Of course (the people of) DC should get a voice in Congress – except that there is no constitutional provision for it. Short of a constitutional amendment, the only way they can get it is either (1) admitting DC as the 51st State of the Union (in the process, shrinking the constitutionally-mandated “federal district” down to the Mall and environs), or (2) ceding the whole city to Maryland (in the process, etc.). Politically, a constitutional amendment probably has a better shot than either.
A far better (but even less politically viable) solution would be to admit the whole Washington Metropolitan Area as the 51st state. DC alone has a substantial daytime population of people who work there but live in the suburbs, i.e., who would pay the new state taxes but couldn’t vote there; you can’t build a politically or economically viable state on that basis. And a metropolitan state government could plan for metropolitan needs better than any existing government in the region can. OTOH, try getting the Virginia and Maryland legislatures to give up some of their most revenue-rich counties.
(1) opinion (and partisan politics) in PR is divided over whether PR should be granted independence, or made a state, or continue in commonwealth status indefinitely; the first two POVs have about equal public support, and the third has more than either; and that is partly because
(2) PR seems to be doing well enough out of the status quo, more or less, but mainly because
(3) everyone understands that if PR ever becomes a state of the Union it will never, ever be independent, and if it ever becomes independent it will never, ever be a state of the Union, but maintaining the status quo keeps all options open.
The actual division is a more or less even match between move towards statehood vs. maintain commonwealth but add enhancements; with supporters of independence being a distant third.
What complicates this is that underlying that 3-choice split is a more complex dynamic. A large faction in the pro-commonwealth vote is really a “cultural nationalist” vote based on identity-politics, where the pro-commonwealth party openly courts nationalist voters to vote commonwealth “strategically” as the way to prevent statehood, essentially recruiting a faction that supports “independence eventually, but not for now”. OTOH however, that party has another very large “loyalist” faction (whence have come all its chairmen and governors for the last 30 years) who feel it’s the economic arrangement that is the key and are the ones on the “hey, being under the aegis of the US works good, all we need is to tweak it” vibe. If the commonwealth discourse moves too far to the nationalist side, some of these guys will cross into the statehood camp. Meanwhile the pro-statehood party has a large faction that’s gung-ho on statehood and being a proper part of modern diverse America, but yet another significant and loud faction that really cares more about just ensure me the maximum US citizenship benefits and protection possible and oh God please don’t cast me out, Castro and Chavez will eat me :rolleyes: ; this last group tends to not really do much of practical use for the cause if they don’t feel an imminent threat from the nationalist side.
This IS the most powerful selling point of the pro-commonwealth party. Which annoys the rest of us, statehooders and independentists alike, because it means that we’re preaching to a people who may be happy to never get off their asses to do something definitive as long as they can just muddle through.
[/hijack, if any followup let’s open another thread]
We just did this two months ago. Maybe the public will agree to give us voting representation if we promise to stop making so many threads on the topic.
If we are talking about what is realistically possible then we are stuck with status quo. If we are talking about what are good solutions that fair minded folks should accept then it is either (1) retrocession (Maryland would never go for it but it would be an equitable result), a constitutional amendment that gives DC a congressman (you might get it past congress but you would never get 2/3 of states to ratify it, and the least equitable result of all the options) or statehood (not possible as long as the congress is so evenly split and DC is so hard core Democrat).
That would throw the presidency to the Democrats for the forseeable future and make DC more important than California. Get 10K people to vote in Florida, another 100K to vote in Pennsylvania, another 50K to vote in Ohio. and pretty soon you have every swing state locked up for generations.
You pay taxes based on where you earn your income, you get a vote based on where you live. You at least get a vote somewhere, DC rsident get a vote nowhere.
No, but it wouldn’t be wrong if the Congress required them to.
They do, but in my opinion, they shouldn’t, at least not in the case of people who don’t keep a legal residence in a state. But even in that case, they’re still electing a representative or senator from a state.
AIUI, the inhabitants of the territories (save if the Congress lets them adopt the PR system as mentioned below) fill out form 1040 and hand over the same proportion of their income as stateside residents of sdimilar income and deductions, but the revenue raised is then covered over into the territorial treasury. Which apparently is NOT done for DC – and would even probably be resented by other states (including many who are themselves a net drain re: Federal expenditure vs. revenue raised) if tried.
As Captain Amazing correctly points out, there would be no real legal or constitutional prohibition for Congress to legislate to fully apply the Federal Income Tax on equal footing to the people of the unincorporated territories.
There’s a very worthwhile tax advantage for offshore corporations with an incentive concession, but NOT for private persons.
PR has the privilege of decoupling its revenue system from the IRS’s, but all that means for a common individual is you get reamed in Spanish rather than in English. If it’s your legal residence and the source of your income is exclusively work or trade done in PR you need not worry with IRS Form 1040 BUT in most cases you may very likely pay MORE than you would in Federal Income Taxes, as Commonwealth Income Taxes (our brackets ratchet up much earlier). If you have income generated stateside you’ll have to fill the 1040 and take a partial local credit for what you paid to the Feds, or viceversa however it goes. The Commonwealth Government could adopt a low-tax policy, but it’s already near bankrupt as things stand.
Please note that I support granting full rights to DC residents, including Senate representation. I just want this done in a constitutional fashion - retrocession seems the best way to accomplish this.
And the “no taxation without representation” statement is a slogan and not a serious argument.
We shouldn’t need to present a “serious argument” in in order to understand that people should be able to have a voice in how their taxes are spent. It should be the default position.
Again, when I had to write a check for several hundred dollars to the state of California because I earned income there - what say did I get over how those taxes were spent? None whatsoever. And the fact that I did have some input over my Virginia taxes didn’t change that fact, did it?
That’s a pretty compelling reason why we shouldn’t use this argument. Most of us pay taxes many places we have no political input - and this could lead some to unfairly dismiss the legitimate complaints of DC residents as mere complaints about taxes.
I’m against DC having voting representation in Congress for the simple reason that it’s not a state. Guam and Puerto Rico aren’t states either so why should DC be the only one of the territories (term taken here to mean not a state) to get voting representation? I’m also against any of the territories, including DC, having non-voting representation in Congress.
Make them a state. There’s no reason why it can’t work. Look at all the state capital cities for examples on how to manage the situation.
I just joined and didn’t follow the board closely before. Cut me some slack. Plus I’m posing an entirely different question in which I wanted to ask people who DO NOT live in DC if they support or do not support DC gaining Representation. I’m happy people are responding by thinking of scenarios in which DC could/could not gain representation, but I was wondering more how the public feels about this in general.
Every state has advantages and disadvantages. It’s part of choosing where to live. I live in Phoenix so if DC gets representation, I demand that the temperature not go above 100 degrees in the summer.
Last year I stayed in a hotel in North Carolina while traveling. I am not a resident of North Carolina, but I had to pay an occupancy tax, a service tax, and I also paid sales tax on items that I purchased there.
I paid three separate taxes, yet I have no voice in the governance of North Carolina.
In all seriousness, though, since the founding of the city, DC has not had federal representation. If you move there or continue to live there, you do so will full foreknowledge. It was set up solely as a place to house the national government, and I don’t see the need for a change, except to give two Senators and one Rep to the Dems.