DC statehood: Things that make my blood boil:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

So, if a decision is controversial, not unanimous and protested at the time, that means it is not binding and valid? Not sure you have traced through the implications of that thought...

''

You still haven't provided any good reason against DC statehood (which as proposed, shrinks the size of DC to the federal area and establishes the vast residential areas of DC as a new state).

The only comments are that it's how was done was and stop whining. You seem to be vehemently against it or you'd move on to another forum.

Now now, don't forget that people are also making the "if you don't like it, move" argument. Always a discussion stopper, that one.

Because you seem not to understand that "if you don't like it, advocate for change" is a viable option.

Ha, I am the PP you are responding to and apparently my sarcasm fell totally flat and I need to work on my phrasing. To be clear I am firmly in the "if you don't like it, advocate for change" camp, I was trying (and clearly failing) to make fun of the people opposed to DC statehood by dismissing their "if you don't like it, leave" argument

Ah, thank you for the clarification!

[Anonymous]

DC statehood inevitably means more government and higher taxes. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC statehood inevitably means more government and higher taxes. No thanks.

How so?

Is this just your way of saying you'd support it if DC was majority republican but don't because DC is majority democratic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC statehood inevitably means more government and higher taxes. No thanks.

How so?

Is this just your way of saying you'd support it if DC was majority republican but don't because DC is majority democratic?

DC will need to pay for own prosecutors, public defenders, courts and prisons. DC will need to pay for own water system. DC will need to pay for own higher education system.

None of that stuff is cheap. Enjoy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC statehood inevitably means more government and higher taxes. No thanks.

How so?

Is this just your way of saying you'd support it if DC was majority republican but don't because DC is majority democratic?

DC will need to pay for own prosecutors, public defenders, courts and prisons. DC will need to pay for own water system. DC will need to pay for own higher education system.

None of that stuff is cheap. Enjoy.

This is a point I had not considered (not the PP). Amongst all these opinions of pro/con, it is worth considering the impact of statehood on the people of DC re costs/services, along w tax/revenue implications. I am not sure what all the Fed gov provides DC right now, and subsequently the ability to impact tax revenue if statehood is granted, eventually. Any more clarity in this area would be great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC statehood inevitably means more government and higher taxes. No thanks.

How so?

Is this just your way of saying you'd support it if DC was majority republican but don't because DC is majority democratic?

DC will need to pay for own prosecutors, public defenders, courts and prisons. DC will need to pay for own water system. DC will need to pay for own higher education system.

None of that stuff is cheap. Enjoy.

This is a point I had not considered (not the PP). Amongst all these opinions of pro/con, it is worth considering the impact of statehood on the people of DC re costs/services, along w tax/revenue implications. I am not sure what all the Fed gov provides DC right now, and subsequently the ability to impact tax revenue if statehood is granted, eventually. Any more clarity in this area would be great.

Higher Education expenditures for all states in 2020 was 8% of total expenditures. In DC it was 0.7% of total expenditures. Combine the need to fund an actual university with the inevitable loss of DCTAG and you can hear the sad trombone playing.

The reality that statehood proponents won’t tell you is that the fiscal consequences would be severe. As an immediate matter, even Blue states would demand the cessation of several Federal subsidies to DC that their states did not enjoy as a condition of statehood. Second, the medium term consequences would be even worse, considering the political realities of Congress where DC would have 2 junior Senators and would stand at the end of the line for Federal dollars. Lastly, proposals such as the free transfer of Federal land to DC for private development, including previously McMillan Reservoir, but currently the proposal for RFK would be dead and buried forever.

DC right now enjoys the best of both worlds while proclaiming victim status. The pro-statehood folks should be careful of the dog catching its own tail.

[Anonymous]

Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

This has all been laid out in the proposed state constitution
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/NCSC-Constitution-State-of-New-Columbia.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC statehood inevitably means more government and higher taxes. No thanks.

How so?

Is this just your way of saying you'd support it if DC was majority republican but don't because DC is majority democratic?

DC will need to pay for own prosecutors, public defenders, courts and prisons. DC will need to pay for own water system. DC will need to pay for own higher education system.

None of that stuff is cheap. Enjoy.

This is a point I had not considered (not the PP). Amongst all these opinions of pro/con, it is worth considering the impact of statehood on the people of DC re costs/services, along w tax/revenue implications. I am not sure what all the Fed gov provides DC right now, and subsequently the ability to impact tax revenue if statehood is granted, eventually. Any more clarity in this area would be great.

Higher Education expenditures for all states in 2020 was 8% of total expenditures. In DC it was 0.7% of total expenditures. Combine the need to fund an actual university with the inevitable loss of DCTAG and you can hear the sad trombone playing.

The reality that statehood proponents won’t tell you is that the fiscal consequences would be severe. As an immediate matter, even Blue states would demand the cessation of several Federal subsidies to DC that their states did not enjoy as a condition of statehood. Second, the medium term consequences would be even worse, considering the political realities of Congress where DC would have 2 junior Senators and would stand at the end of the line for Federal dollars. Lastly, proposals such as the free transfer of Federal land to DC for private development, including previously McMillan Reservoir, but currently the proposal for RFK would be dead and buried forever.

DC right now enjoys the best of both worlds while proclaiming victim status. The pro-statehood folks should be careful of the dog catching its own tail.

A fully funded UDC would still be inadequate. The end of DCTAG would precipitate a mass exodus of families from the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

This has all been laid out in the proposed state constitution
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/NCSC-Constitution-State-of-New-Columbia.pdf

And this is why no one takes statehood seriously because not even the proponents take it seriously. A 21 member unicameral “Assembly” is just an expanded DC Council, which will probably happen soon enough anyway.

DC likes to compare itself to Wyoming. Well Wyoming had 60 state legislators.

Pretty comical to cry about democracy while proposing the most anti-Democratic state governance structure in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

This has all been laid out in the proposed state constitution
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/NCSC-Constitution-State-of-New-Columbia.pdf

Lol. This isn’t a state legislature. 21 members? Members elected at-large and from eight wards…excuse me, I meant to say…legislative districts? It’s the city council on steroids. It’s also dangerous. Only 11 votes needed to pass legislation? 14 votes to override a veto? This idea lacks sufficient checks on power and opens the door wide for potential abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

This has all been laid out in the proposed state constitution
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/NCSC-Constitution-State-of-New-Columbia.pdf

And this is why no one takes statehood seriously because not even the proponents take it seriously. A 21 member unicameral “Assembly” is just an expanded DC Council, which will probably happen soon enough anyway.

DC likes to compare itself to Wyoming. Well Wyoming had 60 state legislators.

Pretty comical to cry about democracy while proposing the most anti-Democratic state governance structure in the country.

Sounds like maybe the Wyoming legislature is bloated and too big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

This has all been laid out in the proposed state constitution
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/NCSC-Constitution-State-of-New-Columbia.pdf

And this is why no one takes statehood seriously because not even the proponents take it seriously. A 21 member unicameral “Assembly” is just an expanded DC Council, which will probably happen soon enough anyway.

DC likes to compare itself to Wyoming. Well Wyoming had 60 state legislators.

Pretty comical to cry about democracy while proposing the most anti-Democratic state governance structure in the country.

Sounds like maybe the Wyoming legislature is bloated and too big.

No. See the 12:52 poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

This has all been laid out in the proposed state constitution
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/NCSC-Constitution-State-of-New-Columbia.pdf

Lol. This isn’t a state legislature. 21 members? Members elected at-large and from eight wards…excuse me, I meant to say…legislative districts? It’s the city council on steroids. It’s also dangerous. Only 11 votes needed to pass legislation? 14 votes to override a veto? This idea lacks sufficient checks on power and opens the door wide for potential abuse.

There would be so much corruption it would be insane.

[Anonymous]

DC will never be a state. 0%.

Time to return to Md.