quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: OK, 1, DC. . . tourism the only "producing" industry.
Umm. . .no. According to the figures I can find (which are admittedly from 2004), the leisure and hospitality industry provides approximately 7.7% percent of DC's jobs. Hardly the driving factor of the local economy.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puerto Rico has a lot more autonomy than DC does. Plus, as Lyrhawn points out, Puerto Ricans continually vote to maintain the status quo. And, as their governor gleefully pointed out repeatedly in one interview I saw, Puerto Ricans don't pay taxes.
quote:DC should have 1. Particularly if we decide to add in the suburbs.
DC's suburbs already have representation, seeing as the suburbs are part of either MD or VA.
quote:I thought about something like that, but I don't think it'd go far enough, and anything further would be TOO far. Things are immensely more complicated than they were 200 years ago. For example, if they can vote for Maryland's senators, and even representation in the Maryland legislature, then one would imagine it's only fair that with such a voice in Maryland state business, that Maryland should get their tax dollars, and at that point they're pretty much de facto part of Maryland, and Maryland gets saddled with their rather large array of problems. In other words, I can see Marylanders having something of a problem with a massive new influx of voters into their midst choosing their representatives, but at the same time having no say in DC affairs. It seems like an unequal balance, and one that might have made sense in 1800, but not as such in 2009.
If the proposal did indeed include provisions for DC to have a say in Maryland elections for governor, state senator or state delegates, then, yeah, that would be a bad thing. But I didn't interpret it that way. I got the impression that Maryland would receive an additional US representative whose congressional district would be DC and that DC would also vote for Maryland's US senators.
I can see where the last could be a problem, but I still think it might be more doable and less objectionable than most of the other proposals.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
ambyr, no tourism isn't the largest factor. It's the only "producing" factor. The rest are pure service industries or government-related jobs. No factories, mines, farms, etc. There's some research, mostly government-funded, a lot of lawyers and banks, mostly those catering to the government and companies which work with the government.
Risuena, yes, the DC subs do have representation. I was responding to people proposing to make a state out of DC and burbs. Which actually makes some sense, if we're going on the notion that a state is a unit with common interests and politics.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I got the impression that Maryland would receive an additional US representative whose congressional district would be DC and that DC would also vote for Maryland's US senators.
If not for the issue of Senators, thinking about it some more, I'd say that's actually a really good solution. If Maryland voted and approved to allow DC to have a say in their Senators, then I'd be okay with that too. Otherwlse, it actually seems like it WOULD be much, much simpler to give Maryland an extra district confined to DC and let that be that, and to keep everything else separate.
There's presidential politics involved as well though. If DC has a Rep in Maryland, does that mean DC would vote for president through Maryland? If that happened, Maryland would gain an elector, and DC would actually lose two (net). Otherwise there would have to be some sort of special legislation that defines the status of the electors.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Risuena, yes, the DC subs do have representation. I was responding to people proposing to make a state out of DC and burbs. Which actually makes some sense, if we're going on the notion that a state is a unit with common interests and politics.
Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I can see the appeal of making a state out of DC and the suburbs but it would open up a whole 'nother can of worms. Especially since there wouldn't be much left of Maryland, depending on how you defined DC suburb and where the boundaries were drawn. But I imagine the idea would make a lot of the more conservative and rural areas of Maryland and Virginia very happy.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Risuena, yes, the DC subs do have representation. I was responding to people proposing to make a state out of DC and burbs. Which actually makes some sense, if we're going on the notion that a state is a unit with common interests and politics.
Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I can see the appeal of making a state out of DC and the suburbs but it would open up a whole 'nother can of worms. Especially since there wouldn't be much left of Maryland, depending on how you defined DC suburb and where the boundaries were drawn. But I imagine the idea would make a lot of the more conservative and rural areas of Maryland and Virginia very happy.
That's not gonna happen. We'd have to give up the best state flag in the Union.
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: But, but, Eric
Hah.
Heh, oops. That's what I get for posting while in rant mode. Hi Mike.
j--k, I know it's not. I'd be just as happy adding DC to MD, or VA for that matter. I really just thing SOMETHING should be done.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would not make rural Virginia happy - Northern Virginia is where almost all of Virginia's tax money comes from. Without Northern Virginia, the rest would turn into West Virginia. Not good.
As a resident of Northern Virginia, I definitely do not want to be tied to the hot mess that is DC.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Virginia already took back the majority of the land that they donated with the retrocession of Alexandria to Virginia in the 1800s. This is part of why many Virginians so strongly oppose absorbing part of the District into the state. They already took back their land (or most of it) so if any state was to absorb D.C. it should be Maryland if only because the remaining property is theirs. Neither Maryland nor Virginia wants to deal with the problems in the city either. Crime, the education system, unemployment and poverty are all something that would have to be dealt with by any state absorbing the District, and it is something that no one wants to do because of the resources it would take.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly right, andi, no one wants to spend the resources to fix the problems that DC has because it doesn't have control over its own resources. So, DC is screwed?
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Exactly right, andi, no one wants to spend the resources to fix the problems that DC has because it doesn't have control over its own resources. So, DC is screwed?
I was speaking of Maryland and Virginia. DC has a government, a police department, a school board and many resources that could be used to fix the problems. It is not the responsibility of Maryland or Virginia to fix their problems for them.
My point was mostly (and possibly unclearly) that Virginia objects to reabsorbing DC into its state primarily because the majority of the land that Virginia donated to the city was brought back to the state in the 1800s, and that therefore, the majority of the land (if it was to be reabsorbed into a state) should be going to Maryland. However, the majority of proposals to have DC absorbed back into states proposes equal division between Maryland and Virginia. Virginia opposes this for two reasons. Primarily, because they have already taken back the majority of the portion of the land they donated, therefore they should not have to absorb half the city into their population. In addition, the corruption and problems with schooling and crime in the city will make it very taxing on the state to absorb half the city into their population.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
