Politics: J'accuse!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
With good reason. Living in the district, in contrast, means you're subjected to this debate regularly. I was stunned to read the positions of teh candidates in the last election guide (I think they were candidates for mayor). Every one of the democrats took the position that statehood was the only acceptable solution, and specifically rejected retrocession or some other alternative short of statehood.

Four reasons why not a state:

1) Constitution would need to be amended
2) Land area is smaller by far than any other state. (Even little Rhody is 15x larger).
3) No natural resources
4) Too Democratic.

I would think Maryland would take it if paid enough money for the welfare obligations and to cover the lack of a tax base (those gov't properties aren't taxed). BUt given that the district is underfunded now, that's not likely. My own feeling is that, if this is done, the actual District should be reduced to include essentially the Capitol/S. Ct. area and then everything south of Penna. ave and north of Maryland Ave. (SW), plus whatever part of the whitehouse doesn't fall within that.

Your argument would be so much better if you had just left off your #4. Why shouldn't it go to VA? River in the way?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Your argument would be so much better if you had just left off your #4. Why shouldn't it go to VA? River in the way?

Come on. 4 is a joke, but is actually the real reason.

VA got its part back in 1846.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) Constitution would need to be amended
2) Land area is smaller by far than any other state. (Even little Rhody is 15x larger).
3) No natural resources
4) Too Democratic.

1) OK. So?
2) OK. So?
3) OK. So? More human resources than, e.g., Wyoming.
4) As you say, that's the real problem. But it's not a principled one.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by dtb
Technically, yes, they "vote it down", but not by a large margin. The last plebiscite in PR I could find (1998) resulted in the following outcome: Territorial Commonwealth - 0.1%, Free Association - 0.3% (this is what PR is), Statehood - 46.5%, Independence - 2.4%, and None of the Above - 50.3%. (This vote had a 71% turnout rate.)

None of the above won over 50%??? What was the story behind that?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
1) OK. So?
2) OK. So?
3) OK. So? More human resources than, e.g., Wyoming.
4) As you say, that's the real problem. But it's not a principled one.

1) Constitution provides for a district, which is not a state. If you're saying there should be no District, that's fine. But it's not like the district is some lawless concoction. Rather, it was specifically contemplated by the drafters as being what it is (more or less).

2) There has to be some minimal size for a state, lest any politically organized unit petition to become a state. Who's next, Orange County? The C&CofSF? The small states were admitted when they were relatively large compared to the nation's area.

3) The less populous states that have been admitted have sizable land areas and generally have natural resources that explained the drive to have them governed centrally. Besides, most of the human resources are driving in from Maryland and Virginia.

4) It may not be principled, but ask the state formerly known as part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Missouri how they feel about the political realities of statehood.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
None of the above won over 50%??? What was the story behind that?

A big "don't vote for independence" and "don't vote for statehood" campaign?

My recollection is that on previous votes it split generally 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 across statehood, independence, and stay the same. Classic vote cycling.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) Constitution provides for a district, which is not a state. If you're saying there should be no District, that's fine. But it's not like the district is some lawless concoction. Rather, it was specifically contemplated by the drafters as being what it is (more or less).

So amend it. The problem of 500,000+ people living in the district probably was not contemplated by the framers.

2) There has to be some minimal size for a state, lest any politically organized unit petition to become a state. Who's next, Orange County? The C&CofSF? The small states were admitted when they were relatively large compared to the nation's area.

Why does there have to be a minimal size? Some people might have thought Singapore is too small to be a country. Your hypos are unlikely because they're already parts of states, and only Texas has the right to splinter into multiple states.

3) The less populous states that have been admitted have sizable land areas and generally have natural resources that explained the drive to have them governed centrally. Besides, most of the human resources are driving in from Maryland and Virginia.

So? And there are 500,000+ human resources who don't drive in every day.

4) It may not be principled, but ask the state[s] formerly known as part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Missouri how they feel about the political realities of statehood.

From personal experience, I can tell you that they don't think about it much in Maine.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2) There has to be some minimal size for a state, lest any politically organized unit petition to become a state. Who's next, Orange County? The C&CofSF?

I assume the SF part of this question is to be read in the Col. Jessup voice: "You, Lieutenant Weinberg?"

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
A big "don't vote for independence" and "don't vote for statehood" campaign?

My recollection is that on previous votes it split generally 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 across statehood, independence, and stay the same. Classic vote cycling.

Yes, but staying the same got 0.3%, and territorial commonwealth 0.1%. It seemed like the ballot recited all the possibilities, but apparently the majority felt otherwise.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Yes, but staying the same got 0.3%, and territorial commonwealth 0.1%. It seemed like the ballot recited all the possibilities, but apparently the majority felt otherwise.

I know. I could see choosing that option if you were worried your choice might actually win. Except of course why vote for none of the above over stay the same.

Since we already have a Florida, I think we should dismiss PR.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your hypos are unlikely because they're already parts of states, and only Texas has the right to splinter into multiple states.

California has often discussed the possibility of converting into more than one state. The problem is no one wants San Francisco.

Indeed, even a book has been written on the subject.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Hey Hank, can you hurry it up with that Murdoch decoder ring? The New York Post is confusing me here. After providing the article alluding to evidence that the prison guard scandal doesn't go up the chain of command, they print an op-ed piece entitled "Why the Troops Don't Trust Rummy" calling for his ouster.

Even if none of the above mattered, Rumsfeld needs to go because he has utterly lost the trust of the officer corps. He isn't a leader. He's an arrogant ideologue unfit to serve our democracy.

On camera, in a Pentagon briefing room or at a carefully orchestrated, neo-Soviet visit to the troops he so despises, Rumsfeld surrounds himself with yes-men and sycophants. But just ask the combat generals in private what they think of Donald Rumsfeld.

I'm privileged to spend a good bit of time with our military officers, from generals to new lieutenants. And I have never seen such distrust of a public official in the senior ranks. Not even of Bill Clinton. Rumsfeld & Co. have trashed our ground forces every way they could. Only the quality of those in uniform saved us from a debacle in Iraq.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20841.htm

Even Bill Clinton? Day-ummmmmmmmmm.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
California has often discussed the possibility of converting into more than one state. The problem is no one wants San Francisco.

Indeed, even a book has been written on the subject.

The part of California that wants to leave is north of here and Sacramento. They'd be happy to join Oregon, too, but don't hold your breath.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The part of California that wants to leave is north of here and Sacramento. They'd be happy to join Oregon, too, but don't hold your breath.

A good thing, too. Much of our No. 1 agricultural export is grown up there, and its loss would significantly impact the state's economy.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
Puerto Ricans don't pay federal taxes. Puerto Rico does, however, receive a lot of federal money.

They would have to be nuts, then to become a state.

Do they pay FICA tax and get SS benefits?