September 17, 2007
A Letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell
Sen. McConnell,
On Tuesday the Senate is set to take up legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. And though the measure passed the House and enjoys wide support in the Senate and among the American people, you've threatened to use procedural road-blocks to prevent it from coming to a vote. Please don't.
Sen. McConnell, in opposing a measure that would grant the District's 600,000 residents a sliver of the rights that other taxpaying Americans enjoy, you're not only marching headfirst against correcting a historical injustice, you're doing so while ignoring the history of the very state you represent. As you surely know, in 1785 residents of Virginia's Kentucky County began lobbying the state legislature for statehood, demanding a "free and independent state." In 1792, the Commonwealth of Kentucky came to be. But more than just a relatively meaningless legal status, the term "commonwealth" was meant to symbolize a governing philosophy, according to the Kentucky Department for Library and Archives:
To be a commonwealth meant that all power was vested in and derived from a equally free and independent people rather than a hierarchical and/or feudal system under a king. The basis for a commonwealth's success required each citizen to be an active participant in government, practitioners of civic virtue and socially responsible. The government essentially was to serve the people, rather than having the people serve the government.
We imagine you're well aware of the "hierarchical and/or feudal system" under which District residents live and labor. Beyond not having a voting representative in the House, the District's local initiatives and budget are subject to Congressional approval, allowing just about any member of Congress to impose their will on the city's people. The examples are numerous and bipartisan. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) doesn't like the taxi cab zone system, so he introduced an amendment forcing the city to do something about it this year. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is a big fan of the federal flat tax, so he tried to test it out in the District. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Tex.) really loves Ronald Reagan, so he tried to rename our 16th Street "Ronald Reagan Boulevard." Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) and Sen. Larry Craig (R-Id.) aren't big fans of our gun laws, and they made it an annual project to do away with them by Congressional fiat. There are other examples -- needle-sharing programs, medicinal marijuana, charter schools -- but we think you get the idea.
The District isn't looking for a handout, much less a bridge to nowhere. We're looking to be treated the same way every other American citizen is treated. Is the current proposal constitutional? Maybe, maybe not. Interestingly, though, a number of prominent conservative legal minds seem to think it is. But that's not really the point -- there just simply isn't a way that the framers of the Constitution intended to permanently disenfranchise 600,000 people without giving Congress the means to provide a remedy. And that's exactly what the legislation seeks to do. Is this a backdoor way for the District to get statehood? Absolutely not. That's a separate question, and one that will surely be raised in due time. This isn't about politics, and it isn't about Democrats cementing a generation-long majority in Congress by giving us a representative and two senators. It's about principles.
Sen. McConnell, it has been over 200 years since the District's residents have been allowed the democratic rights enjoyed by all Americans. The measure before the Senate is but one step towards correcting that injustice. Given your consistent support for the fight for democratic freedoms in Iraq and Burma, we would expect that the same passion would extend to the residents of the very city that is your second home. You may hate the idea of one more Democrat in the House, but no one ever argued that liberty is doled out based on party affiliation. Ultimately, your objections shouldn't rise to the level of threatening a filibuster. Feel free to vote against the legislation, but at least let it get to a vote. After all, had the Virginia state legislature waited 200 some-odd years to consider Kentucky's request for independence, well, you might not have a state to represent in the Senate.
Regards,
DCist
|
Very nice post. The proposed bill is an opportunity to promote DC residents from 3rd class citizens to 2nd class citizens. You have to be a particularly heartless tyrant to oppose it.
Senate Republicans who support this are assuring their colleagues, "don't worry, we won't let this get out of hand, we won't let them get equal representation in the Senate, this most pure of elite legislative bodies." I'll find it hard to summon the gratitude even if this does pass.
God, he really looks like a Mitch, doesn't he?
He just doesn't want them uppity types to be able to have a voice in Congress.
I don't see what the big deal is. Let Congress keep their votes in exchange for Federal tax-exempt status, letting the gays marry, and lifting the gun ban. That way, DC becomes a fabulous Monaco on the Potomac, only with more gunfire, sodomy, and fabulous couture. That's the sort of legislative compromise I can get behind. Did you see that? I used "sodomy" and "behind" in the same post! What's the matter, baby? Haven't those amyls kicked in yet? Just relax and let Dr. Monkey do his thang.
Also, renaming DC the District of Reaganapolis must be worth something to the Republotards. Medical marijuana? One Senate seat? The head of Marion Barry?
Ha! I live in Virginia!
Monkey, I'd agree with your comment except I ain't never seen no "couture" in DC.
Get rid of federal taxes in DC. Stop wasting your time on dc voting rights.
#7 - While I would love to not to pay federal taxes, something tells me I wouldn't be able to afford to live in dc if that were to occur.
Martin - I love it, thanks!!
Gayface! Mitch ain't foolin noone! Gay Gay Gay!
As a native Kentuckian I've come to expect very little good from Mitch. (We don't call him "Mitch the Bitch" for nothing.) All the same, it's a well-written piece, "hope springs eternal," etc. etc. And, if it weren't already your intention, Martin, I'd say pass it on to McConnell's folks, perhaps with a snappy intro about DCist's coverage of the issue and how whatever action he and his colleagues (of both parties) take will not go unnoticed on this site, or indeed elsewhere.
and they'll laugh because we don't live in their districts and their constituents don't give a rats ass about us and probably still think the District is mired in crack wars.
But seriously, I just don't really get all upset about the no congressional representation. I'm more pissed that we have to pay to police events and escort people around because we're the capital. Either exempt us from federal income tax or turn over federal tax revenue directly to the DC government so they can lower our confiscatory "state" income taxes.
Actually, the federal government covers much of the cost of police events and escorts through the annual District of Columbia appropriations bill. So its all Americans paying these expenses, not just the people of DC.
But come on, this isn't just about voting rights for DC, it also gives an extra representative to Utah for no reason at all. So we in the district would get representation in exchange for super-representation for Utah.
This may be the best deal we've ever had on the table, but it still isn't a good deal. Screw Utah.
I was under the impression that the federal payment ended a number of years ago. Is that not the case?
Monkey:
I'm all for the new Gayopolis. Imagine the incredible lofts and bars we could make from existing DC public school buildings. And we've already got a mayor with butter smooth mocha skin that would look incredible in a lowcut trannie dress.
It really is a shame that there is no real good way to launch an actual taxpayer revolt, where tens of thousands of DC residents simply refused to pay their federal taxes, perhaps putting them instead in some sort of third-party escrow account (I volunteer to keep the $$). If 100,000 DC residents refused to pay their taxes there's no way they could put us all in jail.
Yes, I know this is just fantasy, but it'd be an incredible social experiment if DC were to become federal tax free.
In my opinion, everyone has lost sight of the fact that this is ultimately a bad deal for DC - are we really willing to accept and settle for ONE representative in the House when in fact, we should be campaigning for and receiving statehood status? By accepting this deal, we will NEVER EVER achieve statehood or Senate representation; all or nothing should be the game plan. The current bill is a cop-out.
Guest #17 wrote: "By accepting this deal, we will NEVER EVER achieve statehood"
So you want to reject this as-yet-not-offered deal and the House vote that we don't have currently?
We still won't get statehood. It's a total non-starter. DC may have some kind of Senate representation in my lifetime, but it won't be a state. Count on it.
Emu:
The FY08 DC appropriations bill (passed by the House as part of the Financial Services and General Government spending bill, H.R. 2829) includes:
Title IV: District of Columbia - District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2008 - Authorizes appropriations to the District of Columbia for FY2008, including amounts for the federal payments: (1) for District of Columbia Resident Tuition Support; (2) for emergency planning and security costs in the District; (3) to District of Columbia Courts; (4) for Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts; (5) to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia; (6) to the District of Columbia Public Defender Service; (7) to the DC Water and Sewer Authority; (8) to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council; (9) to the Chief Financial Officer of the District; (10) for school improvement; (11) for a consolidated laboratory facility; (12) for DC central library and branch locations; and (13) for reimbursement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the District of Columbia
For necessary expenses, as determined by the Mayor of the District of Columbia in written consultation with the elected county or city officials of surrounding jurisdictions, $3,352,000, to remain available until expended, to reimburse the District of Columbia for the costs of providing public safety at events related to the presence of the national capital in the District of Columbia and for the costs of providing support to respond to immediate and specific terrorist threats or attacks in the District of Columbia or surrounding jurisdictions of which not to exceed $352,000 is for the District of Columbia National Guard: Provided, That any amount provided under this heading shall be available only after such amount has been apportioned pursuant to chapter 15 of title 31, United States Code.