Senate Votes to Give DC Citizens Vote in Congress

From HuffingtonPost.com:

Senate Votes To Give DC Citizens Vote in Congress
JIM ABRAMS | February 26, 2009 07:39 PM EST |

WASHINGTON(AP _ The right to a vote in Congress denied the District of Columbia when it became the nation's capital two centuries ago would be granted under legislation the Senate passed Thursday.

Congress is "moving to right a centuries-old wrong," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shortly before the 61-37 vote.

The House is expected to pass the measure with a strong majority next week and President Barack Obama, a co-sponsor when the bill failed to clear the Senate two years ago, has promised to sign it.

The measure is likely to face a court challenge immediately after becoming law; opponents argue that it is unconstitutional because D.C. is not a state and does not qualify for representation.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, who sponsored the bill with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, expressed confidence that they could win the legal argument and noted that the bill contained an expedited appeals process to ensure a quick court decision.

The real issue, he said, is that the disenfranchisement of 600,000 residents of the nation's capital "is patently unjust and un-American in a sense of the best principles of this country."

"This is a historic moment," said Ilir Zherka, head of the advocacy group DC Vote. "In 2007 we were gaining tremendous momentum," he said. "The huge difference this year is that we have an advocate in the White House."

Rest of article at link above.

Could it be?

Taxation with sort-of representation for DC?

U.S. Senate to vote on DC House seat

From UPI

U.S. Senate to vote on DC House seat
Published: Feb. 15, 2009 at 8:07

WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- District of Columbia leaders say a milestone in their efforts to gain a voting member in the U.S. House of Representative is approaching.

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote this week on a bill to establish a House seat for the District, which includes the city of Washington, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., moved Friday to send the bill to the Senate floor for debate Feb. 23 -- the first major bill on tap after Congress returns from the Presidents' Day break -- with a preliminary vote scheduled for Feb. 24, the newspaper said.

A similar effort failed in 2007 when Democrats could not secure the 60 votes needed to push the bill through the Senate.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's non-voting delegate to the House, predicted a bipartisan group of 63 or 64 senators will support the move this year.

"We do believe we have the votes," she said, adding she expects "mischief" from senators who are opposed to the bill.


© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Well, it's past time that this happened. I could be conspiratorial, but I won't.

Warren wants to pay more taxes

Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world, has been an outspoken critic of the Bush tax cuts since back in 2001 or 2002. He is one of the few billionaires who are honest enough to admit that they aren’t paying as much in taxes (proportionately) as you or I. This is the problem in America. We have been sold a bill of goods and the goods are terrible.

Let’s start with the Death Tax. This is dumbest argument but the Republicans sold it to the American people. The story goes like this - So poor family farmer would lose his farm if we continued the Estate Tax. The second part of the argument was that folks that make a lot of money should be able to keep their money. If we tax it again, it will be double taxed and that’s not fair. (I’m getting nauseated while I type this. I think that I’ll need some Pepto Bismol.) We get “double taxed” all of the time. When we buy gas with our money that has been taxed, we pay gasoline tax. When we pay sales tax on a shirt, it is double taxed. The purpose of the estate tax was to prevent the formation of entitlement or royal class. The thought was that everyone should have to work for a living. The R’s have turned that idea on it ear and they pushed to repeal the Death Tax. Let’s go back to that poor family farmer. No one has been able to show one incident where a family farmer has lost his farm secondary to the Estate Tax. All of the Republicans arguments were bogus.

Tax cuts have never worked to boost an economy. They have worked to pad the pockets of rich Americans but they have never put money in the pockets of the average Joe and Joan. Here’s what Lee Price from the Economic Policy Institute has said about the tax cuts back in 2005.

“Since 2001 President Bush and congressional leaders have promised that enacting each of a series of tax cuts would strengthen the economy by bringing faster growth, more jobs, and greater investment. With Congress again debating whether to extend past tax cuts and enact new ones, it’s time to review how much the last four years of tax cuts have affected the U.S. economy and budget outlook. Unfortunately for most Americans, the tax cuts since 2001 have not made today’s economy stronger. Over the last five fiscal years, the tax cuts have had a direct cost of $860 billion and (with interest costs) a total effect on the deficit of $929 billion. By creating excessive permanent deficits, they have lowered our future standard of living.”

So, that brings us back to Warren Buffett. Maybe he understands that the average Joe or Joan needs a break. They are the ones that need tax relief. How about a tax but for the everyone who makes between $30,000 - $100,000? How about that? And then to offset this we need to increase taxes on the top 1% of households. This isn’t a call for class warfare as some Republicans have stated. Instead, it is equality.

Update: A.L. has written about a Wall Street Journal op-ed which sang the praises of Bush’s tax cut. A.L. took a different route but came to the same conclusion as I did above, tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They never have and never will.

Video here.

Taxation Without Representation for D.C. - AGAIN

From CQPolitics.com:

D.C. Voting Rights Bill Derailed in Senate
By Michael Teitelbaum
3:50 PM; Sep. 18, 2007

The Senate on Tuesday dealt what is likely to be a fatal blow this year to legislation giving the District of Columbia full voting representation in the U.S. House.

An effort to invoke cloture drew a 57-42 majority but fell short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate on a motion to call up the measure (S 1257). Eight Republicans voted “yes,” and one Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana, voted “no.”

The bill would grant full voting rights to the District’s current delegate and create one additional seat in the House, initially to be given to Utah, bringing the chamber to 437 voting members and four non-voting delegates.

The setback likely dooms the legislation for the entire 110th Congress. Opponents, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Constitution limits membership in the House to representatives from “the several states,” and the District is not a state.

He hailed the Senate’s action, declaring the bill was “clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional.” He added, “If the residents of the District are to get a member for themselves, there remains a remedy: amend the Constitution.”

Congress tried that route almost 30 years ago. In 1978, the 95th Congress passed a constitutional amendment to grant the District full membership in both the House and Senate. But the amendment carried a seven-year limit for ratification by three-fourths of the states (38), and only 16 had ratified it by the time the deadline arrived.

The Senate’s senior Democrat, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, agreed with McConnell and other Republicans who argued that only a constitutional amendment could grant the District a vote in Congress.

While Byrd was absent for the vote, he issued a statement explaining his position. “We cannot pick and choose which provisions of the Constitution we will abide by, and which we will set aside whenever convenient,” he said. “If one provision of the Constitution can be circumvented, then so can others just as easily. Let us provide the citizens of the District of Columbia with full voting rights in both the House and the Senate, and do so the proper way, by passing a joint resolution to amend the Constitution.”

The House passed its version of the voting rights bill (HR 1905) on April 19 by a 241-177 vote.

Veto Threat

But even if supporters of the measure had been able to move it through the Senate, it had little chance of becoming law.

The White House meanwhile renewed its threat that President Bush would veto the legislation, declaring, “The bill violates the Constitution’s provisions governing the composition and election of the United States Congress.”

Although the legislation appeared to command a majority of members in both chambers, its support did not reach the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.

Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, a cosponsor of the bill, said the legal issue was not as clear-cut as critics suggested, because the Constitution also gives Congress power over the District of Columbia, the nation’s capital. And he noted the bill contained provisions expediting a Supreme Court review of its constitutionality.

“We’re prepared to accept whatever the Supreme Court says,” he declared.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other advocates argued that District residents pay taxes, serve in the armed forces and sit on federal juries, yet “they are given only a ‘delegate’ in Congress, not a real voting member. This is nothing more than ‘shadow representation.’ This injustice has stood for far too long. Shadow representation is shadow citizenship.”

Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., chief sponsor of the measure, said it aimed to correct “taxation without representation” for 600,000 Americans who live in the District.

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va., and Mayor Adrian Fenty were in the Senate chamber lobbying Republicans to support the cloture motion. But their efforts were in vain.

This story originally appeared in CQ Today.


Once again, no representation to go along with the representation for The District of Columbia. We can dance around it all we want, but it's no surprise as to why the GOP blocked it - AGAIN. Yeah, that GOP really wants that 'Big Tent'. Once again, birds chirping waiting on comments from Black GOPers.