DC retrocession into Maryland

[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.

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?

Err ... what are you smoking?

Here's an idea for you: why not break DC into 4 parts and then have 4 states?

More votes....awesome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Clap clap clap clap

[Anonymous]

The more I read about retrocession it's clear it is the only workable solution. Im not sure why everyone in DC fights it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I read about retrocession it's clear it is the only workable solution. Im not sure why everyone in DC fights it?

Because they are power hungry and think they should get two Senators because the population of some state in nowheresville has fewer people living in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I read about retrocession it's clear it is the only workable solution. Im not sure why everyone in DC fights it?

Because DC is not Maryland. It has different laws and wants to retain its independence.

Plus Maryland is not interested, and has made that perfectly clear.

Its only suggested by people who want to maintain the Senate as a block against policies that the majority of Americans support.

[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?

DC already has the authority of a state as far as local govt is concerned. There is no reason there woul be more bureaucrats than now.

Retrocession is opposed by Maryland, which does not want its own politics changed by absorbing DC. DC does not want to fall under Maryland law (you may not be aware of this, but Md State Highway admin has quite different priorities about the needs of drivers vs walkers than DC Dept of Transportation does, for example)

Again, the only people who suggest retrocession to Md, instead of DC Statehood, afaict, are people who fear two more Dem Senators.

[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.

Why do you deserve any type of reparation? The conditions of DC have been known since 1801. Those who choose to move into the city, do so knowing that there will be taxation and no representation because it is federal property and not a state. You paid no taxes when you were a minor. Your parents voluntarily chose to live in the jurisdiction that had no congressional representation. When you were old enough to pay taxes, you had the option to move out of the city if you so chose. Everyone that pays federal taxes has the choice to move to a state that has political representation or choose to live in the federal jurisdiction that has taxation but no representation. It is a choice that you've made.

There are many reasons why there needs to be federal property that is not under the control of any state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you deserve any type of reparation? The conditions of DC have been known since 1801. Those who choose to move into the city, do so knowing that there will be taxation and no representation because it is federal property and not a state. You paid no taxes when you were a minor. Your parents voluntarily chose to live in the jurisdiction that had no congressional representation. When you were old enough to pay taxes, you had the option to move out of the city if you so chose. Everyone that pays federal taxes has the choice to move to a state that has political representation or choose to live in the federal jurisdiction that has taxation but no representation. It is a choice that you've made.

There are many reasons why there needs to be federal property that is not under the control of any state.

FYI, some DC residents came to the City in chains as slaves- they did not choose to move there. The families have lived there since emancipation.

Others went to DC in the immediate aftermath of the civil war looking for a living - at a time when AAs faced disincentives to vote in many places.

As for federal property not under the control of any state, all the proposals to make "new columbia" a state indicate that a federal district would remain, but its area would be reduced pretty much to the federal core - WH, Capitol, and the Mall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I read about retrocession it's clear it is the only workable solution. Im not sure why everyone in DC fights it?

Under the Constitution, Maryland itself would have to vote to accept DC. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you deserve any type of reparation? The conditions of DC have been known since 1801. Those who choose to move into the city, do so knowing that there will be taxation and no representation because it is federal property and not a state. You paid no taxes when you were a minor. Your parents voluntarily chose to live in the jurisdiction that had no congressional representation. When you were old enough to pay taxes, you had the option to move out of the city if you so chose. Everyone that pays federal taxes has the choice to move to a state that has political representation or choose to live in the federal jurisdiction that has taxation but no representation. It is a choice that you've made.

There are many reasons why there needs to be federal property that is not under the control of any state.

FYI, some DC residents came to the City in chains as slaves- they did not choose to move there. The families have lived there since emancipation.

Others went to DC in the immediate aftermath of the civil war looking for a living - at a time when AAs faced disincentives to vote in many places.

As for federal property not under the control of any state, all the proposals to make "new columbia" a state indicate that a federal district would remain, but its area would be reduced pretty much to the federal core - WH, Capitol, and the Mall.

Reparation for slavery or racial discrimination are distinct and completely different from reparation for taxation without representation due to residents of the District of Columbia. Don't conflate the two. Not all residents of DC were brought to the city as slaves and not all arrived to a segregated city that disenfranchised them for their race. Since the number of DC-born residents hovers around 30% and the population is roughly 48% AA, only about 15-16% of the population of DC would even be in the target demographics of those who might benefit from slavery reparations.

Also, MD donated the land to the federal government. What incentives does the Federal government have to give that land back? There are taxes on property and businesses in that area that go to the Federal government. How would they recoup the loss in taxes for that property if it ceded the land back to MD?

[Anonymous]

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

Federalist 43.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, MD donated the land to the federal government. What incentives does the Federal government have to give that land back? There are taxes on property and businesses in that area that go to the Federal government. How would they recoup the loss in taxes for that property if it ceded the land back to MD?

No there aren't. There are no special DC taxes that the federal govt receives in the District that it does not collect in states. You are either ignorant or making stuff up now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Federalist 43.

Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy

yes, when the Congress was in Philadelphia, they were threatened by the Pennsylvania militia.

Today DC has a national guard. Under control of Mayor Bowser when not federalized. In the State of New Columbia, there would be a national guard. under the control of "governor" Bowser, when not federalized. IE exactly the same as now. So no, the argument in Federalist 43 is NOT an argument against statehood. Leaving aside the fact that we now have a standing army, and its unlikely the DC national Guard could take on the federal troops located in and around the city (and if it could, you should be much more wary of the Va and Md national guards nearby.

[Anonymous]

Not all residents of DC were brought to the city as slaves and not all arrived to a segregated city that disenfranchised them for their race.

I am not the person asking for reparations. I just don't like your wording around 'choice' which is offensive given the real history of many citizens of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not all residents of DC were brought to the city as slaves and not all arrived to a segregated city that disenfranchised them for their race.

I am not the person asking for reparations. I just don't like your wording around 'choice' which is offensive given the real history of many citizens of DC.

All of those people have choice now...