For Republicans, limited government and federalism becomes top-down control for the District of Columbia.
Republicans want to pass a bill in the House of Representatives “that would block the District of Columbia from spending locally raised tax revenue without congressional approval” and squelch financial independence for the city, according to The Washington Post.
President Obama has pledged to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, so DC could defend its recent moves for independence. However, GOP-led attempts to preserve Congressional toll highlights the hypocrisy of Republicans who criticize the Obama administration for its reckless power grabs and disregard for the will of the people.
Recent attempts for DC to control its laws, legally subject to Congressional oversight, have had the Republicans railing against local control. Legalizing marijuana within the city faced strong opposition from Congressional Republicans. They restricted marijuana sales in the city, but allowed the voter initiative that legalized the drug to stand. That stonewalling has kept tax revenue lower than it could be and possibly added to the crime rate in the city.
Nor is the unique situation of DC the only instance of Republicans opposing efforts for decentralization of power. Similar battles have occurred where cities have restricted fracking or banned LGBT discrimination; Republicans have supported state authority over local laws. Often, federalism takes a backseat to party politics.
It’s the same for opposition to DC financial independence and statehood. Ohio Gov. John Kasich bluntly stated the partisan nature: In April, he dismissed DC voting rights in Congress as “just more votes in the Democratic Party.”
Disenfranchisement isn’t a Republican concern if altering it would benefit Democrats.
If Obama vetoes the bill, Republicans have suggested using a “must pass” resolution that keeps the federal government operating with similar language that limits DC budgetary independence.
Part of the Republican effort to maintain control is spurred by the culture war. “They can attach ‘riders’ to dictate spending on abortions, drug treatment, school vouchers and other social issues in the nation’s capital,” Aaron C. Davis wrote.
Were the roles reversed, it’s hard to imagine Republicans could justify Democrats subverting the voting rights of a conservative-controlled city in Texas to maintain control. Naturally, President Obama and Hillary Clinton have defended the idea of DC statehood and voting rights. On the federal level, though, Democrats have done little to promote DC statehood or budgetary independence.
“The District has a larger population than Vermont or Wyoming, and its residents pay more in federal taxes than those in 22 states,” Davis noted.
Were Vermonters and Wyomingites treated like political footballs, the reaction would be swift. Unfortunately for Washingtonians, they’re stuck reminding Congress that they have “taxation without representation.”
