response 50 of 59:

Dec 19 16:15 UTC 2000

I think the Republicans want to reduce the size of government, So do the
democrats.  The difference is the dems want to reduce the military nad
increase welfare, the Repubs want to decrease welfare and increase the
military.

personally, I would love to see the military budget increased slightly, the
NASA programs tripled, the Parks service doubled, and all other governemnt
programs reduced in budget by 5% the first year, another 5% the second year.
and a similar reduction in staff, with the work made up by use of computers.
I would like to see the surplus createdreturned to the taxpayers after
covering the increases I would like to see.

I think there is a lot of room to trim a lot of government thru modernization
and reduction in services.

response 52 of 59:

Dec 19 17:15 UTC 2000

        I guess that means the hog-trough becomes more empty, and the
        useless have to go find something to do, eh?

response 54 of 59:

Dec 19 20:23 UTC 2000

As far as individual states vs. a megastate, the sovereign states must remain,
since there are far too many local and regional issues that call for local
control and governance.

DC need not be granted statehood in order to serve its needs.  And it is truly
impractical to have DC annexed by any surrounding state - they don't want DC.
If the Electoral College is eliminated in favor of a direct popular vote for
president, then special considerations for DC becomes moot:  It would all be
addressed nation wide as one person one vote.

response 56 of 59:

Dec 19 21:42 UTC 2000

As I recall, DC has *really* screwed up demographics, even more badly
slewed than most other eastern urban areas.  The south-western area of
DC is where the capital, white-house, smithsonian, and most of the
tourist attractions are.  This area consists mostly of big governmental
buildings and office buildings, and most of the workers there commute in
from elsewhere.  A bit to the west, there is a small district,
Georgetown, which has most of the less affordable smaller residential
and retail space.  Think "yuppie gets rich" and you'll understand where
many of the wives of the beltway bandits go shopping.  Most tourists
never get past seeing these two areas of DC.  Most of the *population*
of DC lives to the north and east in DC.  These people are mostly poor,
mostly black, and mostly out of sight.  In fact, the population of
washington DC is about 80% black.  Even as a tourist, you *can* spot
these people - if you look very closely, you'll notice the cleaning
people, fast food service stands, and other menial jobs are invariable
held by black people in DC, whereas in many other areas, it's more
common to see some % of those jobs occupied by teenagers, whites, and
other segments of society.  One of the key factors in this is that there
is one entire segment of society that is under-represented in DC, the
"middle-class".  Basically, DC is more segregated, and more classist,
than I think most of us are used to seeing.  It is easy to ignore that
80% of the population, because we've all trained ourselves to ignore
those people, and in DC, the drug dealers, bad neighborhoods, and such
are all conveniently geographically segregated from the tourist areas.

response 58 of 59:

Dec 20 18:39 UTC 2000

(I really can't tell if some of you have a mad-on for disagreeing
with Richard, can't tell the difference between a majority and a
plurality, or plainly can't read.  "most" doesn't equal "more.")

(it's been difficult to find employment figures for D.C. alone, as
it seems to be studied exclusively as a metropolitan area.  but,
according to petrapub.com [who are they, anyway?], while "private 
sector jobs *now* outnumber those in government" [emphasis mine] in
the District, "Federal Government is [the] largest influence" on
the economy of the metropolitan area.)

(pribly a better reference is the economic study found at
<http://www.wpnewsweek.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/localec/fullerreport/1s
tory.htm>,
which not only describes the economic and population losses D.C. has had
to its neighboring suburbs [residents of the Detroit metropolitan area
should be familiar with that concept], but notes that the downsizing of
the federal workforce [which was President Clinton's doing, although the
congressional Republicans wanted deeper cuts] had a profound impact on
D.C.'s economy.)

(if I remember the progression of the item so far, it's that D.C. maybe
should be a state, but won't be because it votes overwhelmingly
Democratic, and it might vote that way because the Democrats won't cut
federal spending as much as the Republicans, but that might not be true
because the local economy might not depend on the federal government.
something tells me that, if I were a D.C. voter on public welfare, or
working for a Democrat, or working in a job that depends on federal
spending, or even flipping burgers on Pennsylvania Avenue, I'd vote
Democratic for my own economic self-interest.)