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!
Senator Jim DeMint Supports No Taxation Without Representtion
4 08 2012Comments : Leave a Comment »
Categories : Uncategorized
Meet and Greet Party Saturday, July 28
21 07 2012You 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
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Categories : D. C. Government, D. C. Statehood, D.C. Federal Income Tax, DC Voting Rights, Territorial Government for D. C.
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.”
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Categories : Uncategorized
A Territorial Government for DC? Part III
30 01 2012Given 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.
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: charles diggs
Categories : D. C. Government, Territorial Government for D. C.
A Territorial Government for D.C.? (Part II)
28 01 2012Comments : Leave a Comment »
Categories : Uncategorized
A Territorial Government for D.C.? (Part II)
28 01 2012The Republican Party of the District of Columbia (established 1854) has historically supported the proposition that a territorial government would be best suited to achieve the local self-governing aspirations of the residents of the Nation’s Capital. In 1874, Congress abolished the brief territorial government (1871-1874) of the post Civil War era. In its 1876 platform, the D. C. Republican Party called for the restoration of a governor-headed territorial government here, and the Party continued to petition Congress and Presidents for such a government.
Finally, local Republicans found a sympathetic ear in President Theodore Roosevelt. The President appointed a commission of national experts in public administration to study the matter and report recommendations. In 1909, the report of the commission was sent to Congress, recommending that the District of Columbia be provided “a territorial form of government headed by a governor.”
Subsequent Republican presidents also advocated for a territorial government with a legislative assembly composed of 15 to 25 members. President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent a draft territorial bill to Congress in 1957 that was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Republicans with Democratic co-sponsors. Hearings were held at which D. C. Republican Party leaders testified in support. The bill passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Senator Prescott Bush (R-CT), father and grandfather of future Republican presidents, was a committed leader of this legislative effort.
Hearings were also held in the U. S. House. D. C. Republican leaders again testified in favor, but the Southern Democrats dominating the District of Columbia Committee at that time declined to report the bill.
How and why Congress ultimately authorized an elected mayor-council form of government and not a governor-legislative assembly in1973 will be covered in Part III, to follow.
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Categories : D. C. Government, D. C. Statehood, DC Voting Rights, Territorial Government for D. C.
A Governor for DC? It’s a 200 Year-Old Idea! (Part 1 of 2)
26 01 2012Soon after the federal government assumed residence here in 1800, Congress authorized a select committee to study and recommend a form of government for the District of Columbia. That committee advised that Congress charter a governor-legislative territorial government. However, local politicians in Alexandria and Georgetown, which had mayor-council charters dating from colonial days, did not want to give up their little fiefdoms. These leaders appealed to their Senators and Representatives in Virginia and Maryland to keep the local charters, and Congress so legislated.
After the Civil War, D. C. Republican leaders, supported by the business community, began to petition Congress for a unified government with a strong executive as governor, supported by an elected legislative assembly. These leaders believed that a centralized government was needed to initiate a comprehensive public works program to make D.C. a capital worthy of the Nation. Streets were unpaved and a comprehensive water and sewage system was needed.
In 1871, Congress established the Territorial Government of the District of Columbia, headed by a governor serving with a legislative assembly. By 1875, the Nation’s Capital was physically transformed. However, Congress did not provide the anticipated appropriations necessary to fund this transformation, and local borrowing exceeded Congressional limits on the Territorial Government’s ability to raise the revenue to cover the costs. The ensuing insolvency was used by Southern and Northern Democrats, by then a majority in Congress, as the justification to abolish the Territorial Government and replace it with three commissioners appointed by the President.
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: government of the district of columbia, territorial government
Categories : Uncategorized
