Rally for No Vote – No Tax

15 04 2014

Come to our Rally for No Vote – No Tax on April 15, Tax Day, at 6:00 pm, East Front Capitol Grounds. Bring your signs. Taxation without Representation is Tyranny!

 

 

NOTE:  Cancelled 4/15 due to inclement weather.





Campaign Video Statement

17 03 2014

See my Channel 8 campaign video statement on NO Vote – NO Tax @ http://www.dctvonline.tv/2014_Elections/NelsonRimensnyder.html





Campaign Statement

17 03 2014

Channel 8 broadcast video of Nelson Rimensnyder’s Campaign Statement for DC Delegate to Congress





Senator Jim DeMint Supports No Taxation Without Representtion

4 08 2012
According to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) in the Wall St. Journal, there should be no taxation without representation (if sales taxes are imposed on Internet purchases) — so why doesn’t he introduce and support the “No Taxation Without Representation Act” that would exempt D.C. residents, the only U. S. citizens who are taxed without their consent because they have no vote in Congress, from paying federal income tax? Aha! Sublime hypocrisy!




Meet and Greet Party Saturday, July 28

21 07 2012

You are invited to a Meet and Greet Nelson on Saturday, July 28, 5:00-7:00 PM, hosted by Al and Margaret Crenshaw, 321 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC.  It’s a great chance to learn why D.C. residents should be exempt from paying federal income taxes, pick up a yard sign, and contribute to his campaign.

RSVP to Lisa Nickerson, (202) 546-4668, or lmnicker@gmail.com

IT’S A PARTY AND YOU ARE INVITED!

WHAT:    Meet and greet Nelson Rimensnyder, candidate for U. S. Senator (D. C. Shadow)

WHEN:    Saturday, July 28, 2012, 5:00 – 7:00 PM

WHERE:  Home of Al and Margaret Crenshaw, 321 E. Capitol St. SE

Come out and support Nelson’s campaign for NO VOTE – NO TAX.

  • “Taxation without representation is tyranny!” was a founding principle of our Republic.
  • Citizens who have no vote in the Congress should be treated like residents of Puerto Rico and the territories, who are exempt from paying federal income taxes.
  • This is an issue that should unite all residents of the District – Republicans, Democrats and Independents

Campaign contributions welcome and greatly appreciated.

RSVP to Lisa Nickerson, (202) 546-4668

Paid for By Rimensnyder for Senate, Lisa Nickerson, Treasurer.  Report on file D.C. Office   of Campaign Finance

 





9 07 2012

REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS AGREE:  NO VOTE – NO TAX

If “the pro-statehood hard core wants to tap into the silent, but largely concurring, majority in the District” as stated by Ralph Nader, [“New Blood for the D. C. Statehood Movement,” July 8, p. C-4], the new generation of statehood leaders should first seek parity with Puerto Rico and the territories.

As I campaign for a Shadow Senate seat in all eight wards of the District, I find nearly universal agreement among Republicans, Democrats and Independents, with my platform – NO VOTE – NO TAX!  District residents should unite and petition Congress for relief through exemption from federal income taxes.  As Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton said in 2001 when introducing her “… No Taxation Without Representation Act,”

“We are asking Congress to erase the shameful double inequality borne by no Americans except those who live in our capital.  Residents of the territories and Puerto Rico do not have a vote in Congress but do not pay federal income taxes.”

130 Democrats, including the entire Democratic leadership, signed on as cosponsors.  Now a group of Republicans in the House have introduced “The No Taxation Without Representation Act” (H.R. 3731) in the current and preceding Congress, yet Delegate Norton has declined to co-sponsor or to request hearings.  In 2009, when Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), announced his intention to introduce “The No Taxation Without Representation Act, he said,

“Residents of Puerto Rico and the territories have a non-voting delegate in Congress but pay no federal income tax.  The ‘Taxation Without Representation’ slogan on the license plate convinced me there should be no federal income tax in DC until we fix this [lack of representation]”.

Residents may not know that the D. C. Council enacted legislation in 1994 proclaiming as official policy “that Congress exempt D.C. residents from paying federal income taxes until such time as the District is granted full representation in Congress (D.C. Act 10-22).  That same year the D. C. Republican Committee passed a resolution supporting the official D. C. policy.  The local Party’s current platform continues to support a NO VOTE – NO TAX approach to resolving this 200 plus year old injustice.  Our disenfranchised, 3rd class status behind the territories is a compelling grievance that Congress and our compatriots in the 50 states must no longer ignore.

In 2000, attorneys for the Washington Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights wrote:  “Either the District must be represented because it is a state, or its residents cannot be taxed because it is not.  District residents would clearly choose representation.  But if it cannot be, the Congress cannot choose taxation” [Op. Ed. The Washington Post, April 30, 2000, p. B-2].

When Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. announced his intention to run for Shadow Senator in 1990, he adopted the NO VOTE – NO TAX platform, but soon opted instead for a vote on outright statehood in 1993.  That bill received only one Republican vote.  Indeed, history tells us that DC achieves advances in political rights incrementally and only with bipartisan support.

It is time for D. C. residents to unite behind the No Taxation Without Representation Act, which states “The Congress finds the following:  In keeping with the early history and democratic traditions of the United States, the principles established in the Constitution, and in conformance with the other territories of the United States which have delegates but no Representative, the residents of the District of Columbia should be exempt from paying United States Federal income taxes.”





A Territorial Government for DC? Part III

30 01 2012

Given the choice in 1973, the D. C. political establishment failed to advocate for a Governor-Legislative Assembly form of government.

From 1955 to 1970, Congress authorized D. C. political parties to put issues to advisory referendum votes in their primaries for local party offices and presidential delegate selection.  In 1960, the D. C. Republican Party put a proposition to a vote asking whether registered Republican voters favored a governor-legislative assembly form of government.  Over 80 per cent voted in favor.  The D. C. Democratic Party declined to put a similar proposition on their ballot.

In home rule testimony before the U. S. House D. C. Committee in 1963, the Chairman of the D. C. Republican Committee stated the longstanding position of local Republicans:  “We need a governor, not a mayor, to deal with the Governors of Maryland and Virginia.  The unique status of the District involves state functions.”  This form of government continued to draw strong support from Republican members of the D. C. Committee, who introduced and co-sponsored governor-legislative assembly bills.  The Committee’s Democrats, on the other hand, maintained their preference for mayor-council legislation.

When home rule legislation was under consideration by the U. S. House D. C. Committee in 1973, Chairman Charles Diggs (D-MI) requested that I assist in a quiet survey of members of the local political establishment to determine if they favored a mayor-council or governor-legislative assembly form of government.  (At the time, I was working as a Specialist in American Government at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress.)  Chairman Diggs asked around as well.  Between us, we questioned over 50 local leaders.  Responses of both Republicans and Democrats tended to mirror their party’s position in Congress on the issue, with Republicans favoring the governor-legislative assembly and Democrats the mayor-council form of government.   Statehood Party leaders, on the other hand, held that they could only support the D. C. Statehood Admission Act, then also under consideration by the Committee.  One future Mayor of the City, Democrat Marion Berry, did express support for a governor as chief executive of a local home rule government.

Chairman Diggs was disappointed.  He thought Congress should seriously consider giving the District of Columbia a form of government similar to that of a state or territory, because elected officials would be exercising responsibilities and enacting laws on a state level, and that their titles should reflect that reality.  Unfortunately, the prevailing Democratic Party opinion on the issue sided heavily with those who favored a mayor and council for the proposed home rule government, insisting that the District was a city and that therefore a government headed by a mayor and council would be more appropriate.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.