What are you talking about? DC gets a lot of money from the feds.
As for DC’s crime and other problems, I lay the blame squarely on DC elected officials. They are some of the most incompetent politicians I’ve ever seen (I lived in DC for six years, so I know of what I speak). They do not have the political will to fight crime or the intelligence to realize their high tax/heavy regulation agenda hurts DC residents by driving business out of the city.
When I was in DC I never cared about having the right to vote. The people of DC have shown they will elect idiots (Marion Barry, Eleanor Holmes Norton, et. al.) when given the chance, so I wasn’t too sad that one of these idiots was not representing me in Congress.
The Constitution says that D.C. gets no representation. That made sense when it was written. The population of D.C. at the time was mostly politicians and government workers and their households. No need to have a representatvie in the government who represents the government.
Now things have changed. More than half a million non-politicians live there. They deserve equal representation.
Retrocession is a long-proposed remedy for the problem. It is unacceptable to the District’s political elite as they would have to look toward Annapolis. That would be no fun at all.
A more innovative solution would be to exempt DC residents from the Federal Income Tax. This would solve the ‘Taxation Without Representation’ problem. (In much the same way Puerto Rico has no Federal Income Tax.) This has never had much traction for one of two reasons:
The Congress does not want to cut taxes.
or
The DC governing class does not want the city to prosper, as that would bring in non-Black voters.
Take your pick.
The only solution acceptable to The Powers That Be is the one they insist on. Let them run the City by themselves, plus give us a voting Congresscritter. Nothing else will do.
Yeah, the District of Columbia government receives an annual subsidy from Congress, just shy of $600 million dollars last year (the overall annual city budget is $8 billion). I think they’d be in a better position to argue that the payment is inadequate if the hadn’t just forked over that same amount to build a new ballpark for the Nationals’ ownership.
Let’s put it this way, RTFirefly, when DC re-elected Marion Barry and Congress decided to essentially take away most of his power, Congress was certainly showing a lot of regard for the residents of DC. They let Marion run around and act like a mayor, and the financial control board essentially ran the city. They certainly did a better job than Barry would have done.
Where to begin. . . I view her as much more interested in getting in front of the cameras than actually getting anything done. However, that could be said of many politicians.
My main disagreements with her are mostly policy-related. For example, her opposition to school vouchers for DC kids. Or her opposition to relaxing the failed gun ban in the District. Things of that nature. When I was living there, I did not want someone like that voting for me on the House floor.
It’s not like we don’t have other territories without votes in Congress, no? When was the last time Puerto Rico or Guam was the deciding vote in the Senate? Hmmmm? Heck, they can’t even vote for President: at least people in DC can do that.
Well, there isn’t really much that she can do, since she can only vote in committees. This affects more than just those bills, too; she can’t bargain with other representatives to get their vote now and her vote for them later on, or at least nowhere near as effectively as anyone else can. Getting publicity is a way for her to focus attention on issues that matter to her constituents, who, for the most part (27% of D.C.'s jobs are federal) are not government workers.
By the way, gonzomax, the idea is to read the thread before you post so that you don’t propose what’s already been discussed. Maryland was first mentioned in Post #4.
Only if time is the only relevant variable. There are others, like: distance, commonality of interests, and (most important) whether or not there’s a problem in search of a solution.
D.C. is right next to Maryland. Once beyond Capitol Hill, the people in Northeast and Southeast are very much like the residents of nearby Prince George’s County. Those who live in the part of D.C. west of Rock Creek Park have a great deal in common with people who live in Montgomery County. If you live near Chevy Chase Circle, would it matter which side you’re on, if there weren’t a political boundary there? Do the families of upper Northwest D.C. not send their children to the same prep schools as the parents of Potomac, MD, do?
And of course, Virginia and West Virginia have no reason to reunite; nor do Louisiana and France. But D.C. has a problem: its citizens have no Congressional representation. One obvious possible solution is to shrink the Federal district to an enclave that would include the Mall and the nearby monument areas, the Federal Triangle plus a buffer zone of a few blocks each way, and not a whole lot else. And give the rest back to Maryland.
To my mind, this is purely a question of principle: do the people of DC deserve representation in Congress or not? Or to put it another way, are they less deserving than the people of any other state in the Union?
I’d be aghast if anyone thought that somehow the people of DC were *not *deserving. Of course, I’m aghast that 200 years on, the very capital of the nation founded on the idea of representative democracy is not allowed to participate in representative democracy.
The principle is everything; after that it’s just quibbling over mechanics.
I’m guessing this is a joke, but just in case:
A. The population of the minor four US territories combined is less than 430,000 people, and three have only been a part of the US for 30-60 years.
B. D.C. has been an essential part of the US since the country began, and residents have fought in every war.
Puerto Rico is a bit of a problem, as it is quite populous (27th, nearly 4 million people), but the majority of the people seem not to want their land to be a state. I personally would welcome its addition, but I think the opinion of the people living there matters more than mine. Given that, I see little justification in giving any non-state but D.C. a Representative.
I ask this in behalf of all Doper residents of North Carolina … and Pennsylvania … and Florida … and Texas … and – who else has, or has recently had, elective officials who were public embarrassments to their constituents?
Meanwhile, I find it interesting to find that “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” really means “as long as you follow proper procedure, you can remove rights with impunity”; and “the right of the people peacefully to assemble…to petition for a redress of grievances” somehow is transmogrified into a “right of free association” that permits discrimination within organizations; and “shall give full faith and credit” has a magical mysterious disappearing “except when contrary to public policy” clause, but, Gawddammit, “state” means “state” and nothing but (except that if four bodies call themselves a “commonwealth” they really meant to say “state”).
Apparently cherry-picking on what to take literally isn’t confined to religion.