“House approves statehood for DC in 232-180 vote“

So, it’s a good idea especially since it’s guaranteed to vote Democrat forever.

 

They get more Fed money.

 

So, you seriously believe that there is no possibililty of the Republican party appealing to those living in our nation's capitol?

Frankly, I don't believe that. Republicans aren't that lame.

BUT, let's remember that any assessment of their issues CAN NOT BE a justification for denying them respresentation.

"Taxation without representation" didn't have any caveates concerning how the people might vote on taxes.

 

Not a chance, like there’s not a chance for NYC or LA or SF or Chicago to vote Republican. Demographics of any large city requires it to be Democratic. There are exceptions, of course, but a few.

 

I don't agree with looking at it that way.

Cities DO have specific kids of problems that rural areas don't have.

But, that's not an excuse for Republicans to ignore the issues of cities as something they can't address.

Our population is becoming more and more urban.

For Republicans to decide to surrender urban issues is a political suicide pact. I just do not believe Republicans are too stupid to recongnize that.

 

Next we will need to north Dakota into east and west Dakota.

 

everyone in DC gets paid by the taxpayer one way or another.

government jobs, welfare, food stamps, prison housing, etc...

 

Then it would be the first time in history that a nation or state actually wanted less land and didn't want land in the nation's capital. Maryland would get 600,000 new taxpayers and dozens of national leaders living in their borders. Maryland's approval won't be the problem.

 

DC is only 68 square miles and is a tiny square in the larger metropolitan area. Better to add it to Maryland since Maryland is smaller than average and can use more people. It would probably get them an extra elector.

 

Delete. Question answered right above me lol

 

I agree.

That accomplishes the goal of fixing the lack of representation and the difficulties of not having the powers of a state that are so seriously important.

Also, it can be done by ceding the land back to the state from which it came. That was done when the other 32 square miles were ceded back. And, it didn't require a constitutional amendment - which will be difficult given that partisanship is likely to reign over the issue of having a large population of Americans without representation.

While there is a snag in the legal story, ceding the land back would not take the same kind of effort as the creation of a new state.

I will say that Maryland is absolutely opposed. Having the federal government force them to take back that land is a rather strange thing to do to a state. For them, it would mean that their state government would acquire state representatives from DC. And, I suspect there would be other expensive elements related to treating DC equally as part of the state.

Maybe the federal government would have to step in in some way to help that incorporation and making it attractive to Maryland.

Good idea, and I do think this needs to be solved.

 

There might be some expenses for sure, but Maryland would be getting 600,000 new taxpayers whose average income is $85,000. There is also a lot of tourism in DC that Maryland would be getting. They would also be getting an extra elector in presidential elections, and an extra representative in the house expanding their influence. And I agree that the federal government should definitely help with the transition.

Maryland might oppose the session because it is democratic and it benefits the democrats more to make DC a state. They probably figure that they can just wait until the democrats have a majority, and then create the new state. The democrats can do the same thing to Puerto Rico and get even more electoral votes.

 

My understanding is that Maryland's objection has nothing to do with them wanting there to be a 51st state. DC does have problems that have built up over the years, and I suspect could be more than adequate.

DC has been seriously harmed by not having the power of being a state and not having control over its own budget. So, needed infrasturcture investment, etc., etc. has been killed in the US House, where DC has no representation.


The reasons for Puerto Rico are essentially identical, but that is irrelevant. PR also has significantly less representation, yet is controled by US law, pays taxes to the US, does't get the services that other states get for their taxes.

I find it disgusting that righting these obvious travesties is objected to on the grouds of partisan power.

We stand for equality. We stand for government by the people - representtive government.

We stand against taxation without representation.

Are we America or are we a pretender?

 

Leave it up to the residence of D.C.
Give them a choice. Keep their tax break or have representation. My gut tells me that they will keep the money.

 

I'm sure a deal could be worked out with Maryland since the addition of DC will boost their political influence on a national level. I don't think their opposition is a big deal since we have drawn state borders on many different occasions and haven't always made everyone happy. Its most logical that DC should rejoin Maryland, so thats what should happen. I'm sure Maryland will learn to live with a few extra square miles.

I do believe in representation and all, but its not that big a deal. People in DC kind of knew what they were getting into when they moved there. They could easily just move a few miles and get representation.

As for PR, I believe that they need to gain independence like other former colonies in the Carribean.

 

Because DC is too small to deserve 2 Senators.

It's the seat of national government, so they shouldn't get to set all their own laws.

 

DC does have a delegate in the House of Representatives, although she can't vote.
I wouldn't be against changing that.

That is a very different thing from statehood though.

It would also make it very complicated because there is a very large transient population in the capital, who work there temporarily but do not permanently live there. If you gave them the right to vote for a representative who had the right to vote, that could make things very messy.

 

You mean except for every member of congress who lives there part time?

 

That doesn't mean they don't vote on issues, and consider the residents in DC.

 

they are not giving Maryland the safe parts of DC, it will be the ghetto dangerous parts.

none of DC are taxpayers, the government employees are refunding taxpayer money with their labor and the poor receive welfare from taxpayers.

 

They RUN the government. They have a HUGE voice in government. They know they do not live in a state but a federal district. Want a Congress person who can vote in the floor then move a couple of miles.

 

Then that makes DC statehood a bad idea. You are essentially making a state out of a small ghetto zone of a metropolitan area. That state would be very dysfunctional and poor. If we are going to make DC a state, then at least give it the entire metropolitan area, including some country as well to make it about the size of Rhode Island. Even though Maryland might oppose it, it might be a better idea to give it a few bad neighborhoods. We have drawn state borders in the past, and you can't please everyone.

 

The idea that people can "move away", thus representation isn't required, that taxation without representation is OK, etc. does not even SLIGHTLY match what we stand for.

In fact, the constitution has been amended in the past in order to give individuals more individual represtentation.

 

DC doesn't deserve statehood because those are all net recipients of taxpayers

bureaucrats serve the taxpayer, not tell them what to do with democratic power.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/bureaucrat

 

Congress is totally gutless and self serving. In part, "terrorism" is defined as extortion to the will of an insurgency. That is exactly what your congress is doing.