Baja Arizona, 51st State?

[Lucky]

My Mother-in-Law is a GOP town mayor in the Adirondacks and was president of the NYS Association of Counties during one of those "two New Yorks" drives by the upstaters. They look at Medicaid and the huge amount of state funding for that and education that goes downstate and get all hot and bothered about how unfair it all is and decide they want to secede, convincing themselves that they can do so much better without that burden but then the budget numbers come back... and they discover that without downstate, Albany is a smaller version of Birmingham and the rest of the state they've created is as poor as Alabama plus they have to start from scratch at building a bureaucracy because the notional Downstate state lays claim to a huge chunk of state assets.

Now Fly's idea may have some merit-- Intentucky and Arklahoma sound pretty good to me, as does the Great State of Corn-- you knock out like six or seven state bureaucracies right there and you save on building costs on a new State Capital by just building a Corn Palace

Please don't put us with Oklahoma. I mean, have you ever been to Oklahoma? Missouri would be a much better fit, culturally. Or maybe Tennessee. Or maybe Texas could annex us as a supply of water and other natural resources.

On a semi-related note, it seems more and more that the GOP is reluctant to say what they believe on numerous issues, including the debt ceiling and tax issues. If you listen to Boehner, McConnell and Cantor, you get a different story every few days. They act as if the Tea Party or Grover Norquist have a gun to their heads. Is the Tea Party really that powerful? Don't the mainstream Republicans still have the power to handle the Tea Party as they did the Moral Majority?

I have seen many times when Dems and Repubs alike have been hesitant to alienate their respective bases. But I've never seen a group with such a stranglehold on a party as the Tea Party apparently has on the GOP.

[Kevin Seitzer]

No voice in Congress. That is prime cut.

They have an entire House of Congress specificallly tasked to look out for them. Did you overlook that detail?

J

I don't know that the best or most fitting solution for DC is statehood, but it's pretty clear they don't have representation in Congress. That other people get to vote for a Congress that is "tasked to look out for them" is pretty much the definition of taxation without representation. The British parliament was tasked to look out for the American colonies, and how much good did that do?

[onejayhawk]

I don't know that the best or most fitting solution for DC is statehood, but it's pretty clear they don't have representation in Congress. That other people get to vote for a Congress that is "tasked to look out for them" is pretty much the definition of taxation without representation. The British parliament was tasked to look out for the American colonies, and how much good did that do?

BK is floating a simlar canard. I soppose your argument might have teeth in some cases, but not this one. The House is hardly an absentee landlord.

If you want to argue that they have no effective representation, then do so. Unless and until then the dog is refusing to hunt.

J

[Fresno Bob]

BK is floating a simlar canard. I soppose your argument might have teeth in some cases, but not this one. The House is hardly an absentee landlord.

If you want to argue that they have no effective representation, then do so. Unless and until then the dog is refusing to hunt.

J

DC residents have no direct representation within Congress, yet are subject to all federal taxation. Guam and Puerto Rico have similar non-voting reps, yet do not pay federal tax. Hell, it took the 23rd amendment before District residents could vote for president.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07db05co.xls shows that DC paid more than $20B in federal taxes in 2007, which would put it in the middle of the 50 states.

[OaklandA's]

BK is floating a simlar canard. I soppose your argument might have teeth in some cases, but not this one. The House is hardly an absentee landlord.

If you want to argue that they have no effective representation, then do so. Unless and until then the dog is refusing to hunt.

I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this. The residents of DC do not get to elect a Senator or a voting member of Congress to represent them. The phrase "No Taxation Without Representation" came about because the colonists did not have direct representation in the British Parliament. In the same way, DC residents do not have direct representation in the U.S. House or Senate.

[Kevin Seitzer]

BK is floating a simlar canard. I soppose your argument might have teeth in some cases, but not this one. The House is hardly an absentee landlord.

If you want to argue that they have no effective representation, then do so. Unless and until then the dog is refusing to hunt.

J

What power do the citizens of DC have to change what Congress does if they don't like it?

[cardboardbox]

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07db05co.xls shows that DC paid more than $20B in federal taxes in 2007, which would put it in the middle of the 50 states.

Either the residents of DC are filthy rich, or this document is counting the population of DC as more than about 600k. Vermont has about the same population but only paid $3.8 billion in federal taxes while DC paid $20B? Something doesnt quite add up here.

[onejayhawk]

I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this. The residents of DC do not get to elect a Senator or a voting member of Congress to represent them. The phrase "No Taxation Without Representation" came about because the colonists did not have direct representation in the British Parliament. In the same way, DC residents do not have direct representation in the U.S. House or Senate.

I am not having a hard time. I do not think that the residents of DC are unrepresented.

The simple fact that the District was set up as a territory, and not part of the several states does not change that. It was intended from the start that they would not have a Congressman and Senators.

1) The residents of DC are in fact represented, quite effectively.
2) That they do not vote directly for Congress, does not necessarily impact point #1.
3) This also is not unusual. Many territories and protectorates have the same situation. Some, like Puerto Rico and American Samoa, have had the opportunity to apply for statehood, and have chosen not to.
4) No one has, at any point in this thread, attempted to make the case that the residents of DC lack effective representation. That is the bare minimum for the position being advanced.
5) The comparisons to the pre-revolutionary period are particularly inappropriate, since the District was set up by the same Founding Fathers being imporperly quoted. Please give them some credit.
6) The faulty assumption seems to be that everyone must be treated exactly alike, for things to be equitable.

J

[Mithrandir]

[QUOTE=onejayhawk;31612]I am not having a hard time. I do not think that the residents of DC are unrepresented.

The simple fact that the District was set up as a territory, and not part of the several states does not change that. It was intended from the start that they would not have a Congressman and Senators.

1) The residents of DC are in fact represented, quite effectively.
2) That they do not vote directly for Congress, does not necessarily impact point #1.
3) This also is not unusual. Many territories and protectorates have the same situation. Some, like Puerto Rico and American Samoa, have had the opportunity to apply for statehood, and have chosen not to.
4) No one has, at any point in this thread, attempted to make the case that the residents of DC lack effective representation. That is the bare minimum for the position being advanced.
5) The comparisons to the pre-revolutionary period are particularly inappropriate, since the District was set up by the same Founding Fathers being imporperly quoted. Please give them some credit.
6) The faulty assumption seems to be that everyone must be treated exactly alike, for things to be equitable.

J[/QUOTE

How exactly are they represented? I have no idea, so please tell me and others who are clueless about this.

Thanks.

[Fresno Bob]

Either the residents of DC are filthy rich, or this document is counting the population of DC as more than about 600k. Vermont has about the same population but only paid $3.8 billion in federal taxes while DC paid $20B? Something doesnt quite add up here.

Individuals and businesses incorporated in the District. As you might guess, there are quite a few more large businesses incorporated in DC than Vermont, or the Dakotas, or a bunch of other low-population states, well, except Delaware!

[OaklandA's]

I am not having a hard time. I do not think that the residents of DC are unrepresented.

The simple fact that the District was set up as a territory, and not part of the several states does not change that. It was intended from the start that they would not have a Congressman and Senators.

1) The residents of DC are in fact represented, quite effectively.
2) That they do not vote directly for Congress, does not necessarily impact point #1.
3) This also is not unusual. Many territories and protectorates have the same situation. Some, like Puerto Rico and American Samoa, have had the opportunity to apply for statehood, and have chosen not to.

The difference is that individuals in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the other territories do not pay federal income tax, while those in D.C. do.

[Judge Jude]

Didn't catch the whole thread, but is the D.C. thing a new argument over something that has changed, or the same one that has gone on for decades? Curious if there's a new twist to this one.

[onejayhawk]

The difference is that individuals in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the other territories do not pay federal income tax, while those in D.C. do.

The main difference is that DC is set down, in the Constitution, to be unique. The Congress is the government of the city. It was not until the 1970s that they even had a municiple government, and that took, literally, an Act of Congress.

J

[cardboardbox]

Individuals and businesses incorporated in the District. As you might guess, there are quite a few more large businesses incorporated in DC than Vermont, or the Dakotas, or a bunch of other low-population states, well, except Delaware!

That still doesnt explain why the individual income tax paid by DC residents is about the same as Nevada which has more than four times the population. Alaska has a similar population size as DC yet pays less than 1/4 the individual income tax. I havent looked, but I wonder if that 4x modifier is a trend...

[cardboardbox]

The difference is that individuals in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the other territories do not pay federal income tax, while those in D.C. do.

interestingly, in the excel file fresno linked to, individuals in PR do pay income tax. In total, more than North Dakota.