Politics What is happening????

Here in the "elitist east," we call it a symbolic gesture along with our license plate "End Taxation Without Representation" for 700,000+ American citizens (more than Wyoming and Vermont and only slightly less than Alaska)



And residents of Washington, DC contribute more in federal taxes than ......Nebraska
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia

 

Bring in Puerto Rico as a state while they are at it.

File:Possible 52-star U.S. flag.svg - Wikimedia Commons

 

Not to get too wonky but there are Constitutional and legal differences between the two.

Washington, DC was created as the "seat of government" from an existing state under Article I, Puerto Rico falls under the Article IV "territorial" clause.

Washington DC residents can vote for president and have votes in the Electoral College as a result of the 23rd Amendment adopted in 1961. Residents of Puerto Rico can vote in presidential primaries and send delegates to Democrat and Republican conventions but do not vote for president.

Washington, DC residents pay federal income taxes, residents of Puerto Rico do not.

But both can make a case for statehood and both certainly won't happen in the foreseeable future,

I am looking forward to the Housr Overnight Committrr hearing tomorrow and plan to be there early (by 7:00 a.m.) to get a seat.

 

I wonder what the poll results of people outside DC and Puerto Rico would be if they were asked if adding stars to the flag and the flags appearance would be their main reason for not wanting any more than 50 states.

 

Very little would accrue to the Union given the nature of the current status of both Washington, Dc and Puerto Rico. The same question could have been asked of Alaska and Hawaii (49th and 50th).

One might think statehood for Alaska might have given the Union access to the vast natural resources in the state, but the federal government already controlled those resources. Or Hawaii brought the benefit of a strategic outpost in the Pacific, but that existed as well.

Or Arizona and New Mexico (47th and 48th). In New Mexico, nearly 1/3 of the state 's land is behind fences that say "federal government property - keep out" much the same as before statehood. Arizona brings lots of desert and the Grand Canyon.

What advantages accrued to the Union with any statehood in the last 100+ years?

In the case of Puerto Rico, the issue is territorial status and the Constitutional role of the federal legislature in establishing such legal status. When Congress approved Puerto Rico's constitution in the 1950s, it gave the federal government control over nearly all aspects of governing power....

Puerto Rico has authority over its internal affairs. United States controls: interstate trade, foreign relations and commerce, customs administration, control of air, land and sea, immigration and emigration, nationality and citizenship, currency, maritime laws, military service, military bases, army, navy and air force, declaration of war, constitutionality of laws, jurisdictions and legal procedures, treaties, radio and television--communications, agriculture, mining and minerals, highways, postal system; Social Security, and other areas generally controlled by the federal government in the United States. Puerto Rican institutions control internal affairs unless U.S. law is involved, as in matters of public health and pollution...

Government of Puerto Rico​

As i noted in the earlier post, residents of Puerto Rico do not pay federal income taxes. Statehood would change that and bring that added financial benefit to the Union.

In the case of Washington, DC, as I also noted earlier, residents of DC currently contribute more in tax revenue that 21 states and, in fact, D.C. residents pay higher federal taxes per capita than residents of any state.

In return for the highest federal taxes per capita and falling in the middle of the pack in terms of total federal tax revenue, DC gets far less back in federal resources than most states. Only about 25 percent of proposed D.C. budget in 2019 came from the federal government, which includes things like Medicaid payments. That puts D.C. towards the low end of states, in terms how much of the city's budget is reliant on federal aid. See how that 25 percent compares with each state’s share of federal funding from this map.

That leaves me to wonder why the question of "what benefits accrue to the Union" is relevant as opposed to the question of why residents of DC pay substantially more in taxes than many states and receive far less in federal financial aid than many states and yet do not have voting representation in Congress or the fact that "taxation without representation" is not just a slogan.

***

Added:

Most Americans, across all demographics, oppose statehood for DC

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose D.C. statehood

There were no polls in the 1950s when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union or the 1910s when Arizona and New Mexico became states.

 

There is also this on taxpayer "bailouts" ...

"Bailout" can mean different things. In the case of the Bush/Obama $12-15 billion "bailout" of GM and Chrysler, it meant LOAN guarantees during an approved bankruptcy restructuring and then stock purchases...all of which were paid back to taxpayers (stock sold) at a profit. Trump's "bailout" of farmers hurt by his tariffs and trade war were not a loan, but GRANTS (giveaways) on a per acre basis. Taxpayers will never recoup this $28 billion bailout.

Trump’s farmer bailout is now twice as big as the auto bailout as Trump begs rural America not to leave him: report

If Obama or any Democrat had proposed $28 billion in taxpayer funding to "bail out" any sector of the economy with no expectation of repayment, conservatives would be screaming "socialism"!!!

 

Earlier today, the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Republican Richard Burr (R-NC) released a redacted bipartisan report on "Russian active measures campaigns" in the 2016 election.

The report, in blunt and unambiguous language, found that the Kremlin sought to help Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and hurt Hillary Clinton's by using social media to interfere in the 2016 election by spreading disinformation about Hillary Clinton in a broad, sophisticated and ongoing information warfare campaign that was much more complex than was initially understood.

From the report:

II. (U) FINDINGS
1. (U), The Committee found, that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin.

(U) The Committee found that the IRA' s :lnformation warfare campaign was broad in scope and entailed objectives beyond the result of the 2016 presidential election. Further, the Committee's analysis of the IRA's activities on social media supports the key judgments of the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections," that "Russia's, goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton,· and harm her electability and potential presidency."5 However, where the Intelligence Community assessed that the Russian government "aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him," the Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump, and to the detriment .of Secretary Clinton's campaign.

(U) The Committee found that the Russian government tasked and supported the IRA' s interference in the 2016 U.S. election. This finding is consistent with the Committee's understanding of the relationship between IRA ownerYevgeniy Prigozhin and the Kremlin, the aim and scope of the interference by the IRA, and the correlation between the IRA's actions and electoral interference by the Russian government in other contexts and by other means.7 Despite Moscow's denials, the direction and financial involvement of Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin, as well as his close ties to high-level Russian government officials including President Vladimir Putin, point to significant Kremlin support, authorization, and direction of the IRA's operations and goals...(more)​

The report also calls for "sweeping action" to prevent Russian interference in 2020 election...much of which has been opposed and/or blocked by Senate Majority Leader McConnell.

More: Bipartisan Senate report calls for sweeping effort to prevent Russian interference in 2020 election

 

While the ad targets of the Russian campaign were better than what the GOP machine did in the past, I don't see how that is any different than the information warfare that Rush, Fox News, Glen Beck, Pat Robinson, Alex Jones, News Max, Breitbart, Hannity, and on and on were doing against the Clinton's for decades at the direction of the rich businessmen and hypocrites who talk about social values. Yes, Russia went on 4 Chan and Pornhub (the amount of black guys banging thin blonde girls posted was way above normal, as well as the comments) and a lot of other forums to target people on the issues they care about.

But the response from the Democrats was to "delete Facebook" and "don't feed the trolls". Well, that tactic doesn't work, because the ideology gets spread without resistance or counter-persuasion.

 

"Free speech" trumps Trump.

Last year, after Trump complained about protesters near the White House, the National Park Service proposed numerous changes to how it approved and facilitates protests, including how many demonstrators may gather on national parks’ land without a permit, what areas protesters can demonstrate in, and whether protesters should be required to reimburse the agency for the support and security it provides.

ACLU and others immediately cast doubt on whether imposing fees on groups exercising their First Amendment rights and restricting protests at some locations would be constitutional.

Today, it appears free speech won.

National Park Service withdraws plan to consider charging protesters for demonstrations

 

Election results...


View: https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1191938610565656576


November 1: The last poll in Kentucky (Republican poll) had the Republican governor up by 5 points, not down by 17 points.

November 4: Trump, who won Kentucky by 30 points in 2016, comes to the state to rally for the governor but makes it all about himself.

If you lose, they're going to say Trump suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world. This was the greatest. You can't let that happen to me!"
~ Donald Trump to Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin on Monday​

November 5: Republican governor loses (but has still not conceded)

Nice spin by the RNC Chairwoman above.

Democrats have now flipped eight governors in the last two elections since Trump took office (2018: Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin and 2019: Kentucky)

In the other signifcant election yesterday...

In stunner, Democrats flip both houses of Virginia’s state legislature
Democrats will control state’s governorship, Senate, House for first time in 26 years.

In both Kentucky and Virginia, exit polls suggest that suburban voters were running away from Republicans (much like in 2018 when Democrats flipped 40 seats in the US House and 7 governors) after being a key voting block for Trump in 2016. A good sign for Democrats in 2020?

 

We can hope.

 

I'm not so sure it is a good sign or not. It will just signal to the GOP that they need to do a lot more.

But it will be strange knowing that Kentucky is more of a liberal state than Ohio.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/21/trump-taxes-supreme-court-053405

This' moving forward.

Scenario: I'm a shady character who happens to get elected governor of Texas. Am I immune from being investigated for illegal activities? Do I have the right to ignore subpoenas and other legal orders and requests to produce records? Do I have the right to order others to ignore those requests? Hell, no.

 

I don't support illegal hacking generally speaking, especially when it's done to give one political party or the other an advantage.

To embarrass the government, in general, for doing stupid things? Yes.

With that said, what if:

All of Trump's tax records, personal and business, covering the last 40 years were somehow released?

All of Trump's financial records, such as loan applications, required disclosures for business, etc covering the last 40 years were somehow released?

I'd bet good money we'd see tax fraud, and every kind of financial fraud imaginable.


My understanding is there's only one financial institution willing to loan Trump money, and the integrity of that institution is questionable. (Sorry, no links right now, I need to research this.)