The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
Former Blade Staffers Launch 'DC Agenda'
D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
If you've watched Fox News or read Michelle Malkin recently, you're probably well-aware of the tea party protests that will take place across the country tomorrow. The protests will call upon a key event in American history to express anger in some sectors at what is seen as out-of-control government spending and unnecessary tax increases in these troubled economic times.
We've got nothing much to say about the protests -- hey, protests in Washington are a dime a dozen -- but a post over the weekend by the Center for American Progress' Matt Yglesias got us to thinking. He relayed the news of hundreds of anti-tax Nebraskans yelling "no taxation without representation" during a protest. Yglesias pointed out that Nebraskans -- or anyone living in a state -- should be the last folks talking about not being represented. He opined: "The 1.8 million Nebraskans are very much represented in congress...Indeed, with a mere 0.6 percent of the nation’s population, Nebraska gets to elect fully 2 percent of the Senators. If anything, Nebraskans have taxation with overrepresentation."
He's right. The whole idea of using the Boston Tea Party as a rallying cry for people who aren't happy with how the government is spending their money is a little strange, especially for those of us who qualify as both taxed and unrepresented. Back in late 2007 D.C. voting rights activists had their own tea party, symbolically dumping leaves into the Potomac to make a point that has stood for far too long -- District residents pay federal taxes yet have no federal representation. If anyone can yell "No taxation without representation!", it's us.
So if you're heading out to one of these tea parties tomorrow, remember that there are 600,000 people in D.C. that legitimately get to complain about not having a voice in a government to which they pay taxes. And as you raise your voices against a spendthrift Congress and administration, think about calling your own representative and letting them know that you both want spending and taxes cut and D.C. residents to get a vote in Congress.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Good point.
Though DC also receives a far higher return per dollar collected than any state. (5x what they pay taxes, plus unrivaled economic security. So the lack of direct representation is working out well for DC residents in a way.
Though this is a point that is ignored or not understood by the Michelle Malkins of the world... All those 'latte liberals' in Mass, Conn, New York, New Jersey, etc. are in reality paying more than their 'fair share' in taxes while the red states receive a disproportionate percentage of the benefits.
While Connecticut gets back only $0.69 on the dollar they pay in taxes states like Idaho get $1.21 and Mississippi gets $2.02....
So if those nutjobs in Idaho want to break off from the 'socialists in washington' they would either have to accept a huge cut in services or enact a 25% tax hike.
I thought that these were teabagging parties?
That's not my cup of tea--though DCist has many reader much more adventurous than me--but if they're going to be serving tea instead, well, maybe I'll check one out.
Milk, no sugar.
Yeah, I was ready to tag Ole Lincoln at his memorial. Guess I'll put m'boys back in m'pocket.
I don't think that the people that are going to these parties are likely to be in favor of a vote for DC.
"DC also receives a far higher return per dollar collected than any state. (5x what they pay taxes, plus unrivaled economic security. So the lack of direct representation is working out well for DC residents in a way."
I understood that most of that goes to direct support of Federal operations, highways, etc, not to DC neighborhoods. More here: www.dcvote.org/trellis/character/citizensguidetodcpoliticaleconomy.cfm
Every other story today contains a paragraph about what this Matt Iglesias guy thinks. Is he a paid advertiser or something?
Every other story today contains a paragraph about what this Matt Iglesias guy thinks. Is he a paid advertiser or something?
He's the former roommate of DCist writer Kriston Capps, actually.
Small town, huh?
He's DCist's Foxnews.
Dodgy "journalistic" uses of the word 'teabagging' are up 1000% today...
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Metro-Region-Gears-Up-For-Historic-Teabagging-Parties.html
I would remind you, fatkidspecial, that about 40 percent of the land in DC cannot be taxed because it belongs to the feds or to embassies. And Congress won't let us tax commuters, an option open to other cities.
blah, blah, blah....
Pretty sure Philly, or any other city for that matter, would kill to have the federal government back.
the '40%' can't be taxed argument is ridiculous.... Cities regularly give huge tax exemptions to companies looking to build, even for low wage companies like Walmart, BassPro, etc. The federal government has hundreds of thousands of employees in the area with excellent benefits... Overall, the federal government is a huge plus for the city.
Thanks to Downtown Rez for the link, tho i think whoever wrote this 'DC Economics 101' would be laughed out of Econ 101... I am completely in favor of DC voting rights, but this piece of crap analysis does little more than highlight the city's failing educational system.
"Congress is routinely late in passing the DC budget because local DC issues are not their highest priority, and the discussions often get mired in partisan conflicts."
pretty much sums up the incoherent, biased views behind this page... Congress has passed all appropriation bills on time only once in the last 30 years. It's not b/c of lack of priority or DC specific partisan politics, tard.
Plus - Whether it goes to highways, building new federal facilities, etc. It's money spent in DC which goes into the multiplier.... Even if the crybabies who argue 'half of what's spent on DC ends up going to the suburbs,' are right... DC still receives far more return on federal taxes collected than any other state and 250% more than the average.
"Plus - Whether it goes to highways, building new federal facilities, etc. It's money spent in DC which goes into the multiplier.... Even if the crybabies who argue 'half of what's spent on DC ends up going to the suburbs,' are right... DC still receives far more return on federal taxes collected than any other state and 250% more than the average"
Not really. Setting aside econ 101 for the real world, what's good for the metro region does not necessarily specifically benefit DC. This is because, the taxes on income, goods, services, etc in DC *are overwhelmingly collected and redistributed outside of DC*. For example, DC needs first source agreements to just to get 20-30% DC residents working in low wage blue-collar jobs at big-ticket construction projects. Otherwise even more than 70-80% of the taxes from those relatively low-waged jobs would flow to other jurisdictions. And you must know that the managers/foremen/architects/engineers (and other high paying professions) overwhelmingly are not city dwellers.
That's just one of the most obvious direct example of why you're wrong.
The money may be spent here, but it's spent on projects of regional interest and rapidly flows from here to there, where the real multiplyer (nice econ 101 word, if memory serves) is felt.
hypothetically, if the federal government left DC, what would happen? Real Estate values would plunge, Tax collection would plummet, unemployment would skyrocket. etc. Having lived in several other cities, the benefit of having an employer such as the federal government is unmatched.
DC is locked in this victim mentality that is purely pathetic. They cried to the federal government for having to spend 40 some million for the inauguration, meanwhile most cities would easily cover that cost in exchange for a million tourists booking every hotel room, filling every restaurant, and spending whatever people spend when visiting a city.
DC has no one to blame but itself. The DC government has been a failure for so long, it's understandable a number of the white collar employees of all races moved out. They couldn't send their kids to public school, they couldn't get the cops to show up and write a police report for their insurance company when their car got stolen, and they couldn't rely on the DC government for basic things like picking up the garbage. Things are starting to change, but as far as tax base - the federal government is huge economic positive for DC. DC spends an unbelievable amount of money per capita in every category, but residents see very little return. It's on the shoulders of the DC government to improve that return and in doing so they'll reap the benefits.
Why move the discussion into the hypothetical? If the Federal Government didn't leave pre-control board, they're not going anywhere now.
But even that flight of fantasy has its up-side. For example, we'd get our vote and with it, for what it would be worth, tax reciprocity. At worst, have to compete and deal on the same playing field as the rest of the country. And, (in this you're right), we'd probably end up like Detroit (auto), Baltimore (shipping), or any rust-belt town. Except we'd still have better tourism. And eventually lots of new land (40% of our total) we could entice new tax-paying industry with.
What I take as your core point- that DC's business is government, and so DC should shut up and be happy because government provides us with a modicum of stability- is either naive or disingenuous in its understanding of human nature.
It's not (just) about the taxation.... nor (just) about the economics, though each has a minor role... fundamentally, it is about Government without Consent, which violates the bedrock principle of modern participatory government, destroys the legitimacy of the power wielded, and constitutes Tyranny just as surely as did the attempted assertion of the same form of Government without Consent "in all cases whatsoever" by the Brtish Parliament in the Declaratory Act of 1766.
Maybe we could solve some small part of the Federal deficit by putting the location of a (new) capital up for bid...if cities are so eagar to have stadiums, etc, how about the biggest prize of all... the NEW U.S. Capital, now relocating to YOUR fair city. All you have to give up to the Feds is a big chunk of change (biggest chunk wins) and your right to participate and consent to your government for the forseeable future or the next few centuries, whichever comes last!
DC has done its stint in service to the nation as its capital, over the past 200 plus years. Time for somebody else to take a turn.
"Government without Consent?" The Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress were elected by a majority of voters, as was our president. There's your consent. And exactly what in Obama's budget or tax plans is requiring any of us to give up our right to participate and consent in our government for the foreseeable future? A small tax increase for some (accompanied by a small tax cut for most) is not tyranny.
You don't like Obama's policies -- fine, it's your right to dissent. But where the hell were you when we had a president who was claiming the right to open secret prison camps and to pick up U.S. citizens in the U.S. and hold them without charges or any right to a lawyer or a hearing? Where were you when he ordered the kidnapping of foreign nationals so they could be tortured in secret prisons established outside the U.S.? Where were you when he started illegally wiretapping the conversations of some unknown number of U.S. citizens? You talk about tyranny? We just survived a president who actually claimed unfettered dictatorial power to break the law, violate treaties, and strip Americans of our constitutional rights. And you teabaggers did nothing.
Thank you, JonboyDC! This was my first reaction when I heard about these parties as well. I would also hope President Obama would say something along those same lines if he's asked about these parties by the press; however, I'm certain he'll have to be all presidential and give some lame watered down excuse.
Amen!
I want to know where all these idiots were the 8 years that Bush was in office and why they didn't get all up in arms over the idiodic things he did to get us into this mess?!
Get a life and use your time to look for a new job instead of protesting in vain! While these hippies are out making all moderate-liberals look bad, I'm hard at work in my HR division trying to help them find employment so they don't have to complain about not having money. Where's the thanks I get!?
I'm all about protesting for an injust cause that's worthy of a protest, but right now, this is not one of them. President Obama can't fix in 8 weeks what Bush f**k'd up in 8 years... give the man some time before you start breathing down his neck! You gave the last idiot 8 years so why be so impatient this time?!
To those participating in this teabag BS--Sit down and shut the hell up, unless you got something intelligent and helpful to say!
I certainly hope the MPD treats the teabaggers with the same zero tolerance policy used against the dirty fucking hippies protesting Iraq, WTO, etc...
Encircle them, close in, zip tie their wrists, and put 'em in the Armory for 36 hours in the fetal position.