Obamas now DC residents. They've joined those of us who really have taxation without representation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC cannot afford statehood and the monochromatic council would run it into the ground. They want to increase council size to 21 council members. They get paid $130K per year + $500K for office staff for a part-time job. The Paid leave Bill sends .64 of every dollar to Md. or Va. Seriously are they for real? Anyway, retrocession to Md. while we still have the tax base to make it interesting.

What do you mean by "monochromatic"?

Stupid and ideological.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC native here. I find it infuriating that we do not have representation in the national legislature- this is not a democracy! The Dakotas have four senators and we have zero. Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever change. Perhaps if more people knew about this state of affairs they would agitate for change - but again, I don't see that happening.

We sort of have a representative in Congress, but she's so ineffective --in part because most Democrats can't stand her either.

[Anonymous]

DC Vote is doing a DC Statehood lobby day on Feb. 15. Join up! Dcvote.org

[Anonymous]

I have a hypothetical question for you. In exchange for DC Statehood, would you be willing to allow Nebraska to split into East Nebraska and West Nebraska?

If the reason that you want statehood is so that you have national representation in the Senate and House (and not just more Democratic representation), and the reason conservatives oppose it is because it would give the Left two extra U.S. Senators, then this plan should satisfy both sides.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I have a hypothetical question for you. In exchange for DC Statehood, would you be willing to allow Nebraska to split into East Nebraska and West Nebraska?

If the reason that you want statehood is so that you have national representation in the Senate and House (and not just more Democratic representation), and the reason conservatives oppose it is because it would give the Left two extra U.S. Senators, then this plan should satisfy both sides.

We want statehood so that we will have the same right to representation as other Americans and not have to suffer some yahoo from Utah overturning our laws. Why the hell would we care about what happens in Nebraska? That's Nebraskans' problem. Though a better solution is statehood for Puerto Rico.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hypothetical question for you. In exchange for DC Statehood, would you be willing to allow Nebraska to split into East Nebraska and West Nebraska?

If the reason that you want statehood is so that you have national representation in the Senate and House (and not just more Democratic representation), and the reason conservatives oppose it is because it would give the Left two extra U.S. Senators, then this plan should satisfy both sides.

We want statehood so that we will have the same right to representation as other Americans and not have to suffer some yahoo from Utah overturning our laws. Why the hell would we care about what happens in Nebraska? That's Nebraskans' problem. Though a better solution is statehood for Puerto Rico.

Jeff, Could you go ahead and answer the question?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hypothetical question for you. In exchange for DC Statehood, would you be willing to allow Nebraska to split into East Nebraska and West Nebraska?

If the reason that you want statehood is so that you have national representation in the Senate and House (and not just more Democratic representation), and the reason conservatives oppose it is because it would give the Left two extra U.S. Senators, then this plan should satisfy both sides.

We want statehood so that we will have the same right to representation as other Americans and not have to suffer some yahoo from Utah overturning our laws. Why the hell would we care about what happens in Nebraska? That's Nebraskans' problem. Though a better solution is statehood for Puerto Rico.

Jeff, Could you go ahead and answer the question?

I did answer it. I have no opinion on what Nebraskans do with their state boundaries. I certainly wouldn't care if Nebraska or any other state split at the same time DC received statehood, but our statehood should not be dependent on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC native here. I find it infuriating that we do not have representation in the national legislature- this is not a democracy! The Dakotas have four senators and we have zero. Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever change. Perhaps if more people knew about this state of affairs they would agitate for change - but again, I don't see that happening.

We sort of have a representative in Congress, but she's so ineffective --in part because most Democrats can't stand her either.

She's ineffective because she's a NON-VOTING "representative."

[Anonymous]

They should cede most of D.C. Back to Maryland like they did with Arlington. Then you would have representation. Leave the WH, Capitol, the Mall, and other federal areas as the federal district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should cede most of D.C. Back to Maryland like they did with Arlington. Then you would have representation. Leave the WH, Capitol, the Mall, and other federal areas as the federal district.

That's a great solution! Except neither DC nor Maryland wants that solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a hypothetical question for you. In exchange for DC Statehood, would you be willing to allow Nebraska to split into East Nebraska and West Nebraska?

If the reason that you want statehood is so that you have national representation in the Senate and House (and not just more Democratic representation), and the reason conservatives oppose it is because it would give the Left two extra U.S. Senators, then this plan should satisfy both sides.

That's a creative, sensible proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hypothetical question for you. In exchange for DC Statehood, would you be willing to allow Nebraska to split into East Nebraska and West Nebraska?

If the reason that you want statehood is so that you have national representation in the Senate and House (and not just more Democratic representation), and the reason conservatives oppose it is because it would give the Left two extra U.S. Senators, then this plan should satisfy both sides.

That's a creative, sensible proposal.

Is Nebraska interested in splitting? What about other states that might want to split? Like Va.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should cede most of D.C. Back to Maryland like they did with Arlington. Then you would have representation. Leave the WH, Capitol, the Mall, and other federal areas as the federal district.

Federal areas? There are parks and other federal properties throughout DC. There are thousands of apartments built on federal land at the Yards/SE Federal Center alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should cede most of D.C. Back to Maryland like they did with Arlington. Then you would have representation. Leave the WH, Capitol, the Mall, and other federal areas as the federal district.

Federal areas? There are parks and other federal properties throughout DC. There are thousands of apartments built on federal land at the Yards/SE Federal Center alone.

Federal buildings adjacent to the mall could stay in the District. What you are describing -- land not connected to the Mall -- could go back to Maryland. There is federal land throughout other states. It is not unique to DC.

[Anonymous]

To all those saying that the DC land can go back to Maryland how many of you live in Maryland? You do realize that the reason Virginia got their land back was due to slavery and that Virginia was afraid that it would be abolished?

I do live in Maryland and I am sure DC residents would rather not belong to Maryland.