I Don't Think We Make Tea in DC...

So you say DC residents shouldn’t have a voice in Congress? You say the principles of a representative democracy upon which our nation was founded don’t apply to the residents of our capital city? Let’s take these arguments one at a time…





Flawed Argument #1: "DC is a special part of the United States. It is not a state for a reason. DC gets special treatment in the form of billions of dollars every year that other municipal regions do not receive. You guys might not get votes in Congress, but you don’t need them. The rest of us states take care of you guys. Just sit back and enjoy the federal dollars."

Sure, we’re special. We have a lot of federal money focused on a very small area, but this area has been set aside specifically for housing our federal government and the related industries. Yet, for most DC residents, the money from the federal government makes little difference in our lives. We still pay outrageous taxes here as residents of the city (higher than most municipal and state income taxes combined), on top of the federal taxes we pay that are equal to those of the rest of the country. I take issue with the suggestion that we are better off than most of our counterparts in American States. While we do receive a lot of federal government funding, so do all of you! Farm subsidies? Transportation subsidies? Energy subsidies? And what about that bridge to nowhere in Alaska? The only difference is… you all get a say in how that happens. The federal dollars spent in the rest of the nation are meant to benefit those in the receiving states, including the amazing amount of “pork” in federal budgets fried up for the states by their congressional representatives. In most cases here in DC, the federal dollars received are meant to maintain and protect the federal government and to benefit the visitors to this city – not it’s residents. The most we can do is send Eleanor Holmes Norton in to complain about the how often our city is abused by the Captiol Police and the Secret Service. I guarantee they have all built up a tolerance to her voice, and without a real vote in the House, her voice is all we have to represent us there.

It's insulting to suggest that because Congressmen and Congresswomen spend a good bulk of their time in our city that we should be happy with that as our representation. These people do not spend time in our "less popular" areas or have to think about the future of the city as they may not even be here in a few years. They are also beholden to their own constituents, so the needs of their home states will always come before the needs of DC in their minds. We need to have voices in Congress that reflect the attitudes, beliefs, and needs of our District. That's what a Republic is all about.

Flawed Argument #2: "DC would never be able to elect a competent set of representitives. They elected Marion Barry, for god's sake!"

I only four words to counter this argument - Tom Delay and Cynthia McKinney.

Flawed Argument #3: "The Constitution doesn't allow DC to have Congressional representation."

Constitutionally, the argument against DC voting rights in Congress is lazy. Specifically, opponents site the up-front language in the Constitution that limits representation with Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 of the US Constitution…

• “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”
• “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...”

There’s no mention of DC getting a vote, and some would argue that because the concept of a federal District was alive and kicking at the time the document was signed that the wording of these Articles was deliberate. Think about it – a 100 square mile area in which only the Federal government had jurisdiction. There would be no triple-layer bureaucracy that haunts the development of most urban areas. The only problem was – few Federal employees in 1801 wanted to take a horse and buggy from Virginia or Maryland every day to get to work – a commute that plagues us still today. So it was logical to take up residence next to the office. Hence, DC grew as our Federal government grew. We then needed schools, libraries, hospitals, and grocery stores, which all required employees… who all needed to live close to work.

I think the best part about our Constitution is that when we all get together and decide something is wrong, we can change it! OK, so that Prohibition thing didn't really work out too well, but here are a few great examples of how this worked well for us…

• We got rid of slavery. Yes, slavery WAS in the Constitution… or rather the fact that slaves were worth 3/5 of what a free man was worth.
• We let women vote. I think it was a good idea.
• We let states elect Senators instead of letting the state governments pick them.
• We decided that we needed an income tax. Corn taxes just weren’t cutting it.

The list goes on. My point is – the Constitution is great, but sometimes we have to tweak it. The challenge is working up enough courage to challenge the national inertia - something our wise founders counted on to make sure that amendments really were necessary. Is this a good way to get DC representation in Congress? I'll address that in the third installment.