D.C. Statehood
 

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the problem of D.C. statehood, but it does occur to me that it is ENTIRELY FUCKED UP that there are at least two, and probably far more, residents of D.C. living in public housing who happen to be rich enough to maintain "residences" elsewhere, and have the money to fly home and vote in every election in their respective "residences" even though they live in D.C. for all but six vacation weeks of the year.

Maybe the solution is to allow other D.C. residents to declare a "residence" in a state of their choosing, the way we allow military personnel to do so. They can be like the lost tribe of Israel or something. They can declare residence in battleground states, and be lobbied by each party to do so.

I'm all about thinking outside the box.

winning the war on terror
 

Part of California wants to be resorbed by Mexico. It is the that part that Bustamonte used to belong to. I forget their name.

D.C. Statehood
 

It's an interesting idea. It took me quite some time after moving here to change my residence to DC. I would have preferred not to at all. The real bitch is that you can't get a parking permit without doing so.

Can members of the military declare any state? Or do they have to take the last state they were in, or something like that. At least there's some principle there, as opposed to choosing wyoming, for example.

winning the war on terror
 

Juan.

D.C. Statehood
 

College students going to school in DC, too.

Then they would be subject to the state's income tax, so my guess is the majority will pass up representation in favor of paying less tax. Except for those exempt from paying tax because they are on welfare, which is probably a huge proportion of DC residents.

D.C. Statehood
 

It would be hard to find a state in which income taxes are higher than DC's.

winning the war on terror
 

This is probably a whiff/w-a-t-e-r but it was called El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan.

D.C. Statehood
 

They would still have to pay DC taxes, too. It is like when you work in Manhattan but live in Jersey. Don't you pay income tax in both states or am I incorrect in thinking this?

D.C. Statehood
 

You know, it's Atticus's box we're in so I have no idea. I assumed that by being a resident of another state you wouldn't be subject to tax in DC. Va and Md residents are not, even when they work in the District.

New York screws people left and right on taxes, but generally you don't pay more in total than you would pay to the higher taxing state (you get a 1 for 1 credit against state taxes paid to another state in any other state).

D.C. Statehood
 

Sounds reasonable. My guess is that if they didn't do it that way, someone could challenge it as unconstitutional using a dormant commerce clause argument. However, I no longer can even remember what the dormant commerce clause is so I could be wrong.

This is clever.
 

Governor Arnold suggests that the State of California receive 3/4 of all awards of punitive damages.

This is clever.
 

Is that 3/4 of the net to client, or 3/4 of the gross? Your answer could mean the difference between AS=Evil Genius or AS=Evil Idiot.

This is clever.
 

I'd go one step further: The state of California should receive all awards of punitive damages, except for a portion held back to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, the remainder to be paid into a trust for some form of victims' compensation.

This is clever.
 

You want to preserve some incentive for the plaintiff's counsel to seek them, and one dollar out of four should do it.

And Arnold's not concerned about victims' compensation. He's got a budget to balance, and this year's gimmicks only take you so far.

I'm not smart enough to understand Atticus's concern, as is so often the case.

This is clever.
 

So the 100% of individual plaintiffs who will then instruct their attorneys not to bother seeking a punitive award, and the subsequent loss of the deterrent effect, would just be a bonus for people and businesses committing malice, oppression, and fraud?

Or are you just unconcerned about creating conflicts of interest between attorneys and clients, if they're on the plaintiff side?