by Fed Up Texas Chick, The Tenpenny Report:
The US federal workforce comprises just under 3 million employees. Do you feel like you are reaping the benefits of a workforce that large? While 3 million sounds like a massive number, there were more federal workers (3.1 million) in 1944. Actually, in 1939, there were under one million, but the number tripled in size in just five years, mainly to deal with the Great Depression and World War II. In 1990, the federal workforce peaked at 3.4 million employees under the presidency of George H. W. Bush (we call him “Daddy Bush” in Texas).
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Now, Biden wants to expand the federal workforce to its highest levels ever, looking to add over 80,000 employees in FY24 (which started October 1, 2023). Nearly every federal agency would get a funding boost, and all would add staff. Biden says he is making up for Trump-era targeted reductions, but why do we need over 80,000 new feds? Are they all armed IRS agents? Let’s not forget that Biden wants to add 87,000 enforcement agents and $80 billion to the IRS budget. To make the point, the IRS annual budget is currently $12.6 billion, so this funding would provide six times the budget, which the Wall Street Journal said would allow the agency to go into “beast mode.”
The big question is: what do three million federal employees do? And more importantly, why are they all in Washington, DC? Remember when employees quit in droves after Trump appointee Sonny Perdue, the Secretary of Agriculture, wanted to relocate employees out into states where there was actually agriculture? What is it about Washington, DC that is so appealing? Hint: they’re not known for their produce, so what could it be?
In 1790, both Maryland and Virginia gave up land to establish the District of Columbia as the capital of the US. About 3,000 people lived in the new territory, and men who owned property there continued to vote in either Maryland or Virginia, just as they had done before. In the early 1800s, DC voters could no longer vote for president or Congress but could elect their local leaders. By the 1870s, they lost the right to local representation as well. During the post-Civil-War Reconstruction period, Congress created new laws in 1871 (and 1874) that gave the US president sole power to appoint DC leadership. So basically, Congress and the president oversaw the DC government and DC residents had no control. In 1964, as a result of the Civil Rights movement, residents voted for president for the first time, voting overwhelmingly for sitting president Lyndon B. Johnson. DC has always had three electors, despite increasing population.
Purported racism has long been at the center of the battle. Some white Congressmen, like House member and Democrat John Rarick, didn’t believe that a city with so many black people would govern itself. In 1972, he warned that self-governance would lead to a takeover by the black Muslims. Nevertheless, DC won the right to elect its own mayor/city council in 1973. Around the same time, DC gained a House delegate (currently Eleanor Holmes-Norton) who can serve on committees and speak on the floor but not vote. But Congress still has the last word and can overturn city council decisions. And they have – Congress has shut down doctor-assisted death and legalization of marijuana, for instance.
Congressional power over DC is not new. Nancy Pelosi’s dad, Tommy D’Alesandro Jr., was the mayor of Baltimore but Nancy fondly also called him the mayor of DC. That’s because at the time, Congress effectively served as a city council over the district, even setting key committees. For example, Nancy’s daddy chaired the House Appropriations Subcommittee for the District of Columbia. In other words, he controlled the purse strings. Nothing to see here.
DC also has a shadow senator, Paul Strauss from New York City, who has held his seat since 1997 as an advocate for DC statehood.
Attempts at statehood
Democrats are pushing hard for DC to become the 51st state. Republicans call it an unconstitutional power grab akin to packing the Congress (just like they want to pack the Court.) Many African Americans live in DC. Historically, slaves owned in Washington were emancipated in April 1862, nearly a year before the Emancipation Proclamation, so the district became a haven for freed slaves. Now, DC has a very vibrant African American population which historically has voted for Democrats. The city voted overwhelmingly (91 percent) for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Therefore, statehood would be an easy way to get two new Dem senators. The Dems want this so bad they even tried to unwind the filibuster for easy passage.
Many in Congress say DC is too small to be a state, at one-eighteenth the size of Rhode Island, but does have more population than both Wyoming and Vermont. The district also lacks self-sustaining industries like manufacturing and agriculture, so how would they pay for themselves?.
Residents and many Dems say that it is unfair (taxation without representation) that they must pay federal income tax but not be represented in Congress. Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands have been exempted from such tax.
Read More @ TheTenpennyReport.com
