The District of Columbia should not become a state. Ever.
The Constitution established the District of Columbia to be the home of the newly created federal government so that it was not “in” and thereby “under the control or influence” of any one state.
Put the capital city in New York, and the state would have unequal control over the federal city and government. Ditto for Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.
There will be no immediate decision on “statehood,” as it would require a constitutional amendment, and that would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
So why the conversation?
Because Democrats would like two more Democratic senators and one more congressman without having to change their failed policies that have cost them control of the House and Senate in recent years.
Between 1932 and 1994 — 64 years — Republicans won full control of Congress only twice: once under Truman and once under Eisenhower.
But, in 1994, Republicans had completed their decision to become the party that would never raise taxes. Ninety-six percent of Republicans signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to oppose all tax hikes. And they have kept that pledge, never raising taxes and reducing them whenever they had a majority and the presidency.
Since 1994, the anti-tax Republican Party has controlled Congress (both houses) for 18 years, and Democrats have done so for six years. Congress was divided for six years.
The same shift in Republican control in many previously Democratic states has seen income taxes in red states reduced year after year. Today, there are eight states with no state income tax, 16 states with a single flat rate and 12 states (all Republican-led) committed to moving their states to zero income tax.
People have been moving for several decades from high-tax, Democratic-led states. New York, California and Illinois come to mind.
The discussion of D.C. statehood is an effort to increase the number of Democrats in Congress without slowing down the tax-and-spend politics that are scheduled to drive a half-dozen congressional seats out of New York and California after the 2030 census. Democrats are driving workers away from blue states by taxing them, and those workers are also voters. Those voters determine how many congressional seats are allotted to each state.
So we will hear a good deal about how unfair it is to D.C. residents that they have “taxation without representation.” That isn’t their real goal.
Luckily, I have a solution to their problem: Exempt the District of Columbia from federal income taxes. Problem — or rather pretend problem — solved.
This would give District residents the same advantages held by other American territories: U.S. citizenship with no federal tax liability on income earned within the territory.
Oddly enough, Democrats have not bothered to enact this policy even when they had full control of the government. Efforts to enact such legislation led by D.C.’s delegate to the House, Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat, went nowhere.
So how is D.C. doing these days? Well, the local government is not working up a sweat to reduce carjackings or assaults. (President Donald Trump is taking care of that.) But the “engine of wealth” — bureaucrats scooping up money from the 50 states and spending it on themselves — is still doing fine.
Per capita personal income in D.C. is $108,000 — significantly higher than the national per capita personal income of $73,000. Nice trick, as you see few factories, farms or production of any kind in the District.
Democrats can win elections in the 50 states when they stop taxing everything until it doesn’t move. The Constitution created D.C. to be run by Congress for a reason. Capital cities tend to live off the earnings of the rest of the country. They should not be given additional votes to increase that power.
Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform. He wrote this for Inside Sources.
