That's what you'll read on a Washington D.C. license plate. The theory has always been 'no taxation without representation' right? That's what led to the Revolutionary war. That's what led to the Declaration of Independence. That's what led to a democracy where "citizens of every state" are represented.
So why did citizens of D.C. change their license plates in 2002 to read "Taxation without representation"? Because, those living in the nations capital are not being represented.
Citizens of the District of Columbia do not actually live in a state. They do have a representative in the House, Eleanor Holmes-Norton. However, Norton is not allowed to vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. For this reason, she is known as a silent representative.
It seems very ironic, that in the nation's capital, the birthplace of democracy, the people are not given a fair say. It goes against the very ideology of democracy that we discussed in Mass Media and Society.
We examined democracy as an dominant ideology in America. People believe in the right to vote and the need to have a say in who runs their government and how that government is run.
Not allowing residents of Washington D.C. to participate actively in the democratic process goes against this dominant ideology.
Now, residents are fighting back. As stated, they changed their license plates in 2002, and added the phrase, "Taxation without Representation."
In September of this year, a bill that would give the District of Columbia one full-voting member in the House of Representatives went before the Senate. The bill was shot down. Opponents said that the bill went agaist Article I of the Constitution, which says that the House of Representatives will be elected by citizens of "several states".
According to an article on About.com , more than 500,000 Americans are residents of the nation's capital. They pay the second highest per capia federal income taxes in the country, yet they have no say in how that money gets spent.
There has been a call to add an Amendment to the Constitution, allowing DC voting rights. Some strides have been made. Citizens of the District of Columbia were finally granted the right to vote in presidential elections in 1961. In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act which allowed citizens to elect their own mayor and city council.
Not allowing citizens of Washington D.C. an active member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate goes against the very foundation of America.
Democracy is one of the strongest ideologies in our nation. There is no reason that those who live in our nation's capital, the heart of our democratic world, should not get to participate in that.
1 comment:
I think that the argument for representation is better grounded in these people being citizens, and thus rightfully having a share of sovereignty, than the idea that they are taxed.
By linking representation with taxation, you seem to be suggesting that we could restore fairness by making DC a tax-free zone.
That idea that one's vote should be proportional to the net of the cost of taxes and benefits is very interesting.
I think that what is repugnant about taxation without representation is the idea that some people vote to impose a burden on others, who have no say in the matter.
I agree that there is a problem in some people voting to impose on others for their own benefit, and certainly once you make that leap, then I think you also are lead to accept that the vote should be proportional to the net burden that people bear for the support of the society through government.
Perhaps there should be a standard, per-capita tax and a standard per-capita vote, and that these two things should be linked such that any reduction in tax burden should come with a reduction in the voting right, and any reduction in the voting right should come with a reduction in the tax burden.
When it is seen in this light, I think that it strikes a fascinating balance, as people would see the burden of supporting the government as linked to their having a say in it. We wouldn't be so inclined to impose burdens, because in doing so we would cede control as well.
Post a Comment