No taxation without representation...except for DC
 

"We condemn the Chinese for yanking democratic rights in Hong Kong. We're spending billions to try to establish democracy in Baghdad. . . . It is crystal clear, to me at least, that the capital of the free world ought to have a vote in Congress," said Davis, a 55-year-old House leader who has oversight of the District and federal government operations and who chaired the GOP majority's 2000 and 2002 election efforts."

This is a qoute from an article in the Washington Post about how there is a bill on the floor that would give DC voting priviliges in Congress. Currently we have a Delegate in the house. She can vote in committee but not on the floor.

In 2002 DC had 571,000 residents which is more than the state of Wyoming, which has a population of 499,000.

Theres talk of having DC residents vote for Senators and Congressman in Maryland, Maryland strongly opposes this.

here is a link to the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun22.html

D.C. originally was formed by land from Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia land went back to Virginia. If its that important to give D.C. residents representation, cede the land back to Maryland, and they'll be able to vote in statewide elections, and they'll get 1 representative.

Granting statehood to every 571,000 person entity (less than the size of a congressional district) that wants it is absurd. With that line of reasoning, New York City could become a dozen states.

I would be happy with our Delegate becoming Congresswoman and being allowed to vote on the floor. Getting 2 senators would be ideal, but would not happen.



That would never happen. But IMO everyone should be represented by voting power in the legislature, and its really unfair that half a million people arent. I know that DC residents could move to a state if they dont like it, but why should you have to? Whats th big deal?

DC's license plates say "Taxation Without Representation" ;)

DC should have at least some voting power in the legislature (i.e. more than they have now - a delegate who can't vote on the floor).

Thanks for the link, Matt.

Maryland doesn't want us and we don't want Maryland.

We deserve to be a state.

http://about.dc.gov/statehood.asp

Just like all Americans, residents of Washington, DC:

# pay federal and local taxes;
# serve in the armed forces and make sacrifices in times of war and conflict;
# serve on juries to uphold federal laws and policies.

Yet, DC residents are denied voting representation in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, and do not have complete autonomy over their own budget and local laws. The Congress - representing everyone except DC residents - has the final say on DC's budget and laws.

DC elects a Delegate to the House of Representatives who can vote in committee and draft legislation, but does not have full voting rights. The current Delegate is Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

http://about.dc.gov/statehood.asp

DC high school (public or private) are granted in-state status at ANY public university college in the country. Obviously a major tuition benefit, but also a big asset for the admissions process itself.

And I would trade that in for Statehood.

It was my understanding DC high school students are granted in-state status for tuition purposes only and not for the priority ranking in-state students receive. Also DC's only public college still isn't accredited is it. So if DC residents were to stay in town for college they would have to pay private tuition rates.

Tuition purposes only, true.

The University of the District of Columbia is accredited by Middle States. But it's nothing like the SUNY system, University of Maryland, or other public universities. It is relatively new, after the merger of three smaller schools. And it's really just not competitive.

The Republican party would NEVER in a million years never ever grant them statehood. I realize it's not their decision but the republicans would never let them happen. Because the second they become a state, they would get 2 sentors and however many congressmen and all of them most likely would be democrats. And then democrats would win majority of the house and the senate. And it would probably stay that way for a long long time. I believe something like 97% of all registered DC voters are democrats. The republicans wouldn't stand a chance.

And, I feel, that DC is in such bad shape for many reasons that them not having help from the federal government and them being a state, they would never be able to take care of themselves if they were a state.

Don't kid yourselves. Even when the Dems have been the Majority Pary, there has NEVER been serious interest in granting Statehood to the District. Norton is a joke as have been all her predecessors.

Obviously she's NOT top tier. :rolleyes:

She's an ineffectual representative for her consitituents.

I think this D.C. issue is a lot more complicated than what is in the article, since many of the U.S. territories and commonwealths have a nonvoting delegate in the House.
Puerto Rico
American Samoa
Guam
Virgin Islands

Do people in D.C. pay federal income tax? I know Puerto Rico does not pay federal income tax (which is also why some do not want to be a state). Also, how are indian lands, which have boundaries within a state, treated with regards to federal income tax?

OH WE MOST DEFINITELY PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!!!!

Now, if we could get the Puerto Rico deal I would be HELLA happy! I say keep my delegate, give me my MONEY!!!!!

Bumping for VAgirl.

There are different, more opinionated people on the board now and I'd like to know what you think.

Note: I still won't care what you think, but I'd still like to know, particularly the opposition. ;)

ETA: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...s-bill-wo.html

Puerto Rico
 

Although this is a DC post, no disrespect intended, I´ll throw in my 86 cents on Puerto Rico.

* Puerto Ricans are US Citizens since 1917 and have fought in all wars US has participated since.
* All Puerto Ricans in jobs somehow related to federal govt DO pay federal taxes.
* Yet, Puerto Ricans don´t even have voting rights for the President (as DC has since the 1961 Amendment).
* About 50% of the population DO want to be a state, but being the first non-incorporated territory of the US, since 1898, Puerto Rico has never had the right to aspire for it.
* The expression "Puerto belongs to, but it is not part of the USA" summarizes the US govt position regarding the island. Puerto Rico status, as per recent federal court decisions, is the same as Guantanamo Bay.
* There are 4,1 million Puerto Ricans stateside (which I won´t include for the count) and 4 million Puerto Ricans on island. If PR were to become a state, with a population larger than 23 states, it would have 7 congress delegates.

Will PR ever be a state? It seems not, although many people wish it. If it isn´t, the ball is on US court.

I say give PR voting rights for the President that rules over it. Give PR its delegates in Congress. Make PR a state.
OR
Give PR its independence. Give it back its money.

Let´s end the ambiguity!

Now, I am full aware that until DC´s situation is cleared, PR´s is not close to find a solution either.

¡Puerto Rican and proud citizen of the USA!

Actually I'm pretty sure Puerto Ricans have fought in almost every war the US has participated in period.
Yes but it is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
Huh?
Um you do realize that Puerto Rico has held plebistices over the years and statehood has never reached a majority.

I would love for Puerto Rico to be a state, but I don't want to force it on them. They should not be forced to be independent either.

As it stands, they are a protectorate of the United States. I feel they have the right to self-determination, to join the Union full-on, to become completely independent, or to remain as they are.

This means that when Puerto Rico was acquired by the US in 1898, its status was that of non-incorporated territory. Unlike Hawaii and Alaska, which were incorporated territories and went on to become states, that option was not in the table for Puerto Rico since day one. Non-incorporation is a territory not on path to statehood.

I didn´t say the majority. 48% of the people want to be a state. The other 49% of the people want a relationship with the US, that if not statehood, does include voting rights (with whatever responsibilities it includes). Only 3% wants independence, although this number is probably higher. All three groups want the current status to change.

Regardless of however democratic we would like the process to be, through referendums, etc., at the end of the day, it is Congress who has the final say. If nothing has changed, again, the ball is on US court.

I just say that if the US doesn´t want PR to be a state, it should at least give it its independence. Being ruled by a President and a Congress for which Puerto Ricans have no vote is as undemocratic as it goes.

What really gets me is that we have the Tea Party running around claiming that they are being taxed without representation, but they all get to vote for congressional delegates and the President. Yet, these are the same people who are the first to ignore the outcry of real taxation without representation from the citizenry of DC because it would be politically disadvantageous for them. I guess representation only matters if you pick the right repesentation.

AWESOME. Oh, wait. I forgot... tuition to some private schools in DC (i.e. St Alban's) run about $32k/year for elementary school. And does anyone else in DC remember when Michelle Rhee was brought in as Chief Superintendent, and they did stories about how the DC Public School System was doing? There were reports out there saying that there were 8th graders that couldn't fully read. Public Schools, and even some Charter Schools, are also infested with gangs that start recruiting children as young as age 8. Forgive me, but cheaper college tuition is not worth it to me. We're moving out of DC when we have kids.

I can bitch about taxes as much as anyone else, but the real issue now is the gun amendment and also the extra seat that would be added to Utah. Eleanor Holmes Norton says that she's not done with the fight, but it's not going to change while I'm here. DC is too much of a transient town and is just a stop for a lot of people on their way to somewhere else. I'm not sure if they'll get a population of stable homeowners that really care about the issue and will be willing to fight a long battle for a vote. Sad, but I think it's kinda true.

Do you think more people would be willing to stay if this were different? I know I was considering moving to DC recently before I got my job in Arizona. It was a very difficult decision to make whether or not to live in the district or in a suburb. For families, it's a no brainer. For my husband and I, we thought that for at least a short while, the benefits of being in the city made up for the lack of representation. For the long haul, however, I don't know how I'd feel.

Not quite. As I understand it, DC residents can apply for grants of up to $10,000 to cover the difference between in-state tuition and out-of-state tuition. A grant is not guaranteed, and only those enrolled in courses of study for a first bachelor's degree are eligible.

Wow.

Did I offend? I'm not lying. Watch on CNN- DC schools ranked last of all states in the US. Also, Michelle Rhee is on video, saying that 12% of DC 8th graders are proficient in reading, and 8% are proficient in math:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/...dc.schools.cnn

And regarding gang recruitment in MD and DC, "County State’s Attorney Glenn F. Ivey said gang recruitment is occurring in elementary and middle schools. Schreck agreed, stating that children as young as 7 are being targeted." See link:

http://www.gazette.net/stories/07270...44_31946.shtml

Yet everyone is fighting her tooth and nail to reform the school system.:rolleyes:

Since the topic is Statehood..... yeah, I'm going to leave it there rather than argue context, especially what "gangs" actually mean in DC.

I am hoping to God she is out of a job come June...what she has done to the system here is deplorable

I like her. :eek:We don't agree about something!!!!!!!! Okay. Let's not fight! I don't have kids, so I don't really care!!

Okay, I'll try to bring it back to topic by asking a question of the DC residents:

Is statehood as such important to you, or is it voting rights that are important? In other words, would it be an acceptable outcome for you if voting rights did not include statehood?

I'll show my hand a little in asking the question: I'm 100% all for voting rights, congressional representation, a voice in constitutional amendment ratification, etc. for residents of the district. At the same time, I think there is some real wisdom in the way the founders set up (constitutionally) a district for the seat of government that is seperate from any state. So while in general I wouldn't have any problem with a proposal that in essence treats DC as though it were a state, I think I might have some pause over actually making DC a state (the State of Columbia?).

But I don't live in DC, so I'd really like to know what those of you who do live in DC think.

No fighting here! :)


Well...firing a bunch of teachers that you just hired the year before because you say you don't have money when you actually did...or didn't...depending on who you are willing to believe, is a problem.

What do you feel is the wisdom? Not that it matters, as the seat would still exist, it would just be slightly larger than the Vatican.

I want Statehood. Voting rights are not enough.

Yeah, I heard all of that. I just don't believe all the demonization of the woman.

I think you are right. Voting rights aren't enough because so little is accomplished with JUST the vote. How much is done by congressional action, having the ability to pass your own state laws without congressional approval, votes in the electoral college, etc?

I think that we can make it work without putting the federal government under the jurisdiction of the State of Columbia, which before the Civil War (when our Forefathers set this all up and when states had much more power) may not have been so easy.

Well, I have 3 teachers you can talk to. *wink*!

I see wisdom for a country fundamentally composed of a federation of states in having the capital not be located in any of those states -- in being outside the jurisdiction of any state and solely under federal jurisdiction.

Now, I'll readily grant that things have changed a great deal in 200+ years -- Washington is much more of a "permanent" city than it once was. So I'd be open to arguments that what was wise in the late 1700s no longer works. But I do see the wisdom of it.

Why? What do you see as the difference? What would statehood add that voting rights wouldn't provide. And would it matter to you if it appeared that a constitutional amendment for voting rights (like the DC Voting Rights Amendment) could be ratified but a contitutional amendment for statehood couldn't?

I'm not trying to challenge you; I want to understand your perspective better.

AOII Angel pretty much summed up my feelings, as does this website.

Not trying to be non-responsive, I just don't know what more I could say.