D.C. under the thumb of Congress

Sens. Susan Collins and Joseph I. Lieberman should be proud of brokering the deal to trash the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that discriminated against gays in the military.

It did not take long for them to disgrace themselves by bullying the people of Washington, D.C., when they threatened to slash school funding if city leaders refuse to revive a school voucher program.

Just another cynical reminder that Congress can impose pet policies on their host city that they cannot do to any other city. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8, authorizes Congress “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

Washington has been allowed limited self-government since 1973, but is still under the thumb of Congress. D.C. residents have no voting representation in either the House or the Senate and could not even vote for president until 1961. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton represents Washington in the House in an advisory capacity.

Lieberman and Collins convened a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Feb. 16, 2011, when they scolded D.C. politicos in declaring that they are prioritizing the renewal of the voucher program, called the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, The Washington Post reported.

“I think the extra funds that come to D.C….will be in serious jeopardy if the opportunity funding is not in this three-part program of public and charter schools,” said Lieberman, an independent representing Connecticut; he is a former Democrat normally allied with the Democratic party.

Added Collins, a Maine Republican, “I believe unless there is a three-sector approach, the money for D.C. public schools and D.C. charter schools will be in jeopardy.”

Lieberman, who chairs the committee, has joined with Collins to sponsor legislation to revive the voucher program for new enrollees. In the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Speaker John A. Boehner said he is proposing similar legislation which will mean an extra $2.3 million for 2011 and $20 million over the next five years, according to the Post.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attitude toward this kind of measure was made clear two years earlier during a previous voucher dust-up, as quoted in The Los Angeles Times: “How would the rest of the states feel if we suddenly determined what was going to happen in those states with regard to vouchers, school choice and charter schools?”

At the time, scandal-scarred Republican Sen. John Ensign (both he and Reid are from Nevada) said on behalf of vouchers, “What we are talking about here is kids ahead of the special-interest groups.”

Congress voted to raise spending on D.C. public and charter schools in 2004 as part of a pact to enact a $14 million voucher program allotting $7,500 to families who wish to enroll their children in private school, according to the Post. The White House suspended the program in 2009, but students participating in the program as of 2010 are permitted to retain their yearly vouchers through graduation.

Finally, the House voted in favor of vouchers in D.C. on March 30, 2011, but now must go before the Senate.

Two Washingtonians earlier expressed their fury in the Post. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the delegate for D.C., said during a hearing in the House in February 2011: “The inescapable conclusion is that the Republicans believe they can indulge their personal and ideological preferences with impunity here in the District.”

Marc Osgoode Smith’s letter to the editor was published Feb. 19; he is co-chair of the Local School Advisory Board of the Capitol Hill Cluster School. He wrote, “Sens. Lieberman…and Collins threaten to impose financial penalties on more than 45,000 D.C. Public Schools students over a $14 million political hot potato.

“And perhaps more disturbing, The Post’s editorial board actually endorses this exercise in extortion,” he continued. “Even my fourth-grader and kindergartner would know the inherent unfairness and cynicism of tying their educational aspirations to an issue in which they have neither a stake nor a voice.

“Congress wants vouchers? Why not just appropriate the money to the U.S. Education Department and have it administer the program? It is, after all, a federal initiative. But to threaten education funding for 45,000 children - not to mention a reform effort the senators ostensibly support - over an issue that they themselves have the power to resolve? That’s just childish.”

What’s important is less the merits of school vouchers than the gall of anyone exploiting their power to dictate policy to another jurisdiction. The 600,000 citizens of Washington are Americans like all members of Congress. Of course, many relocated from other communities around the nation.

It stands to reason that the framers of the Constitution simply wanted property they could control to operate a functioning government - not to subjugate Washington residents as England’s King George III subjugated them. There can be little doubt that the framers would have supported adjustments in this arrangement if they knew it would lead to this situation.