by Greg Walcher, E&E Legal Senior Policy Fellow
As appearing in the Daily Sentinel

People who inhabit real states have, for many years, made fun of those who think Washington, D.C. should be a state. The idea has been a laughing matter for years, among people who know the difference between states and cities. But once again, the idea is moving through the hallowed halls of Congress, the Constitution notwithstanding.

Senators may need to be reminded of the differences between real states, and a city like Washington, D.C. Actually there is no city “like Washington, D.C.” since no other enjoys such generosity from the rest of the country. States are different. Even smaller ones back East are still big enough to hold more than one city. They have towns, cities, and counties; they have natural resources; they have economies that differ in various sections. They have sectional rivalries and cultural differences.

Washington, D.C. has none of that. It sits in the middle of a metropolitan area with more than 6.2 million people. But it has no towns or counties, only neighborhoods. It has no natural resources upon which to base any economy. In fact, tourism is its only industry except government. It has no sectional rivalries. Its politics are monolithic and its people share the same interests. It is arguably one of America’s poorest-managed cities, with high crime, low morale, taxes that drive business away, and a stifling regulatory climate. But make no mistake about congressional representation, the issue statehood advocates continuously trumpet. The D.C. area is better represented, in the halls of Congress and in all the federal agencies, than any state.