A year ago, members of the Congressional Black Caucus openly wept at Barack Obama's inauguration. Slowly, that euphoria has given way to frustration that his administration has not done more for black America. Questions about how to elect him have been replaced by questions about how to prod him.

For many, it is the surprise of a political lifetime that they find themselves wrestling with such quandaries. Alternately puzzled and disgruntled, CBC members say key people in the Obama administration have taken them for granted, in the belief that black members of Congress have no stomach for a fight with the country's first black president.

"We concluded they were just kind of listening to us and that then they would go back [to their offices] and conclude that we would do nothing," Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), the vice chairman of the CBC, said of one dispute. "Because they had concluded there's a black president in the White House and that, to some degree, the Black Caucus, you know, was constrained in expressing its desires. After a while, we said, 'Hey, we see what's going on and it's nothing.' "

On Thursday, CBC members participated in a rare one-hour policy meeting with Obama at the White House to discuss their concerns, most notably their disappointment over a jobs bill that they regard as largely a package of tax breaks for employers, noticeably bereft of job-training programs, new infrastructure projects and summer employment opportunities for youth. Such issues are vital to the CBC, many of whose members represent districts with high levels of unemployment.

Yesterday, at long last, there was a vigorous debate about the war in Afghanistan on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. The legislative vehicle was a resolution introduced by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich calling for US troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of the year. But House critics of the war have long been agitating for a real debate.

This is the debate that should have been held - at least - last fall when the administration was considering sending more US troops to Afghanistan, or - at least - when the administration announced its plans to send more troops. If the House had held this debate while the administration was mulling its decision, the Congressional airing of arguments against military escalation and in favor of political and diplomatic solutions would have attracted a lot more attention, and could have affected the decision. No doubt, the possibility that a Congressional debate then might have affected the policy was a key motivation for some in the House leadership not to allow this debate to occur then.

But it is much better for the House to debate now than not to debate at all, or to fail to debate the policy until the question of money is on the floor, a point emphasized by Rep. Howard Berman, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who vigorously opposed the resolution but vigorously supported the debate. Pro-war views are hardly lacking venues for making their case, meeting in church basements, passing out flyers on the sidewalk. Pro-war views dominate the mainstream media. It's dissent against the war that has to fight to be heard. Yesterday, dissent was heard.

Of course, the House debate on Afghanistan didn't get the media play yesterday that the Eric Massa soap opera did, as Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island) passionately noted (ironically, arguably garnering more press attention for the Afghanistan debate with his jeremiad than any other intervention on the House floor.)

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) March 9, 2010
Read text of the bill here (PDF): http://grayson.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Public_Option_Act.pdf

Grayson introduces Public Option Act
March 9, 2010

Congressman Alan Grayson, (D-Orlando), today introduced a bill (H.R. 4789) which would give the option to buy into Medicare to every citizen of the United States. The “Public Option Act,” also known as the “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act,” would open up the Medicare network to anyone who can pay for it.

Congressman Grayson said, “Obviously, America wants and needs more competition in health coverage, and a public option offers that. But it’s just as important that we offer people not just another choice, but another kind of choice. A lot of people don’t want to be at the mercy of greedy insurance companies that will make money by denying them the care that they need to stay healthy, or to stay alive. We deserve to have a real alternative.”

In detail, the US Senate healthcare bill would undermine state innovation, especially state-based single payer legislative campaigns that are making tremendous headway all across the nation.

The US Senate's poison-pill language preempting state initiatives/reforms until 2017 would lock in industry control over HC funding (and, thus, delivery); provide a mandate-driven, ready-made market of some 30M new "consumers" to a predatory, profit-first insurance industry; and, perhaps worst of all, tie the hands of some 20 state-based single payer legislative campaigns working closer and closer to enact the proven Single Payer Solution as both a model for other states and the national government.

Here in PA, if you recall, we are alone among states in the following three (3) ways: we've got Governor Rendell's promised signature once our SP bill (SB 400/HB 1660) passes; funding is authorized in the bill itself (meaning no need for a wildly expensive tax referendum), and Rs and Ds are working together on hearings, studies, and more, particularly in our GOP-controlled State Senate. Just this week, in fact, we completed the process of promoting for endorsement the bi-partisan Economic Impact Study resolution. In our 30-20 Republican-dominated State Senate, we got 11 Rs and 19 Ds to co-sponsor the EIS before its formal introduction occurs this coming week.

Having said that, there are numerous states beyond PA that are moving rapidly to adopt single payer reform in the next 2-3 years. Representatives from at least seven (7) states are gathering shortly in PA to discuss strategies, tactics, and resources-sharing. We're building a powerful state-based single payer movement that speaks to the inherent constitutional, historical and financial realities that cripple Washington,DC, on the one hand, and underscore the necessity of state-based healthcare innovation, on the other.

California keeps passing bills for state single-payer healthcare, but Ahhhnold won't sign em, and Jerry Brown who wants to be governor doesn't seem to want it badly enough to make a commitment on healthcare. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania is encouraged that their current governor has said he probably will sign a single-payer healthcare bill, and the legislature just might pass one. But Minnesota has an angle neither of these other states can claim: a serious candidate for governor who is the state's leading advocate for single-payer.

State Senator John Marty was the Democratic nominee for governor of Minnesota 16 years ago and is making another run for it. My friend Vin Gopal, who's working on Marty's campaign, tells me "Senator John Marty is the real deal. If he gets elected Governor this year, which he has a good shot at, it's a whole new ballgame for the single-payer movement. No other statewide candidate in the country is as committed to the movement as he is."

Marty tells me he's optimistic about bringing single-payer healthcare to Minnesota, and that he has a third of the legislature on board with it at this point. Marty's election campaign can be supported here http://www.facebook.com/l/26ec3;johnmarty.org and the campaign for single-payer in Minnesota can be found here http://www.facebook.com/l/26ec3;muhcc.org and here http://www.facebook.com/l/26ec3;mnhealthplan.org