Why DC Has No Congressmen
Tags:
Around town, this is a very popular plate (first two numbers obscured out of respect for privacy):
Because the folks in the District of Columbia like to whine about how they're the only people in the US who don't have direct representation in the Senate or House of Representatives.
"Why?" they ask.
Well, there's the fact that, like the electoral college, we've been doing it that way for centuries. (Then again, the VP used to be the second-place finisher in the presidential race, and it wasn't until 1913 that Senators were directly elected by voters.)
More cynically, the move would add sure-thing votes to the Democrats; one in the House and two in the Senate (cutting the Republican majority to a single Senator). No Republican in their right mind would ever vote for such a political setback.
But the main reason can be summed up in two words: Marion Barry.
Not only did the voters of DC elect a man who was later caught smoking crack with a prostitute, they re-elected him soon thereafter. Now, fresh off getting caught with more coke and some pot, Barry appears to be preparing for another run.
What is the excuse for that? The rest of the US gets to elect idiots to the Senate (Strom Thurmond) and House (Jim Moran), so DC should too? Hah.
As screwed up as the system is, we shouldn't deny those people statehood. DC has a larger population than Wyoming.
People may not pick great people, but guess what? They exercised their right to choose. And who are you to decide for them?
Posted by: O'dell on June 2, 2004 3:15 PM | permalinkThere were sound reasons to locate the Federal Government outside the bounds of any one state when the coutnry was founded. If those reasons no longer apply, then the simplest solution is to give the District back to the state of Maryland, where it came from in the first place, as Arlington and Alexandria were retroceded to Virginia in the 1830's. A simple Executive Order did it, after the Federal Gov't decided it would not need that much territory.
Keep the Mall and Federal buildings as Fed property and turn the rest over to Maryland. Let them deal with it.
The Democrats would probably be upset, but hey that's life.
There is a lot of DC-specific infrastructure that would be expensive to replace. Suddenly, instead of paying DC income tax, they are to pay MD income tax? That's not fair to take away their DC identity. Hey, why don't we combine the Carolinas, Dakotas, and Virginias next? New England might as well be one state, too.
Posted by: O'dell on June 2, 2004 4:03 PM | permalinkO'Dell, you want to combine all of New England into one state? We got enough problems just being Cow Hampshire, and you wanna lump us in with the Maine-iacs, Massholes, and VerMonsters? I think not...
I agree with ceding it back to Maryland, though. It's a flipping CITY. It doesn't have the AREA to be considered a state. The days of city-states (with the exception of the Vatican) are over, and good riddance.
O'Dell, I don't mean to cast aspersions on your motives for pushing for DC statehood, so I won't pass along that rumor I heard that your family is heavily into the flag business, and would make a KILLING if we had to replace every single flag in the country with new ones with 51 stars...
J.
I recently read that the federal government has already paid someone to design 51 through 56 star versions of the flag. I think Puerto Rico has the best chance of being #51. No clue what they have in mind for the rest.
Posted by: O'dell on June 2, 2004 8:35 PM | permalinkWell, if it was on the internet -- it must be true!
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on June 2, 2004 9:47 PM | permalinkIf I remember reading the original discussions around DC's "unique status," it was largely due to the impact that originally, most politicians lived in the District, and therefore, were somewhat representative of it. This ceased to be true in the mid-20th century, and in fact, I suspect no more than 10% of politicians live in the District, and if they do, they certainly live in the most expensive sections where they are insulated from the problems the city faces.
Additionally, the original designation predated the creation of the income tax as well, and therefore did not take the taxation issue into consideration. I suspect that plenty of DC residents would be willing to accept lack of representation if they got say, no taxes, and exemption from war. If DC people are going to die in a war (which hundreds have over the years), then it seems immoral to not give them any representation into the system.
Posted by: petrilli on June 2, 2004 11:12 PM | permalink"Well, if it was on the internet -- it must be true!"
I don't see why is so unreasonable to believe that:
1. The government wasted money
2. The government is looking to the future
I mean, they increased spending on the Selective Service draft board thing, and Bush has required they be ready by June of next year, but that doesn't mean that we'll have a draft, right?
Perhaps they are thinking ahead to lunar settlements that would serve under the flag.
Posted by: O'dell on June 3, 2004 9:43 AM | permalinkWell said, petrilli. If they don't have any representation in congress, they shouldn't have to pay federal taxes. It's one of the reasons the colonists rebelled against the British in the 1770's.
And Eleanor Holmes Norton doesn't count -- she has a seat in congress but is unable to vote.
No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.