DC statehood

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Look, everyone knew the rules for DC when it was created, people who lived there did so electively. I mean you could say slaves didn't have a choice, but they did upon emancipation. Injustice? Oh the hyperbole...

Of course it is an injustice. How could you say otherwise? There are many examples of people seeking political change in one state that has already occurred in a neighboring state. Legal same sex marriage is a current example. Would you advise SSM supporters to simply move to another state and ignore the injustice in their state because they live there electively? Many states have fairly easy access to abortion while others restrict it. Should we tell both the pro-choice and pro-life camps to stop trying to change laws and simply move to a state that matches their position on the issue? Should pro-choice Texans simply move to New York and vice versa?

I could move out of DC and gain the right to vote for those who tax me. But, the injustice of taxation without representation -- an injustice against which our forefathers rebelled but you so cavalierly disregard -- would remain in DC. Because my concern about rights does not end at the tip of my nose, I would still be a champion of DC statehood.

First let me say good luck in your statehood endeavors (forgot to add last time).

Let me also say it’s a pleasure to talk to a non-anonymous person… I think you are the only named person on this site (I’m guessing because it’s your site??).

As to you ?’s on SSM, Abx, ‘should people move to the state that they like’? YES! it’s called federalism, people do it for tax reasons, legal reasons, property reasons, education reasons etc etc etc. Federalism works, it’s not perfect (nothing is) but it works very very well, we best stick to it.

Look it’s not an injustice for this this reason, when DC was created the on paper, before a single trowel dug into the swamp the law regarding DC was equally applied to all. All who would go to DC did so by their own consent. The founders were satisfied with this arrangement, if they of ‘taxation without representation’ fame were satisfied, its specious to claim otherwise. Still let’s consider the ‘taxation without representation’ meme further. DC has representation and Eleanor Holmes Norton is a very good advocate of DC. And in the macroscopic while taxed, you are taxed significantly less than the average resident of every other state. In fact, you receive more federal dollars back than federal taxes paid. In the larger context DC is a net tax recipient, not payer.

Fun discussion so if you don’t mind I’d like to bounce some other thought off you. The taxation w/o rep appeal is an emotion one. Grand rhetoric but remiss in detail. Still if the emotion appeal is successful consider these implications. Could California will be next? There is in Cali a very strong secession movement to form a second or multiple states out of the areas where many feel there are paying taxes but not ‘represented’ by an intransigent and hostile State government in Sacramento. (Actually I’ve heard grumblings from the distal parts of Maryland in this regard too). Now I’m not a big fan of secession but if the Constitution is changed to allow DC statehood based on ‘representation’ concerns… the same precedent will give impetus to other secessionists seeking direct representation. I don’t like where that would lead. Ironic isn’t it, DC joining the union as a State could lead to dissolving of the union (or I could just be a paranoid kook).

PS – I am very much concerned about rights as you and the forefathers are/were. I do not disregard them no treat them cavalierly. But there is a difference between natural rights, human rights, civil rights and civil liberties and to muddy those difference is to do a disservice to all those rights. (I’m not saying your intent is to muddy for sadly most of the electorate is unaware of the differences… alas I’m veering way off topic)

[Anonymous]

In my old age I've come to accept that things are not going to change. Statehood is not going to happen and retrocession of the residential portions of the district to Maryland is wildly unpopular with the DC political class. (the upper half of every DC agency would instantly become redundant).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:As to you ?’s on SSM, Abx, ‘should people move to the state that they like’? YES! it’s called federalism, people do it for tax reasons, legal reasons, property reasons, education reasons etc etc etc. Federalism works, it’s not perfect (nothing is) but it works very very well, we best stick to it.

Given that you have now stated a position that individuals should move rather than work to change things in their state, I don't see any way that we will ever find common ground on this issue. I also suspect that if you gave it some thought, you would find examples in which yourself chose to support change rather than move. But, if this is your mainframe, we are simply not on similar wavelengths.

Anonymous wrote:
Look it’s not an injustice for this this reason, when DC was created the on paper, before a single trowel dug into the swamp the law regarding DC was equally applied to all. All who would go to DC did so by their own consent. The founders were satisfied with this arrangement, if they of ‘taxation without representation’ fame were satisfied, its specious to claim otherwise. Still let’s consider the ‘taxation without representation’ meme further. DC has representation and Eleanor Holmes Norton is a very good advocate of DC. And in the macroscopic while taxed, you are taxed significantly less than the average resident of every other state. In fact, you receive more federal dollars back than federal taxes paid. In the larger context DC is a net tax recipient, not payer.

You do know that Eleanor Holmes Norton is not allowed to vote, right? If your state representatives lost the right to vote would you still consider yourself represented? How would you like for Eleanor Holmes Norton to have the right to vote on laws in your state while your representatives could not vote? Would that be satisfactory representation for you? DC does get back more dollars than it pays to the federal government. However, 29 states receive more federal dollars per tax dollar than DC. Moreover, since some of those dollars pay for things like our court system, we would lose those dollars if we got statehood. We would very likely become a net loser on tax dollars/federal spending. But, if we would take your argument at face value, we would have to assume that you don't support voting rights for those other 29 "takers".

Anonymous wrote:
Fun discussion so if you don’t mind I’d like to bounce some other thought off you. The taxation w/o rep appeal is an emotion one. Grand rhetoric but remiss in detail. Still if the emotion appeal is successful consider these implications. Could California will be next? There is in Cali a very strong secession movement to form a second or multiple states out of the areas where many feel there are paying taxes but not ‘represented’ by an intransigent and hostile State government in Sacramento. (Actually I’ve heard grumblings from the distal parts of Maryland in this regard too). Now I’m not a big fan of secession but if the Constitution is changed to allow DC statehood based on ‘representation’ concerns… the same precedent will give impetus to other secessionists seeking direct representation. I don’t like where that would lead. Ironic isn’t it, DC joining the union as a State could lead to dissolving of the union (or I could just be a paranoid kook).

I have no opinion on succession movement within states. But, I don't understand how you can compare DC -- with no voting representation in the House and no representation period in the Senate -- to regions of states in which voters elect voting representatives but simply don't like the political balance of their states. There really is no logical comparison. The regional succession movement get a vote, but don't like losing the vote count. We don't even get a vote.

It is interesting that an argument based on a founding principle of our country is considered "emotional". I would call it "principled". But, it is pretty clear that very few in this country care about principles. Ultimately, our situation will be resolved through hardcore political maneuvering.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I suspect your phone (or other spell-check) is programmed to prevent discussion of secession.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I suspect your phone (or other spell-check) is programmed to prevent discussion of secession.

It's my brain that is programmed that way. Autocorrect has ruined me, not because it makes unsuspected changes -- though that doesn't help -- but because I expect it to catch mistakes that it doesn't. I've never been a good speller. One of my first big academic hurdles was learning to spell "water" which I insisted on spelling "warter" because that is how I said it.

Edit: I should add that that spelling issue was helped by moving to "Warshington".

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As to you ?’s on SSM, Abx, ‘should people move to the state that they like’? YES! it’s called federalism, people do it for tax reasons, legal reasons, property reasons, education reasons etc etc etc. Federalism works, it’s not perfect (nothing is) but it works very very well, we best stick to it.

Given that you have now stated a position that individuals should move rather than work to change things in their state, I don't see any way that we will ever find common ground on this issue. I also suspect that if you gave it some thought, you would find examples in which yourself chose to support change rather than move. But, if this is your mainframe, we are simply not on similar wavelengths.

Anonymous wrote:
Look it’s not an injustice for this this reason, when DC was created the on paper, before a single trowel dug into the swamp the law regarding DC was equally applied to all. All who would go to DC did so by their own consent. The founders were satisfied with this arrangement, if they of ‘taxation without representation’ fame were satisfied, its specious to claim otherwise. Still let’s consider the ‘taxation without representation’ meme further. DC has representation and Eleanor Holmes Norton is a very good advocate of DC. And in the macroscopic while taxed, you are taxed significantly less than the average resident of every other state. In fact, you receive more federal dollars back than federal taxes paid. In the larger context DC is a net tax recipient, not payer.

You do know that Eleanor Holmes Norton is not allowed to vote, right? If your state representatives lost the right to vote would you still consider yourself represented? How would you like for Eleanor Holmes Norton to have the right to vote on laws in your state while your representatives could not vote? Would that be satisfactory representation for you? DC does get back more dollars than it pays to the federal government. However, 29 states receive more federal dollars per tax dollar than DC. Moreover, since some of those dollars pay for things like our court system, we would lose those dollars if we got statehood. We would very likely become a net loser on tax dollars/federal spending. But, if we would take your argument at face value, we would have to assume that you don't support voting rights for those other 29 "takers".

Anonymous wrote:
Fun discussion so if you don’t mind I’d like to bounce some other thought off you. The taxation w/o rep appeal is an emotion one. Grand rhetoric but remiss in detail. Still if the emotion appeal is successful consider these implications. Could California will be next? There is in Cali a very strong secession movement to form a second or multiple states out of the areas where many feel there are paying taxes but not ‘represented’ by an intransigent and hostile State government in Sacramento. (Actually I’ve heard grumblings from the distal parts of Maryland in this regard too). Now I’m not a big fan of secession but if the Constitution is changed to allow DC statehood based on ‘representation’ concerns… the same precedent will give impetus to other secessionists seeking direct representation. I don’t like where that would lead. Ironic isn’t it, DC joining the union as a State could lead to dissolving of the union (or I could just be a paranoid kook).

I have no opinion on succession movement within states. But, I don't understand how you can compare DC -- with no voting representation in the House and no representation period in the Senate -- to regions of states in which voters elect voting representatives but simply don't like the political balance of their states. There really is no logical comparison. The regional succession movement get a vote, but don't like losing the vote count. We don't even get a vote.

It is interesting that an argument based on a founding principle of our country is considered "emotional". I would call it "principled". But, it is pretty clear that very few in this country care about principles. Ultimately, our situation will be resolved through hardcore political maneuvering.

I’m not saying they should move, just that they could. Look there are lots of issues in life and not all electorally go your way. Most people accept this, in fact this is a blessing of America, that such ideologically diverse peoples can get along and thrive.

Of course everyone should be electorally engaged and try change results they are passionate on (this is America!) but if they can’t and they are so unsatisfied with the electoral decision, moving to another state electorally aligned with them is an option.

Hey even if we cannot find common ground, hopefully we can agree that reasonable minds can agree to disagree.

Yes I know Holmes cannot vote but again so did the founders (that DC would have non-voting representation).

Good point on the other 29 states. Look I lean conservative, less taxes is better but what I was trying to articulate is DC is unique and due to its uniqueness it gets special privileges to compensate for its special disadvantages.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I suspect your phone (or other spell-check) is programmed to prevent discussion of secession.

It's my brain that is programmed that way. Autocorrect has ruined me, not because it makes unsuspected changes -- though that doesn't help -- but because I expect it to catch mistakes that it doesn't. I've never been a good speller. One of my first big academic hurdles was learning to spell "water" which I insisted on spelling "warter" because that is how I said it.

Edit: I should add that that spelling issue was helped by moving to "Warshington".

Where did you grow up? That sounds like a South St. Louis accent.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I suspect your phone (or other spell-check) is programmed to prevent discussion of secession.

It's my brain that is programmed that way. Autocorrect has ruined me, not because it makes unsuspected changes -- though that doesn't help -- but because I expect it to catch mistakes that it doesn't. I've never been a good speller. One of my first big academic hurdles was learning to spell "water" which I insisted on spelling "warter" because that is how I said it.

Edit: I should add that that spelling issue was helped by moving to "Warshington".

Where did you grow up? That sounds like a South St. Louis accent.

Not that far off. Northern Illinois.