September 26, 2007
Voting Rights Roundup: NH Stands Up for D.C.
New Hampshire Looks to Smack Down Senators: After the U.S. Senate failed to overcome a filibuster on legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives, voting rights activists swore they would have their revenge. On the top of their list are Republican senators John McCain (Ariz.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), and Thad Cochran (Miss.), not to mention the lone Democrat to vote against the bill, Max Baucus (Mont.). But one state legislator from New Hampshire is looking to punish the state's two Republican senators -- Judd Gregg and John Sununu -- also. Representative Cindy Rosenwald (Hillsborough District 22) recently introduced legislation that would declare the state's regret for the votes of its two senators and throw the Granite State's support behind the move to enfranchise the District's 600,000 residents. Rosenwald has said that she expects a hearing on the bill in early 2008, possibly around the time the state hosts its all-important presidential primary.
Another Reason We Love Bob Herbert: No, the New York Times didn't give voting rights activists a huge discount on a full-page advocacy ad or anything, but columnist Bob Herbert did take the GOP to task yesterday for their opposition to District voting rights. He wrote:
Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is. The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them. A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate — with the enthusiastic support of President Bush — rose up on Tuesday and said: “No way, baby.”Thanks for the consistent support, Bob.
Let's Bury the Tax Argument, Please: After every setback to the voting rights movement, someone has to chime in and argue that if District residents aren't to be represented, they shouldn't be taxed either. While we see the obvious value in not having to pay taxes, the principle of receiving voting representation simply shouldn't be for sale. We were surprised to see a blogger as liberal as The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias almost endorse the idea, given that it should be progressives more than anyone else that would want to see a historic injustice in a majority African American city undone. We don't even want to think about what might happen to this city should it become a tax haven for the super-wealthy. It's voting representation or bust for us.
|
thank you New Hampshire! it would be wonderful if those of us from other locales (as a lot of us are) could get representatives back in our home states to pass similar "apology" legislation to help get this into the public eye. of course, new hamspshire is an interesting case, as i wonder how many states with two republican senators have both of their state-level houses controlled by democrats.
Did anyone say tax heaven? Where do I sign up?
I will gladly give up my vote (which I don't have anyway) for the $50K in taxes my household paid the feds last year! and every year going forward...
Tax fix would be easy: if the federal income tax is eliminated, you raise the District Income tax to a level that makes residents' tax bills slightly lower than what people pay in surrounding areas. Just low enough to encourage people to move in the District, but close enough to current levels to avoid creating a "Monaco-on-the-Potomac" effect. You could either use the extra revenue for things like schools and infrastructure, or, you know, put it into a rainy day fund for when the Nationals need a new stadium.
(1) i just thanked rep rosenwald--what else can we do to reward politicians who are with us and punish those who are against us?
and
(ii) on taxes and the District, we pay the 2nd highest state income tax. why shouldn't this be on the table? talking about it does not = our vote is for sale. it means talking about another gross inequity District residents face.
Of course, the territories that don't pay full federal income taxes also don't receive full federal benefits. Imagine the impact on DC if food stamps, SSI, Medicaid, S-CHIP and other assistance programs were slashed to the levels found in Guam or Puerto Rico. I assure it you, it would not be pretty.
Get used to bust then.
And it's not like Northwest doesnt already have its fair share of super-wealth anyway.
How about whacking the taxes to encourage some middle class growth? DC sold its birthright for a mess of pottage a long time ago. At least we can try and get a tax refund for it.
Get used to bust then.
And it's not like Northwest doesnt already have its fair share of super-wealth anyway.
How about whacking the taxes to encourage some middle class growth? DC sold its birthright for a mess of pottage a long time ago. At least we can try and get a tax refund for it.
It's voting representation or bust for us.
Who decided that? Who is us? Everyone I know would rather pay no federal tax.
Has 'us' decided to scrap the first time home credit of $5000 that only DC gets? What other arguments have been declared burried?
While I'm inclined to agree with you that we should not even consider the idea of no taxation to avoid representation simply because we would still be taxed by the city, which is basically run by the Federal Government anyway. Face it, we can't pass any laws (like legalizing gay marriage in the district which has overwhelming support) because those laws have to be approved by Congress. Freeing us from a federal tax won't change the fact we'd be taxed without representation. Frankly I prefer the federal benefits that come along with paying taxes (some of them anyway) so I agree we should just scratch that idea.
However! I am so sick of seeing so many District residents want to jump all over the idea of getting one House vote as sufficient to settling this dilemma. Screw that. It's EQUALITY or NOTHING. The District has more residents than the state of Wyoming, yet they are still entitled to two Senators AND a House rep. Why should we give up the idea of having the same because we think a bill like the one proposed by Tom Davis (R) of VA is better than nothing. You cannot argue on the principle of equality and settle for anything less.
Personally I wish that for the sake of being represented, they would cede the District (of which I am a taxpaying resident) back to Maryland, add a house vote for Maryland to represent the District and allow us to vote for Maryland's two senatorial seats. Face it, Maryland has better schools and a less profoundly IGNORANT government that personally would do us all more justice than DC's current structure. Taxes would in turn be LOWER and we'd get our damned vote.
Don't get me wrong, I grew up in Virginia and hate the idea of being a Maryland resident, but it at least is a plan that makes sense and has some historical and geographic logic. And Republicans won't shit a brick because Maryland is a fairly blue state already.
Fuck it. I'm gonna raise an army and take back Arlington county. We'll hold it hostage, videotape ourselves wearing black bandanas, scream shit no one understands, and only negotiate when offered the vote. Our rallying cry?
Give us our representation or the secessionist traitors in NoVa get it! Don't *think* we won't shoot.
And if anyone asks where we got the guns, well... here's lookin' at NoVa.
I'm with Logan Resident here. If they add one additional rep for Utah, our vote will be cancelled out anyway. And you know, a Monaco on the Potomac doesn't sound that bad either!
"We don't even want to think about what might happen to this city should it become a tax haven for the super-wealthy"
Thank you for putting that out there, Martin. I'm with you. But please consider this: DC is already a tax haven for the (relative) super-wealthy. Sure, most folks already know that nonresident personal income earned in DC isn't taxed in DC, but how many know that corporate income from, say, law firm or other partnerships, is treated as personal income and therefor the lion's share isn't taxed in DC? All that wasted office space...
Logan Resident, since my family's tax burden is about $25k on a little over $200k just shove your $50k burden. You're making $400k+
or else have no tax planning already.
Why can't we, as D.C. residents, decide collectively for ourselves whether we'd rather have voting rights or no federal tax obligation? It's ironic that voting rights advocates would not think so.
Why does it amtter that it's a majority black city? Because white people are less deserving of a vote? And you mihgt want to check your stats. I'm not even sure if DC is majority black anymore. Not that it should matter.
As of 2000, DC was still majority African American, according to the Census Bureau. Those seem to be the most recent stats.
I for one am not interested in voting rights, especially statehood. I do not have confidence in my city’s elected officials nor the people employed by the city and I am happy that congress has oversight (even if I disagree with some of their actions). Thank god for the control board several years ago. I live here because my friends are here and I enjoy my neighborhood, not because the city is well run.
For me, and maybe not many others, it would be better to succeed to Maryland where you have a government that has consistently functioned professionally. A lot would have to change before I would want DC to make all its own decisions.
Nothing should be off the table when discussing voting rights. All opinions are worth discussing, even those in the minority.