Political Inflation
By Mitch Berg
When liberals confront recession, their first – and usually disastrous – impulse is to print more money (Which sparks inflation and devalues the currency). Yes, it’s Keynesianism; just because it has an academic name doesn’t change the fact that its record is fairly abysmal.
So if you’re a liberal, it’s a short jump from printing money to printing political power. Democrats want to add a Representative to the District of Columbia:
The concept of the District, as outlined by the Founders, was that it should be autonomous and not subject to the whims and outside pressures of a state government. Those reasons, as articulated by James Madison, Elbridge Gerry, and George Mason at the Constitutional Convention, are just as relevant today as they were over 200 years ago.And while statehood supporters cite the famous American rallying cry “no taxation without representation,” that is a false analogy. The entire Congress represents the interests of the District, because every single member of Congress works in the District.
The piece is by Hans Spakovsky at NRO.
And it is the equivalent of printing money – or in this case, printing Democratic votes.
This is not an attempt to secure representation for District residents’ interests, then, but a raw grab at political power. It will establish a new, permanently Democratic seat in the House of Representatives. The bill attempts to balance that by adding a second seat as well (bringing the total number of representatives to 437), and giving that seat to Utah. But unlike D.C.’s seat, Utah’s extra seat is guaranteed only until next year’s Census — after which each state will be assigned seats in proportion to its population. The extra seat will almost surely be transferred to a Democratic state like California or New York.
Suddenly – shamefully – Garrison Keillor’s “ideas” don’t seem so absurdly far-fetched.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
Mitch, Mitch, Mitch. Once again you underestimate the political opportunism of the Democrats.
They plan to split DC in two and make a state of each half. That will give them two more congressmen and four more senators.
Seriously, though, since DC politics make Chicago politics look clean as can be this might backfire on them. The party of institutionized corruption wants to be in charge of not only spending your money, but your kids and grandkids money as well.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 am
They plan to split DC in two and make a state of each half. That will give them two more congressmen and four more senators.
I almost wrote “what’s next? Splitting California into four states? Making each New York borough a state? Giving the big unions represenatives?”
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
The party of institutionized corruption wants to be in charge of not only spending your money, but your kids and grandkids money as well.
That’s already been checked off the to-do list, Terry. Happened last week.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Yep, Mr. D. The latest is Robert Wolf, head of UBS bank and a major bundler for campaign Obama, Obammy named him to his ‘economic advisory board’. Now it has been revealed that UBS bank made a tidy business using offshore banks to illegally shield cleints from taxes.
Obama came of political age in an environment where everybody who was anybody in politics was using the public fisc to line their own pockets. If our non-partisan, non-biased media had bothered to do any kind of investigation on the background of Obama’s political allies he’d still be in the senate shoveling pork to his friends in Illinois.
On the other hand the press did discover how much Palin paid for her tanning bed.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
DC Statehood. If it is good enough for Wyoming, it is good enough for DC.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
A liberal never lets the constitution get in the way of vote grabbing.
The political corruption in DC is astonishing. Naturally it is a democrat stronghold.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
I can’t wait to read the headline when Marion Barry enters the House chamber to claim his seat…”Bitches sent me up!”
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
DC Statehood. If it is good enough for Wyoming, it is good enough for DC.
Please show us where the Constitution shows Wyoming’s special, federal status.
I said “Constitution”, not a wikipedia article about the subject.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
If DC feels underrepresented, give it back to Maryland.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
We can always give DC statehood and remove Vermont (slogan, “We’re America’s whitest state, and proud of it) from same situation. Make it a ward of NY and NH.
Mr D, others have asked, why DC still exists. Maryland and Virginia should get a right of return, maybe leave just the very center part, the true Federal gov’t area, as seperate.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Make [VT] a ward of NY and NH.
I say kick Vermont out of the union. We don’t need them, and it’s not like they haven’t
been an independent state before. Or at least give them back to New York again; certainly the local governance would improve (OT – How bad does government have to be when you say NY government is better than what you’ve got?)
Vermont is the reason we have Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution. George Clinton never got over having to give up Vermont, and Madison gave into him.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Mitch:
The Constitution says very little. Congress is given the 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”.
DC’s current “special, federal status” is optional, not mandatory. The seat of government has been and could again be an ordinary U.S. city in an ordinary state. Or the ‘seat of government’ could simply be reduced a Federal District composed of the National Mall, leaving the rest of DC to become the 51st state.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
DC’s current “special, federal status” is optional, not mandatory. The seat of government has been and could again be an ordinary U.S. city in an ordinary state.
Yep. Maryland’s an ordinary state. Just give it back to Maryland.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Taxation w/o representation is tyranny.
I’m all for handing the District back to Maryland – but then, the population increase will doubtless require SOME state to loose a rep.
BTW – Mitch – money supply matters – in fact, nearly all literate economists recognize that unemployment peaked in 1933 during the Great Depression, 1 year AFTER Hoover actually proposed spending more, and WELL after Roosevelt actually DID. It also took an uptick when Roosevelt slowed spending in his second term.
That said, government expenditures never will cure the economy, it will only make things a little less bad. The root of the issue is idiotic economic policies of US businesses, they are to blame, they are the source of the myopic greed, and only they, and the US public, can address their excesses.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
From article I,sect 8:
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, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
The rules for being considered a state say that you have to be a constitutional republic.
It would be be fascinating to see how the proponents of DC statehood would argue that DC could be ruled by its constitution and still be under the exclusive legislation of the Congress.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Terry:
“It would be be fascinating to see how the proponents of DC statehood would argue that DC could be ruled by its constitution and still be under the exclusive legislation of the Congress.”
No one is proposing to continue the regime of exclusive legislation over the State of DC. Statehood would require Congress to give up this power. DC would draft a state constitution and rule itself.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Been seeping coolaid again, RatioRick?
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Congress can’t give up power over the district without changing the constitution, RickDFL.
If congress decertified DC as the current district the territory should revert to the possession of the states from which it was formed. The last time congress sliced off a chunk of a state to make another state was W. Virginia in the midst of the Civil War.
Read article 1 sect. 8 again.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
I’m all for handing the District back to Maryland – but then, the population increase will doubtless require SOME state to loose a rep.
That’s not a problem — we will redistrict after the Census in 2010 and states will gain and lose seats anyway. Glad you’re on board on this one.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Statehood would require Congress to give up this power. DC would draft a state constitution and rule itself.
This is one of those arguments that gets more stupid the more you look at it.
The 111th congress cannot legislatively restrict the actions of the 112th congress without changing the constitution.
Where did you come up with this brilliant legal reasoning, RickDF, the Huffington Post?
February 24th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Terry
“If congress decertified DC as the current district the territory should revert to the possession of the states from which it was formed.”
I am not sure, but I doubt it. The land was donated by Virginia and Maryland, I assume in perpetuity. I can not find any reference to their ability to take the land back if DC was no longer the SOG.
“Read article 1 sect. 8 again.”
I did. Article 1 section 8 grants Congress powers. It does not require they exercise those powers. For example, Congress may, but is not required to, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The SOG jurisdiction is clearly something Congress could choose not to do or could change the location of.
“The 111th congress cannot legislatively restrict the actions of the 112th congress without changing the constitution.” This makes no sense. Almost every state was at some point a Federal Territory ruled much like DC is now. Statehood is widely accepted as an irreversible grant by which Congress gives up its a whole range of powers, permanently. Congress would no more have the power to reassert its Seat of Government Power over a State of DC than it would have the power to declare part of MN the new SOG against the will of MN.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
RickDFL said:
“I assume”
“I can not find”
“This makes no sense”
“widely accepted”
Such a compelling argument. You’ll be out of that paper bag very soon, I’m sure. *snicker*
February 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
RickDFL, you’ve got to do better than that. You have no freakin’ idea whether or not it is constitutional for congress to make DC a state. You only know that you _want_ congress to make another democrat congressman and two democrat senators. You simply ignore rules that stand in the way of doing that or assume that they will be interpreted or have been interpreted in a way that furthers your goal.
I am not sure, but I doubt it. The land was donated by Virginia and Maryland, I assume in perpetuity. I can not find any reference to their ability to take the land back if DC was no longer the SOG.
Too many assumptions. If you don’t know, research it and find out. This is no more a response than ‘I assume I am always right’.
I did. Article 1 section 8 grants Congress powers. It does not require they exercise those powers. For example, Congress may, but is not required to, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The SOG jurisdiction is clearly something Congress could choose not to do or could change the location of.
You seem to confuse ‘this congress’ with ‘congress’. This congress can decline to exercise its power to declare war or to write & pass spending bills. It may even pass a law requiring later congresses to follow its directives. The next congress can simply pass a law saying it can ignore the laws passed by a previous congress. Congress can no more renounce the powers bestowed upon it by the constitution than it can award itself new constitutional powers.
“The 111th congress cannot legislatively restrict the actions of the 112th congress without changing the constitution.” This makes no sense. Almost every state was at some point a Federal Territory ruled much like DC is now. Statehood is widely accepted as an irreversible grant by which Congress gives up its a whole range of powers, permanently.
Statehood is widely accepted as an irreversible grant by which Congress gives up its a whole range of powers, permanently.
Sheer nonsense. See Reconstruction of the South. I expect you will immediately respond that the Confederate States were a special case and ignore the fact that when you wrote “Statehood is widely accepted as an irreversible grant by which Congress gives up its a whole range of powers, permanently.” you were flat out wrong.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:04 am
“This is no more a response than ‘I assume I am always right’.”
OK I guess we will have to leave that as a matter of dispute. Somebody will have to dig up the original land grants.
“Congress can no more renounce the powers bestowed upon it by the constitution than it can award itself new constitutional powers” There is some territory that used to be the site of a Federal Military installation. Congress at that time exercised special jurisdiction over it much like DC. Later the U.S. gave the land back to the State and now the State exercises regular jurisdiction over it. Is it your position that a later Congress could simply undo the transfer, take the land back into Federal possession, an rule it with Federal jurisdiction, all without the consent of the State. If Congress can not do that, then why would it be able to do that to any part of the proposed state of DC.
“See Reconstruction of the South.” I don’t think Congress ever declared that the rebel states were no longer states. It did proclaim them to be in rebellion and therefore no longer able to exercise their powers as states, but I don’t think it ever declared they had reverted to the status as Federal Territories.
Is it your position that Congress could unilaterally declare that Minnesota is no longer a State and is now simply a territory? If not MN, then why a hypothetical State of DC?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Terry:
You learn something new every day battling the SITD crowd. Alexandria, VA was part of the original grant of land from VA to the US to make the Federal District. In 1846 Congress passed a law giving the land back to VA and VA accepted. Is it your contention that at any point in the future Congress could reassert Federal jurisdiction over Alexandria without the approval of VA? If not, then why would Congress have such power to reassert Federal authority over the rest of the district, if such territory had been given to the State of DC?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:27 am
“See Reconstruction of the South.” I don’t think Congress ever declared that the rebel states were no longer states. It did proclaim them to be in rebellion and therefore no longer able to exercise their powers as states, but I don’t think it ever declared they had reverted to the status as Federal Territories.
You have no freakin’ idea what you are talking about, RickDFL. Your opinion that DC could be made into a state is the product of ignorance and ideology.
Most of the states that were once part of the confederacy were never ‘federal territories”. They could not ‘revert’ to a status they never had.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:00 am
“You learn something new every day battling the SITD crowd.”
Maybe one day you’ll learn that the federal government was created by the states, not the other way around. The federal government recognizes states. It doesn’t create them.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:20 am
“They could not ‘revert’ to a status they never had.”
Well Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri were all Federal Territories prior to their statehood. That is a majority.
a. What other non-state status did Congress designate them? b. What bearing does it have on your claim that Congress could reassert Federal jurisdiction after granting statehood to DC?
“The federal government was created by the states, not the other way around. The federal government recognizes states. It doesn’t create them.”
So, now we are back to treason. The people who held your position were justly butchered by loyal Union troops. The Federal government is created by “We the People”, not the individual states. Says so right in the Constitution. The only way for a new state to join the union is through an Act of the Federal Congress. And again, how does this bear on your claim that that Congress could reassert Federal jurisdiction after granting statehood to DC?
February 25th, 2009 at 11:27 am
So, now we are back to treason. The people who held your position were justly butchered by loyal Union troops.
And thus we see the depravity of your position; “anyone who undercuts federal dominance and supports the tenth-amendment rights and powers of states is a traitor and a slaveholder who should be shot”.
The people who held your position were justly butchered at the Yalu River.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Jeebus, RickDFL. Your ignorance is incredible. You have no knowledge of the history of the United States. It is not ‘my position’ that the federal government was created by the states. It’s an objective fact.
The Constitution was not ratified by “The People”, but by the authorized delegates of the various states.
Missouri was not part of the confederacy.
Read a history book, you ignoramus.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Mitch:
“The people who held your position were justly butchered at the Yalu River.”
Are you sure it wasn’t the Marne or maybe the Boyne. I guess we will have to leave the metaphysics of statehood for another day.
Terry
“Missouri was not part of the confederacy.”
That would have surprised Gen. Sterling Price and the men who represented Missouri in the Confederate Congress. I suppose it would be more accurate to say the Missouri (and Kentucky) were claimed as part of the Confederacy, without a recognized act of secession.
For more see here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Secession
That does not change the fact that most CSA states were still former territories. Nor does it provide any precedent or explanation of how Congress could reassert Federal jurisdiction after granting statehood to DC. You seem to be avoiding that question, which is odd since it is the core of your argument.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I’m going to make this very simple, RickDFL, because you don’t seem to be that bright. In fact I’m becoming more and more certain that you have to an educator in the public school to achieve your density.
Missouri did not secede from the Union. It was not subject to Reconstruction. The reason it was not part of the confederacy was because it did not secede from the Union. The reason it was not subject to Reconstruction is that it was not part of the Confederacy.
“Nor does it provide any precedent or explanation of how Congress could reassert Federal jurisdiction after granting statehood to DC.”
See Reconstruction, above.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Terry:
“Missouri did not secede from the Union. It was not subject to Reconstruction.”
Agreed, but the same is true of Minnesota. But unlike Minnesota, there was an active contest over secession in Missouri. So active that the CSA was able to claim authority over Missouri, raise troops, and sometimes and in some places exert practical authority.
Anyway, some states, most of which were former territories, ‘underwent Reconstruction’, whatever that means in this case. How does that provide any precedent or explanation of how Congress could reassert Federal jurisdiction after granting statehood to DC? To what other States would the same explanation or precedent apply?
February 25th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Good grief you are dense. The confederacy claimed southern arizon, too.
From the Encyclopedia Britannia
Confederate States of America
historical nation, North Americaalso called Confederacy
Main
Granite carving of Confederate leaders Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas … [Credits : © Spectrum Colour Library/Heritage-Images]in the American Civil War, the government of 11 Southern states that seceded from the Union in 1860–61, carrying on all the affairs of a separate government and conducting a major war until defeated in the spring of 1865.
Convinced that their way of life, based on slavery, was irretrievably threatened by the election of President Abraham Lincoln (November 1860), the seven states of the Deep South (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas) seceded from the Union during the following months. When the war began with the firing on Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861), they were joined by four states of the upper South (Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia).
“Anyway, some states, most of which were former territories, ‘underwent Reconstruction’, whatever that means in this case.”
They were called “The Acts of Reconstruction” and they applied to the one time confederate states. Johnson was impeached because he vetoed them. The vetoes were overriden.
The states were ruled by congressional decree until they passed certain milestones, at which time were re-admitted to the Union.
Missouri was never a member of the confederacy, The confederate states had to be readmitted to the Union after their statehood was forfeit. During reconstruction they were ruled by congress.
I can’t make it any clearer than that.
Rather than flog this dead horse further take a day or two to reflect what else you are totally, completely, and incontrovertibly wrong about.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
And, BTW, I’m waiting for Flash to show up and criticize RickDFL for accusing me of treason. This is far, far, worse than the ‘incivility’ and ‘repeating ‘talking points” that Flash usually complains about. You hang traitors.
Flash? Still there?
Fucking liberals.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Terry:
“Johnson was impeached because he vetoed them”. Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure in Office Act when he fired Stanton agreed with Congress over the Reconstruction Acts.
“ruled by congressional decree” and “they were ruled by congress”
No the former CSA states were divided into five military districts and ruled by a military officer. That is why Congress felt so strongly about the Tenure in Office Act.
“their statehood was forfeit”
Not exactly, the Act itself always refers to them as “States”. It determines that in the absence of a “legal State Government”, military rule shall be imposed. In addition it lays down conditions for the seating of Members of Congress from those states.
But once again you keeping running and hiding from your central claim. How does this provide any precedent or explanation of how Congress could reassert Federal jurisdiction after granting statehood to DC? To what other States would the same explanation or precedent apply?
February 26th, 2009 at 10:25 am
But once again you keeping running and hiding from your central claim. How does this provide any precedent or explanation of how Congress could reassert Federal jurisdiction after granting statehood to DC?
Total and complete bullshit.
Reconstruction demonstrates that congress has a precedent for bestowing and withdrawing recognition as a state. It doesn’t have to make sense — during the Civil War congress did not recognize the secession of the Confederate States. After the Civil War it required them to comply with the conditions of the Acts of Reconstruction before they would be ‘readmitted’ to the Union. When it became clear that the Southern States would rather suffer military occupation than comply with the Acts of reconstruction, congress arranged for sham elections in the Southern States that resulted in state governments that quickly complied with the Acts of Reconstruction. Congress can do anything it wants to do.
You are wrong in so many, many, ways RickDFL. You say :
““ruled by congressional decree” and “they were ruled by congress”
No the former CSA states were divided into five military districts and ruled by a military officer.”
Did the military itself choose to rule the South? Did the president choose military rule for the South? Congress chose military rule for the South. The military ruled in the South until congress told told them not to. You can’t be this stupid. You are a bigot; you are stubbornly holding onto an opinion that is rooted in ignorance.
As for the cause of Johnson’s impeachment you are making a false distinction between the Tenure of Office act and the Acts of Reconstruction. The Tenure of Office Act was passed, like the Acts of Reconstruction, despite Johnson’s veto. Its purpose was to keep pro-congress, pro-reconstruction appointees in the executive branch.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Terry:
“Reconstruction demonstrates that congress has a precedent for bestowing and withdrawing recognition as a state.”
But this precedent applies to every state in the union. Why would this precedent prevent Congress from passing a law to make DC a State with two Senators and a Representative determined by population? If the precedent in a bar to DC Statehood, why isn’t it a bar to Minnesota statehood or Alabama statehood?
February 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“But this precedent applies to every state in the union.”
Exactly. If the political will is there, a state can be deprived of statehood. Any state. You can likely figure out for yourself why, if DC was made a state out of pure political opportunism (as it would be if the dems get their way) it may be removed by political opportunism.
The founders argued against statehood for the District, it is home to the judicial and executive branches as well as the legislative branch, it consists of parts taken from two different states (there is no organic unity to DC), and other means may be used to provide its inhabitants with representation at the federal level, if desired.
The only reason to make DC a state is if you want two more democratic senators and one more democratic congressman.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Terry:
“You can likely figure out for yourself why, if DC was made a state out of pure political opportunism (as it would be if the dems get their way) it may be removed by political opportunism.”
So you admit there is no Constitutional bar to DC Statehood. As for the chance of reversal, we will take our chances.
“The only reason to make DC a state is if you want two more . . senators and one more democratic congressman. ” Exactly, that is what makes a democracy.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
So you admit there is no Constitutional bar to DC Statehood.
Far from it. Congress passes legislation all the time that is found to be unconstitutional. Note that article I section 8 speaks only of congress’s right to make a federal district, not unmake a federal district. The Robert’s court has a rather legalistic framework for interpreting the Constitution.
Congress could, I suppose, strip Alaska of statehood without causing as obvious a problem as de-federalizing the federal district.
“The only reason to make DC a state is if you want two more . . senators and one more democratic congressman. ” Exactly, that is what makes a democracy.
Wrong again. The house and senate are split about 60/40 democrat/republican. It is not democratic to create more congressman and senators of a single political party. Your own party has recognized this; they want to allow the rep from DC to vote & are willing to throw in a new district in Utah to sweeten the deal. So far the GOP is not rising to the bait.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Terry:
“It is not democratic to create more congressman and senators of a single political party.” Of course it is, when the people want to vote for one party. If Wyoming were still of territory, would it be undemocratic to make it a state simply because people in Wyoming want to vote for Republicans?
February 26th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
RickDFL, you are going under again. Remember the Missouri Compromise? One free state added with one slave state.
If the people in DC wanted to vote GOP, you would be one hundred percent opposed to DC statehood. Partisanship is not the same as democracy.
I know you dems have programs to help register felons and insane people. How’s that workin’ for ya?