Day 2: CBC Legislative Conference

My second day at the Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Conference was even more interesting than the first day. On the second day, I attended the following panels - Marching Toward Justice: the Centrality of the 14th Amendment, Is the New Right Wrong for People of Color, the Impact of the Hip Hop on American Politics and Rescuing Our Youth from Chaos and Carnage: Effective Strategies to Address Youth Violence.

U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) hosted the 14th Amendment panel.  The panelists were Fox News commentator Juan Williams, legendary NAACP LDF attorney William Coleman, Harvard Law Professor Kenneth Mack, Howard Law School Dean Kurt Schmoke, University of Pennsylvania Professor Mary Francis Berry, Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree and Law Professor Michelle Alexander. The panel discussed the controversial proposal by some Republican leaders to hold hearings on whether to repeal a section of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The section in question states that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  To combat illegal immigration, some Republican critics argue such language should be repealed.

Ms. Berry explained that the 14th Amendment does not only apply to African Americans. One of the panelists stated that the legislative history of the 14th Amendment clearly establishes that the Congress considered the issue of immigration when they wrote the amendment. Citing Plessey v. Ferguson, Ms. Berry illustrated how the 14th Amendment has been used to suppress the rights of black people. She compared opening up the 14th Amendment to discussion to opening the 13th Amendment up to discussion.

Professor Alexander discussed how the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause did not prevent the emergence of Jim Crow.  She further stated that the 14th Amendment did not prevent the modern day mass incarceration of African Americans.  Ms. Alexander asserted that the discriminatory enforcement of anti-drug laws against poor, black communities has led to the mass incarceration of black people. The war on drugs has created a new group of second class citizens, African American ex-convicts. I look forward to reading her new book, The New Jim Crow. 

Before she gave her presentation, she sat right next me, but I was too shy to speak to her. Anyway, in her closing remarks, Ms. Alexander stated that the 14th Amendment controversy creates an opportunity for the African American community and the Hispanic community to form a coalition.

At the end of discussion, Charles Ogletree joined the panel. In his brief remarks, Olgetree stated that every area of civil rights is being forfeited. He said that we are at a "point of urgency." Ogletree concluded by stating that "civic engagement is key."

Next, I attended the "Is the New Right Wrong for People of Color?" panel hosted U.S. Rep. Al Green (D-TX). The panelists included Republican Roger Clegg, Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Brian Smedley of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Vice Chair of the North Carolina Republican Party and Chair of the Frederick Douglass Foundation Dr. Timothy F. Johnson and University of D.C. Law Professor John Britain.  This was the most exciting CBC panel.  Unlike other CBC panels, the panelists engaged in a heated debate. 

Rep. Green opened the discussion by reading from the Texas State Republican Platform. The Texas Republican Party opposes affirmative action (including programs based on class ranking), D.C. statehood, motor voter laws, enfranchisement for ex-offenders, government early education programs and minimum wage laws.  The Texas GOP supports the repeal of health care reform, the repeal of hate crime laws and the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.  After reading the platform, Rep. Al Green asked, "Is the New Right Wrong for People of Color?" 

Tea Party supporter Dr. Johnson, an African American, gave a brief presentation. To avoid being labeled as someone who is out of touch with the African American community, Dr. Johnson presented his black man credentials.  He said that he is a graduate of an HBCU, a member of Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity, a former Democrat and a former NAACP member. 

Dr. Johnson defended the Republican Party and the Tea Party.  Dr Johnson argued that the Republican Party emancipated African Americans and fought for civil rights.   According to Dr. Johnson, many Democrats like the late U.S. Senator and former Klu Klux Klan member Robert Byrd opposed civil rights.  He mentioned how many African Americans are social conservatives who oppose gay marriage and abortion.  Although I do not agree with 95% of what Dr. Johnson said, he is a powerful and charismatic speaker.  He will probably become a significant national figure. 

In response to Dr. Johnson's presentation, Wade Henderson acknowledged some of Dr. Johnson's points and proceeded to the explain how the modern Republican Party is opposed to the interests of African Americans and minorities. He discussed the Republican Southern Strategy and its opposition to hate crimes laws and health care reform.  Mr. Henderson stated that the Tea Party opposes the Dream Act, a bill that would permit qualifying undocumented youth to be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship. Under the bill, eligible youth would be required to complete college or two years of military service.  He also mentioned that the Tea Party honored Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joseph M. "Joe" Arpaio.  Sheriff Arpaio is one of the main proponents of Arizona's racist, anti-immigration law.

To refute Mr. Henderson's arguments, Mr. Clegg mentioned a Washington Post news article challenging the notion that the modern Republican Party is racist.  He did not mention the title or the author of the article.  The article was in the Outlook section.  Mr. Clegg argued that people should not oppose or support a party based on race.  Unfortunately, I had to leave early in order to attend the "Impact of Hip Hop on American Politics" panel.

I attended the second half the "Impact of Hip Hop on American Politics" panel hosted by U.S. Rep. Andre Carson.  The panelists included Jeff Johnson, WPGC radio host Big Tigger, hip hop artist 9th Wonder, Amanda Diva and a few others.  Hip hop has had an impact on politics.  Recently, examples include Will.i.am's viral Yes We Can video supporting the Obama campaign and Puffy's Vote or Die get out the vote effort. 

However, after hearing Tigger discuss how difficult it is to recruit major celebrities to support his AIDS Awareness program and other community efforts, I am starting to agree with John McWhorter on the issue of hip hop.  According to Tigger and 9th Wonder, many of these hip hop artists are basically money hungry, divas who are difficult to work with. Over 90 percent of the popular hip hop artists only rap about money, drugs, sex and violence.  The few conscious rap artists are far less influential.  If we are depending on hip hop to save us, we are in bad shape as a people. 

Finally, I caught the tail end of U.S Rep. Bobby Rush's "Rescuing our Youth from Chaos and Carnage: Effective Strategies to Address Youth Violence".  NBA great Isiah Thomas was panelist. Since many panels were concurrent, I missed a quite a few good panel discussions. I look forward to attending the CBC Conference next year.  

No More Compromise

Earlier in his political career, Barack Obama supported single payer health care. A single payer system would provide free, universal and quality health care for all citizens. Every major industrialized democracy has some form of single payer health care.

It is a national disgrace that over 47 million Americans have no health insurance. Private health insurance companies’ primary objective is maximizing profits for shareholders. They actually increase profits by denying coverage. Many health insurance companies refuse to sell or renew policies due to a person’s health status. In addition, they deny coverage for treatment of certain pre-existing conditions. Moreover, due to escalating premium costs, fewer employees will be able to afford health insurance in the near future. According to a new Commonwealth Fund report, health insurance premiums increased “119 percent between 1999 and 2008, and could increase another 94 percent to an average of $23,842 per family by 2020 if cost growth continues on its current course.” [1]

To build a census to address this crisis, President Obama embraced a pragmatic approach. He has rejected the proposal of U.S. Representatives John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich for single payer legislation, United States National Health Care Act H.R. 676. In attempt to reach a compromise, the private companies would continue to provide health care insurance. However, under America’s Affordable Health Choices Act H.R. 3200, citizens would have an option to enroll in a public insurance program. H.R. 3200 would prevent companies from refusing to provide coverage based on an individual’s health status or pre-existing conditions. The legislation includes “new data collection efforts to identify and address racial health disparities.” Finally, people will receive credits to purchase private or public insurance.

Despite efforts to develop a bipartisan compromise, most Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats continue to oppose the President’s health care plan. The right wing critics have called President Obama a socialist. A lunatic fringe has even compared him to Adolf Hitler. Instead serving as a medium to convey a clear message to the American people, the town hall meetings have degenerated into chaos. Consequently, the President’s poll numbers are declining.

Under intense pressure, the Obama Administration has expressed a willingness to eliminate the public option, the cornerstone of any progressive legislation. The public option was designed to create competition in the market place. As the summary of H.R. 3200 states, the public option "will be a new choice in many areas of our country dominated by one or two private insurers today."

Eliminating the public option will allow insurance companies to continue to raise costs. Their monopoly over the market and the political process must be brought to an end. The President has already compromised by rejecting a single payer system and by proposing to establish credits to enable more citizens to purchase in private insurance.

U.S. Representative Maxine Waters[2] is correct. The time for bipartisan cooperation is over, no more compromise. The Obama Administration needs to enforce party discipline and start twisting arms to bring the Blue Dog Democrats in line with the President’s agenda. The President and progressive members of Congress should reject any proposal that does not include a public option and they should support the Kucinich Amendment. That amendment would allow states to establish their own state based single payer health care plans. Surrender is not an option.

[1] Commonwealth Fund, New Report: Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Premiums Increase 119 Percent from 1999-2008; Project to Double Again by 2020 (August 20, 2009). http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2009/Aug/Employer-Sponsored-Health-Insurance-Premiums-Increase-119-Percent.aspx

[2] Rong-Gong Lin II. “Rep. Maxine Water a hard liner for public health care option.” Los Angeles Times. 23 August 2009.