s/o Give DC back to Maryland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not dumb at all. 650,000 people have no representation. That is an outrage. At the same time, I don't want to give 60 square miles 2 senators either.

Makes perfect sense. Maryland would move up to top 16 in population. Save tax dollars with more economies of scale.

Those 60 square miles have more people than Vermont or Wyoming, and they get two Senators.

No need to make another stupid mistake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not dumb at all. 650,000 people have no representation. That is an outrage. At the same time, I don't want to give 60 square miles 2 senators either.

Makes perfect sense. Maryland would move up to top 16 in population. Save tax dollars with more economies of scale.

Native Washingtonian. Fully support independent statehood, am appalled that this is the state if things with the seat of our federal government. Horrendous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd go for that. And I'm a republican from VA.

Hell even letting DC pass it's own budget just like a state would be a good step forward. I'm not inclined to add more three more congressmen to Congress, so I'd rather they go to MD.

Same here. DC is 90% democrat; MD is 2 to 1. It simply pushes MD a little further in a direction it's already headed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not dumb at all. 650,000 people have no representation. That is an outrage. At the same time, I don't want to give 60 square miles 2 senators either.

Makes perfect sense. Maryland would move up to top 16 in population. Save tax dollars with more economies of scale.

Those 60 square miles have more people than Vermont or Wyoming, and they get two Senators.

No need to make another stupid mistake

It's hard to see DC being economically sustainable as a state, particularly if the level of direct federal payments were to drop. A direct commuter tax is a political non-starter. VT and WY are sustainable as states because they have relatively low concentrations of urban poor and can spread demand and funding for state services across a broader economic base. While DC has pockets of wealth, it needs to/chooses to provide social services at a high level (well, at least high cost level) to a substantial needy population. Moreover, if DC were to raise taxes on businesses in a short-sighted move, many trade associations, etc. would easily decamp to Rosslyn or Bethesda. Ask yourself for examples of other US cities that are basically self-sustaining with no broader state aid. There aren't any.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure, PP. NYC is not self-sustaining? San Francisco?

I think urban areas are getting more wealthy by the year.

But if you are right, maybe they sweeten the pot by paying taxes on the federal facilities as they do now.

[Anonymous]

It is the best idea in terms of gaining full Congressional representation for DC, however, Maryland would never bite.

Western Maryland would object to the state becoming that much more Democratic. Baltimore would object to having to share political power, influence, etc. with the city formerly known as Washington, DC.

Outside of retrocession of most of current Washington, DC, the idea of redrawing state lines is a no-go (i.e., no joining MoCo, most of DC, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it very well might happen. it is called RETROCESSION.

politically, it works. MD has two Dem senators already.

historically, it works. DC was once part of MD.

and now, finally, economically, it works, with DC's wealth exploding and no longer adding another poor Baltimore, Jr. to the welfare rolls.

still, Orioles >>>> Nats.

Many states have more than one team in a league.

[Anonymous]

Western Maryland would object to the state becoming that much more Democratic.

Heh. Indeed. They are trying to secede already, just imagine if we added 600,000 more Democrats!

[Anonymous]

Would the votes from DC tip the scales enough for legal weed in MD?

[Anonymous]

I predict legal weed in MD in the next couple of years, DC or no DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not dumb at all. 650,000 people have no representation. That is an outrage. At the same time, I don't want to give 60 square miles 2 senators either.

Makes perfect sense. Maryland would move up to top 16 in population. Save tax dollars with more economies of scale.

Those 60 square miles have more people than Vermont or Wyoming, and they get two Senators.

I agree. It's time for proportional representation. 2 senators each represent Wyoming (584,000) and Vermont (626,000). Two senators represent California's population of 38 million. That's insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not dumb at all. 650,000 people have no representation. That is an outrage. At the same time, I don't want to give 60 square miles 2 senators either.

Makes perfect sense. Maryland would move up to top 16 in population. Save tax dollars with more economies of scale.

Those 60 square miles have more people than Vermont or Wyoming, and they get two Senators.

I agree. It's time for proportional representation. 2 senators each represent Wyoming (584,000) and Vermont (626,000). Two senators represent California's population of 38 million. That's insanity.

It's a bicameral legislature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure, PP. NYC is not self-sustaining? San Francisco?

I think urban areas are getting more wealthy by the year.

But if you are right, maybe they sweeten the pot by paying taxes on the federal facilities as they do now.

No, NYC is not self-sustaining. It gets a ton of aid from New York State. NYS and the feds also kept the city afloat when it needed the bailout several decades ago. The Port Authority, which is a state agency operated jointly with New Jersey, also maintains NYC's airports, tunnels, most bridges, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is the best idea in terms of gaining full Congressional representation for DC, however, Maryland would never bite.

Western Maryland would object to the state becoming that much more Democratic. Baltimore would object to having to share political power, influence, etc. with the city formerly known as Washington, DC.

Outside of retrocession of most of current Washington, DC, the idea of redrawing state lines is a no-go (i.e., no joining MoCo, most of DC, etc).

The city would still be called Washington. I wouldn't be sorry to see the overused "DeeCee" name go.

[Anonymous]

It's a bicameral legislature.

+1

CA's House delegation is 53 times larger than either VT's or WY's.