(07-08-2020 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 11:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was taught in civics class (how many remember those?) that the reason DC was not a state and was not given senators or representatives was that the founders wanted to limit the influence of the center of government on national affairs. They would have been shocked at the powers that the bureaucracy has taken for itself, particularly over recent decades.

I don't think there is much overlap between "the bureaucracy" and DC residents. Money's influence on politics and elections is a bigger concern than if DC somehow gets 2 senators and 1 representative.

Query relevance of this factoid to the discussion at hand.

And the only way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of the distribution and allocation of money. So long as government dictates economic winners and losers, those who want to be winners with try to buy influence.

My understanding is that one rationale for DC being separate from a state was that the founders were concerned about one state having too much influence/power over the new nation's capital. I was merely pointing out that this concern isn't really valid anymore. If DC becomes a state or becomes part of Maryland, the new state (or Maryland) don't suddenly have some great influence over federal politics or the sovereignty or politics in other states.