Are there any legitimate reasons why someone would oppose DC statehood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

What’s your point? Vermont wouldn’t become a state today. Wyoming actually provides a lot through oil and gas drilling. So even though the amount of residents isn’t high, the tax dollars are.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

So what.

DC is the 20th largest city in the US. Why should it be a state and not NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver?

The residents of those cities all ready have all the rights that accompany statehood. Residents of DC do not. That is why DC should be a state and those cities should not.

I doubt anyone would care if DC got a vote in the House, but it is the fear of two Senators that drives much of the opposition. People think, "why does tiny DC deserve two Senators?" They should also ask, "why does Wyoming with even fewer residents have the same number of Senators as California and Texas?" If you don't believe DC deserves two Senators, then you shouldn't believe that Wyoming and Vermont deserve them either.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

What’s your point? Vermont wouldn’t become a state today. Wyoming actually provides a lot through oil and gas drilling. So even though the amount of residents isn’t high, the tax dollars are.

In fiscal 2018, Wyoming paid $4,930,650 in federal tax revenue. The District of Columbia paid $28,443,717:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#Fiscal_Year_2018

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

What’s your point? Vermont wouldn’t become a state today. Wyoming actually provides a lot through oil and gas drilling. So even though the amount of residents isn’t high, the tax dollars are.

In fiscal 2018, Wyoming paid $4,930,650 in federal tax revenue. The District of Columbia paid $28,443,717:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#Fiscal_Year_2018

BOOM.

Curious why Puerto Rico is on that list when its residents don’t pay federal taxes, though. Weird.

[Anonymous]

I'd prefer no taxation and no statehood.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane political polarization today just makes this a non-starter. I simply do not feel like hearing the country arguing like mad and tearing itself apart over another partisan issue.

I'm sorry that our desire to have the same rights as other Americans may ruin your day. "No taxation without representation" is a fundamental American value. It should not be a partisan issue.

How many states do you get in state tuition for again? Don’t pretend there aren’t benefits

[Anonymous]

Opposition to D.C. statehood is pretty much the same as the opposition was to Alaska and Hawaii statehood ... don't want to add liberals (anti-segregationist, pro-civil rights, etc, etc.) to Congress. "Legitimate reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

As I re-read our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), I'm reminded there's a Federalist argument to support D.C. statehood ... the Constitution doesn't set a MINIMUM size for the Seat of the Government of the United States!

SHRINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH D.C. STATEHOOD!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Opposition to D.C. statehood is pretty much the same as the opposition was to Alaska and Hawaii statehood ... don't want to add liberals (anti-segregationist, pro-civil rights, etc, etc.) to Congress. "Legitimate reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

As I re-read our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), I'm reminded there's a Federalist argument to support D.C. statehood ... the Constitution doesn't set a MINIMUM size for the Seat of the Government of the United States!

SHRINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH D.C. STATEHOOD!!!

While it doesn’t set a minimum size, they can’t turn it into a island completely surrounded by DC or you completely defeat a lot of the protections. SO how do you draw a seat that isn’t an island and that doesn’t include at least some residential areas?

[Anonymous]

Maryland resident here. I’m for retrocession. They’ll get to vote and Maryland can set up some Constitutional status to give them self government with some exception like maybe the DMV will become the MVA and the employees now work for Maryland (although some managers would be given sweatheart early retirement deals). DV would be a County and collect 3.2% income tax and the state would handle the state services. DC would get a county council and county executive. Their own school system, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

So what.

DC is the 20th largest city in the US. Why should it be a state and not NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver?

+1

Let's break down the US into 100 states.

Fun project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opposition to D.C. statehood is pretty much the same as the opposition was to Alaska and Hawaii statehood ... don't want to add liberals (anti-segregationist, pro-civil rights, etc, etc.) to Congress. "Legitimate reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

As I re-read our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), I'm reminded there's a Federalist argument to support D.C. statehood ... the Constitution doesn't set a MINIMUM size for the Seat of the Government of the United States!

SHRINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH D.C. STATEHOOD!!!

While it doesn’t set a minimum size, they can’t turn it into a island completely surrounded by DC or you completely defeat a lot of the protections. SO how do you draw a seat that isn’t an island and that doesn’t include at least some residential areas?

The current Seat of the U.S. Government is completely surrounded by Maryland and Virginia. The proposed new Seat would be surrounded by the new state and Virginia. No net loss/gain of surrounding states!

But I'm also worried about these "protections" you reference, and the additional cool thing about D.C. statehood is that it would shorten tremendously the defensive line around the Seat of the Government of the U.S. ... making it both easier to defend it against rebel forces and/or make it easier to hem in those pesky unionists! It's a win-win!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not economically viable.

Can you give me one could reason why DC SHOULD be a state, other than liking the way DC residents might vote?

Because they have no representation in Congress. No voice. Isn't that good enough?

+ 1 million

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

So what.

DC is the 20th largest city in the US. Why should it be a state and not NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver?

The residents of those cities all ready have all the rights that accompany statehood. Residents of DC do not. That is why DC should be a state and those cities should not.

[I was specifically responding to the "less residents" argument. "DC should be a state because it has more residents than Wyoming" -- well, it also has less residents than many other cities. If the number of residents is the factor that causes you to "deserve" being a state, then there are many better candidates than DC.]

I doubt anyone would care if DC got a vote in the House, but it is the fear of two Senators that drives much of the opposition. People think, "why does tiny DC deserve two Senators?" They should also ask, "why does Wyoming with even fewer residents have the same number of Senators as California and Texas?" If you don't believe DC deserves two Senators, then you shouldn't believe that Wyoming and Vermont deserve them either.

[Good God, the number of Senators is by design not connected to the population of the state. House seats are determined by population, and the Senate is intended to balance against this to prevent more populous states from bullying less populous states. This is 8th grade civics material here. ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

What’s your point? Vermont wouldn’t become a state today. Wyoming actually provides a lot through oil and gas drilling. So even though the amount of residents isn’t high, the tax dollars are.

In fiscal 2018, Wyoming paid $4,930,650 in federal tax revenue. The District of Columbia paid $28,443,717:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#Fiscal_Year_2018

BOOM.

Curious why Puerto Rico is on that list when its residents don’t pay federal taxes, though. Weird.

I think they pay payroll taxes (SS Medicare), but not income taxes.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

What’s your point? Vermont wouldn’t become a state today. Wyoming actually provides a lot through oil and gas drilling. So even though the amount of residents isn’t high, the tax dollars are.

In fiscal 2018, Wyoming paid $4,930,650 in federal tax revenue. The District of Columbia paid $28,443,717:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#Fiscal_Year_2018

If we start doing stuff like this, Fairfax County is more qualified to be a state. How about North Virginia?