Taxation Without Representation (in Washington DC)

[jeff]

I just returned from a weekend in Washington DC, where, as you may know, the residents have no Congressional or Senate representation. To my surprise, lots of license plates had the slogan "Taxation Without Representation" - see http://www.dcvote.org/involved/plates.cfm

Well, what do you think? Is this fair? (I sure don't think so...) Should they become the 50th state and get representation in the House and Senate? Should they be counted as part of Maryland for voting purposes (no Senators, but probably a congressional seat or more).

(This thread is not intended to stir up any dissent between US and UK posters on this board! That old business has long been resolved!)

[Rogue]

(tongue in cheek)
The DC populace elected Marion Berry after his highly publicized drug arrest. Some how I feel more comfortable with them not having any influence.

[Epee_Pox]

If you gave DC the same rights as a state, you'd get 2 senators and a handful of representatives from a very small town. That just doesn't seem fair. Neither does it seem fair for its residents to be without a voting voice in Congress.

And yet...

They DO have a disproportionate voice in presidential elections, with the same number of electors as some large states.

Other US citizens live in territories without voting seats in Congress, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, Massachusetts (jk), etc.

DC was specifically made separate from the surrounding states, because as the seat of government, we don't want to give precedence or extra prestige to any one state.

So far as taxation without representation goes, the city is a net receiver of tax dollars -- it receives more federal money than its residents pay in taxes. But then again, there are individuals who do pay federal tax there, and they should have some representation.

===

There are three ways to give DC residents a voting voice in Congress: 1) statehood, 2) amend the Constitution to make them Maryland residents for congressional voting purposes, or 3) amend the Constitution to give them representatives proportionate to population as elsewhere plus only one senator, but without statehood.

Option 1, statehood, is out of the question for a number of reasons, primarily the concern for having the seat of government be apart from the states.

Option 2 is interesting. Even better would be to make the bulk of DC part of Maryland, with the federal buildings and federal land being separate (like a fragmented Vatican City). There are already separate police forces for the federal bits and the rest of the city, it's not difficult to separate the rest. The only problem is that Maryland doesn't want it. As pointed out above, DC is a net receiver of tax dollars, and would be a sucking drain on Maryland's economy. So that's out of the question, as well.

Option 3 is feasible. DC already has "shadow" representatives and senators, who get to take part in debate and speak on behalf of DC residents, but cannot vote. Merely giving them a vote would resolve the matter.

Doing so would add several solidly Democrat votes to Congress, and yet it never happened under 8 years of Clinton. Or under Carter. Or under Johnson or Kennedy or FDR.... wonder why...

[mrbiggs]

I think that D.C. should have representation, it is, after all, a normal city for the most part.

I also think that the voting age should be lowered to 16 because elsewise younger workers can be taxed without representation.

[Epee_Pox]

MrBiggs -- it's not that individuals (such as minors) are taxed without representation, it's that all citizens of a particular territory are taxed without having a representative able to cast a vote.

Minors do have a representative who votes on their behalf. They just can't vote for that representative. A 6-year-old who buys a candy bar pays sales tax, and yet does not vote for the state legislators and city councils that imposed such a tax. But the child is not unrepresented, because there are state legislators and city councils that represent the child's district.

People in DC have nobody in the federal legislature who can cast a vote on their behalf. 16-year-olds in Massachusetts do have representatives and senators who can cast votes on their behalf.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

{snip}
Other US citizens live in territories without voting seats in Congress, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, Massachusetts (jk), etc.
{snip}

But residents of Puerto Rico and Guam don't pay federal income tax on income earned there.

--Philistine

[S. Hunter]

[QUOTE = The Constitution]Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And [/quote]

[QUOTE = Ammendment XVI]The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.[/quote]

I interpret that as, they have no right to representation. Thats just me though.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

MrBiggs -- it's not that individuals (such as minors) are taxed without representation, it's that all citizens of a particular territory are taxed without having a representative able to cast a vote.

Minors do have a representative who votes on their behalf. They just can't vote for that representative. A 6-year-old who buys a candy bar pays sales tax, and yet does not vote for the state legislators and city councils that imposed such a tax. But the child is not unrepresented, because there are state legislators and city councils that represent the child's district.

People in DC have nobody in the federal legislature who can cast a vote on their behalf. 16-year-olds in Massachusetts do have representatives and senators who can cast votes on their behalf.

Personally, I don't want someone who votes on "my behalf". That system was the reason we broke off from Britain 230 years ago. It just plain doesn't work.

I agree that a city without voting rights is completely different from a small age group, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway.

Yeah, I think that D.C. thing is just plain wrong. At least give them someone in the HoR, if not a Senator.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by S. Hunter

I interpret that as, they have no right to representation. Thats just me though.

I think the complaint is they should have the representation.
My question is, why did the population of DC grow since its creation. Did all those people see a benefit of moving/living there that outweighed them having a voting representative in congress?

I think the biggest reason nothing has changed is because DC is defined in the constitution and changing the situation takes some doing. And frankly I don't think enough people care to encourage their congressman to change it.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Rogue

I think the complaint is they should have the representation.
My question is, why did the population of DC grow since its creation. Did all those people see a benefit of moving/living there that outweighed them having a voting representative in congress?

I think the biggest reason nothing has changed is because DC is defined in the constitution and changing the situation takes some doing. And frankly I don't think enough people care to encourage their congressman to change it.

I think the initial populations in DC were employees, working and service class populations. Followed by the more wealthy and working class who kept second homes in Georgetown and Upper Northwest DC and around Capitol Hill, so that they could attend to business and politics in the city. The farm and horse communities of Potomac, Leesburg, Fredericksburg were all quite a drive (several days by horse, full days by train) to get to the city where they needed to tend/lobby/represent/bank/work.

Eventually the city had pockets of permanent residents. Not at all what was originally intended.

The people of DC care enough to want to be represented. But statehood for DC really means nothing to anyone else. Certainly not enough to cause anyone to try to encourage it in the House of Representatives. DC is stuck - no representatives of their own to support them and no votes from fellow representatives.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Personally, I don't want someone who votes on "my behalf".

Yet you have it. Your Congressmen vote "on your behalf" already, as do mine. That we exert any influence over them with our votes is illusion.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by S. Hunter

I interpret that as, they have no right to representation. Thats just me though.

Rogue is right - I wanted to bring up the question for discussion here of what it should be, rather than what law currently states. (I also agree that people who voted for Marion Berry make you raise your eyebrows...)

I am confused though: with your signature line and your affiliation, wouldn't your personal opinion be that DC citizens must indeed have those rights and that they cannot be revoked?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

If you gave DC the same rights as a state, you'd get 2 senators and a handful of representatives from a very small town. That just doesn't seem fair. Neither does it seem fair for its residents to be without a voting voice in Congress.

D.C.'s population (based on U.S. census) is comparable to Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yet you have it. Your Congressmen vote "on your behalf" already, as do mine. That we exert any influence over them with our votes is illusion.

I agree with you partly here.

Your congressmen do vote on your behalf, as do mine. The only difference is that they don't care what I think. Thus the problem.

Well, if it is true that we don't exert any influence over them with our votes, our American Republic has failed and is dead. It might be true, but I sure hope it isn't.

[scrapinpeg]

MrBiggs, may I suggest you go read the Federalist papers and then get back to us. You are only demonstrating a lack of understanding of how the process works and how it is supposed to work. But you're also a pretty smart guy, and I think you'll enjoy the read.