gbear Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I know DC doesn't have any power in the federal government. I know that those people who live there have no say in how the federal government is run. I guess I had never really thought through just how much the people of DC are subject to the whims and "morals" or other areas though until the budget for DC was passed earlier this week. They don't even get to run their own local government. If Mississippi or California decided they wanted a needle exchange program, and people in Virginia were against it, do you think they would have a needle exchange program? Well, DC opted for a needle exchange program and put it in their budget. Anyone want to take a guess what part of the budget was not passed? I'd even bet that those same people that stopped the needle exchange progam will latter on complain about how DC can't handle expenses. Heck, it might even be a reason to close another unprofitable public hospital. They'll never see the link between what they cancel and the worsening financial status of the District, but they might use the worsening financial status as proof that DC needs them to run it "properly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 They did have the power over their own budget along with local control of services. Unfortunately the corruptness and ineptitude of every mayor and city council they ever elected led to the city's decay and budget crisis. Congress HAD to take the control away. It was spinning out of control. If the people that live their are stupid enopugh to re-elect Barry, they dont deserve self rule. I am joking of course. But the importance of DC as the Capital and focus of Foreign relations is the reason that control is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 I'm not convinced that using the District as a way t oscore political point by subjecting the area to someone elses political/"moral" agenda is any less corrupt. Again, I don't live in DC. Heck, when I did live there for one year, I refused to register there because I didn't want to give up my voting rights in an election year. I just have some misgivings about how it is currently being run. I'll grant that DC faces a harsh economic reality by not getting tax money from the suburbs like many of the other cities in the U.S. Thus, D.C. probably isn't an economicly viable area on it's own. It's sad, but it was set up that way. The result is that MD and VA get many of the advantages to having DC there but without the burdens of a city's upkeep. That being said, what in this justifies the imposition of a social agenda from other localities? There is NO accountability of the politicians when it comes to their decisions about DC. Atleast if Ehrlich makes wildly unpopular decisions that effect his constituents in MD, those same constituents can vote him out of office. DC can't vote many their decision makers out of office because they're not DC politicans. That's a shame. As for your other point, is Congress going to take over all of the other local governments now that they are in financial trouble? I wonder how many state and city governments that would be? The answer is no, the fed will probably bail them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 DC is different from any other city. Different rules are going to apply. If there's another solution I'd be opening to hearing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 gbear...having grown up in dc......... 1) the government has demonstrated incompetence pretty consistently decade after decade 2) what do you mean no recourse? they can unelect the mayor and his cronies any time.....until recently it appeared that dc voters had a special affinity for crack users as political leaders... 3) your real target is congressiojnal representation not.... government generally, or morals specifically....and yes...we would all feel that much more comfortable with elenor norton holms (remember her inspiring fulisade post impeachment vote several years ago?) with dc representation 4) dc was created out of surrounding land expresssly for the pupose of hosting the federal government and has always enjoyed a special relationship....one that has produced significant economic advantages (look at the flip side, voters elsewhere don't really have a say on their moneys going to DC) with significant oversight. the federal government has a pronounced interest in the efficacy of local dc government. let's get to the meat of the matter.....democrats want dc representation cuz they know the district will vote unflinchingly for the democratic agenda. republicans are against it for the very same reasons. this is power politics. i'm not sure how imposing morals has much relevance in that (assuming that this even exists in the dc - a "dc morality" or "imposed morality" as it were) at any given time it will never be uniformly accpeted (whether "imposed" internally or externally). your equation is that lack of a vote in congress equates to imposed moral standards. are you sure about this? if so, then the rest of the country certainly has some explaining to do!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 How about the Federal government mandates that certain necessary things get done and are funded from the federal accounts, for example roads, cleaning, trash, and various other things that effect the appearance and utility of the city as the seat of power for the Federal government. As for other social projects, the elected DC government should be allowed to spend it's own tax money that it raises from residents. I'm just speculating, but roads and other appearance costs might in large part offset the disadvantage that DC has as a result of the constitution when it comes to tax base. Then DC could be treated like a state when it comes to home rule. I'm not saying this would make DC's financial footing okay, but how many city's in the US are okay now? It would just mean that DC would have the same tough questions on gas tax, property tax, income tax, ect. that the rest of the US faces and that to some extent they already face. The difference would be that if the politicans or voters say we approve this tax because it will give us money for X, some senator from timbuktu doesn't get to decide after the tax has been collected/approved that "up no, that money will now be used for Y" or "What money?" This would keep the Federal government from scoring cheep political points on social issues in an area where they have no accountability. This solution doesn't get rid of DC's lack of say in the Federal gov, but as a realist, I recognize that the Republicans will never back DC as a state, and without the support of both parties, the Consitution will never be changed. In all fairness, if DC were a more conservative population of voters, the Dems would never go along with it either. As a result, DC residents are just @#%#ed in that regard. Quick other question which maybe somebody else can explain: Does the Federal Government pay property taxes to DC? With so much prime land taken by decree in a constrained region, does it seem fare that residents are responcible for the costs associated with having the Federal Government there? The Fed basically takes up prime lands that could be generating tax dollars. I bring this up only for anyone who might argue "Why should the U.S. government have to pay for DC roads, trash, ect." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I think that's the ultimate problem g. How much help should they get. I dont have an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 Fan since 62, My arguement is not about representation in Congress. I view that as a lost cause for the reasons we both said. I argue that the Federal government steps in to decide things that would typically be done at the local level. This canning of the money to be used for a needle exchange program is a good example. Typically, needle exchange programs have had to be done at a local level (thanks to the weak kneed leadership of Clinton). Thus, it's been up to the states and local leaderships. However, in this case, the DC government decides they want it. Yes, that would be the government elected by the people of DC saying they want the program. So, who squashes it? That's right, it would be the government elected by the people outside of DC. My point is that politicians are scoring cheap political points by backing policies for DC that are unpopular in DC but popular among their home state. That's a problem because the decision makers aren't accountable to the people whom their decisions effect. "Government incompetance decade after decade.": 1) How many local and state governments aren't being fiscaly responcible now? Should the Fed take over for them? 2) I'd also argue that as the Constitution is set up now, I'm not sure it's possible to run DC without Fed money. It's setup not to be self sufficent. What's everyone else's excuse? "they can elect mayors and cronies": 1) I see when DC does it, it's because the people there are smart enough. Again, what's everybody else's excuse 2) If the purse strings are controled by someone else, how much power do these "cronies" have? How strong is the elected leadership that can't spend money? Perhaps it's not the cronies elected by DC, but the cronies from outside? Congressional representation: We agree will never happen. If DC starts voting conservative, Dems will kill a statehood vote. As a side issue, you seem to think DC is incapable of ever electing officials of the same caliber of the rest of the US. Would you care to say why you think that? Are you saying that living in DC makes people somehow less able to chose adequate politicians? I think pretty poor politicians have come from all over the US, but I don't see you clamoring for those areas to lose all local governing power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 g. THere are no other cities or areas in the US that can be compared to DC. It is going to have a different set of rules and standards because it doesnt have a state to report to it HAS to report to the Feds. Add to that the importance of being the Capital and it creates a difficult situation. The simplist solution is for Maryland to accept it back into the state and let the state GOvt deal with it (and still give them Federal funds). But that wont ahppen, MD doesnt want it.\ It seems like we agree on what needs to be done (outside of Congressional reps) and just differ on the amounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 DC residents have taxation without representation! We should make the residents their exempt from federal taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 g....you raise some valid points....however, in respect to the public purse.....again.....having grown up here in the local area...they have wasted/squandred millions through corruption, ignorance, sloth, inefficiency...you name it. so...this is a criticism that cuts both ways. in a nutshell...they haven't used what they have had terribly well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Jack, they have representation and they benefit from Fed taxes. Maybe they should have a reduction, but not an abolishment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Kilmer and fan62, I expected better from you guys. I'm shocked that you can't see what a disgrace it is that DC lacks true independence from the federal government. Competence or lack thereof should not be an impediment to self-rule.. otherwise there would be hundreds of other corrupt localities and even whole states (Louisianna) that should have they rights limited in the same manner. The Disctrict of Columbia is unfairly hamstrung by partisan federal politics and rightly should rally against the anti-democratic elements holding them back. It's truly sad that in a country that prides itself on upolding the Constitution and allowing every citizen equal say in our goverment, we allow DC to be a federal colony subject to rule from above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Kilmer, the District receives no direct benefit from federal government buildings located within the city limits. There is a large opportunity cost incurred by the city since only private corporations provide tax money, despite the city shouldering the load on infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc). I don't live in DC and never have, but I know bullsh!t when I smell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 The fact that DC is the Seat of our Govt means that competence of local govt IS an impediment (wrong term, but for arguments sake..). We simply cannot allow the city to continue the downward spiral is had been on for years. Do you remember the snow removal nightmare? The police corruption? The mayors crack habit? Why does the Fed have a say in it? Because without the Fed DC wouldn't exist. Without the govt employees and systems that exist in DC, their would be no DC. It is wholly different from Louisianna and or any other municipality. Without federal funding and support the local govt would fail and even more people in the district would be hurt. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than what existed in the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Jack, they have representation and they benefit from Fed taxes. Maybe they should have a reduction, but not an abolishment Not really. Their members don't get to vote. Who represents them in the congress and the senate? Nobody? Maybe they should dump some tea in Anocostia river? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I dont think you could tell the color change if they did. That might be the nastiest river on earth. And I can compare it to the Chatahootchee. What would you suggest to fix the DC problem. Note: giving them a house rep with voting and 2 Senators would not solve the problems of the district. That's simply a political issue and one the GOP will NEVER let happen (plus it would need an amendment to do so). But how would you fix the problems in DC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I dont think you could tell the color change if they did. That might be the nastiest river on earth. And I can compare it to the Chatahootchee. What would you suggest to fix the DC problem. Note: giving them a house rep with voting and 2 Senators would not solve the problems of the district. That's simply a political issue and one the GOP will NEVER let happen (plus it would need an amendment to do so). But how would you fix the problems in DC? No giving them representation for their taxation would not solve all of their problems, no more than giving the same things to Rhode Island solved their problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 gotta be 18 to vote! when DC grows up and can be taken seriously...you can follow the rest of the thought..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Just for the record, the corruption in the District of Columbia goes way back before 1968, when the District was finally allowed to elect it's own mayor. For years, and I mean 150 years, the federal government used the District goverment as a means of awarding patronage. Big contributors were awarded with jobs in the DC governement. This goes back to John Adams and was the basis of the landmark supreme court decision of Marbury v. Madison where the concept of unconstitutional was first espoused. Marbury was suing for a job that he was promised by Adams, but he was never sworn in and the political climate shifted when Jefferson became president. The District should at least have a voting representative in the House, or they should declare it a tax-free zone. Which, of course, I would prefer, I would move back to the city in a New York Minute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 its pretty sad actually, porta rico has more say in our government than DC does. and they don't even have to pay the federal taxes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 puerto rican terrorists also attacked the Congress in the 50s...maybe that's what some crazed DC group needs to do....after all, it would be the fault of the victims for suborning the DCites for lo these many centuries!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.