If you could trade your congressman and two senators for a tax-free lifestyle, would you? Seriously.
Imagine Washington, DC, as a tax-free haven. It would be like Hong Kong on the Potomac.
Democrats in Congress are engaging in the obscene Kabuki theatre of "debating" statehood for the constitutionally delineated federal district known as Washington, DC.
In the House of Representatives on Monday, there was a lot of talk about slavery and equity and injustice and disenfranchisement, but not a whole lot about the constitution and the fact that the very body discussing DC statehood does not have the power through a simple majority to grant said statehood.
It's pretty clear in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
"[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States."
At the time, the cozy little enclave off the Potomac had not yet been selected as said district. Many thought New York City would eventually be carved out for the ten square mile privilege of being taxed without representation. Others firmly believed it would be Philadelphia.
It wasn't until the Hamilton/Jefferson/Madison compromise dinner that moved the district to its eventual home in exchange for Hamilton's (and President Washington's) plan for an all-encompassing federal debt plan to alleviate state burdens acquired during the Revolutionary War, thus cementing the Treasury Department's entangled relationship with America's economy. (Confused? Go watch "Hamilton" on Disney Plus.)
Regardless of where the federal district would end up, the Constitution clearly spells out that Congress would have total legislative control over the seat of power for the US federal government. Unlike Congress's role in granting statehood for other territories of the United States, granting statehood to DC would require amending the Constitution. That's just how it is.
That didn't stop the overblown rhetoric we heard in the House Oversight Committee.
DC Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote a letter to her constituents Friday making a case for statehood. It's a perfect example of the non-constitutional arguments made by proponents:
"For 220 years, the injustice of taxation without representation has lived on in Washington, D.C. But now our nation has the opportunity, and a clear path forward, to finally right this wrong."
"We know: the time for DC statehood is now. The time to end the disenfranchisement of more than 700,000 taxpaying Americans is now."
"Right this wrong. The injustice of taxation without representation. End the disenfranchisement."
Are we to believe that the Founders, who just won a war against the dominant world super-power over the cause of taxation without representation, were then determined to implement that same injustice against their fellow citizens? Balderdash.
The entire argument documented in the writings of Madison, Hamilton and Jay had to do with the undue influence this one powerful state would have over the federal government's decisions over distant states without the same proximity or influence. And this was before California and Oregon were contemplated, let alone Alaska or Hawaii.
Yesterday, Rep. Rashida Tlaib referred to the Constitution as an "authoritarian system" when making her case for DC statehood.
"Put simply, you oppose D.C. statehood; you support taxation without representation," she said. "You hear me? If you oppose D.C. statehood, then you support taxation without representation."
Put simply, Tlaib thinks George Washington favored "taxation without representation." Preposterous.
Here's what they're all missing: At the time of our founding, none of the brilliant men who formed this more perfect union were unaware that the residents of the 10-square-mile federal district would be without representation. However, at that time, the reach of the taxation power of the federal government was so limited and so minuscule none of them even considered this arrangement would be tantamount to "taxation without representation" because there wasn't really any taxation.
States controlled taxation, for the most part, and since DC was not a state, it would basically be a tax-free zone. And that is the real solution to this dilemma.
The problem with "taxation without representation" in DC is not the lack of representation; it's obscene taxation. And, unlike the constitutional hurdle Congress must cross to grant DC statehood, they could alleviate federal taxation for the district, and they should.
Several years ago, the idea was floated by staunch conservative Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX).
"After looking at the situation of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, or Samoa, I found that the residents there paid local taxes, but none paid federal income tax. It occurred to me after researching the situation still further that until, when or if the citizens of Washington, D.C. have a full voting representative, they should not have to pay any federal income tax," Gohmert said.
Yesterday, in her testimony, Mayor Bowser claimed the residents of Washington, DC, would prefer not to forego the privilege of paying upwards of half of their income to the federal government in exchange for not having a couple of senators. I'm not sure she's right. What about you?
If you knew you could live tax-free, but you wouldn't have representation in Congress, would you opt-in? Maybe it's time to find another 10-square-mile bastion of freedom in our country and grant them the honor of living tax-free without representation. Maybe we move the federal government and give DC back to Maryland, and everyone would be happy.
Who's ready? Let's end taxation without representation and keep our Constitution intact. Stop taxing the residents of Washington, DC, or move our federal government to a region whose residents wouldn't resent having the federal government there.