Friday, January 24, 2003

Is it safe to say that the most indefensible federal policy that exists is the taxation without representation for the citizens of Washington, D.C.?  Seriously.  Here's a city with more residents than four states, subject to all federal taxation, Selective Service, the National Guard, etc.  But the over half a million people in DC don't have anyone in the House or Senate.  There are a lot of policies I oppose, both Democrat and Republican, but this is a nonpartisan crime.  Flat-out, a violation of the most basic tenets of democracy.  And, unlike some of the policies I feel most strongly about (reproductive rights, anti-death penalty, environmental regulation) I cannot even conceive of what the arguments are for not giving DC citizens  federal representation.  Can someone illuminate this for me?  I don't mean the explanation of the politics--I understand that a big reason why this is a no-touch issue is that the citizens of DC are too liberal.  But is there some perfectly logical defense of this thing that I don't get?  Why is it not considered an 18th century anachronism, like the three-fifths plan and women's suffrage?  What do the opponents of DC representation even say?  I should contact a DC vote group and see what they hear.  DC Vote is a pretty solid site on this topic. Random political thought of the day. 3:50:37 PM    Let's hear it. []