s/o Give DC back to Maryland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not the PP, but I thought that since (1) DC takes on functions that would ordinarily fall on states and (2) since the federal buildings don't help with real estate taxes, that the feds pay a big payment each year to the DC govt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The DC Attorney General's office handles very few criminal cases. The US Attorneys Office does most of them. Drug crimes - US Attorneys Office. Gun crimes - US Attorneys Office. Assault - US Attorneys Office. Murder - US Attorneys Office.

I don't know about the Capitol Police and other federal police departments, but the US Park Police have jurisdiction throughout DC. The Park Police can stop you and arrest you anywhere in DC - the MPD will handle any follow-on investigation. Similarly, I believe, uniformed Secret Service can do the same as the US Park Police.

[Anonymous]

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

Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner doesn't get a vote in the House, just like Norton. Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico also don't get to vote for President in the general election but they can vote in the primary, which I don't get. But hey, I'd be up for trying to get rid of the Federal tax obligation.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as Arlington can stay part of Virginia and not retrocede to DC I'm cool with it.

Arlington, helping keep Virginia blue since 2008.

give that back too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as Arlington can stay part of Virginia and not retrocede to DC I'm cool with it.

Arlington, helping keep Virginia blue since 2008.

give that back too

Another attempt at gerrymandering.

[Anonymous]

It's a non-starter - I can't imagine a single politician coming out in favor of it. Most of the residents of DC don't care enough about representation to do anything about it.

Enthusiasm level: most would be willing to "like" it on Facebook but not enough to change their profile picture.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think all but a narrow federal district, where the majority of the fed buildings are, should go to Md - or Va. Don't care which. Make them part of a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I think all but a narrow federal district, where the majority of the fed buildings are, should go to Md - or Va. Don't care which. Make them part of a state.

Virginia already took their portion of land back. The remainder of the city is what Maryland gave to the Feds to make a federal city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I think all but a narrow federal district, where the majority of the fed buildings are, should go to Md - or Va. Don't care which. Make them part of a state.

Virginia already took their portion of land back. The remainder of the city is what Maryland gave to the Feds to make a federal city.

If they did this, Virginia would be a blue state immediately and forever, instead of a blue state eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I think all but a narrow federal district, where the majority of the fed buildings are, should go to Md - or Va. Don't care which. Make them part of a state.

Virginia already took their portion of land back. The remainder of the city is what Maryland gave to the Feds to make a federal city.

If they did this, Virginia would be a blue state immediately and forever, instead of a blue state eventually.

DC was donated by MD. MD also has the entire Potomac river up to the VA shoreline.

[Anonymous]

You forgot the Virginia portion

[Anonymous]

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

No. I don't want to live in Puerto Rico, even if it is wedged between VA & MD.