s/o Give DC back to Maryland?

[Anonymous]

No no no. This is a loser because of what it will do to the political status quo of BOTH DC and MD.

DC: Many DC politicians and large sections of the government apparatus become redundant. You still need the same number of classroom teachers and policeman but you sure don't need all that upper management. Powerful people don't like losing their careers that they have built up over a lifetime.
The politicians that keep their jobs are now now one rung lower on the totem pole. Egos don't like that. Fewer Escalades on the government bill.

MD: The politicians don't like having the political stew stirred. Eastern shore and Charm City politicos see their power diluted by the influx of outsiders from DC. Other than the governor, almost every politician in the state loses out.

The people of MD and DC. Oh, them? It's probably a good deal for them but this idea will never be discussed rationally in public. The politicians of DC and MD will make it sound worse than the Tri-Lateral Commission.

[Anonymous]

DC: Many DC politicians and large sections of the government apparatus become redundant. You still need the same number of classroom teachers and policeman but you sure don't need all that upper management. Powerful people don't like losing their careers that they have built up over a lifetime.
The politicians that keep their jobs are now now one rung lower on the totem pole. Egos don't like that. Fewer Escalades on the government bill.

This "problem" goes away if you make DC a city (like Baltimore) or a county (like Montgomery) within Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a bicameral legislature.

+1

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

Yes, because House representation is based on population. And there are two senators from each state irrespective of population. Explain that math. How is that representative?

You understand that there's a Senate and a House, right?

Here you go snarkmeister:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html?_r=0#/#smallstate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a bullshit argument. You don't get political representation based on how many poor people live in the area or whether you have corrupt politicians. Civil rights and liberties are not based on whether you and your fellow residents are good, financially secure people -- otherwise Louisiana and Illinois would have lost their Senators by now (corruption) and so would Mississippi (poverty).

DC would be economically unsustainable as a state and no amount of raising taxes to sky high levels on folks living west of Rock Creek Park can fix that reality. If people really care about voting rights, then retroceding to MD is the answer. DC statehood is a fools's errand .largely pursued by fools.

[Anonymous]

So all of the District becomes Maryland? Even the Mall and surrounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So all of the District becomes Maryland? Even the Mall and surrounds?

The Mall and surrounds would certainly remain part of the Federal District set out in the Constitution. The issue is that very few people should live there because there is no representation.

[Anonymous]

The Mall and surrounds would certainly remain part of the Federal District set out in the Constitution. The issue is that very few people should live there because there is no representation.

I know little about DC history. Was this not the idea to begin with for why there was no representation?

[Anonymous]

Better solution: Treat DC like Puerto Rico. Voting member of the House, no Senators, but as a Territory, no federal tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a bullshit argument. You don't get political representation based on how many poor people live in the area or whether you have corrupt politicians. Civil rights and liberties are not based on whether you and your fellow residents are good, financially secure people -- otherwise Louisiana and Illinois would have lost their Senators by now (corruption) and so would Mississippi (poverty).

Untrue. If they were a state, they would not break the top ten in dependence on federal support. They would be right at home in the south.
DC would be economically unsustainable as a state and no amount of raising taxes to sky high levels on folks living west of Rock Creek Park can fix that reality. If people really care about voting rights, then retroceding to MD is the answer. DC statehood is a fools's errand .largely pursued by fools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that little piece of parchment called the constitution is going to get in your way... (both sides of the aisle will contest electoral college and congressional seat issues)

Besides Maryland has enough trouble as it is with its schools, welfare, etc.

f

The constitution is not an impediment. All it takes to make a state is a vote of Congress, so no impediment there. Being a state would mean proportional representation in the house and two senators. On the electoral college front, all you have to do is reduce the size of the federal district to encompass, let's say, a strip that starts at the Supreme Court and ends at the Lincoln Memorial, and also includes the federal land up to and including LaFayette Square. The law would also declare that nobody may reside in the federal district for voting purposes, meaning that the 23rd amendment would become a nullity because there would be no votes cast for any elector. (The President usually remains registered to vote in his home state; this would require it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a bullshit argument. You don't get political representation based on how many poor people live in the area or whether you have corrupt politicians. Civil rights and liberties are not based on whether you and your fellow residents are good, financially secure people -- otherwise Louisiana and Illinois would have lost their Senators by now (corruption) and so would Mississippi (poverty).

DC would be economically unsustainable as a state and no amount of raising taxes to sky high levels on folks living west of Rock Creek Park can fix that reality. If people really care about voting rights, then retroceding to MD is the answer. DC statehood is a fools's errand .largely pursued by fools.

You seem very knowledgeable. Perhaps you can help me evaluate your predictions this way: What would you have said about efforts to legalize marijuana or gay marriage 10 or even 5 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DC: Many DC politicians and large sections of the government apparatus become redundant. You still need the same number of classroom teachers and policeman but you sure don't need all that upper management. Powerful people don't like losing their careers that they have built up over a lifetime.
The politicians that keep their jobs are now now one rung lower on the totem pole. Egos don't like that. Fewer Escalades on the government bill.

This "problem" goes away if you make DC a city (like Baltimore) or a county (like Montgomery) within Maryland.

I don't have immediate data but here's what I have from www.city-data.com:
Baltimore population 2003: 628,670
Washington population 2003: 563,384
(not so different in size of the city)

Baltimore number of city government employees in 2005: 15,099
Washington number of city government employees in 2005: 34,000

Imagine if the Tea Partyers launched a campaign for retrocession based on the idea of eliminating 10 or 20 thousand Washington city employees. That would be fun to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC: Many DC politicians and large sections of the government apparatus become redundant. You still need the same number of classroom teachers and policeman but you sure don't need all that upper management. Powerful people don't like losing their careers that they have built up over a lifetime.
The politicians that keep their jobs are now now one rung lower on the totem pole. Egos don't like that. Fewer Escalades on the government bill.

This "problem" goes away if you make DC a city (like Baltimore) or a county (like Montgomery) within Maryland.

I don't have immediate data but here's what I have from www.city-data.com:
Baltimore population 2003: 628,670
Washington population 2003: 563,384
(not so different in size of the city)

Baltimore number of city government employees in 2005: 15,099
Washington number of city government employees in 2005: 34,000

Imagine if the Tea Partyers launched a campaign for retrocession based on the idea of eliminating 10 or 20 thousand Washington city employees. That would be fun to watch.

The DC employee count is down from the bloat in Barry's day, when there were something like 55,000 on the DC payroll. (Back then, the DC government could never say with certainty because its records and controls were so lax). But clearly the DC government workforce is still bloated. It's defenders will say this is because the DC government performs some of the functions of a state, but the reality is that the local government governs only an area the size of a medium-sized city. Moreover, there are few functions in DC that should be duplicated at both the state and local level -- police? no. emergency preparedness? no. roads and highways? Again no. Finally, the federal government actually provides many services directly to DC. It provides and pays for our local prosecutor (the US Attorney). Otherwise, the DC taxpayers would have to fund a state/local district attorney's office. Several federal police forces -- Capitol, Secret Service Uniformed and US Park Police effectively patrol areas of the city and have local enforcement authority. Otherwise, MPD would need to be even larger. The National Park Service maintains most of the parkland within the District. Oh, and public charters educate a large number of DC children, but their faculty and staff are not included in DC government employee totals. Considering all this, the DC government employee rolls are still way too large.

[Anonymous]

There are three ways I know of to give the citizens of DC representation.

Statehood does so, giving us two senators and a representative, and also gives us more power to govern ourselves, such as removing Congress's power over our budget and letting us institute a commuter tax.

Retrocession does so, allowing us to vote for MD's two senators and, presumably, a new representative, but it puts us under the MD governor and legislature. However, we might benefit by receiving a share of MD taxes (or we might give more than we receive). It would presumably erase our three Electoral College votes and replace them by one extra vote for MD.

Maryland voting rights would give the same national voting rights as retrocession, but leave our local government unchanged. For the first few years of the US, DC citizens retained the vote in the state that ceded their area, VA for Alexandria (before retrocession) and MD for Washington, so there is precedent for the arrangement. But while it has the salutary effect of giving us congressional representation, it would likely yield the same reduction of our presidential vote as retrocession.

From the political point of view, Republicans oppose statehood because it likely adds two Democrats to the Senate (plus one to the House, but that's much less significant). The other two leave the Senate alone and compensates for one extra Dem in the House by removing two Democratic electoral votes, which makes them more acceptable to Republicans than Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC: Many DC politicians and large sections of the government apparatus become redundant. You still need the same number of classroom teachers and policeman but you sure don't need all that upper management. Powerful people don't like losing their careers that they have built up over a lifetime.
The politicians that keep their jobs are now now one rung lower on the totem pole. Egos don't like that. Fewer Escalades on the government bill.

This "problem" goes away if you make DC a city (like Baltimore) or a county (like Montgomery) within Maryland.

I don't have immediate data but here's what I have from www.city-data.com:
Baltimore population 2003: 628,670
Washington population 2003: 563,384
(not so different in size of the city)

Baltimore number of city government employees in 2005: 15,099
Washington number of city government employees in 2005: 34,000

Imagine if the Tea Partyers launched a campaign for retrocession based on the idea of eliminating 10 or 20 thousand Washington city employees. That would be fun to watch.

The DC employee count is down from the bloat in Barry's day, when there were something like 55,000 on the DC payroll. (Back then, the DC government could never say with certainty because its records and controls were so lax). But clearly the DC government workforce is still bloated. It's defenders will say this is because the DC government performs some of the functions of a state, but the reality is that the local government governs only an area the size of a medium-sized city. Moreover, there are few functions in DC that should be duplicated at both the state and local level -- police? no. emergency preparedness? no. roads and highways? Again no. Finally, the federal government actually provides many services directly to DC. It provides and pays for our local prosecutor (the US Attorney). Otherwise, the DC taxpayers would have to fund a state/local district attorney's office. Several federal police forces -- Capitol, Secret Service Uniformed and US Park Police effectively patrol areas of the city and have local enforcement authority. Otherwise, MPD would need to be even larger. The National Park Service maintains most of the parkland within the District. Oh, and public charters educate a large number of DC children, but their faculty and staff are not included in DC government employee totals. Considering all this, the DC government employee rolls are still way too large.

Our local prosecutor is our elected official the Attorney General. He and all the attorneys of the AGs office are paid for by the taxpayers of the District of Columbia. They prosecute state crimes, as well as handle all the city's civil litigation matters. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is a federal office paid out of federal funds, just like the US Attorney for the Southern District of California, or the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Maryland, or the U.S. Attorney for Brooklyn, NY, or the U.S. Attorney for . . . . The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia does handle the federal crimes and felonies committed in the District. Capitol police patrol areas around the capitol and monuments, that's their limited authority. They didn't or wouldn't leave their post to go to the Navy Yard shooting (federal property). MPD handled that situation. FBI did the follow-up. US Park Police jurisdiction is limited to federal parkland, such as Rock Creek Park, Ft. Dupont Park etc, however if there is a murder jurisdiction reverts to MPD. What other functions or services are you imagining that the federal government is actually providing?