October, 12 2021, 06:09pm EDT
Essential, Low-Wage Women Tell Congress: Look at the People Behind the Numbers in the Build Back Better Plan
The focus of debate about the Build Back Better plan should be on who is helped and not merely the cost, essential, low-wage women said Tuesday at a news conference with the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival.
WASHINGTON
The focus of debate about the Build Back Better plan should be on who is helped and not merely the cost, essential, low-wage women said Tuesday at a news conference with the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival.
"We are the ones who produce so much wealth in this nation, the ones who could not rest during the pandemic. We are the ones who don't have the right to get sick because we cannot miss work, those who run the risk of getting fired if we miss a day to be able to claim decent treatment during our movement," said Marcela Ramirez, a produce packer from Philadelphia and a mother.
She was one of eight women from across the country -- West Virginia, Kentucky, New York, Arizona, Mississippi and Maryland -- who spoke at the news conference held Tuesday on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Joining them were the co-chairs of the PPC: NCMR, Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II and Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, along with economists and faith leaders.
"We shouldn't be talking about trillions of dollars and just in terms of cost," Rev. Barber said. "What we should be talking about is this question: it's now how much does Build Back Better cost but how much does it cost lives and hurt people not to build back better. ... The problem is we have gotten stuck in a numbers argument rather than a people argument."
Before COVID-19, 140 million people lived in poverty or were low-income, and 700 people died a day from poverty. The Build Back Better agenda costs $3.5 trillion over 10 years, or $350 billion a year. That's just an estimated 1.2% of the U.S. GDP over 10 years.
"What we know and what this pandemic has laid bare is that women, people of color, poor communities, have been disproportionately impacted," Rev. Theoharis said. "By stripping the provisions that help women, help people of color, help poor communities, help essential workers recover, that those are standing against us, (Sen. Joe) Manchin, (Sen. Kyrsten) Sinema, all of those folks that have the power in their hands to do something -- they're compromising the lives of essential workers and the poor. They're sending a message that people's lives and their work don't matter when we know that this is a lie."
Women from West Virginia and Arizona -- where Sens. Manchin and Sinema don't support Build Back Better as written and who oppose an end to the non-constitutional filibuster -- also spoke.
Joan Steede of Phoenix said she cares for people as they die, even working extra time without pay for veterans because they deserve her help.
"I hear all these women's stories and they all sound the same. We work much harder than what we get paid for," she said. "We will all some day get old and need care. And I will be there for you, and I will work for less than I'm worth because I care about other people. And I demand Congress back a bill that took so much work and time. Just do your job - build back America."
Kaylen Marie Parker of South Charleston, West Virginia, said she has a master's degree but still must scrounge for pennies in her couch cushions.
"Time has run out for the people in my state. We are literally starving. It's time for Congress to act," she said. "It's hard to see the realities of our lives when you live so comfortably in your ivory towers, but it is time to come down and listen to the people. We're no longer asking for help - we are demanding that you act now. The Build Back Better plan can finally stop the generational poverty that's been forced on Appalachia and people all across the country."
Pam Garrison, a lifelong low-wage worker and tri-chair of the West Virginia Poor People's Campaign, called on Sen. Manchin to recognize that Americans deserve the spending in Build Back Better.
"We will show you that when you invest in the people - that the people will rise and we will work! We are not lazy and we are not asking for a handout. Senator Manchin, do your job. Do your job! Take care of the people! Quit taking care of the corporations!"
Rep. Ro Khannaof Pennsylvania told the women that their voices are needed.
"For too long, this country has not treated people fairly for doing the hardest work, who are on the frontlines. And that must change," he said at the news conference. "There is too much frustration, too much anger out there saying (it's) time to actually be just. Time to pay people what they deserve, to treat people the way they deserve. And so your voices, your stories, in this movement are being heard not just by me but by many in the halls of the Congress to remind us about what is at stake and that is why we must deliver on the president's Build Back Better agenda."
Comments from others who spoke:
Katrina Corbell of New York, a low-wage worker on disability
"This legislation is about me - the legislation is about us. It is about real people, low-wage essential workers. It is shameful that Congress is debating that we cannot afford $350 billion a year for 10 years when we're spending so much more on war when so many of us are not approving of the wars that Congress keeps spending money on. So please listen to your constituents and actually pass the Build Back Better plan as it is."
Viola Lee of Silver Spring, Maryland, a gig worker and DoorDash driver. She is a mother of three, and they are unhoused.
She wants Congress to remember "people are struggling to make ends meet and (who are) threatened with eviction every day who sleep from house to house because they don't earn a living wage."
Emilee Johnson of Pearl, Mississippi, a low-wage worker and advocate for victims of human trafficking.
"I am here to tell Congress, we can no longer rely on states like Mississippi that just abolished slavery in 2013 to do the right thing. Mississippi has shown this country too many times that doing the right thing is not an option. We need laws changed on a federal level. I am a low-wage and essential worker, and I need Congress to address the needs of low-wage and essential workers now and invest in my fair chance. Because I deserve a fair chance."
Adriel Downing of Lexington, Kentucky, a game-day employee at the University of Kentucky.
She said she was there to call on Sen. Mitch McConnell to pass the Build Back Better act. "Please help us. We get tired of asking for help. We don't want to beg you. We shouldn't have to beg you."
Shailly Gupta Barnes, policy director for PPC: NCMR and an economist:
On Friday, PPC: NCMR will release a study of the 2020 presidential election showing the power of poor and low-income voters "whose main concerns are around health and economic well-being and who turned out in historic numbers to vote last year. What does all of this tell us? Economically, ethically, morally and politically, we cannot build back better without building back from the bottom."
Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies:
It's outrageous that "Congress resists spending $350 billion a year on things like children, housing, water, education and yet they don't even blink when we spend $753 billion a year on the military -- on wars that kill people and fail to achieve any of their so-called goals."
Sister Richelle Friedman of the Coalition on Human Needs:
"Build Back Better is an opportunity for us as a nation to do something significant for those who do not have enough to afford adequate food or a place to call home or what is necessary for them to work like affordable child care or who are afraid of losing their job because they have no paid leave and in some cases, no unpaid leave.
"We know what's at stake. Build Back Better is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in low-income families, individuals and communities."
Rabbi Alana Suskin of the Maryland Poor People's Campaign:
"Jewish law asserts that community is responsible for maintaining and distributing resources for the poor. We as a nation are incredibly wealthy, it is a land from which bread comes and has the dust of gold -- just like Sodom. It is a scandal that 140 million poor and low-income people go unheard as they cry out to be heard. ... We are here with the voices of Americans crying out, and it is our responsibility to act.
Rev. Angela Martin of the Maryland Poor People's Campaign:
We've heard the voices of the poor. We've heard the voices crying out, demanding justice. All I want to know right now, Joe Manchin, is which side are you on? Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of poor and low-wealth persons who are crying out, who are suffering in the midst of this pandemic? Or are you here to represent your pockets? It's really just as simple as that.
"If you are a person of faith, you have a moral conscience and an obligation to respond right now."
The Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, is building a generationally transformative digital gathering called the Mass Poor People's Assembly and Moral March on Washington, on June 20, 2020. At that assembly, we will demand that both major political parties address the interlocking injustices of systemic racism, poverty, ecological devastation, militarism and the distorted moral narrative of religious nationalism by implementing our Moral Agenda.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular