Anyone think we might be better off without Home Rule in DC?

[Anonymous]

How much does Congress actually interfere with DC's laws? Yes, the marijuana legalization interference is egregious.

But other than that, the last major congressional intervention was the creation of public charter schools in DC--over the strenuous objections of the District's entrenched, union Democratic machine.

If DC had no charter schools, how many parents on DCUM would still live in the District? My family would not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much does Congress actually interfere with DC's laws? Yes, the marijuana legalization interference is egregious.

But other than that, the last major congressional intervention was the creation of public charter schools in DC--over the strenuous objections of the District's entrenched, union Democratic machine.

If DC had no charter schools, how many parents on DCUM would still live in the District? My family would not.

DC’s entire legislative process is basically based on the fact that Congress has ultimate control over it- everything is done by emergency legislation, etc

Ted Cruz introduced legislation recently to stop the vaccine mandate in DC schools- probably won’t pass but it might have under a Republican Congress.

Jason Chavitz constantly poked the bear when he headed whatever committee it was that oversaw DC

Marijuana laws in the past have been controlled by Congress

Also in the end, even if it has zero actual effect the threat is always there- DC is basically a prop to Congress in a way that a state wouldn’t be

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. DC should become a state. It has more people than several states.

No.

It’s a federal district for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Super Dem here, but please ask me if:
I’d rather not pay tax?
I’d take back my pro-marijuana vote now that the city smells like a dirty sock permanently?
I’d prefer less crime, better governance and no corruption?

If someone tries to legalize prostitution, I’d suggest first try living next to a neighbor plying their trade.

It’s all good till you get bricked in the head, and it’s only a matter of time by the way it’s going

I dread the day we get a new OAG, Racine was an awesome gift this city didn’t deserve

[Anonymous]

I want to underline Racine is awesome, his lawsuits improved the lives of and gave back more rights to the DC citizens than 10 mayors combined

If mayors were anything like him thus could be Monaco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Super Dem here, but please ask me if:
I’d rather not pay tax?
I’d take back my pro-marijuana vote now that the city smells like a dirty sock permanently?
I’d prefer less crime, better governance and no corruption?

If someone tries to legalize prostitution, I’d suggest first try living next to a neighbor plying their trade.

It’s all good till you get bricked in the head, and it’s only a matter of time by the way it’s going

I dread the day we get a new OAG, Racine was an awesome gift this city didn’t deserve

Are you serious? The reason you're getting hit in the head with a brick is b/c Racine refuses to prosecute juvenile offenders. He's a gifted attorney and leader, but his Charles Allen-like policies are a big part of D.C's current problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

You have a vote at the federal level. You vote for president same as every other citizen. You are a city, and you have city representation in your D.C. city council. Where is this taxation your taxation without representation? Do you mean you want to add 2 more D senators and send more Ds to congress for political purposes? Yes, I suspect that is the gist of your argument. Be honest.

This is such a disingenuous argument. People who live in DC DGAF about the power balance in sending two Dem senators to congress. They just want the representation. Party politics should not stop people from getting representation for how their tax dollars are spent.

+1 I want I senator I elected to call if I don’t like what congress is doing with my tax dollars. I want a *voting* congressional rep to represent my interests. If MD would take us back I’d be fine with that honestly, but I hear they don’t want us so I’ll take the tax exemption. Or DC Statehood. Either’s good with me.

You knowingly chose to live in the only city in the entire U.S. without Senators. People make compromises on where they live based on their priorities all the time, moving to the burbs for the schools, closer to a job for a shorter commute, closer to elderly family members or grandkids, etc. If picking up the phone to call a senator was your top priority, you maybe should have compromised on a different location. In your case, statistically, I suspect you are a D, and your senators would be Ds, so doubt you would actually be picking up the phone and doing much calling. Plus, they don't really care anyway; they virtually all vote party line except the couple who have a lot of Rs back home to answer to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

You have a vote at the federal level. You vote for president same as every other citizen. You are a city, and you have city representation in your D.C. city council. Where is this taxation your taxation without representation? Do you mean you want to add 2 more D senators and send more Ds to congress for political purposes? Yes, I suspect that is the gist of your argument. Be honest.

This is such a disingenuous argument. People who live in DC DGAF about the power balance in sending two Dem senators to congress. They just want the representation. Party politics should not stop people from getting representation for how their tax dollars are spent.

+1 I want I senator I elected to call if I don’t like what congress is doing with my tax dollars. I want a *voting* congressional rep to represent my interests. If MD would take us back I’d be fine with that honestly, but I hear they don’t want us so I’ll take the tax exemption. Or DC Statehood. Either’s good with me.

You knowingly chose to live in the only city in the entire U.S. without Senators. People make compromises on where they live based on their priorities all the time, moving to the burbs for the schools, closer to a job for a shorter commute, closer to elderly family members or grandkids, etc. If picking up the phone to call a senator was your top priority, you maybe should have compromised on a different location. In your case, statistically, I suspect you are a D, and your senators would be Ds, so doubt you would actually be picking up the phone and doing much calling. Plus, they don't really care anyway; they virtually all vote party line except the couple who have a lot of Rs back home to answer to.

I am not the PP you are quoting but I am the PP you are responding to. I was born and raised in DC and although I am a registered dem (because otherwise you get no vote in the primary) I lean right and would absolutely vote for an R senator if that person better represented my views. When I lived in another state for grad school I voted for an R senator who took the place of a D senator.

The “you can choose where to live” line is a super lazy argument. The fact that I could move out of DC doesn’t mean I should have to in order to have a say in how my tax dollars are spent. People who voted for Trump in the last election could choose to leave the US if they don’t like the president but that doesn’t mean they aren’t allowed to express their displeasure for Biden or vote against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. DC should become a state. It has more people than several states.

No.

It’s a federal district for a reason.

What’s the reason?

[Anonymous]

Racine is awesome? LOL

Spent most of his time filing go nowhere lawsuits against Trump. But hey whatever. I guess that was DC’s biggest problem?

Bowser will retire Robert or is it Trayon White?

[Anonymous]

Between representation and taxation, I’d far prefer no taxation even if no representation

[Anonymous]

Former VA resident here. Interesting to see DC residents clamoring for representation in the senate. I never felt that those who represented Virginia in the senate were accessible folks, rolling up their sleeves to support things I cared about. They were better described as senators from the state of General Dynamics and Amazon.com

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former VA resident here. Interesting to see DC residents clamoring for representation in the senate. I never felt that those who represented Virginia in the senate were accessible folks, rolling up their sleeves to support things I cared about. They were better described as senators from the state of General Dynamics and Amazon.com

Honestly I don’t disagree with this assessment (I grew up in upstate NY; we knew the senators didn’t care at all about anyone’s opinion outside of NYC limits) but it would be nice to at least have someone I can legitimately leave irritated messages at when necessary…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

You have a vote at the federal level. You vote for president same as every other citizen. You are a city, and you have city representation in your D.C. city council. Where is this taxation your taxation without representation? Do you mean you want to add 2 more D senators and send more Ds to congress for political purposes? Yes, I suspect that is the gist of your argument. Be honest.

You forgot Eleanor Holmes Norton.

You're right, I did completely forget. One more person for representation for the people who claim they are taxed without representation.

You all know she doesn’t have a vote, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

You have a vote at the federal level. You vote for president same as every other citizen. You are a city, and you have city representation in your D.C. city council. Where is this taxation your taxation without representation? Do you mean you want to add 2 more D senators and send more Ds to congress for political purposes? Yes, I suspect that is the gist of your argument. Be honest.

This is such a disingenuous argument. People who live in DC DGAF about the power balance in sending two Dem senators to congress. They just want the representation. Party politics should not stop people from getting representation for how their tax dollars are spent.

+1 I want I senator I elected to call if I don’t like what congress is doing with my tax dollars. I want a *voting* congressional rep to represent my interests. If MD would take us back I’d be fine with that honestly, but I hear they don’t want us so I’ll take the tax exemption. Or DC Statehood. Either’s good with me.

You knowingly chose to live in the only city in the entire U.S. without Senators. People make compromises on where they live based on their priorities all the time, moving to the burbs for the schools, closer to a job for a shorter commute, closer to elderly family members or grandkids, etc. If picking up the phone to call a senator was your top priority, you maybe should have compromised on a different location. In your case, statistically, I suspect you are a D, and your senators would be Ds, so doubt you would actually be picking up the phone and doing much calling. Plus, they don't really care anyway; they virtually all vote party line except the couple who have a lot of Rs back home to answer to.

Third generation DCNative. My required Government class in HS included lots of lessons the teacher ended by saying: “But we don’t get that.”
Why should someone have to move to be represented politically? You’re not really making an argument either way. Just saying that: it is what it is doesn’t justify or even explain why it should continue to be this way, particularly in a country that was founded, supposedly, because taxation without representation is a problem, and a critical lack of political rights and power.