Several weeks ago, I flew into Washington, DC, much as I had done for the first time back in March, 1963. Flying over government buildings and monuments, I felt the same emotions overcome me as they had when John F. Kennedy was president. But now the reality seemed to be seriously tainted.

Long before going to Washington as a fifteen-year-old, I had been concerned about problems facing the United States and the world. When I thought of solutions, my mind immediately looked to DC for answers to our domestic problems and the United Nations to hopefully play a key role in solving international issues.

When in Washington, it wasn’t just seeing the White House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court. It was walking by the Department of Justice (where JFK’s brother, Robert was Attorney-General), the Department of Health, Education & Welfare, the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture, even the Department of Commerce and the FBI. When I returned to Washington for college in 1965, the Great Society was being enacted and that lead to more departments aimed helping us solve a problem such as Housing & Urban Development, Transportation and Education. Not too many years after that, even Republican Richard Nixon presided over the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and expansion of the Office of Economic Opportunity (War on Poverty).

Two rhetorical questions were always present for me:

1. Wasn’t it obvious that our country had lots of problems, most having to do with poverty and racial strife?
2. Since we are a country, don’t the solutions naturally come from our seat of government in Washington, DC?

I thought that in 1963 and still believe it. But as I flew into Reagan¹ National Airport, I could not understand how hundreds of Republican members of Congress see the same views as I, yet they look at the city with disdain. They neither seem to care about the problems we have (witness wanting to cut $800 billion from Medicare to provide tax relief for the wealthy) nor do they see their jobs as Members of Congress as being central to solving the problems (witness their love of shoving responsibility from DC to inept state governments). How could you be elected to a job where you could do so much for your country, so much for your district or state, and instead you want to destroy what is helping the disenfranchised and you want to take the word “hope” out of our vocabulary?

Through the years I have taken students to Washington, DC. We have always looked at it as an opportunity to learn about what the federal government does and what it could do to improve quality of life. We have tried to challenge students with questions that require critical thinking. Hopefully they could become part of the solutions to our many problems, and in reflection, it seems that quite a few of them have.

I worry that school trips to Washington, DC now focus more on the military and a conventional definition of patriotism. That is disconcerting because if students do not first experience Washington, DC without a sense of hope and commitment to positive change, then we are indeed in deep trouble.

Because Republicans focus almost exclusively on individual liberties (except for the ones they don’t like such as a woman’s right to choose) at the expense of promoting the common good, they have been tearing apart our social and economic safety nets. The legislation and court rulings that they have undone can be repaired in time. But the damage that they have done to a sense of hope and vision as to how we solve our national problems is more insidious. Maybe we must go back a few decades and take a page from Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. and “keep hope alive.”

¹ How can you name an airport after a president who broke the Air Traffic Controllers Union?

The post What Republicans have done to our Nation’s Capital appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the new Republican Congressional majority’s first moves in January 2011 was a smack-down of the 600,000 residents of Washington DC.  On the very first day of the 112^th Congress, the Republican-controlled House revoked DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s (D-DC) right to vote in the Committee of the Whole—an already essentially ceremonial practice. And so, DC citizens—who vote, pay full federal taxes, and are eligible to serve in the military like all other US citizens—lost their last vestige of representation in Congress.

The inherent unfairness of this rule is obvious in a District that pays more federal taxes than 19 states and has more citizens than the entire state of Wyoming. The arguments behind it have proven specious again and again. Speaker of the House John Boehner led the most recent move to deprive DC citizens of a fundamental right, contending that representation is unconstitutional. His position ignores a 1994 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of the DC Delegate [and a representative from Puerto Rico] to vote in the Committee of the Whole.

Time line

DC representation in Congress has had many ups and downs, which parallel the see-saw between party majorities. DC Vote offers a handy timeline, chronicling the political football that DC representation has been through the years:

1871: An elected House of Delegates and a non-voting delegate to Congress are created.

1874: The territorial government of the District of Columbia, including the non-voting delegate to Congress is abolished. [This status continues for 96 years.]

1961: 23^rd Amendment grants DC citizens the right to vote for President

1970:  Congress [Democratic majority] allows the District of Columbia to elect a Delegate to the House of Representatives. Walter Fauntroy is elected in 1971.

1991: Eleanor Holmes Norton elected

1993: Rights of the Delegates and the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner are expanded.[Democratic majority].

As of 1993, the DC Delegate was allowed to vote in standing committees, such as the Armed Services and Judiciary Committees, because, “committees do not pass final legislation and their actions are not binding on the House of Representatives.” DC Delegate Eleanor Homes Norton successfully argued that, using this logic, she should be allowed to vote in the Committee of the Whole as well.

In 1994, Republicans filed a lawsuit [Michel v. Anderson] challenging Congress’s constitutional authority to allow delegate voting in the Committee of the Whole. A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the DC Delegate’s right to vote.

However [and with DC representation, there seems always to be a “however,”], even that court victory had limitations:

… if any measure passed or failed in the Committee of the Whole because of a delegate’s vote, a second vote—excluding the delegates—would be taken. In other words, delegates were permitted to vote only if their votes had no effect on a measure’s ultimate outcome.

Back to the timeline:

1995: Republicans take control of the House in the 104th Congress—the first change in party control in 40 years, and make major changes to the House rules, including rescinding the right of Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole.

2007:  A new Democratic majority reinstates the right of Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole with House Resolution 78, by a vote of 226-191

More recently—most notably in 2010—attempts  to pass DC voting-rights bills have failed when Republicans attached amendments that would have negated the District’s strict gun-control laws. Another proposed deal called for the quid pro quo of adding another Congressional district in Republican-dominated Utah.

Along the way, politicians have taken some noteworthy and quote-worthy stands regarding DC voting: For example:

• The late Sen. Ted Kennedy, a supporter of DC voting rights in Congress, once said the reason Republicans won’t support full representation for DC is because “it’s too liberal, too urban, too democratic, and too black.”
• In a show of support for the city, President Bill Clinton used “Taxation Without Representation” plates on the presidential limousine. President George W. Bush had them removed.
• Republican Party Platform 1976:
  “We…support giving the District of Columbia voting representation in the United States Senate and House of Representatives.”

For now, DC once again remains unrepresented in Congress in any meaningful way, and the longstanding “taxation without representation” argument rages on. Some DC voting-rights activists have proposed a twist on that argument, calling for an end to federal taxation in the District to parallel its citizens’ lack of representation. In the meantime, House Speaker Boehner and Congressional Republicans continue to deny DC citizens representation, while attempting to impose their political preferences on the District by loosening gun laws and pushing school vouchers.

Can this injustice resolved?

DC Vote puts it this way:

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that all Americans deserve democracy. Opinions from conservative legal experts like Judge Kenneth Starr and Professor Viet D. Dinh support Congress’ authority under the Constitution to give the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress through simple legislation. Congress does not need to amend the Constitution or make DC a state to give DC a vote in Congress.

With voting representation equal to that of other Americans, DC will be better empowered to end congressional interference in local matters, have an equal vote on important national issues and tackle local problems with more resources and greater freedom.

The post Vexation about DC representation appeared first on Occasional Planet.