Skyline of 
Richmond, Virginia

Medical Marijuana Now Legal in DC

07.30.10

From Stop The Drug War.org :

“After thwarting the will of District voters for more than a decade, Congress is no longer standing in the way of effective relief for DC residents who struggle with chronic ailments,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “This moment is a long overdue victory for both DC home rule and the well-being of District residents whose doctors believe medical marijuana can help ease their pain.”“DC Councilmembers and members of Congress should be commended for providing relief to cancer, HIV/AIDS and other patients who need medical marijuana,” said Bill Piper, director of national affairs of the Drug Policy Alliance. “Now we need to make sure that everyone who needs the medicine gets it and that federal law enforcement doesn’t undermine the process. Providing marijuana to sick patients in DC is a major step forward, but this law has some faults that will have to be fixed over time,” said Piper. “By not allowing patients to grow their own medicine, the DC law leaves patients at the mercy of medical marijuana dispensaries and the US Justice Department — who could shut down those dispensaries.”

DC RELEASE Statehood Greens to DC Council: Reject Mayor Fenty’s nominee for People’s Counsel, oppose Pepco rate hike

12.05.09

THE DC STATEHOOD GREEN PARTYhttp://www.dcstatehoodgreen.orgFor immediate release:Tuesday, December 1, 2009Contact:Scott McLarty, DC Statehood Green Party Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614,mclarty@greens.orgDC Statehood Greens urge DC Council to reject Mayor Fenty’s nominee for People’s Counsel, calling her unqualified to challenge Pepco’s rate hikeWASHINGTON, DC — DC Statehood Green Party leaders are urging the City Council of Washington, DC to vote against the nomination of Vicky Beasley to be the People’s Counsel.Statehood Greens have called Ms. Beasley unqualified to oversee the utilities under the purview of the Office of the People’s Counsel, and have objected to Mayor Adrian Fenty’s refusal to consult with community stakeholders and the Consumer Utility Board before announcing the nomination.Ms. Beasley’s lack of experience, with no background in litigation or regulatory law, will make her poorly prepared to challenge Pepco’s proposal for a $51 million dollar (14%) rate hike for consumers in the District of Columbia, said Statehood Green leaders. The party strongly opposes the rate hike.Council member Muriel Bowser (Ward 4) is introducing the “People’s Counsel Holdover Emergency Declaration Resolution” on December 1 in support of Ms. Beasley’s appointment.In his testimony before the Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs during a November 20 hearing, Statehood Green Party activist David Schwartzman urged the Council to “pass emergency legislation reappointing Betty Noel, who has served the public interest so well in her defense of consumers against the predatory corporate practices of the utilities under the purview of OPC.”Mr. Schwartzman’s testimony is appended below. Joyce Robinson-Paul, former DC Statehood Green candidate for ‘DC Statehood’ Representative in Congress, also testified, speaking on behalf of the Consumer Utility Board.In protesting Ms. Beasley’s nomination, the DC Statehood Green Party joins the DC Consumer Utility Board, the Metropolitan Washington Council of the AFL-CIO, the Tenant Action Network, Brian Lederer (a former Peoples’ Counsel himself), and many Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners and civic leaders.Testimony of David Schwartzman, on behalf of the DC Statehood Green PartyPublic Roundtable on PR18-579: People’s Counsel Vicky Beasley Confirmation Resolution of 2009, Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs, Friday, November 20, 2009, 1:30 pm, Room 120, John A. Wilson Building.We strongly endorse the previous testimony protesting the lack of transparency and a thorough vetting process in the selection of the People’s Counsel of the Office of the People’s Counsel (OPC), given today by Herbert Harris (Chairman, Consumer Utility Board), Joyce Robinson-Paul (Consumer Utility Board), Rick Powell and Joslyn N. Williams (Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO), Ruth Castel- Branco (DC Jobs with Justice), Vanessa Dixon (Doctors Council of the District of Columbia/NUHHCE/AFSCME) , Robert Robinson (a member of the Mt. Pleasant Solar Co-op), William Spencer (Palisades Citizen Association), Ann Loikow, David Conn and Betty Sellers (The Tenant Action Network), Kathy Henderson (former ANC Commissioner, 5B10), Gigi Ransom (ANC Commissioner 5C12), Peter Espenschied, and Brian Lederer (former People’s Counsel). We join with many of the former testifiers in urging that the DC City Council pass emergency legislation reappointing Betty Noel, who has served the public interest so well in her defense of consumers against the predatory corporate practices of the utilities under the purview of OPC.Mayor Fenty’s nomination of Vicky Beasley, a lawyer from the corporate sector with little or no litigation or management experience, nor record of defending the public against the profit-greedy big corporations such as Pepco, is still another example of the growing corporatization of our municipal government. The Wilson Building is now Corporate Occupied Territory, with public interest being progressively marginalized in the agenda of the Executive and of all too many on the Council. The Office of the People’s Counsel has long stood between the big corporate sector and the average consumer as a wall of defense of the public interest. Mayor Fenty’s nomination and streamlining of the process of confirmation is a clear attempt to smash this wall of defense. It follows a consistent pattern of top-down imposed steps of erosion of our democratic rights, including the right of collective bargaining. These steps have included the change of school governance in the Home Rule Charter by Mayor Fenty going directly to Congress instead of allowing a full public debate accompanied by a referendum, continual attempts to block the of process of transparency in budgeting (e.g. schools).I will now turn to the current challenges that face our elected District government and the OPC. While we face still another attempt by Pepco to extract still more profits for its stockholders and executives by imposing an onerous rate hike on DC consumers (see appended testimony given today to the D.C. Public Service Commission), we face an ever mounting challenge to reduce carbon emissions in our community, thereby contributing to a prevention program avoiding catastrophic climate change with other significant benefits thereby accruing such as employment in green jobs and reduction in air pollution levels. We applaud the clean energy initiatives already implemented by the District government, such as the Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008.We have heard today from Robert Robinson how well Betty Noel and the OPC has facilitated the expansion of residential solarization and energy efficiency in Mt. Pleasant. This approach should be greatly expanded by further subsidization so that low income and working class residents can enjoy the benefits of energy conservation and rooftop photovoltaic and solar heating installations whether they live in apartment buildings or private residences. Further, since the provision of electricity and other utilities are essential needs, the rate structure should be increasingly calibrated to reflect the income level of the household. The OFC should play a vital role in making these objectives a reality. And lets implement now apprenticeship programs for green jobs in our high schools (see http://www.statehood4dc.com/schwartzman/greencollarjobs). Another DC is Possible!My testimony to the DC Public Service Commission on Pepco’s proposed rate increase:http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org//testimony/testimony.php?annc_id=315§ion_id=1MORE INFORMATIONDC Statehood Green Party http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org~ END ~

Drug War Chronicle: Medical Marijuana: US House Overturns Barr Amendment, Removes Obstacle to Implementing 1998 DC Vote

07.17.09

The US House of Representatives Thursday passed the District of Columbia appropriations bill and in so doing removed an 11-year-old amendment barring the District from implementing the medical marijuana law approved by voters in 1998. Known as the Barr amendment after then Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), the amendment has been attacked by both medical marijuana and DC home rule advocates for years as an unconscionable intrusion into District affairs.

Read more here.

Taxation Without Representation Right Now, But Tax Free DC?

03.09.09

Once again, I bow before the excellent (loosely Constitutionalist but not necessarily Green) UrbanSurvival.com :

And speaking of those spreadsheet jocks who work for Uncle and live in the District of Columbia, here’s what I want you read to jump-start your adrenals today:  Read the text of a little special interest — F/You for taxpayers — sponsored by 11 out-of-touch republicans in CONgress who want to let people who live in the District of Columbia pay no federal income tax!

 

No, I can’t make this stuff up. 

 

House Resolution 1014, which was introduced by the following members on February 9th of this year, add insult to financial injury.

 

Sleazy doesn’t even begin to cover this as the bill’s title tries to hide the fact that the bill would make working and living in The District its own little federal tax haven.  Outraged yet?  Keep reading:

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to tax bona fide residents of the District of Columbia in the same manner as bona fide residents of possessions of the United States.”

On the surface it might sound fine, but as a long-time reporter who’s followed the legislative process, I got really suspicious when the bill began by wrapping itself in all kinds of Flag, Mom and Apple Pie verbiage like this:

“(1) The phrase ‘no taxation without representation’ was a rallying cry of many American colonists during the period of British rule in the 1760s and early 1770s. The slogan gained widespread notoriety after the passage of the Sugar Act on April 5, 1764.

(2) American colonists increasingly resented being levied taxes without having actual legislators seated and voting in Parliament in London. The idea that there should be no taxation without representation dated back even further. Benjamin Franklin stated, ‘it is suppos’d an undoubted Right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own Consent given thro’ their Representatives.’.

(3) This issue became even more defined in 1765 with the passage of the Stamp Act which was the first true attempt to levy a direct tax on the American colonies. Ultimately the tax was repealed, but the idea of no taxation without representation persisted.

(4) Article I, section 2, clause 1 of the United States Constitution, states, ‘The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.’.(5) The Organic Act of 1801 placed Washington, DC, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Congress and people in the District were no longer considered residents of Virginia or Maryland.

(6) Many in Washington, DC, were immediately opposed to the idea of being taxed without congressional representation and over the years several congressional leaders introduced constitutional amendments to give the District of Columbia voting representation, though none were successful.

(7) In 1898, Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States and currently has a Resident Commissioner with limited voting rights. Section 933 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 exempts bona fide citizens who are residents of Puerto Rico for the entire taxable year from Federal taxes on income earned in Puerto Rico.

(8) On March 31, 1917, the United States took possession of the Virgin Islands and in 1927, the territory’s residents were granted citizenship. Under section 932 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, individuals who are bona fide residents of the United States Virgin Islands during the entire taxable year, and who fully pay all income tax liabilities to the United States Virgin Islands, are not subject to Federal income taxes on their income.

(9) Guam was established as a territory of the United States after the passage of the Guam Organic Act of 1950. Under the provisions of section 935 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, residents of Guam are required to file tax returns with Guam, but not with the United States Federal Government and therefore the residents do not have to pay United States Federal income taxes.

(10) The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was established in 1975 after residents decided not to pursue independence, but instead they opted to enter into territory negotiations. The tax treatment of the Northern Mariana Islands is similar to the structure of Guam in that bona fide residents are not required to pay Federal income taxes.

(11) American Samoa, which is technically considered ‘unorganized’ because no Organic Acts have been passed by Congress, is governed by section 931 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Under this section, bona fide year-round residents are exempt from Federal taxes on income they earn in Samoa, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands, but are subject to Federal taxes on income earned elsewhere. “

Whole lotta flag-waving - and nothing wrong with that - but then comes this part (with emphasis added):

(12) 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.

Now, I don’t know about you, but since our predictive linguistics pals over at www.halfpasthuman.com have already labeled what’s ahead as the Summer of Hell/2009, it smells like the central government is trying to ‘buy off’ federal workers in the District to help ensure that when the public starts protesting en masse this summer (as food prices got skyward and shortage develop due to the unbelievable debt load/burden placed on the economy - coupled with all those freshly printed dollars to puff up the financial system) that the people who do the real work in Washington will not ‘bite the hands of those who fed ‘em.”

 

This piece of you-know-what legislation was introduced by representative Louis Gohmert of Texas’ first district and, I’m embarrassed to say, representative Jeb Hensarling of the Texas fifth district which represents (or so I thought) has signed on as a co-sponsor along with:

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6]

Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]

Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5]

Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]

Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3]

Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5]

Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0]

Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]

Rep. F. Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5]

I will be calling Jeb Hensarling’s office later on today to see if I can get some kind of written statement that explains how it is that these folks can co-sponsor a bill which would let, just for example, lobbyists living in the District of Columbia, to take their incomes tax-free!

 

Here’s the detail:

‘(a) General Rule- In the case of an individual who is a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia during the entire taxable year, gross income shall not include–

‘(1) income derived from sources within the District of Columbia, and

‘(2) income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business by such individual within the District of Columbia.

Maybe it’s just me, but when I stumbled across this abomination and passed it on to Peoplenomics subscribers Sunday I just got mad…mad as hell not only at the republicorps financial geniuses who would sponsor legislation like this, but I’m mad that the MainStreamMedia isn’t making a big deal about it.

 

It underscores to me that the MSM is NOT doing its job very well and even if the bill has little chance of passing, the public at least deserves to know who is working this kind of agenda.  Or, is it that CONgress just isn’t reading anything any more?  As Congressman Ron Paul noted, there were only something like three copies of the House Budget Bill.

 

Do with it what you will…but I figure a few phone calls and maybe opening up an OpenCongress.org account and posting some comments might help.

 

And maybe a check  to the campaigns of whoever runs against this crop of financial geniuses.

Although hundreds showed up in Pennsylvania for a taxpayer tea party this weekend, not much coverage in the MSM.  Gee, imagine that.

 

And about those workers for Uncle in the District?  Give them a representative and a couple of Senators.  Make ‘em suffer like the rest of us.

D.C. Voting and Guns- democracy should have no amendments!

03.02.09

Attention: we must act now!              The Senate has passed the D.C. Voting Rights Act and the House of Representatives will likely take it up on Wednesday, March 4.             The citizens of the District of Columbia have been denied a voice in Congress far too long. Now, we are closer than ever to ending this gross injustice - but D.C. needs your help.             Senate passage of the D.C. Voting Rights Act (S. 160) was a real step toward victory; unfortunately, the Senate also passed and attached an amendment to the bill that would gut D.C.’s local gun control laws.             With the House voting on the bill as soon as Wednesday, we must act quickly to stop this dangerous and unnecessary gun measure from becoming law.             Take action now by telling your House representative to vote YES on the D.C. Voting Rights Act and NO on any gun amendment or other amendment attached. This is a civil and voting rights bill - democracy should have no amendments.             President Obama should not have to consider the dangerous and unnecessary gun amendment at the same time he acts to return voting rights to the people of D.C. The House must negotiate with the Senate to have the gun measure removed from the final legislation.              Please spread the word to friends, family and colleagues by forwarding this message!              With your help, D.C. will be one step closer toward getting full congressional representation and the same voting rights as every other taxpaying American.             Thank you for all you do,             Kyle, Angela, and the rest of the action team at Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division             action@citizen.org

DC Statehood Forum

02.08.09

Statehood Greens criticize Del. Norton and her fellow Democrats for omitting DC statehood from the 2008 Democratic platform draft

09.04.08


Statehood Greens criticize Del. Norton and her fellow Democrats for omitting DC statehood from the 2008 Democratic platform draft

THE DC STATEHOOD GREEN PARTYhttp://www.dcstatehoodgreen.orgFor immediate release:Wednesday, August 20, 2008Contact:Scott McLarty, DC Statehood Green Party Media Coordinator,202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.orgThe Green Party is the sole party on the DC ballot that supports statehood for the District; Statehood Greens, DC’s ‘Second Party,’ will carry the banner for DC statehood in the 2008 election (http://www.statehood4dc.com/home)Since the ‘Shadow’ Representative and Senator seats were created to lobby for DC statehood, Democratic candidates for these positions will be delinquent in their responsibility if they follow Del. Norton’s call to drop the demand for statehoodWASHINGTON, DC — DC Statehood Green Party leaders and candidates expressed concern and disappointment over the Democratic Party’s omission of DC statehood from its 2008 national platform draft at the request of DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.The Green Party of the United States, of which the DC Statehood Green Party is an affiliate, remains the only national party with ballot status in DC that endorses statehood for the District, which would end ‘colonial’ status for DC’s majority African American population and provide real democracy and civil rights.The Democratic Party removed DC statehood from its platform in 2004. In previous platforms, including 2000, the Democrats expressed support for statehood. The Republican Party has never supported statehood for the District.”The Statehood Green Party — not the Democratic or Republican parties — stands with the people of Washington, DC, in our demand for the real citizenship, democratic self-government, and full representation in Congress that all other Americans enjoy,” said Joyce Robinson-Paul, Statehood Green candidate for US Representative. “We’re dismayed that Democrats — DC’s largest political party — have abandoned the goal of statehood.”Statehood Greens expressed special disappointment that nonvoting Delegate Norton requested that DC statehood be set aside and that Congress should instead grant the District ‘voting rights,’ which is understood to mean a single voting seat in the US House. All other citizens of the US are represented by three members of Congress: one in the US House and two in the US Senate.”We dispute Ms. Norton’s assertion that DC is ‘not ready’ for statehood, and we’re unhappy that Ms. Norton’s submission to the Democratic platform draft omits mention of statehood. We’re as ready for statehood as everyone else in the US who already lives in a state,” said David Schwartzman, Statehood Green candidate for at-large member of City Council.”Unlike the 2004 Democratic platform, the 2008 draft doesn’t even endorse democratic self-government. The draft says we deserve ‘the benefits of full citizenship, especially the vote, that are accorded to citizens of every state’ without explaining what these things mean or how they’re to be achieved. It’s like saying every child deserves to be educated but refusing to endorse public schools. ‘Especially the vote’ is even more ambiguous. We already have the right to vote for President, for our local elected officials, and for our nonvoting Delegate to the House, but we’re still being under the boot of Congress,” added Mr. Schwartzman.Del. Norton claimed that the District is not ready for statehood in an appearance at a candidates’ forum organized by TENAC (DC Tenants Advocacy Commission, http://www.tenac.org) on Thursday, August 14. Statehood Green candidates attended the forum; the Statehood Green Party has consistently supported rent control and other rights and protections for DC tenants.Statehood Greens noted that promoting DC statehood is the special job of the District’s elected US Senator and US Representative, commonly called the congressional ‘Shadow’ seats. The District government maintains these positions to help in lobbying for DC Statehood.If Democrats elected to the District’s ‘Shadow’ Senate and Representative seats and Democratic candidates for these seats acquiesce to Del. Norton and fail to promote DC statehood, they will be delinquent in their responsibility.The DC Statehood Party (which merged with the DC Green Party in 1999) was founded in 1970 to make statehood a goal of the civil rights movement. Party members assert that DC residents need democracy and self-determination, which means an end to the power of Congress and the White House to control local laws, policies, and finances. With statehood, the District could address problems like housing, health care, and education without federal government interference.The DC Statehood Green Party has declined to support ‘DC Vote’ legislation supported by Del. Norton and other members of Congress, saying that a single voting seat in the US House will not afford genuine democracy for the District. Only statehood will guarantee full voting representation in the US House and Senate as well as democratic autonomy. Furthermore, the DC Vote bill may be found unconstitutional and overturned if challenged in court, since the US Constitution expressly limits voting seats in Congress to states. DC residents have consistently supported statehood in polls. See “Talking Points, Quotes on DC Voting Rights Bill, DC Statehood, and Democracy” DC Statehood Green press release, March 22, 2007 (http://www.gp.org/press/states/dc/dc_2007_03_22.shtml).The DC Statehood Green Party is now the District’s ‘Second Party’ in terms of electoral clout. Statehood Green candidates have collectively received more votes than Republicans in recent general elections for partisan office, even when the two parties have run the same number of candidates. In 2006, the five Statehood Green candidates received a total of 47,421 votes, while the five Republican candidates received 32,658 votes (http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_2006/general_2006_results.shtm).Comparison of platforms

  • 2004 Green Party National platform: “We support statehood for the District of Columbia. The residents of D.C. must have the same rights and representation as all other US citizens.”http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#307202 (Note: The 2008 Green Party platform was not approved at the party’s 2008 national convention in Chicago, July 10-13, so the 2004 platform remains in effect. The 2008 Green platform draft endorsed DC statehood.)
  • Draft 2008 Democratic National Platform (page 50): “Our civil rights leaders sacrificed too much over the years for us to tolerate denial to the nearly 600,000 residents of our nation’s capital of the benefits of full citizenship, especially the vote, that are accorded to citizens of every state.”http://www.workinglife.org/storage/users/4/4/images/111/2008%20democratic%20platform%20080808.pdf
  • 2004 Democratic Party Platform (page 39): “As we encourage democracy around the world, we must extend democracy here at home. We support equal rights to democratic self-government and Congressional representation for the citizens of our nation’s capital.”http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
  • 2000 Democratic Party Platform (page 34): “Just as our country has been the chief apostle of democracy in the world, we must lead by example at home. This begins with our nation’s capital. The citizens of the District of Columbia are entitled to autonomy in the conduct of their civic affairs, full political representation as Americans who are fully taxed, and statehood.” http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2000platform.pdf

MORE INFORMATIONDC Statehood Green Party http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org2008 DC Statehood Green candidates http://www.statehood4dc.com/homeMaude Louise Hills (Louise Thundercloud), for Delegate to the US House of RepresentativesJoyce Robinson Paul, for US RepresentativeKeith Ware, for US SenatorDavid Schwartzman, for City Council, At-LargeCynthia McKinney, for President of the United States http://www.runcynthiarun.comRosa Clemente, for Vice President of the United States http://www.rosaclemente.comGreen Party of the United States http://www.gp.org202-319-7191, 866-41GREENFax 202-319-7193Green candidate database for 2008 and other campaign information:http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml