Two problems with the “no taxation without representation” thing.
That scum-sucking…whoops, this is GD, not the Pit. Anyway, the able and distinguished Chris Dodd doesn’t represent me in any significant way; I’ve never even voted for him. Does that mean I get to withhold my federal income tax?
(Incidentally, I trust everyone knows the old joke about how one senator disses another on the Senate floor? No, I’m not a senator, but sauce for the goose…)
Also, what about this “tax bracket” thingie? Does taxing my income at twice the rate of another give me two votes instead of one? No? “Taxation with representation” appears to mean “Any amount of taxation with any amount of representation”.
So, D.C. is already represented through the offices of the extremely able Eleanor Holmes. Now, stop whining. You’re embarassing the rest of us.
Wait a sec…how is DC “well represented” by Eleanor Holmes? She can’t vote! Yeah, that’s great representation there.
Also, doesn’t Congress have to approve DC’s budget every year? (My memory may be faulty on this…) If Congress gets to decide how DC spends its tax money, then damn straight DC deserves a vote on that one. And FTR, I’m not whining. Just saying DC deserves what EVERY OTHER FREAKING STATE has. Including mine. Then again, I’m one of those wackos who agrees there should be a commuter tax in DC, so what do I know…
Remember back in . . . what, '96? When D.C. had a medicinal marijuana ballot issue, and when it appeared it was going to pass, Congress would not release the necessary funds to D.C. City Council to let them finish counting the ballots? Boy, that sure was democratic of them.
Oh, you don’t want representation, you want someone with a long-handled spoon to go in and get you your share of the swag. That’s different.
The “taxation without representation” issue was pretty much killed by the 16th amendment; the 24th amendment drove a stake through its heart to ensure it stayed dead. When the New Columbia crowd is ready to discuss repealing the 16th (I’ll concede the 24th to the civil right folks), we’ll talk. Until then, hasta luego.
Akat- I’m completely confused by your position here.
Are you saying that someone who attends meetings of Congress and participates in debates is just as valid a representation of the votes as a Congressperson who votes?
No matter what the issue, Eleanor Holmes Norton cannot vote (okay, specifically, she can vote upon an issue when the votes have already been cast and her votes specifically would not change the outcome of the vote, but that’s about the equivalent of not being able to vote). Congress decides how much they’ll pay DC for the services DC provides to Federal buildings? Norton can’t vote. She can talk, she can debate, she can whine, but when it comes down to the vote on the matter, she just sits off to the side and watches.
In essence, DC has a federally-funded lobbyist. That’s all Norton is. What DC wants is for Norton to actually gain a vote, to be able to have her voice mean something, for some sort of representation in the Senate (where DC has nada).
I don’t see how this is merely “getting [their] share of the swag”- this is allowing DC citizens the same rights as, oh, say, the citizens of Vermont or North Dakota. Why should DC residents have no say in how the Federal government acts towards their city, especially given how important what the Feds do is to their city? This isn’t going in for the pork barrel- this is just giving DC citizens the same rights that, say, New Yorkers have. Why is that such a problem to you?
