Tuesday, October 7, 2014
The State of the Non-State, Washington, D.C.
Many residents have pressed the matter to make the District of Columbia a state or to have a stronger voice in its current local government matter. The residents are not represented at all and this makes them very angry. However many believe that the matter of a new state from D.C. will not happen. What do you think would be a good way to represent them fairly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think that making Washington DC a state is a good idea. It is the seat of our federal government. If we made it a state, then that state may gain too much power, and become vastly over-represented.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emmanuel that DC should not become a 51st state. There are so many individuals concentrated in one area who already have positions providing them with political power and the ability to influence policy that providing them with more political power would create an imbalance. At the same time, I don't like that Congress controls the budget for all of DC. The reference to retrocession at the end of the article seemed like the best option to me because it liberates DC (and its affairs) from the control of the government, it supports the state of Maryland, and it grants the citizens of DC the equal representation they drew attention to in their new license plate designs.
ReplyDeleteNo way should DC become a state; it's already powerful enough! Instead, there should be a push in the direction of getting congress to back off, as it is forever pushing to control all affairs that take place there. Congress has attempted to stop the district from using its own money to help fund abortions for poor women in the city, and taken complete control over the budget. Neither of those are decisions that I support.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with those who posted before me. Washington DC should most definitely not become a state. The government, like the article says, easily pulls on the strings of the district. Allowing DC to gain statehood could provide them with too much power, something they already have a lot of. Though I am fine with the idea of leaving DC as a district, retrocession does seem to have its benefits as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe D.C. should be considered a state. By deeming D.C. a state, and giving the area congressional representatives that can actually vote, the idea that Congress is meddling in the local affairs by controlling local budget and laws would be eliminated. Also, the very nature of our government makes sure that politicians are representatives of the people to the government. I do not see how some additional representatives of the people would create an imbalance of power. By allowing D.C. to have voting reps, more citizens would be represented in congress. More representation=good.
ReplyDeleteI think making DC a state would be a very bad idea. There is already so much politics going on down there and I feel like adding a state government would only increase the craziness. While the people of DC have a fair complaint nobody is forcing them to live there. If they want to be represented that badly then they can move to Maryland or Virginia. Washington DC should be used only as a place to house our national government.
ReplyDeleteWashington DC should definitely not become a state. I agree with Mike in that DC should only be the place of our national government. While it is unfortunate that people living there don't have equal representation, making DC a state would give Congress even more power than it already has there. Congress should not be able to take control over DC's budget or tell them what they can and can't do with it.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else, I do not think Washington DC should become a state partially because partially because it completely renders void all the reasons for DC being created to begin with. At the same time I do consider it unfortunate that they don't have adequate representation in Congress and retrocession does seem like a good compromise. I do have to disagree with Mike's assertion that Washington DC is only a place for government because not all the people who live there are necessarily involved in politics (same goes for any other capital) and moving isn't always a practical solution for those who want representation,
ReplyDeleteWashington D.C. is far too small to be a state in its own right. However, Congress should not be allowed to meddle in the city's internal affairs. It is an institution of the federal government and its purview should be over federal affairs, not local ones in D.C. The city government should be allowed to do what every city government is able to do and effectively manage their own affairs, including setting their own budgets. At the same time, the people of D.C. should have representation in Congress, and this can be achieved by giving their current non-voting member in Congress the ability to vote. The idea of retrocession is an acceptable alternative to this so long as the people of both Maryland and Washington D.C. agree to it.
ReplyDeleteLarger population than at least two other states.
DeleteI agree with most all of the other posts, in regards that Washington D.C. should not become its own state. I feel that if Washington D.C. became a state of its own, other states would use the state regulations executed by Washington D.C. as means of explanation to why they should match their policy regarding that topic if they agree. This would result in Washington D.C. having even more influential power than they do now, and as we all know, it would not be a good idea to have one focal point of power with regards to 300 million people .
ReplyDeleteI am torn on this issue. When LBJ was president, the article said that he was for D.C. becoming a state. However, the only reason that this did not occur was because the Southerners did not want an even larger African American population being represented by a Southern state. That is a weak reason to not go through with this plan. Retrocession is a good idea in theory and I believe that it is an option worth heavy consideration, but at the same time I feel that the process could get messy. Like others who have commented, I don't like that Congress uses D.C. as a guinea pig for policies and toys with its internal affairs. However, like Mike said, adding a state government where the national government functions could further increase the political craziness that has already seemed to devour D.C. While I do not know how the government should deal with this issue, I do know one thing for sure: Washington D.C. deserves to have say in Congress. It is not enough just to allow them to vote. They are American people and they deserve representation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone else. D.C. should not become a state. Like Mike pointed out, it would just increase the craziness. There is already too much stuff happening in D.C. for it to be a state. I also agree that it does suck that D.C. doesn't have good representation in Congress and that Congress sort of uses D.C. as their play toy. I feel D.C. DOES deserve to have more representation in Congress, but making it a state would be going too far.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that Washington DC should not become a state. It was not designed to be a residential district and for those who are being underrepresented, maybe a second look at the map of DC is warranted and the more populated neighborhoods could be absorbed into Maryland. Granting statehood to such a small portion of our country in terms of geography and population would create more problems than it would solve.
ReplyDelete