Taxation WITH Representation? Also loLieberman

[Absolutely Virtue]

Politics warning.

As most people probably don't know, residents of DC do not have a voting member in the United States House of Representatives. This means we pay Federal income tax, but have literally no voice in Congress. This is simply, plainly, not right. I appreciate that nobody cares outside of DC, but it's something most of us believe strongly in. 600,000 people live in this city, and we're the very embodiment of taxation without representation. Not fair. See wiki article here

And the reason why is plain old politics. DC is overwhelmingly (and I mean over-fucking-whelmingly) Democrat. Republicans have long blocked any effort in Congress to get us a vote, because they know that's one more Democrat to oppose them. In recent years, we're tried to compromise by introducing bills that would add TWO new seats to the House. One for DC, and one for the next largest area without one. That area is a Republican majority bit of Utah. Bush vetoed that one, too. Thanks, W.

But hope is not lost. There are plans to introduce new legislation right now to coincide with the incoming Democratic administration. It looks like we might finally get a chance to have our voice heard. And here it is 2009. I wanted to call people's attention to this, though, so everyone will understand the argument. After all, the wiki linked above contains this gem: "A 2005 poll found that 78% of Americans did not know that residents of the District of Columbia have less representation in Congress than residents of the 50 states."

So that's that. Queue incoming arguments that residents of the District don't deserve a vote in Congress.

This is also funny. Joe Lieberman is apparently a supporter of the bill. He released a statement today with this line: "The people of the District have been the direct target of a terrorist attack but they have no vote on how the federal government provides for their homeland security,"

Right on, Joe! Only one problem. The Pentagon is in Virginia, not DC. Oops.

Story is in today's Washington Post.

[Kwijiboe]

We definitely could use more crooks in congress.

[Suited Aces]

This is also funny. Joe Lieberman is apparently a supporter of the bill. He released a statement today with this line: "The people of the District have been the direct target of a terrorist attack but they have no vote on how the federal government provides for their homeland security,"

Right on, Joe! Only one problem. The Pentagon is in Virginia, not DC. Oops.

The plane that crashed in western PA was believed to be headed towards the Capital building.

[Byrd]

I thought D.C. had a house seat, but knew that had no senators. Guess you learn something new every day.

How is a district fundamentally different than a state? It's clearly not a territory like Puerto Rico -- DC residents can vote for president. They've got more people than Wyoming. Why shouldn't D.C. have two senators and one representative for every so many residents? I don't see a reason.

[Cephius]

From the wiki:

Opponents of D.C. voting rights propose that the Founding Fathers never intended for District residents to have a vote in Congress since the Constitution makes clear that representation must come from the states. Those opposed to making D.C. a state claim that such a move would destroy the notion of a separate national capital and that statehood would unfairly grant Senate representation to a single city.

I think this is more why conservatives block the bills, although I'm sure the fact that 85+% of DC voted for Obama has something to do with it. I'm a Democrat, I'm all for getting dems another vote, but it does seem like giving direct representation to citizens of DC is against the Constitution. Meaning even if Dems did pass a bill, it could be shot down by the supreme court as being unconstitutional.

And again, I get how this is "unfair", but do DC citizens pay more taxes than others? No. Do you get to elect your President? Yes. Do you get to vote on school budgets and shit? I'm sure you do. This just doesn't strike me as the huge injustice you're making it out to be.

[GeneJackit]

DC has a non-voting delegate to congress...but you do realize that the US Congress has been overwealmingly run by Democrats for the last 60 years or so? Also, the same demographics were true during the Civil Rights era of 1961~1972 and you had JFK and LBJ...LBJ was certainly a champion of expanding gov't ie the Great Society...you would think this wouldve been "solved" then. Honestly, DC probably should have voting members to Congress, but to paint this as some sinister GOP plot is just absolutely misguided and misinformed.

[Absolutely Virtue]

To suggest that this should have been "solved" because Democrats have held control of Congress at various points greatly, GREATLY oversimplifies the argument. In those same periods where Democrats held control, other pieces of the agenda weren't passed- Women's Rights Amendment, Gun Control, you name it. You're also ignoring the final say in the matter (a President's veto) has been very much in play, considering we've had a Republican in office for 20 of the last 28 years. You can call me names, but I'm certainly not misinformed.

While local DC government does have control over some aspects of our city, the Constitution expressly gives the US Congress executive jurisdiction over any and everything. For most day to day things, they tend to leave us alone. But we are also subject to the whims of Congress, and are often used as political fodder. Rarely does Congress create the rules by which we live in the District, but they do move to block changes that WE vote for because they do not match their political agenda. Specific cases include-

Congress voting to prohibit DC from using funds to enact a bill that would alllow health care benefits to be extended to same sex partners.

Congress repeatedly (mostly with direction from Bailey Kay Hutchinson, from Texas) working to relax DC's very strict gun laws. This was rendered moot recently, however, when the Supreme Court decided DC's gun laws were unConstitutional, despite the fact that they have the overwhelming support of the residents.

Congress blocking the use of public funding for needle exchange programs, despite their demonstrated efficacy in the prevention of the spread of AIDS, for obvious conservative reasons. Google Todd Tiahrt (KS- R) + needle exchange for more info on that gem.

Now maybe I'm just being "misguided and misinformed," but that sure as shit looks like the Conservative agenda to me.

The fact of the matter is that DC opposes this things, but Congress controls our government and most importantly our money, and they have the final say. And we cannot complain in Congress, because we cannot vote. We pay taxes, we are eligible for the draft, and we should have the exact same rights as everyone else. Taxation without Representation, I hope you realize, is the very principle on which this country was founded.

And finally, to the people who would suggest that giving us voting representation would somehow be unconstitutional, let me remind you that the Constitution was written to be amended.

Why on Earth should I not have the same rights as other Americans?

You can read about "Home Rule," the term we use to describe our effort to get our rights, on wiki.

[GeneJackit]

Congress repeatedly (mostly with direction from Bailey Kay Hutchinson, from Texas) working to relax DC's very strict gun laws. This was rendered moot recently, however, when the Supreme Court decided DC's gun laws were unConstitutional, despite the fact that they have the overwhelming support of the residents.

So, if this argument is correct then if we took a poll of americans and they supported not changing DC's representation status then that would be a moot point as well?

Look, you are hitting me with both barrels...my point is not that DC shouldn't have voting rights...i am VERY sympathetic to the idea, my whole point was that giving the vote to DC has NEVER been a priorty to ANY president / congress ever...it isnt just the evil GOP. Also, the Dems have had plenty of super majorities in congress to overturn a presidential veto, if it was such a top priority. Also, to point out all the great things that came out of congress and use that as a reason why they simply couldn't get around to a voting act for DC is a spurious argument. If it was such a top priority congress could've stopped voting on things like naming post offices, or doing research on goth kids in St Louis and passed this bill. You are also forgetting that a President is a political creature as well, so you really think that if it had support from millions of americans that they would veto it simply on principle? Is there any principle left in politics anyways?

Also, if you think that there is some sinister motive by the GOP / Conservatives to stop representation for an automatic 2 DEM senators and 1 house member, then couldn't someone else argue that the opposite is true? IE if your motivation to get represenation is ONLY b/c you want a DEM permanent majority, then isnt that a pretty sinister motive too? It appears that if that is one's arguement then that is just as under-handed as the machinations of the evil GOP.

I'm not hear to argue about social issues involving about what DC residents think they should and shouldn't allow, and I think i should reiterate that i think (basically) that DC should have 2 senators and 1 house member

[GeneJackit]

and wait a minute, who has been in the majority in congress for two years? The dems. Now i know the argument is going to be "well, president Bush would veto anything about DC." That is a terribly flawed argument. 1) Bush has rarely used his veto pen on anything but hot button issues 2) Dems in Congress could make it a political pr nightmare for the President.

Honestly, sharing needles legislation? That is absolutely not a national issue of any prominence whatsoever, so I am sure that could get through congress...if not as a seperate issue, then through with an omnibus bill or Defense Department spending bill...everything is attached to those.

Once again, my overarching point is that NO ONE cares about DC politics / issues accept the people who live in DC....just like i am sure most of america dont give two shits if Rod Blagojevich is impeached in my state of IL, and i dont blame them

as the saying goes, "All politics are local."

[Maxxthepenguin]

Here's the problem: It seems to be unconstitutional. I think DC residents should have the same rights as all other Americans, but the constitution wasn't written that way. It's a fault of our constitution to be sure. The fact that it's not constitutionally supported means it's hard to pass and because it's not going to win the dems any more votes than they already have (you're not going to be voting republican because of this), the dems aren't enthusiastic enough to actually do the necessary legwork. Keep in mind that almost all that happens in Washington is to get people's vote and injustices like this make some sort of sick sense.

TL;DR: The republicans oppose it, but the dems don't really care that much. Of course, I'm not that informed so I might be completely wrong.

[Vail]

the answer is simple, stop paying your taxs then

[Seraph]

the answer is simple, stop paying your taxs then

Or move a few miles away. :-/

Who needs to vote when you are literally close enough to kiss the asses and blow the people who govern you!?!

>_>

[GeneJackit]

The reason the District doesnt have voting rights is b/c it was never thought to be a center of population. It was meant as the nation's capital, and therefore the idea was that not many people would live there...basically just the members of gov't. Obviously, the situation has changed greatly and it is a population center, but it would take a Constitutional Amendment to make the change and I really doubt that is going to meet the requirements to be ratified (2/3 congress 2/3 state congresses.) This doesnt mean that congressmen and state legislators are bigots; just apathetic to the cause.

DC is also unique b/c more than 500 000 people work there, making the population go over a million...what kind of representation should these people receive since they literally spend more time in DC than home? There is no other city where it has that influx of people from a different state...I know there a lot of people in NW Indiana who commute to Chicago to work, but nowhere near 500 000.

[Arelian]

`111`

[pohibaba]

And finally, to the people who would suggest that giving us voting representation would somehow be unconstitutional, let me remind you that the Constitution was written to be amended.

That's great and all, but this bill you're talking about isn't a proposed Constitutional Amendment, it's simply an attempt to circumvent the law.

[Churchill]

Completely disagree, though I don't think the forefathers saw the city becoming so large and full of political scum, so I guess my solution would be to have you fall in under Virginia or Maryland and have a congressman for your district be added to theirs, after an amendment of course.