still claimed as a dependents for tax purposes, which most of them were because they’re still in school, by their families, they were left out of the checks, right at the same time that they were facing rapidly increasing costs with having to switch to virtual learning overnight and all of these things. We know some — and that was about 10 million 17-to-24-year-olds across the country who were left out.
We know another 5 million older adults with serious health issues also were left out of the stimulus checks, again because they’re claimed as dependents. They can’t live alone, in many instances. They and their carers did not receive emergency assistance for them.
And one of the biggest populations that was excluded was children and adults in immigrant families. And about 15 million, it’s estimated, individuals in immigrant families were left out. And, you know, most of these kids would have been U.S. citizen children. But the exclusions were particularly harsh here, because if just one adult in the family did not have a Social Security number, no one in the family, regardless of citizenship status or green card status, were able to receive the payment. And so, that has huge applications for families in every state.
AMY GOODMAN: What should a new stimulus package look like? And we only have a minute, Megan Curran. I mean, you have, since the beginning of the pandemic, enormous wealth inequality. The wealth of U.S. billionaires has surged $931 billion. And yet, when you look at the number of people who have not only plunged into poverty, but hunger, how do you correct this? And we’ve seen also an enormous corporate bailout.
MEGAN CURRAN: Yeah, I think what we need to recognize is that we need to get more cash to families, and it needs to be accessible to as many families as possible, without exclusions, and it needs to be consistent. We know that another one-time check, while very welcome for many families, isn’t going to be enough. Continuing unemployment benefits, the $600 top-up weekly payments, along with the expansions that included those who are usually not covered, need to be continued. We need to get regular cash assistance on a monthly basis, if not more frequent, if possible, to families who are not covered by unemployment. And we need to make sure that there are other protections in place, increased access to food for kids. You know, you can increase the SNAP benefit levels. You can put in more housing protections so that there’s rent relief and protections against evictions. And basically, you just need to make sure that families know that they can count on this for the duration of the crisis, because we’re seeing, with continued unemployment claims and continued surges in cases, this crisis is not going away right now, and so the relief needs to be in place for as long as families need it.
AMY GOODMAN: Megan Curran, we want to thank you for being with us, at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. We’ll link to your report on increasing poverty in the U.S. during the pandemic.
And a reminder: This Tuesday, November 3rd, election night, Democracy Now! will air a three-hour election night special from 9 p.m. Eastern to midnight. We’ll be covering results from the presidential election to congressional and state races, as well as ballot initiatives. You can watch it at democracynow.org, or you can ask your station to run it, as many are across the country.
That does it for our broadcast. Special thanks to Julie Crosby, Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Thanks so much for joining us.