Yeah make the capital of MD part of DC!
Seconded. Mister Chairman, I move the question.
I suspect that Maryland would not care to give up its capital, not would Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties consider themselves part of D.C. Metro.
Nor was the suggestion that they do so. The poster was simply trying to get a handle on the rough population involved in a move to remove metropolitan DC from Maryland and Virginia.
The flaw, of course, being that there is no real boundary any more between Metro DC and Metro Baltimore. It’s a little easier at the southern end of DC, because you have some space still between the southern part of Prince William County’s suburban areas and the northern suburbs of Fredricksburg. But if Quantico were not in the way, well, it’s developed down to Dumfries and doesn’t take long south of Quantico to get back into developed areas, as I see each time I visit my boys in Dale City and drive south to Fredricksburg. :eek:
“Anne Arundel arc of counties, south” includes everything from just north of Annapolis to Lookout Point, and thus (as already mentioned, had I only read ahead) inflates the population unreasonably.
But still, that’s not a bad idea, could a reasonable metro boundary be drawn, or at least a far better idea than making D.C. a state.
We folks in DC do not have any voting representative in Congress. At the very least, I think Americans should agree that all citizens of our country should all have someone in Congress to represent the views of their constituents. The status quo does not guarantee that.
I don’t agree with that. That would mean that Americans living in territories, Americans living abroad, etc, all should have representatives in Congress. It seems to take a lot of the point out of living in a state.
I think the difference between 4.75 million and 5.5 million is reasonable for a rough estimation of the population involved.
I’d say that if we* decide to give D.C. back to Maryland, D.C. and Maryland would both have to approve of the deal.
*-‘we’ being whoever would actually be in charge of making it work.
Yeah, you’re right. I lived in St. Mary’s for 15 years, and I was just bristling at the thought of taking it away from Maryland.
Why’s that?
I think in a democratic republic all law abiding people should have fair representation in the government. Excluding citizens of representation simply because they give in one particular city makes a mockery of the principle that every American should have a roughly equal say in the federal government.
Why is that wrong? Why should people of New York City and Bozeman, Montana have voting representation in Congress, but not the people of Washington, DC?
I agree that it makes little sense. We live in a Constitutional Republic that is based on states. If you don’t live in a state, you don’t get congressional votes. Puerto Rico is not equivalent to Hawaii because Hawaii has made the leap to statehood and Puerto Rico has not. Likewise, American Samoans and Virgin Islanders shouldn’t Congressional votes. It sounds a little unfair but the reasons are clear deep within the structure of the U.S. as defined by the Constitution.
People in D.C. tend to get a little warped because they live close to people that really do live in states. However, geography makes little difference in that respect and they are no different than someone born in Cleveland living in San Juan.
No, DC residents are very different from Puerto Ricans, because they pay federal income taxes.
That’s fine. They still can’t get congressional voting representation though based on raw cash outlays. The reason it is called The United States of America instead of the The United States and Assorted Territorial Bodies as Well as a Federal District of America wasn’t just a stylistic choice. Congress doesn’t exist to represent people directly. It is the national governing body of the states. The concept of states in embedded deeply in the Constitution and it can’t work as it is now by allowing things that aren’t states to have voting rights. When come back, bring statehood.
Puerto Ricans have never established a consensus that they want to be a state. The same seems to be true of Guam and USVI. I can’t find that Samoa has ever addressed the issue.
The people of DC, I would bet, would vote overwhelmingly for statehood – perhaps as high as 80 or 90%. But we’re told no no, the Constitution says you can’t be a state without amending the Constitution. And that is right. So can I take it that you would support amending the Constitution so DC can be treated like any other state?
No, again, there is a difference. The people of Puerto Rico have spoken and said they don’t want representation, so the Clevelander is abiding by the will of the majority. The overwhelming number of Washingtonians want a representative in Congress, but are ignored because the Constitution has a clause that you haven’t even tried to defend the substance of (“I agree that it makes little sense.”)
If you agree that it makes little sense, what’s wrong with changing things so that they make sense?
All in all, excepting the District from the income tax seems the best option. (Newt proposed this.) This solves the very real “Taxation without Representation” issue. Also DC tax revenue would go up (ad the local income tax increases to be just short of the federal levy), encouraging gentrification and urban recovery.
(Eleanor Holmes-Norton was just on NPR making her case. Without a doubt, one of my favorite politicians. THis brings to mind Jesse Jackson, DC’s first and only 'Shadow Senator." WHy did he walk away from the people of the District?)
Congress could grant statehood to DC by law.
Do you support statehood for the District of Columbia?
His term expired. DC has two of them, Paul Strauss and Michael Brown.
I honestly have trouble sympathizing with people who work towards full representation for the district (disclaimer, I lived in the DC metro area for more than 20 years). It’s not like it’s some big surprise that there’s no representation there…it’s spelled out in pretty much the oldest rulebook there is for the nation. Furthermore, without those rules it’s pretty much certain that the city wouldn’t be there at all (or at least not the size, scope, and importance that it currently holds. It’s sort of like those folks who move under the flightlines of Dulles and then work to get them to quiet it down. You know what the deal was right from the start.
And it’s not like it’s hard for anyone to move five miles and get represented if they’re that up in arms about it.
I am all for killing both the federal income tax and the federal payment. The rules in DC are already different…why not make them a little more different and see if a lower tax rate will spur development and business investment. If the DC government could resist the impulse to up the city tax rate so that there wasn’t a net gain I think that would be an important incentive for economic development.
Hey!! I am checking in to give a little love for the District here and remind folks this this isn’t 1987.
Forbes says it is the 9th richest city in the Nation based on median income, it’s population increased in the Census for the first time since 1950 in 2000 and the crime rate has been collapsing, names of some of the worst neighborhoods of a decade ago are now some of the nicest places you could live (if you want to live in DC).
Just saying alot of the debate here is what a burden Maryland must undertake were this to happen-- I think this deserves mention - it is a rich City now and it is trending getting richer.