April 1, 2002
2: Pro-Statehood Arguments versus Anti-Statehood Arguments
conservatives oppose DC statehood just because they think DC
residents will vote "Democrat" that's the wrong
reason to oppose, and immoral.6
Keeping liberals from voting in DC also suppresses the
conservative and independent vote. If you believe in
fundamental principles of our Republic and hold this position,
you are on most infirm ground.
If liberals propose DC statehood just because they see the gains
of additional Democratic representatives in Congress, they
sustain opposition to a resolution of this issue.
Likewise, if liberals propose DC statehood and characterize it
as a racial issue, as Jesse Jackson and others have done, they
display insincerity of principle.7,
There is a lot of trash on the Internet concerning the subject
on both sides of the issue. Misinformation, emotion,
partisan agenda, distortion of fact all keep us arguing and
prevent us from finding common ground for agreement.
Here are some snippets of pro-statehood propaganda.10
of the District of Columbia pay $1.6 billion in Federal income
taxes: more in Federal taxes than eight other states,
and more per capita than 80 percent of the states."
"Taxation without Representation is a $41 billion rip-off
of District citizens."
"The citizens of the District of Columbia seek no more
than citizens in any other state: the right of
self-determination, and full and equal voting representation
arguments aren't an accurate picture of the facts. They
imply residents of the District pay taxes and get nothing for
it. The National Taxpayer Union provides a stark
counter-argument. Key NTU findings11:
to the US Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 1999, Washington DC receives 12 times more federal tax
dollars than its residents pay in taxes. ($1.936 Billion
versus $24.034 Billion),
"a more lopsided
balance of payments than any of the 50 States in the
"Local taxes as a share of personal income (14.85%) are
the highest of any jurisdiction in the United States."
"The District ranks dead last behind all 50 states for
promoting small businesses."
"Out of a total population of 523,000 people, 76,000 are
on Social Security, 20,000 receive Supplemental Security
income, 54,000 receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(welfare), 85,000 get Food Stamps, and 46,000 work for the
city, a total of 267,000 persons. Accepting some overlap
between beneficiaries of these programs, one can safely
estimate that almost half the population is dependent on
"Local mismanagement has caused the District's population
to drop from 638,000 in 1980 to 523,000 in 1998, shrinking the
city's tax base and forcing it to demand higher subsidies from
its own residents as well as American taxpayers."
the District gets far more than its fair share of
Federal funds. Residents of Washington benefit from
per-person federal spending nine times higher than that
received by citizens of the average state
and get back
twelve times more tax money than they send the IRS."
As the NTU
summarizes, "Simply put, whatever the merits of the
arguments supporting Congressional representation for the city
of Washington, those based on a unfair fiscal burden are
Contrast these fiscal facts with the emotional mantra about
"taxation without representation", and the conclusion
is DC license plates containing the phrase in protest should
read, "We Arrogantly Take More Than We Give".
The issue is not really taxation without representation.
What else is wrong with the argument? The District is not
a state, and was never supposed to be a state as proponents
subtly imply. Nor was the District originally a territory,
as many other States were and who went through the process for
The District of Columbia occupies a very unique status in our
country due to its origins. It cannot be like every other
Finally, the phrase "full and equal voting
representation" is not correct. Surely they don't
mean that the District would have the same voting power and
influence of Texas?
Here are some snippets of anti-statehood propaganda.14
New Columbia (as supporters have dubbed the would-be-state)
would violate the Constitution, create an ill-managed state
and an imbalance in the chambers of Congress."
"Problems with D.C., the city, are main reasons that
D.C., the state, cannot successfully exist."
"In addition, a D.C. statehood measure failed by a margin
of two to one in the 1993 House, a year in which Democrats
held the majority."
"The Constitutional premise of one vote per person is the
most fundamental reason why the District cannot become a state
and is where the argument of D.C. statehood proponents
disintegrates. D.C. residents may be disenfranchised by
not having a voting voice in Congress, but granting D.C.
statehood only further disenfranchises residents of large
states. Allotting two senators to represent a region
with such a small population creates an unequal
representation, as compared to larger states."
with these arguments? Plenty! They are replete with
A State is not created without complying with constitutional
procedures, therefore, its creation, if it came to pass, would
not be unconstitutional.
The argument that allotting two senators creates an unequal
representation is flawed when you consider that even with a 5.7%
decline in population since the 1990 Census, D.C. still has a
population larger than Wyoming, which has two senators.
"Size" or population of a state is irrelevant; every
such political entity has two senators. Further, the idea
of an "imbalance" is woefully shortsighted, and looks
only to today's situation. There were many instances as
States came into the Union where such balance was not present!
Lastly, the notion that the franchise of one person
disenfranchises someone else is absolutely ludicrous.
87% of District residents who voted in the 2000 presidential
election voted Democrat; approximately 13% voted Republican.
Difference Between DC Democracy and DC Representation, a
fact sheet from The Progressive Review, has heavy overtones of
racism, calling the federal "takeover" of DC "the
most extensive assault on black voting rights since
8. Even though the comments following first
appeared in 1970, they still resonate today. Sam Smith, a
vocal proponent of DC Statehood, said, "Creating the first
black state would be a dramatic step towards restoring a sense
of union. So let's off the talk about home rule and
representation. Our right is entire membership in the
United States of America as the 51st state. Let us seek
nothing less." The
Case For DC Statehood by Sam Smith. (Author's comment
Sam Smith is still hammering away on this issue of DC statehood
a thirty year obsession.)
The African-American base of the
Democratic Party is gung-ho on the issue [of Statehood], largely
because it would almost surely result in two black, hard-core
Democratic Senators. This analysis is what prompted Jesse
Jackson, D.C.'s former "shadow senator", to declare,
some years ago, that D.C. statehood was "the most important
civil rights issue facing America today
federal taxes for D.C. residents, by Jonah Goldberg, April
Statehood? Facts about the District
National Taxpayers Union Foundation, Washington, DC: Height
of Injustice or Height of Hypocrisy? NTU Foundation Issue
Brief #132, December 15, 2000, by Mark Schmidt.
12. The Case For DC Statehood. One
very vocal proponent of DC Statehood, Sam Smith, advocates a
semantic exercise whereby the District is re-sized to
incorporate just federal buildings, with the rest declared a
"territory". Then the objective is hold a
constitutional convention in the "territory" to draft
suitable measures of, he omits, republican government, and then
apply to Congress for Statehood. The objective of this
scheme is to bypass ratification of a Constitutional Amendment
for Statehood. His scheme allows Congress to concur with
Statehood by "mere majority vote."
13. From 1871-1874, the Congress created a
territorial government. It was rescinded due to, no
surprise for DC residents and observers, corruption and
14. Pro-Con Silver Chips Online, Julia
Kay says NO: D.C. statehood won't solve conflict, by Julia
Kay, February 8, 2001.
Liberal Assault on
Our Federal Republic
Copyright © Copyright © 2020, 2003, 2004
by Michael A. Wallace & America's Voices, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Wallace is a registered Republican, a former
Eagle Scout, a Lifetime Member of the National Rifle
Association, a strong believer in Second Amendment rights, a
retired Marine officer, and a pro-life advocate - all things
liberals seem to dislike. In addition to his affiliation with
Voices, Mike is a founding member of ConservaVets,
a conservative veteran's organization (which has since become Rally4America).
Mike uses thorough constitutional and historical research to analyze and
explain key moral and political issues of the day. He particularly
enjoys debunking the myths and lies perpetrated by the many liberal
groups who claim to speak for most Americans and by those who
misrepresent Constitutional principles to further their own agendas. E-mail
Mike at email@example.com.