Anonymous wrote:DC will never be a state and the Democrats are just trolling their own. It's a medium sized city.

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's not as if this is a secret. They are welcome to move to an existing state if they want Congressional representation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also if the residential areas form their own state, no more DC appropriations. You’ll need to fund those services on your own.

Your privilege slip is showing, DC is self-funded via taxes.

No DC receives additional federal payments through its appropriations beyond the operating budget. Sure there are negatives, no commuter tax, but that would be a bad idea now. Business and organizations can just relocate to where their employees live and anyone who works in federal buildings within the new, smaller DC would still be exempt from taxation. I’m not sure it’s that much a win for DC residents, but’s it’s definitely a win for democrats who want two more senators.

So ignorant. Kentucky gets appropriations. Alaska gets appropriations. Mississippi gets appropriations. Your point is no point.

Yes every state receives federal funds. For example, all states receive highway funding. I am speaking about the DC Appropriations bill where DC gets several hundred million dollars in addition to the funds available to all states. Those appropriations fund tuition assistance grants, courts, and prisons, and other services. DC will have to fund or cut those programs when it is a state. A commuter tax may not bring in as much as DC anticipates if Virginia and Maryland also impose commuter taxes. Do more people from Md and Va work in the non-federal parts of DC or do more DC residents work outside of DC? I'd guess the latter.

So dumb. DC is actually one of least funded states: https://taxfoundation.org/federal-aid-reliance-rankings/

Thats cause DC is rich. Wealthier states pay less than they receive in federal benefits. But DC receives special benefits beyond what say a NY or MA receive. The DC FMAP should be 50 percent but due to its special status as the federal district, Congress set an enhanced FMAP of 70 percent. When DC becomes a state it will drop back to 50. That’s worth several hundred million dollars.

Wrong.

You fail to understand the fiscal impact of statehood. Maybe it’s a net savings or maybe it’s a net cost, but it should be explored and DC residents need to consider how much more they are willing to pay in state income taxes to gain two senators and a voting house rep. As a Va resident, there is no limit to how much I am willing to let you pay to get two more dem senators. It’s telling that Va’s senators now support statehood— they know a nonresident income tax will no longer harm Va because enough DC residents commute to Va for work there to offset the losses. I think retrocession makes more sense for DC residents financially. You get representation and taxes will be lower.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also if the residential areas form their own state, no more DC appropriations. You’ll need to fund those services on your own.

Your privilege slip is showing, DC is self-funded via taxes.

No DC receives additional federal payments through its appropriations beyond the operating budget. Sure there are negatives, no commuter tax, but that would be a bad idea now. Business and organizations can just relocate to where their employees live and anyone who works in federal buildings within the new, smaller DC would still be exempt from taxation. I’m not sure it’s that much a win for DC residents, but’s it’s definitely a win for democrats who want two more senators.

So ignorant. Kentucky gets appropriations. Alaska gets appropriations. Mississippi gets appropriations. Your point is no point.

Yes every state receives federal funds. For example, all states receive highway funding. I am speaking about the DC Appropriations bill where DC gets several hundred million dollars in addition to the funds available to all states. Those appropriations fund tuition assistance grants, courts, and prisons, and other services. DC will have to fund or cut those programs when it is a state. A commuter tax may not bring in as much as DC anticipates if Virginia and Maryland also impose commuter taxes. Do more people from Md and Va work in the non-federal parts of DC or do more DC residents work outside of DC? I'd guess the latter.

So dumb. DC is actually one of least funded states: https://taxfoundation.org/federal-aid-reliance-rankings/

Thats cause DC is rich. Wealthier states pay less than they receive in federal benefits. But DC receives special benefits beyond what say a NY or MA receive. The DC FMAP should be 50 percent but due to its special status as the federal district, Congress set an enhanced FMAP of 70 percent. When DC becomes a state it will drop back to 50. That’s worth several hundred million dollars.

Wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also if the residential areas form their own state, no more DC appropriations. You’ll need to fund those services on your own.

Your privilege slip is showing, DC is self-funded via taxes.

No DC receives additional federal payments through its appropriations beyond the operating budget. Sure there are negatives, no commuter tax, but that would be a bad idea now. Business and organizations can just relocate to where their employees live and anyone who works in federal buildings within the new, smaller DC would still be exempt from taxation. I’m not sure it’s that much a win for DC residents, but’s it’s definitely a win for democrats who want two more senators.

So ignorant. Kentucky gets appropriations. Alaska gets appropriations. Mississippi gets appropriations. Your point is no point.

Yes every state receives federal funds. For example, all states receive highway funding. I am speaking about the DC Appropriations bill where DC gets several hundred million dollars in addition to the funds available to all states. Those appropriations fund tuition assistance grants, courts, and prisons, and other services. DC will have to fund or cut those programs when it is a state. A commuter tax may not bring in as much as DC anticipates if Virginia and Maryland also impose commuter taxes. Do more people from Md and Va work in the non-federal parts of DC or do more DC residents work outside of DC? I'd guess the latter.

So dumb. DC is actually one of least funded states: https://taxfoundation.org/federal-aid-reliance-rankings/

Thats cause DC is rich. Wealthier states pay less than they receive in federal benefits. But DC receives special benefits beyond what say a NY or MA receive. The DC FMAP should be 50 percent but due to its special status as the federal district, Congress set an enhanced FMAP of 70 percent. When DC becomes a state it will drop back to 50. That’s worth several hundred million dollars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also if the residential areas form their own state, no more DC appropriations. You’ll need to fund those services on your own.

Your privilege slip is showing, DC is self-funded via taxes.

No DC receives additional federal payments through its appropriations beyond the operating budget. Sure there are negatives, no commuter tax, but that would be a bad idea now. Business and organizations can just relocate to where their employees live and anyone who works in federal buildings within the new, smaller DC would still be exempt from taxation. I’m not sure it’s that much a win for DC residents, but’s it’s definitely a win for democrats who want two more senators.

So ignorant. Kentucky gets appropriations. Alaska gets appropriations. Mississippi gets appropriations. Your point is no point.

Yes every state receives federal funds. For example, all states receive highway funding. I am speaking about the DC Appropriations bill where DC gets several hundred million dollars in addition to the funds available to all states. Those appropriations fund tuition assistance grants, courts, and prisons, and other services. DC will have to fund or cut those programs when it is a state. A commuter tax may not bring in as much as DC anticipates if Virginia and Maryland also impose commuter taxes. Do more people from Md and Va work in the non-federal parts of DC or do more DC residents work outside of DC? I'd guess the latter.

So dumb. DC is actually one of least funded states: https://taxfoundation.org/federal-aid-reliance-rankings/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The size of DC has already changed. It used to contain two counties: Washington and Alexandria. The county of Alexandria was returned to Virginia in 1846. (Which is why we call it Washington, DC. There used to be an Alexandria, DC.) There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a minimum size for the federal district; it would be possible to make a smaller federal district that encompassed just the central federal buildings and make the rest of the territory a state.

And your easy solutions are not easy. Moving is difficult for many people, and people shouldn't have to move to vote, and there's not enough housing in the surrounding counties to absorb 700,000 new residents. And Maryland doesn't want DC, so you can't just return it.

Alexandria was never part of DC. Arlington was, which is why its borders look like it was part of the same square as DC. We returned it to Virginia in the mid 1800s.

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting that the reasons of the founding fathers remain valid? That giving DC residents Congressional representation would give them too much power?

That seems like a good reason to me. I like the idea of the nation's capital being located in a neutral territory. Why should it be a state? Do we need another state? If we really want to make it a state, wouldn't it make the most sense just to annex it back to Maryland, which donated the land in the first place?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Retrocession would be a far better option.

Sayeth racists.

So if thou be not what thou nameth, I assume you want to return the land to the Nacotchtank and Piscataway? Surely as a committed wokesperson you can point me to your writings on this subject, your pleas for the Native Indian downtrodden?

And the better lesson against retrocession can be found in the 1783 Pennsylvania Mutiny, as someone as woke as you would surely know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also if the residential areas form their own state, no more DC appropriations. You’ll need to fund those services on your own.

Your privilege slip is showing, DC is self-funded via taxes.

No DC receives additional federal payments through its appropriations beyond the operating budget. Sure there are negatives, no commuter tax, but that would be a bad idea now. Business and organizations can just relocate to where their employees live and anyone who works in federal buildings within the new, smaller DC would still be exempt from taxation. I’m not sure it’s that much a win for DC residents, but’s it’s definitely a win for democrats who want two more senators.

So ignorant. Kentucky gets appropriations. Alaska gets appropriations. Mississippi gets appropriations. Your point is no point.

Yes every state receives federal funds. For example, all states receive highway funding. I am speaking about the DC Appropriations bill where DC gets several hundred million dollars in addition to the funds available to all states. Those appropriations fund tuition assistance grants, courts, and prisons, and other services. DC will have to fund or cut those programs when it is a state. A commuter tax may not bring in as much as DC anticipates if Virginia and Maryland also impose commuter taxes. Do more people from Md and Va work in the non-federal parts of DC or do more DC residents work outside of DC? I'd guess the latter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The size of DC has already changed. It used to contain two counties: Washington and Alexandria. The county of Alexandria was returned to Virginia in 1846. (Which is why we call it Washington, DC. There used to be an Alexandria, DC.) There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a minimum size for the federal district; it would be possible to make a smaller federal district that encompassed just the central federal buildings and make the rest of the territory a state.

And your easy solutions are not easy. Moving is difficult for many people, and people shouldn't have to move to vote, and there's not enough housing in the surrounding counties to absorb 700,000 new residents. And Maryland doesn't want DC, so you can't just return it.

Alexandria was never part of DC. Arlington was, which is why its borders look like it was part of the same square as DC. We returned it to Virginia in the mid 1800s.