Bowser is testifying again in favor of statehood, while DC govt dissembles on statehood costs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't even get mail here, not to mention the hot mess that is the DMV, other city services, etc. I guess I'm just not optimistic that things will improve with statehood.

The United States Postal Service is responsible for mail delivery.

Yes. But Bowser is responsible for MPD. Want to give Governor Bowser additional responsibility for the whole criminal justice system, without a clear plan for how to pay for it?

This wouldn't be different from every other state. So yes, I'm fine with it.

Even large, urban New York City has to depend on New York State for important financial and services support. Meaning a taxpayer base comprised of many suburbs, small cities and rural towns that are less intensive users of expensive government services. Who is going to provide similar underwriting to ol' DC one it becomes the State of Douglas Commonwealth or some other unwieldy name?

[Anonymous]

Next you'll tell us the name costs too much.

[Anonymous]

I’m usually opposed to statehood for fiscal reasons. But when people like Rep. Grothman (R-Wis) can introduce legislation that would seek to control what is included in the DCPS curriculum - just to score points at home and Trump circles -that pisses me off and I am willing to support statehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Next you'll tell us the name costs too much.

Statehood is costly, not the name. But the name is lame.

[Anonymous]

If statehood passes, Bowser will raise taxes to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

That's a good reason for DC not to do it that way, then.

Kinda makes you wonder why Wyoming does, though. Each Wyoming house member represents fewer than 10,000 people.

[Anonymous]

This expensive dream of statehood will remain nothing but a dream for years to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't even get mail here, not to mention the hot mess that is the DMV, other city services, etc. I guess I'm just not optimistic that things will improve with statehood.

The United States Postal Service is responsible for mail delivery.

Yes. But Bowser is responsible for MPD. Want to give Governor Bowser additional responsibility for the whole criminal justice system, without a clear plan for how to pay for it?

That’s easy. The city will simply abolish its criminal justice system. Who needs the courts nowadays anyway…? No more arrests. No more trials. No more sentences. No more jails. Billions will be saved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't even get mail here, not to mention the hot mess that is the DMV, other city services, etc. I guess I'm just not optimistic that things will improve with statehood.

The United States Postal Service is responsible for mail delivery.

Yes. But Bowser is responsible for MPD. Want to give Governor Bowser additional responsibility for the whole criminal justice system, without a clear plan for how to pay for it?

That’s easy. The city will simply abolish its criminal justice system. Who needs the courts nowadays anyway…? No more arrests. No more trials. No more sentences. No more jails. Billions will be saved.

And certain DC residents will improve their standard of living thanks to the, uh, voluntary transfers of wealth through spontaneous networking opportunities and encounters (aka muggings and robberies).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

That's a good reason for DC not to do it that way, then.

Kinda makes you wonder why Wyoming does, though. Each Wyoming house member represents fewer than 10,000 people.

Vermont is the other state with less population than DC, it has a 150-member House of Representatives and 30-member Senate.

If the suggestion is that DC needs statehood for representation, your idea is to make it the least democratic state in the country? Seems like not a great argument for statehood then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

That's a good reason for DC not to do it that way, then.

Kinda makes you wonder why Wyoming does, though. Each Wyoming house member represents fewer than 10,000 people.

Vermont is the other state with less population than DC, it has a 150-member House of Representatives and 30-member Senate.

If the suggestion is that DC needs statehood for representation, your idea is to make it the least democratic state in the country? Seems like not a great argument for statehood then.

In that case, the least democratic state in the country is California: one US senator per 20 million people. And the US Senate may be the least democratic deliberative body in the US. Kinda ironic that it's a minority of US Senators who are blocking DC statehood, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

That's a good reason for DC not to do it that way, then.

Kinda makes you wonder why Wyoming does, though. Each Wyoming house member represents fewer than 10,000 people.

Vermont is the other state with less population than DC, it has a 150-member House of Representatives and 30-member Senate.

If the suggestion is that DC needs statehood for representation, your idea is to make it the least democratic state in the country? Seems like not a great argument for statehood then.

In that case, the least democratic state in the country is California: one US senator per 20 million people. And the US Senate may be the least democratic deliberative body in the US. Kinda ironic that it's a minority of US Senators who are blocking DC statehood, isn't it?

You do understand the difference between state and federal governments right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

That's a good reason for DC not to do it that way, then.

Kinda makes you wonder why Wyoming does, though. Each Wyoming house member represents fewer than 10,000 people.

Vermont is the other state with less population than DC, it has a 150-member House of Representatives and 30-member Senate.

If the suggestion is that DC needs statehood for representation, your idea is to make it the least democratic state in the country? Seems like not a great argument for statehood then.

In that case, the least democratic state in the country is California: one US senator per 20 million people. And the US Senate may be the least democratic deliberative body in the US. Kinda ironic that it's a minority of US Senators who are blocking DC statehood, isn't it?

You do understand the difference between state and federal governments right?

Are you the person who came up with the idea that number of constituents per elected official is the measure of democracy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

That's a good reason for DC not to do it that way, then.

Kinda makes you wonder why Wyoming does, though. Each Wyoming house member represents fewer than 10,000 people.

Vermont is the other state with less population than DC, it has a 150-member House of Representatives and 30-member Senate.

If the suggestion is that DC needs statehood for representation, your idea is to make it the least democratic state in the country? Seems like not a great argument for statehood then.

In that case, the least democratic state in the country is California: one US senator per 20 million people. And the US Senate may be the least democratic deliberative body in the US. Kinda ironic that it's a minority of US Senators who are blocking DC statehood, isn't it?

You do understand the difference between state and federal governments right?

Are you the person who came up with the idea that number of constituents per elected official is the measure of democracy?

If you refuse recognize differences between state and federal governments, I am not sure there is much to discuss. You seem pleasant. Have a good night. Ta!