Cognitive Dissonance

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I would appreciate your opinion, because I really can’t find enough on this and know you are a committed and it seems an informed supporter: what are the likely scenarios of winning the statehood?

What gets taken away?
What gets gained?
Can our economy support the state?
Etc.

There are a lot of unknowns involved here. I personally believe that the most likely scenario for DC statehood is a simple Congressional vote. I think the impetus will be a realization among Democrats that the Senate is increasingly undemocratic and unrepresentative. Adding two senators for DC will rectify that to some extent.

What gets taken away are services for which the Federal government is currently responsible, most notably our court system. DC would have to pay for that. Presumably, some DC program such as DC TAG might lose support, but who knows?

What we gain is more control over our affairs. We are less vulnerable to federal government shutdowns, don't have to worry about our laws being overturned by Congress, and our governor will have control of the DC National Guard. Most importantly, we get two Senators and a House member.

Yes, our economy can support being a state. States with smaller populations are able to do so.

[Anonymous]

I think I’m against statehood now.

[Anonymous]

To be clear, I asked the question but am not the PP

[Anonymous]

Another important question is the $ impact of the statehood on the DC households in different earning brackets? Cost or gain, average? How exactly is the state going to pay for things? What’s the governance?

Only DC, VT and WY have population under 700k. Our current GDP is artificially high due to the federal status. DC is 36th and VT and WY are, wait for it, dead last. At several multiple x less than DC (like 5-6x).

VT and WY have huge territory, tax havens, natural resources, or some combination thereof — we have none of that. Why isn’t this talked about at all?

There’s a smart play here — negotiate a no taxation, some representation for example. And then there’s the close your eyes and fly down the gnarly ski run and hope for the best.
I can sort of tell where we land if we keep going at it with no forethought.

I don’t trust any DC Councilmembers with any math (maybe White Sr?), so get someone ex-TRe who’ll tell the truth no matter what (Larry Summers?) and study it, and then let us vote.

I’m very worried and so are my property $$$

[Anonymous]

The allegory of the current approach to the DC statehood and the two bills of the politically motivated voters (the hosts) and the bewildered economically-literate voters (the chef).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

But Charles Allen has *repeatedly* said that such enhancements do nothing to lower the crime rate. He said it yesterday on WAMU. So why did he include that? Nothing he does makes a lick of sense. Please, explain it to me, because you clearly think you have all the answers.

Charles Allen can speak for himself and those of you with Charles Allen obsessions should probably look into a more constructive hobby. I personally don't think that longer jail terms have an impact on crime. But those of you who do should be pretty happy with the revision because it provides plenty of jail time.

If, as you say, the bill actually lengthens jail terms (which in your eyes doesn't work), then shouldn't you be against it?

No, I accept that if you hold out for perfection, you end up with nothing. Because the Mayor and a few others decided perfection was necessary, we are all getting nothing.

So this mess is all Bowser's fault now? The same Bowser that has been banned from the House floor or whatever cockamamie resolution the mouth-breather Republican chuds passed?

Now they're doing Bowser a favor? You're gonna have to show your work there.

The fact remains that the Council could have passed a bill that was 90-95 percent supported and simply not simply added every DC Justice Lab demand, which is *exactly* what happened (and anyone who shakes their fist at DFER for its shady funding should be extremely curious/furious about the DCJL's funding). Instead, we're back to square one because Charles Allen and his supporters on the Council forget every single rule about politics and now look like complete rubes.

Democrats, including Biden, have been using Bowser's veto to justify the motion for disapproval. Here is Biden's statement (with bolding added):

"I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings,

Because, as you say, Bowser was not happy with 5% less than perfection, we get nothing.

Moreover, Bowser was one of the leading voices in spreading a misleading understanding of the bill.

The notion that the feds are doing Bowser's bidding is comically misinformed. Bad policy and inept politics got us here.

The inept politics is entirely on Bowser's part. The Republicans are acting like Republicans. You can't expect more from them than that. But the Democrats believe they were given a green light by Bowser. Biden's own justification is that Bowser objected to the legislation
.

Considering she got the outcome she wanted, I would not be calling Bowser's politics "inept." It's hilarious that you clearly think Allen did a good job here. He's a dismal failure.

Bowser opposed the bill but when Congress stepped in, she pivoted to "Congress needs to mind its own business and this is why DC needs home rule." Weird position to be in.

Some posters have insinuated that the bill proposed some changes that would help prosecutors go after violent criminals and gun crimes, but haven't provided details. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. The people defending the bill have completely failed at giving a detailed, reasoned response. Meanwhile they are getting their lunch eaten over the glaring omission of mandatory minimums for violent and repeat offenders, along with the possibility that the courts may be overwhelmed with jury trials for misdemeanors.

Why not just take another crack at it and fix those obvious flaws?

Bowser vetoed the bill. She did not support it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I would appreciate your opinion, because I really can’t find enough on this and know you are a committed and it seems an informed supporter: what are the likely scenarios of winning the statehood?

What gets taken away?
What gets gained?
Can our economy support the state?
Etc.

There are a lot of unknowns involved here. I personally believe that the most likely scenario for DC statehood is a simple Congressional vote. I think the impetus will be a realization among Democrats that the Senate is increasingly undemocratic and unrepresentative. Adding two senators for DC will rectify that to some extent.

What gets taken away are services for which the Federal government is currently responsible, most notably our court system. DC would have to pay for that. Presumably, some DC program such as DC TAG might lose support, but who knows?

What we gain is more control over our affairs. We are less vulnerable to federal government shutdowns, don't have to worry about our laws being overturned by Congress, and our governor will have control of the DC National Guard. Most importantly, we get two Senators and a House member.

Yes, our economy can support being a state. States with smaller populations are able to do so.

I’m sorry I just looked up the numbers, and posted on it plus added a video that I think tells the story, and I don’t think the numbers add up at all.
Maybe if we negotiate some magical deal with the federal government. But to go 5x down in GDP (as you said there are other states) with all of our problems and then also pay for the judiciary and a bunch of other things (the federal grants are a quarter of the revenue and some things are paid for directly). There’s no world in which this could work? I’d love to be set straight. Love. Truly. Because I want to support it.

My analysis is a 2 minute wiki google, so must be wrong. But? Can’t find any analysis at all saying otherwise

Instead I support, based on the evidence to date, turning DC into a fully privileged federal district and a tax haven. Where we all become rich and the city is a gorgeous haven. Highly doable with a smarter set of folks at the helm. This too would require a study first.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I would appreciate your opinion, because I really can’t find enough on this and know you are a committed and it seems an informed supporter: what are the likely scenarios of winning the statehood?

What gets taken away?
What gets gained?
Can our economy support the state?
Etc.

There are a lot of unknowns involved here. I personally believe that the most likely scenario for DC statehood is a simple Congressional vote. I think the impetus will be a realization among Democrats that the Senate is increasingly undemocratic and unrepresentative. Adding two senators for DC will rectify that to some extent.

What gets taken away are services for which the Federal government is currently responsible, most notably our court system. DC would have to pay for that. Presumably, some DC program such as DC TAG might lose support, but who knows?

What we gain is more control over our affairs. We are less vulnerable to federal government shutdowns, don't have to worry about our laws being overturned by Congress, and our governor will have control of the DC National Guard. Most importantly, we get two Senators and a House member.

Yes, our economy can support being a state. States with smaller populations are able to do so.

I’m sorry I just looked up the numbers, and posted on it plus added a video that I think tells the story, and I don’t think the numbers add up at all.
Maybe if we negotiate some magical deal with the federal government. But to go 5x down in GDP (as you said there are other states) with all of our problems and then also pay for the judiciary and a bunch of other things (the federal grants are a quarter of the revenue and some things are paid for directly). There’s no world in which this could work? I’d love to be set straight. Love. Truly. Because I want to support it.

My analysis is a 2 minute wiki google, so must be wrong. But? Can’t find any analysis at all saying otherwise

Instead I support, based on the evidence to date, turning DC into a fully privileged federal district and a tax haven. Where we all become rich and the city is a gorgeous haven. Highly doable with a smarter set of folks at the helm. This too would require a study first.

I am not sure how you determined that our GDP would be reduced 5x. That makes no sense. Why would GDP decrease? We wouldn't be producing less.

You want Singapore. Do you really believe that "the world's greatest democracy" should have a tax-haven that is only affordable to the richest of the rich as its capital? Exactly why do you believe the same politicians that oppose statehood for DC would support making it a tax haven?

What is your proposal for the poor of DC who can't afford to live in your Singaporized DC?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I would appreciate your opinion, because I really can’t find enough on this and know you are a committed and it seems an informed supporter: what are the likely scenarios of winning the statehood?

What gets taken away?
What gets gained?
Can our economy support the state?
Etc.

There are a lot of unknowns involved here. I personally believe that the most likely scenario for DC statehood is a simple Congressional vote. I think the impetus will be a realization among Democrats that the Senate is increasingly undemocratic and unrepresentative. Adding two senators for DC will rectify that to some extent.

What gets taken away are services for which the Federal government is currently responsible, most notably our court system. DC would have to pay for that. Presumably, some DC program such as DC TAG might lose support, but who knows?

What we gain is more control over our affairs. We are less vulnerable to federal government shutdowns, don't have to worry about our laws being overturned by Congress, and our governor will have control of the DC National Guard. Most importantly, we get two Senators and a House member.

Yes, our economy can support being a state. States with smaller populations are able to do so.

I’m sorry I just looked up the numbers, and posted on it plus added a video that I think tells the story, and I don’t think the numbers add up at all.
Maybe if we negotiate some magical deal with the federal government. But to go 5x down in GDP (as you said there are other states) with all of our problems and then also pay for the judiciary and a bunch of other things (the federal grants are a quarter of the revenue and some things are paid for directly). There’s no world in which this could work? I’d love to be set straight. Love. Truly. Because I want to support it.

My analysis is a 2 minute wiki google, so must be wrong. But? Can’t find any analysis at all saying otherwise

Instead I support, based on the evidence to date, turning DC into a fully privileged federal district and a tax haven. Where we all become rich and the city is a gorgeous haven. Highly doable with a smarter set of folks at the helm. This too would require a study first.

I am not sure how you determined that our GDP would be reduced 5x. That makes no sense. Why would GDP decrease? We wouldn't be producing less.

You want Singapore. Do you really believe that "the world's greatest democracy" should have a tax-haven that is only affordable to the richest of the rich as its capital? Exactly why do you believe the same politicians that oppose statehood for DC would support making it a tax haven?

What is your proposal for the poor of DC who can't afford to live in your Singaporized DC?

What are we “producing”?

[Anonymous]

In 2021, the government and government enterprises industry added the most real value to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the District of Columbia, amounting to around 41.93 billion U.S. dollars. Comparatively, the manufacturing industry contributed around 281 million U.S. dollars to the districts real GDP.

I am assuming that of you want to be a state you don’t get to keep the entire government and government enterprises.

From there I’m looking at the 2 states comparable by population (you said, we can support ourselves just like these similar states). Well their GDP is 5-6x less but they in fact have something to produce. We not so much. So we’d have to find other ways to attract the producers.

It’s nuts to me to demand statehood first and then we’ll figure if out.

[Anonymous]

Here you go: 1-5 are highly dependent on DC being a federal
district.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1065920/district-of-columbia-real-gdp-by-industry/

[Anonymous]

Let’s know what we are in for and then let the voters decide. Unless that’s a terrible idea for political reasons

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I would appreciate your opinion, because I really can’t find enough on this and know you are a committed and it seems an informed supporter: what are the likely scenarios of winning the statehood?

What gets taken away?
What gets gained?
Can our economy support the state?
Etc.

There are a lot of unknowns involved here. I personally believe that the most likely scenario for DC statehood is a simple Congressional vote. I think the impetus will be a realization among Democrats that the Senate is increasingly undemocratic and unrepresentative. Adding two senators for DC will rectify that to some extent.

What gets taken away are services for which the Federal government is currently responsible, most notably our court system. DC would have to pay for that. Presumably, some DC program such as DC TAG might lose support, but who knows?

What we gain is more control over our affairs. We are less vulnerable to federal government shutdowns, don't have to worry about our laws being overturned by Congress, and our governor will have control of the DC National Guard. Most importantly, we get two Senators and a House member.

Yes, our economy can support being a state. States with smaller populations are able to do so.

I’m sorry I just looked up the numbers, and posted on it plus added a video that I think tells the story, and I don’t think the numbers add up at all.
Maybe if we negotiate some magical deal with the federal government. But to go 5x down in GDP (as you said there are other states) with all of our problems and then also pay for the judiciary and a bunch of other things (the federal grants are a quarter of the revenue and some things are paid for directly). There’s no world in which this could work? I’d love to be set straight. Love. Truly. Because I want to support it.

My analysis is a 2 minute wiki google, so must be wrong. But? Can’t find any analysis at all saying otherwise

Instead I support, based on the evidence to date, turning DC into a fully privileged federal district and a tax haven. Where we all become rich and the city is a gorgeous haven. Highly doable with a smarter set of folks at the helm. This too would require a study first.

I am not sure how you determined that our GDP would be reduced 5x. That makes no sense. Why would GDP decrease? We wouldn't be producing less.

You want Singapore. Do you really believe that "the world's greatest democracy" should have a tax-haven that is only affordable to the richest of the rich as its capital? Exactly why do you believe the same politicians that oppose statehood for DC would support making it a tax haven?

What is your proposal for the poor of DC who can't afford to live in your Singaporized DC?

No I don’t. I imagine DC as the first social utopia in the US. Mixed zoning. Affordable housing. Universal basic income, means tested. Free quality healthcare or universal coverage. Great schools. It’s been done.

[Anonymous]

By the way, I said that first, at the outset. Pages back

[Anonymous]

Andy Yang for the Governor?