Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Water Cooler' started by fried-chicken, Jun 30, 2020.
If the people of DC want to be a state, why not?
You'd have to amend the constitution.
I have been on the Puerto Rico Statehood bandwagon for years
Because there is no corresponding Republican state to add. Puerto Rico, Samoa, USVI, Guam and Mariana islands should be states too but then that would probably add 12 minority US Senators. No bueno.
If you took away their senators is there any other reason not to?
Also DC has always had special status since the founding of this country. The founders felt like if they were a state, they would get benefits that other states would not get. There was talk about DC joining Maryland or VA but both are mostly rural with one major city in Maryland (Baltimore). Adding DC would consume their politics.
I don't think you can do that. The last time we added a state was Hawaii (D) and Alaska (R). Plus 50 is a nice nifty number.
But they want to be a state. So, why not?
They are already reaping the benefits of the federal government Moreso than the states, so it would give them extra benefits via representation.
Extra benefits such as what?
Actually, DC Residents pay more Taxes than 22 states and only have non-voting members of the house.
The problem would be the wording of the constitution and the premise on why DC was founded which was to be independent home of the government independent of a state
This article lays out why the left wants It and why the right doesn’t and shockingly** It comes down to the fact that It would be a blue state.
Making DC a state along with the other territories would offset the mistake of making so many mountain time zone states (low population).
so much investment would go into San Juan
Hawaii of the east.
There's already a ton of investment that goes there. Why that island isn't as successful as Hawaii is just a total lack of leadership and vision.
I think Hawaii has a lot of foreign investment.
I'm sure they do with European based resorts. I've never been to PR but have a friend that lived there for 5 years and ran the Hamilton-sundstrand. he said there was a lot of dealing with Capone-style "protection" that the local government just let go. Would that end if it became a state?
Edit: Hamilton-sundstrand may have just been called UTC there.
Puerto Rico is a lot more complicated than that. First off cant really compare Puerto Rico to Hawaii, since one is a state and one isnt. THey arent on the same playing field. But also, Puerto Rico has been screwed over by banks as much as anything, and because they arent a state, they dont have the same protections that states and US cities have. Here is a brief article on it, but it goes a lot deeper than this, and it is certainly more than just a lack of leadership and vision.
Even if DC isnt given full statehood, they at least deserve a voting member in congress. It is literally taxation without representation.
Fair point. I suppose the real issue with this is that the founders never intended for DC to be as large or powerful as it is but included backstops in case it did. The logic behind the whole premise is that you don't want the people reaping the financial benefits of the federal government also having a say in those benefits.
This is a tough one.
But everywhere benefits from the federal government.
From protections and function, yes. Not from process.
There are plenty of civilians in DC, and plenty of DC insiders live in VA or Maryland, and do have representation, so your point doesnt even really hold up when you consider that aspect of it. Not to mention, not every government job in DC is an influential position. People who work at the parks for instance, have no say in process, but still have dont have a voting representative (if they live in DC).
Which is why the residential areas of DC should have been absorbed into the surrounding states long ago. It never should have become the metropolis that it is.
They can be a State when we rip out the governmental job infrastructure and send those jobs evenly to the rest of the nation.
Maybe so, but it still doesnt change the fact that civilians and low level government employees in DC have no voting representation in congress, while someone who works for the CIA in VA, for example, does. I just dont think your argument works when you factor all of this in.
DC is totally recession proof. That’s pretty much a given now. The people living there in Congress can literally vote more jobs and more money into their own community in DC.
If they want to be a State then dismantle the entire federal axis of power and send it across the US. Which of course negates the entire purpose of having a Capitol but it’s what you guys want.
There are federal jobs all over this country, especially when you consider military bases.
Congress does not have a history of taking great care of DC though. Part of DC looks like a 3rd world country, any money you are talking about doesnt go to the hotel or restaurant workers for instance.
Maybe when considering their statehood we should hold them to the same standard as any other potential new state: what do you have to offer?
Just because the residents there "want" membership really doesn't mean anything more than if Tijuana "wants" to be a state. What if Niger wanted to be a state? Take them as well?
Geographically and logistically it makes sense but if they don't benefit the union as a whole, why not just leave things as they are?
People in Niger arent American citizens, arent located in the US, and dont pay Federal taxes. But again, Im not really arguing for statehood necessarily, but they at least deserve a voting representative in congress.
Do you feel that they are unrepresented? It seems like by defacto they are pretty well represented by living in and amongst almost all of the elected officials.
Puerto Ricans have American passports. Not really the same situation as random African countries.
Of course than are under represented. DC has more people than a few states, but has no voting representative in congress. And the elected officials in DC dont really look out for DC. It isnt like the average citizen in DC has access to the entire federal government just because they are in the same town.
They don't look out for the average citizen of DC? Thats like 4 of the 5 richest counties in the country. I'd say they're doing just fine.
You are confusing the suburbs for the city. The VA and MD suburbs have representation and are in states, that's not what I'm talking about. DC proper has one of the highest poverty rates in the country.
So do you think having representation in congress would change that? It just seems like there's an awful lot of money flowing through there already so I'm not sure that having a couple of congressmen would make more difference than the mayor can.
One vote would obviously have limited influence, but they are American citizens and should have at least 1 rep who can vote, and be treated like every other district in the country.
The mayor and city council have limited power too though. The DC budget is controlled by Congress, and they are obviously more concerned with the tourist and government areas than they are about the city as a whole. And why wouldnt they be? They are held accountable by voters who dont live in and could care less about DC. So even at a local level, DC residents have far less say than voters anywhere else in the country.
Richest zip code is right out of DC. Wonder how that happened? amazing without any major industry.
Of course it does. It stimulates the local economy in ways that does not happen in other cities. I lived in DC for 7 months near the beginning of the Great Recession and it's an absolute bubble. What was happening everywhere else was not happening in DC.
The people who work in the government complex make lots and lots of money no matter what the economic condition in the rest of the country. They then go out and spend that money in hotels, restaurants, bars, and everything else that DC has to offer which benefits everyone in that city. It is basically recession proof.