David Mecklenburg has an even more radical solution to the what-to-do-with-D.C. question.

Also, in the comments section below, a reader named “Bart” directs some rather pointed criticisms at me because I support the tax-free-D.C. idea:

You have dropped your Libertarian Ideals for the chance of paying no taxes. No more Libertarian when there’s a chance for a free ride on the backs of all the other taxpayers. How quickly you have gone from fighting for lower taxes for everybody, to suggesting no taxes for a select few supported by everybody else.

Um…no. I live in Virginia. And I’d continue to live in Virginia even if a tax-free zone were passed. I’d get no benefit from a tax-free D.C. Nice try. And how is taxing a quarter million people without allowing them representation consistent with “libertarian principles?”

Your argument is so poor that it makes just as much sense to raise taxes in D.C. instead of lowering them. Raise them to the point that no one is willing to live there (its not a very big place anyway). Then we have eliminated the representation problem, as well as the Marion Barry’s that thrive in the place.

I can’t even attempt to respond to this. It’s completely incoherent. How does wanting to inject the District with wealth “make just as much sense” as raising taxes “to the point that no one is willing to live there?” I’m lost.

Congress already doesn’t pay social security and look how easily they abuse that fund. Spending it on other things every chance they get. Imagine if they paid no taxes, they would take our hard earned money for granted even more than they do now.

Um…Congressmen don’t claim residence in the District. They’re required to be residents of the districts they represent (or, at the very least, the state). So they’d still pay federal income taxes.

The idea that the people of D.C. are victims here without representation is a joke. The average person in D.C. has far more access and influence on the powers-that-be than the average person anywhere else in the U.S.

Have you ever been to D.C.? Venture outside the Northwest quadrant. Are you telling me Denny Hastert is more inclined to listen to the concerns of a single mother of three in the Anacostia projects than, say, a double-income family of three in Barrington, IL simply because the single mother lives closer to the Capitol? Come on. The “average person” in D.C. isn’t a Congressional staffer, lobbyist or federal bureaucrat. The average person in D.C. lives below the poverty line.

Besides, what happened to “one man, one vote?” It’s ridiculous to suggest that geographic proximity to the capital, or the nature of a man’s job, or the amount of “influence” he has, should somehow cancel out his right to be represented in federal government. Should we take votes away from all people over a certain income level, then? What about movie stars and journalists? Seems to me they have more influence than the common man, too. Should we take away their right to vote?

I will grant you the fact that the real “average people” in D.C. probably don’ t pay federal income taxes anyway, but they do pay for Medicare and Social Security. They’re still getting money withheld from their paychecks, and are without a voice in Congress.

I’m simply saying that if you’re going to deny D.C.’s residents a voice in Congress (and I’ve written that on the whole I think that’s a good idea), then you can’t hit them up for taxes. This country was founded on the principle that unrepresentative taxation is a violation of our liberty. Why does that principle suddenly change simply because those without representation will vote for Democrats, are largely poor and black, and find themselves living in the District?

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 17th, 2002 at 11:39 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.