No Taxation Without Representation

[hive_king]

Currently, there is a bill in congress to allow the District of Columbia to have a voting representative on Congress. It is a bill I whole-heartedly support. DC, as a taxpaying city of American citizens, deserves to have its own representative. To do otherwise is a gross violation of the "no taxation without violation" that Patrick Henry talked of.

I ask that all Americans write to their congressmen and women and to their senators and ask them to vote yes on it. You can find their emails here:http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_i ... rs_cfm.cfm


For those of you who don't think DC should get the vote, i'd be interested in hearing why.

[Sparrowhawk]

I don't necessarily care, but the Bill will never pass anyways - why would politicians (who essentially operate DC at their whim and will) want to give DC true representation? They don't, and they won't.

[hive_king]

You don't care about the americans being taxed without representation, yet you spout off about madison, hamilton, and jefferson? Interesting.

[Sparrowhawk]

I don't care, because there's nothing to be done about it anyways. The bill is just gesticulation. And while I just recently "spouted off" ( ) about Jefferson and Madison I haven't mentioned Hamilton in quite some time, and then only in passing in reference to his opposing the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, because he believed they were redundant and unneccesary (believing that the Constitution itself spells out that all citizens have all rights, naturally and in-born, that there was no need to enumerate them at all.)

[hive_king]

There's even less of a chance that organ donation laws will be changed, yet you're posting passionately about that.

[Sparrowhawk]

Actually, organ donation has a great deal of activists promoting legislation reform, wherein DC's taxation issue is something that almost only DC cares about. While I know you zealously wish you could make me seem like a hypocrite, it's not very becoming. Is taxation without representation wrong? Well, no s***.

The real question is, is DC willing to accept the responsibilities that come along with statehood? Because that's the only way they're going to get their problem fixed, the same as Puerto Rico - get representation by applying for statehood. The only difference is that Puerto Rico doesn't WANT those responsibilities, they just want the federal funds they get (but shouldn't be unless they're an actual state.)

[hive_king]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but getting a bill to the floor of congress is a lot further than "a bunch of activists." Now this actually has a good amount of interest outside of DC, but its a good idea to keep pushing. The bill left committee with a vote of 24-5, indicating that it has a very good chance of passing. AB, if you support the idea in theory, then why don't you write a letter to your senator? One letter might not change his or her mind, but it will be one more thing nudging them in that direction. Besides, its free of cost to you if you email it, so you're not losing anything in the process.

And AB, only you can make yourself look like a hypocrite.

[Sparrowhawk]

AB, if you support the idea in theory, then why don't you write a letter to your senator?

I support the idea of taxation being only proper when used for the 3 primary purposes of taxation - the defense of the nation, the protection of citizens from criminals, and the promotion and maintainence of liberty. So yes, I "support the idea in theory."

HOWEVER, I have NO IDEA if the bill you mentioned has anything to do with any of these things; all you said was the there was a bill before congress that, if passed, would provide a voting representative to DC. Is that precisely what the bill will do? Is there anything else in the bill (almost certainly there is)? Isn't DC represented already? Would this representative be an actual congressman? Etc etc. I try not to support bills I don't know anything about. If you actually know more about this bill and you want people to support it, tell us all about it.

[hive_king]

Alright. This bill will give DC one voting congressman. It will also add one more congressman to the state next in line to get one, Utah, to keep the house at an odd number. DC currently has delegate in congress, but she can't actually vote on anything. There is some talk of amending the bill so that it specifically states that DC can not have senators, but this has not yet been added to the bill. This is all it would do. Anything else you want to know?

[Seiryu]

I had always assumed they were represented by one of the surrounding states (like Virginia,) but if not...the bill is a pretty good idea.

[anonshadow]

As only one other state has less people than DC (Wyoming), and that only two others are anywhere near it (Alaska and North Dakota), I would like to see more information about this bill, too. It would seem a tad... unfair... to give Washington DC representation that is comparable to other small states, especially since DC does not have the economic status that they have.

I, like AB, was under the impression that DC was already represented. I would like to see more details about the situation before making a decision and saying that 550,000 people are being so unfairly discriminated against.

[Seiryu]

It seems to me, though, that Washington D.C. isn't as populated because a lot of people there live in Virginia and commute to DC daily. I mean, I know, for instance, there are people who work in New York, but live in Connecticut.

[Slim]

From what I understand, DC is primarilly made up of Democrats, so it would be ideal in the minds of the current majority in congress to get DC some representation now.

The downside would be that DC will have to change their license plates. -- They currently say "Taxation without representation"

[anonshadow]

Seiryu, it doesn't matter why DC isn't populated. The people who work in Virginia are represented in Virginia.

[Seiryu]

That was more of an observation than anything else.

[anonshadow]

But how is it relevant??

[Seiryu]

I suppose it's not. Not really.

[Matty]

As only one other state has less people than DC (Wyoming), and that only two others are anywhere near it (Alaska and North Dakota), I would like to see more information about this bill, too. It would seem a tad... unfair... to give Washington DC representation that is comparable to other small states, especially since DC does not have the economic status that they have.

To me, that's an argument in favor of giving DC a representative and two senators. Wyoming has those, despite having a smaller population. For consistency, Washington should get the same thing.

Actually, Washington DC is mostly black people. So maybe they should just get .6 representatives and 1.2 senators.

[Virlomi]

As someone who's spent the large majority of her life shuffling between Virginia and DC, let me just say that the reasoning behind having DC not actually a part of either Virginia or Maryland in the first place (at least as I understand it) was so that neither of those states could claim to represent the capitol. So no, Elena, DC residents are most definitely not being represented by my Virginian congressmen and senators. It's true that a good chunk of northern VA is essentially a large suburb of the city, much in the same way that northern New Jersey is to New York. I realize the scale is a little bit different, but it would be a fairly similar statement to the one you just made to say that New York City dwellers don't actually need representation because most of them commute from outside of the city anyway.

[hive_king]

Not to mention, inside the city itself, there are about half a million residents. These people don't live in Virginia or Maryland and aren't represented in congress.

[Sparrowhawk]

There exist valid arguments on both sides - on one, DC as the capitol must remain independent of and free from the entaglements of state politics; on the other, it has regular everyday citizens who are taxed without the full representation of a Congressman.

[hive_king]

If the choice was yours, what would your verdict be on whether or not DC shoud be allowed a voting representative?

[Sparrowhawk]

The question is vague. Are you asking whether I'd approve the bill in question if it were my choice, or asking what I would do about the situation in general? As for the bill, I still don't know enough about it to say 'yay' or 'nay.' My own personal option would be to simply dissolve DC altogether, save for a very tight boundary encircling only federal buildings. The rest of DC would be absorbed into the states they would otherwise be in anyways if DC didn't exist. The parts that border VA would be part of VA, etc.

[zeroguy]

Another near-DC resident to chime in that DC definitely does not have representation in either house. In voting, anyway. I do believe they have an "observer" who is allowed on the floor, but they aren't allowed to actually do anything (such as, vote or debate).

[anonshadow]

As someone who's spent the large majority of her life shuffling between Virginia and DC, let me just say that the reasoning behind having DC not actually a part of either Virginia or Maryland in the first place (at least as I understand it) was so that neither of those states could claim to represent the capitol. So no, Elena, DC residents are most definitely not being represented by my Virginian congressmen and senators. It's true that a good chunk of northern VA is essentially a large suburb of the city, much in the same way that northern New Jersey is to New York. I realize the scale is a little bit different, but it would be a fairly similar statement to the one you just made to say that New York City dwellers don't actually need representation because most of them commute from outside of the city anyway.

Okay. I thought they might be represented in some other capacity. Thanks.

I didn't say (or I didn't mean to) that because there are a lot of commuters, DC doesn't deserve representation. I was saying that the fact that there are a lot of commuters does not make them more (or less) entitled to representation. Those commuters, for the purposes of representation in Congress, are completely irrevelant.

Again, Nick, if you could link me to more information on this bill, that would be great.


Matty--

No, that's not an argument for it. Most states have less people than New York City does--should New York City get two senators?

The point is, Washington DC does not deserve the same representation as a state because it does not function in the same way that a state does. While the population of Wyoming is less at the moment (though it is currently increasing), Wyoming provides other functions--it contributes to the economy more than DC does, for example.

[hive_king]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.328:

Here is the text of the bill. It pretty much says exactly what I described it as doing, giving DC one permanent voting representative, amending congress so it has 437 seats.

[anonshadow]

Thank you!


Based on the text of this bill, I don't disagree with giving DC one seat in the House. I would object to giving them two senators, as well, but that's neither here nor there.

Out of curiousity, do members of various government offices reside in DC in a capacity that prevents them from getting representation elsewhere?

[Guest]

Looks like it doesn't matter.

[hive_king]

Bush has threatened vetoes and not gone through with it before. It is entirely possible that he will cave in when he realizes that this could potentially severely threaten his party's efforts to reach out to black voters. Also, even if he does veto it, it can still help the bill pass when the next president takes office. Why do you seem so against this?

[Guest]

Then again, he (Bush) might realize that giving a predominantly black region a voting representative won't be in the best interest of his party now or in the future. Politics, friend. Politics.

[hive_king]

Yes, but considering there's a very good chance that the next president will be of African descent, passing the bill now could help it pass again in 2009, where it would be signed into law by President Obama. (I suspect Clinton, Richardson, or Edwards would sign it too.)

Bush might also reaize that giving Utah another seat is definately in his favor

[jotabe]

Oh, but in the news we get here in Spain, i read that afroamericans over there didn't like Obama very much, because he wasn't a "real afroamerican" (despite him being actually both african and american, while afroamericans are actually only americans... oh the irony).

[Firegirl]

I think that DC should have a representative in congress as having .5 million people without any representation is a travesty on many levels.
Sparrowhawk or Guest or AB or whatever name you wear, there seems to be an underlying theme of classism or elitism (maybe even racism?!?) that shows through by your not wanting DC to have representation. Much of DC's population are underprivilaged African-Americans, who do not live in mansions. The congresspeople, lobbyists, politicians etc. do not count as their states of legal residence are elsewhere and they vote in those states.

H_K, nothing will save Bush, not Utah, not anything. He would likely give Texas another vote first.

[anonshadow]

I find it funny that instead of arguing with ideas or make a coherent statement as to why you think it should get representation, you just toss out an accusation of racism.


I don't disagree with your stance, but I find your post to be absolutely ridiculous. For one thing, most people don't live in mansions, and obviously poor black people don't. As far as actual percentages go, according to the ACS in 2005, 56.8% was black, 32.4% of DC was white, 8.9% was Hispanic, 3% was Asian, .3% was Native American or Alaskan Native, 1.5% was multiracial, and 6% was some other race.

83.6% of people over 25 in the city has a high school diploma; they rank 36th in states for people over 25 possessing a diploma. However, 45.3% of that same age group has at least a Bachelor's, and in that, the city rises above every state in the country (the next is Massachusetts, with 36.9%). 19% of the people in it are below the poverty line (or 16.7% households).

The median household income was $55,832. There's more detail here, and it's certainly troubling, but it's also incorrect to make it seem like DC is entirely made up of impoverished blacks.

Of the 282,189 people in the labor force, 67,723 are government workers. That's 25%, so evidentally, your claim that "the congresspeople, lobbyists, politicians etc. do not count as their states of legal residence are elsewhere and they vote in those states" is not entirely true. Yes, senators and representatives do not count, but there are plenty of government workers who do.

53,469 of the 248,213 households in the city make more than $100,000--21.5%.

Yes, DC has some major problems, and yes, many of its people are discriminated against. Some of you have still been stating inaccurate facts ("Most of DC is black" vs. 56.8%, government workers don't count, etc), which isn't condusive to a real discussion.

[Jebus]

Ugh, facts! Ignore her, Firegirl, these guys are just trying to keep the black man down.