DC retrocession into Maryland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Constitution is a living document and can be changed. Admit it, you dont want one or two more Dem. Reps in the House

If you think the House is the issue here, you're dumber than a box of rocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, and they would have to do something to make up for the loss of two reliable democratic electoral votes - like taking them away from Wyoming or something!

Err . . .

DC has 3 at the moment. If it moved into Maryland, Maryland's electoral votes would go up by 1.

3 - 1 = 2

Does that help you understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, and they would have to do something to make up for the loss of two reliable democratic electoral votes - like taking them away from Wyoming or something!

Err . . .

DC has 3 at the moment. If it moved into Maryland, Maryland's electoral votes would go up by 1.

3 - 1 = 2

Does that help you understand?

Yup, you're right. My bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for DC to not be a state. None.

Except that it would kill the GOP faster.

Oh please.

DC is a minor city, and would be a joke state.

Votes matter. Kavanaugh got in by 1.

This concept is hard for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, and they would have to do something to make up for the loss of two reliable democratic electoral votes - like taking them away from Wyoming or something!

Err . . .

DC has 3 at the moment. If it moved into Maryland, Maryland's electoral votes would go up by 1.

3 - 1 = 2

Does that help you understand?

Electoral college votes every three years are valueless compared to actual representation in Congress.

[Anonymous]

DC is MDs property lent to the country. Just like Arlington was. Legally Md gets it back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if people actually born in DC (like me!) Were given a form of reparation - no federal taxes. Everyone else did knowingly move into a district, not a state.

Reparations? As for descendants of slaves? The solution to everything - another government check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for DC to not be a state. None.

Except that it would kill the GOP faster.

There is no reason for DC to be a state. They are a city, and not the biggest city by a long shot.

DC has more people than two of the states, and DC residents pay more in federal taxes than 23 of the states, yet do not have any representation in the House and Senate.

There's this little thing called "Taxation without representation" - maybe you've heard of it? We fought the Revolutionary War over it. Colonial America had to pay taxes to Britain but had no representation. Read some history books. The fact that DC residents have to pay taxes but have no representation is fundamentally un-American. Take your pick, either they should have statehood or be exempt from federal taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No thanks. If I cared that much about representation I wouldn’t live here. It’s not as if it’s a secret that DC has no representation. MD has higher taxes too.

Thank you. The city was built specifically to be the capital, and specifically not part of a state. If someone doesn't want to live in a federal district, they need to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if people actually born in DC (like me!) Were given a form of reparation - no federal taxes. Everyone else did knowingly move into a district, not a state.

Go ask your parents for reparations, otherwise move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for DC to not be a state. None.

Except that it would kill the GOP faster.

There is no reason for DC to be a state. They are a city, and not the biggest city by a long shot.

DC has more people than two of the states, and DC residents pay more in federal taxes than 23 of the states, yet do not have any representation in the House and Senate.

There's this little thing called "Taxation without representation" - maybe you've heard of it? We fought the Revolutionary War over it. Colonial America had to pay taxes to Britain but had no representation. Read some history books. The fact that DC residents have to pay taxes but have no representation is fundamentally un-American. Take your pick, either they should have statehood or be exempt from federal taxes.

You would think this would resonate with the live free or die, tea party, individual rights crowd, but curiously, they don't care. Surely that isn't because DC is full of liberals, and is majority minority, is it? You mean these yahoos *don't* really care about the principles they profess, and they're just about political expedience?

Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No thanks. If I cared that much about representation I wouldn’t live here. It’s not as if it’s a secret that DC has no representation. MD has higher taxes too.

Thank you. The city was built specifically to be the capital, and specifically not part of a state. If someone doesn't want to live in a federal district, they need to move.

There is historical precedent for shrinking the district and retroceding back to the state it came from: Arlington County. More than 90% of the city doesn't serve the purpose the Founders anticipated, retrocede it.

[Anonymous]

Not in my lifetime. This is a lose-lose for politicians and top-level bureaucrats on both sides of the border and they will make sure it never gets off the ground (doesn't get serious discussion in Congress, not on the ballot, etc.

Retrocession, while logical and potentially doable politically to provide congressional representation to DC residents, is tremendously unpopular with DC’s local political set. First, they look at “national” office as an enhanced career path compared to today, when higher office means just one thing, the mayor’s chair. Moreover, the reason why the DC nomenklatura really salivates for statehood is the opprtunity to layer a whole state layer of bureaucracy on top of the existing municipal work force. Think of the patronage opportunities. The massive new jobs program for “the community”. The votes to reap. Unless you’re a DC taxpayer, what’s not to like?

[Anonymous]

Please! I literally can see democracy from my house! Raskin take us away, IB for Blair, say what!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not in my lifetime. This is a lose-lose for politicians and top-level bureaucrats on both sides of the border and they will make sure it never gets off the ground (doesn't get serious discussion in Congress, not on the ballot, etc.

Retrocession, while logical and potentially doable politically to provide congressional representation to DC residents, is tremendously unpopular with DC’s local political set. First, they look at “national” office as an enhanced career path compared to today, when higher office means just one thing, the mayor’s chair. Moreover, the reason why the DC nomenklatura really salivates for statehood is the opprtunity to layer a whole state layer of bureaucracy on top of the existing municipal work force. Think of the patronage opportunities. The massive new jobs program for “the community”. The votes to reap. Unless you’re a DC taxpayer, what’s not to like?

I have no doubt that retrocession would increase the number of elected and appointed positions in DC, probably substantially. DC has far fewer elected officials per person than Maryland or the country as a whole. We'd probably keep the city council, add a county council, a state legislative delegation and a US house rep.