But that doesn’t answer the question of why the people of this little geographical area should be denied a voting member of Congress.
What sense does it make for me to be represented by two senators and a congressman if I live in one place, but if I move 20 feet away, I don’t have any?
Again, please see my question pertaining to the value of representation if one has no means to change it. Also, if I wrote Senator Tester a letter on an important DC issue, do you think he or his staff would spend time to fix the problem I wrote about, or even take my concerns seriously?
Take it from someone who has lived and worked in the DC area most of his life – this just isn’t how it works. The people of DC cannot vote for Senator Tester, and so their opinions and their welfare do not matter to him. They are occasionally useful to him for the purpose of making news with the people who do vote for Senator Tester, when they can be used a backdrop or test bed or scapegoat, but that’s it.
Surely this would not have been your answers to slavery?
There are several solutions. None of them provide little DC with a senator and representative.
The first is retrocession of DC back to Maryland. Oddly, I understand the new Colombia County would not even be Maryland’s largest. It would upset Maryland’s political applecart and so the ruling class of Maryland opposes it. Still, it could work.
Next we could simply exempt residents of DC from federal taxes. Call it the Puerto Rico solution. This would lead to massive changes in the makeup of the district’s population and so is opposed by the DC ruling class. Still, I like the idea. No representation and no taxation.
As for a smallish city having a senator and a representative; forget it. It will not happen.
No, it isn’t. Nobody in Congress cares about the residents of DC, because they have absolutely no power. Living in the same place makes no difference; Tester has no reason to care what somebody living in an apartment in DC thinks.
They don’t pay federal income taxes, but Puerto Rico and Guam tax their citizens at the same rate and using the same tables as the federal government does. So as far as that’s concerned, there’s not much practical difference to the individual paying the tax whether he or she pays federal income tax or Puerto Rico income tax…the percentages and filing rules are the same.
Actually, the more I think about it, I’m having a harder time coming up with a good reason why the delegates from those places shouldn’t have a vote in Congress if the people wanted that to be the case. It goes back to the principle of one man, one vote.
But please explain to me WHY it makes sense that if I live in Maryland, I ought to have two senators and a congressman, but if I live across the street in DC, having one representative in Congress is a bad thing.
Because D.C. is not a state. D.C. is supposed to be a federal enclave that houses the seat of government. If you decide to treat D.C. like everywhere else then you have done away with the whole idea/need for its separate existence in the first place and you might as well retrocede it to Maryland.
Assuming Senator Tester even lives in DC and not in either the Virginia or Maryland Suburbs. But even assuming that he did, what makes you think that he gives a shit about what the DC electorate wants?
Personally, I think that retrocession is the way to go. DC politics tends to be very insular and it seems like the same faces are around since they don’t have any higher office to aspire to. Maybe being part of a state, they can run for higher office and things can be done.
I don’t buy the argument that DC was set up by the founding fathers to be what it is, therefore it should stay the way it is forever. The founding fathers were human and were certainly capable of error. They decided that blacks should count as 3/5ths of a person for votes and that slavery was ok.
The main argument was that a state couldn’t be counted on to step in and protect Congress and would unduly influence the Congress. This belief arose from the Pennsylvania Mutiny. However, under our current system, the federal government is much stronger than it was back then and the militias are pretty much non-existent. Do you think that the National Guard would march on Congress? Do you think that they have a chance against the Marines that are stationed in DC proper and the army units stationed nearby?
Additionally, Congressmen and Senators fly home most weekends. There were a few of them who slept in their offices and spent very little time in the City.
It is a solution to a problem that no longer exists. I should note that a portion of the federal government has offices in the suburbs, and they seem to be functioning without state interference.
Additionally, under the Home Rule Act, DC laws are subject to review by Congress. If Congress decides that they don’t like a law passed by the DC Council, they can over turn it. This hardly seems democratic. And if the voters don’t like that, well, it hardly matters since they don’t get to elect Senator Tester, do they? Senator Tester care more about what is happening back home then he does in DC.
DC is actually do better than it has for a long time. The population has grown, and large parts of the city are safer. Capitol Hill is safe after dark now.
But surely those taxes are collected and spent by locally elected officials, no? The mere fact that they use federal tax tables doesn’t make the tax federal.
Note: I know absolutely nothing about the political organization of US territories.
Sorry, I meant about 40 blocks across (both ways).
Second, your population figures don’t particularly impress me. Of course, I’m generally of the opinion that several small northeastern states shoulod be glued together, and that Wyoming should possily still be a federal territory.
Darn, messed up.
More practically however, I never disputed that DC has nice stuff. It’s just that the poeple living there have shown no capacity for self-govenment. Furthermore, the very tone in which its defenders angstily huddle reveals an awful damn lot about the place.
DC was, is, and remains set aside so that it cannot ever overtly influence the Federal government, ever. It is a tiny patch of a huge nation, and the situation is not analogous to any being stripped of any rights by the government. Living a two miles away from Maryland but being too lazy to move is just like slavery. Bull The mean and pathetic spirit which claims this has insulted actual slaves and/or has no historical knowledge.
I might be inclined to accept a couple outer areas being stripped off and put into Maryland, but I don’t. Primarily because DC’ers whine like babies. Seriously, you are your own worst arguement. We might be more sympathetic if DC’ers didn’t complain about it endlessly, acting as if it’s their god-given right or something, rather than the result of their own damn choice to live there.
Frankly, it reminds of nothing more than the fools who went and decided to build a city below sea level, and then were shocked, shocked when New Orleans flooded. I can pity them, but not without laughing at them, because they went into it knowing what was going to happen. And pity them or not, I don’t favor spending a dime to rebuild for them. Same with DC.
Take a look at a map. NW DC is roughly 41 blocks wide. NE is another 30.
See my argument above. Do you think that becoming a state will make them more able to overtly influence the government other than participating in the legislative process?
Except how many people can just up an move? How many people are third or fourth generation who have roots in the community. DC isn’t just made up of transient people who come for a few years and then leave. DC has 561,000 residents.
Using your logic, any group that complains about how it is treated should be told to shut up because they are “whiny”. Lovely.
One has to demonstrate a capacity for self-government before getting self-government? That seems like an odd position; it’s like refusing to extend the franchise to 18 year olds until they show they voted wisely in the past election.
[ol]
[li]Put my home on the market and sell it.[/li][li]Pay capital gains taxes on the sale.[/li][li]Find an equivalent home somewhere in Maryland, likely costing about 4 or 5 times the cost of the original purchase price of my current home in DC.[/li][li]Pay the cost of a professional moving company.[/li][li]Cancel and set up all of my utilities.[/li][li]Since I would now have a daily commute, I need to buy a car and deal with all of the wonderful things that come with car ownership.[/li][li]Uproot the kids from their current school to a new one.[/li][/ol]
And dozens more. Because I don’t want to do all of these things, I am called lazy :mad:
Multiply the above by 560,000 (250,000 for #1-3) in order to get all of the District’s residents into Maryland so that they can be properly represented.
On the contrary - I find those who dismissively wave off the inequity and continue to demonstrate their complete and total lack of comprehension of the matter to be lazy.
Don’t want to pass legislation giving proper representation? Lazy.
Don’t want to amend the constitution? Lazy.
Don’t want to redraw the boundaries identifying the federal land? Lazy.
Yeah it’s much easier to get 600 thousand people to uproot their lives and turn the District into a ghost town. What is worse, once all of those people who are most capable of relocating actually do so under the Smiling Bandit Population Transfer Edict, what do you think the remaining population will look like?
