CAROL SCHWARTZ FOR MAYOR
1005 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 393-7300 - Fax (202) 639-8738
BRING IT HOME
BRINGING DEMOCRACY TO DC
Democracy is not some bonus that the federal government can giveth and taketh away. It
is a basic human right sewn deep into the fabric of our nation. Yet we the people who live
at the very seat of democracy are denied the rights conferred upon every other American
citizen. We are the only citizens who pay federal income taxes without congressional
representation. We are the only American citizens whose hard-earned tax dollars are
administered by unaccountable outsiders. It is a violation, an outrage — and it will
change under my leadership. We the people of the District of Columbia fought too hard for
self-determination to continue submitting to a government of outsiders and by outsiders.
In the coming days and weeks, I will put forth my plans for our city's renewal. But any
discussion of the future must include the swift return to self-rule and accountability.
Far too many of our good citizens are confused — and rightly so. "Who is running
our city," they ask. "A control board? A management officer? An
accountant?" Some may assume that Washingtonians have gotten used to our loss of
power — that our nerves have been deadened to the interference of outsiders. They are
wrong, and this election will prove that. My candidacy is a people's coalition to take
back our city from outside interference to bring it home.
ACCOUNTABILITY
My commitment and accountability to our community are unchallenged. I was elected to
the School Board in the first home rule election in 1974, and have been an unrelenting
voice of reason ever since. I was a reformer on the School Board, where I brought back
standardized testing and enforced a competency-based curriculum. With Vince Reed, I
created Banneker High School, which has been a shining success. These are things we did,
not Congress nor congressional appointees. And that is what local government is about
— doing right by our people. My opponent and the media cannot paint me as part of the
problems of the past. The good citizens of this city know better. When I was on the City
Council from 1985-1989, I was a lone voice of fiscal restraint. I fought for
accountability. Had my warnings been heeded, we would not have hit insolvency and would
not have lost our limited home rule. After leaving government due to personal
circumstances, I could not watch our government fall to its knees. I ran for mayor in 1994
and then won back my seat on the Council. In the year and a half that I have been there,
we have put our financial house in order and have started down the road to renewal. Our
balance sheet was helped by a strong economy, the sale of our correctional facility for
$52 million, and a cash influx from the federal government. For my opponent to try to take
full credit, or be given credit, for our balance sheet is just plain arrogant — and
wrong. It denies the work of duly elected officials the Council who made strong decisions
before he moved into the city from the suburbs.
After all is said and done, more is SAID than DONE. But there has never been a gap
between my words and deeds. My support for local democracy is not simple rhetoric. I have
voted in each and every election since 1968 — when District residents were first
permitted to vote in the presidential election. My opponent, of course, could not be
bothered to vote in 4 of the last 5 elections —and that's after he was forced to move
into the city from Arlington less than 2-1/2 years ago. Perhaps he thought he didn't need
to vote, because while I was fighting to keep power with our voters and elected officials,
he was on Capitol Hill trying to wrestle away more power for himself.
Let's be clear: My opponent may be an able accountant, but he has never been
accountable to one voter except when we was in college not in Missouri, not in
Massachusetts, not in Arlington, not here, not one voter. Being an accountant and being
accountable are two entirely different things. And governing is about being accountable.
FEDERAL PAYMENT
The District, in my opinion, was sold short by the "President's Plan" (the
National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997.) Again, let's
be clear: This was no bailout. It was a further emasculation of home rule. The annual
federal payment was not, nor should it have been, a handout. It was an obligation due to
our unique constitutional status as the federal enclave. It was a relatively paltry
reimbursement for some $2 billion in annual services and tax exemptions that the city
provides for the federal government.
The average American city receives 74 percent of its revenue from external sources
(federal, state, and county). In contrast, the District receives only 32 percent of its
revenue from external sources, because we are only able to call on the federal government.
At the same time, we are unable to make up for this loss of revenue. Unlike most major
cities, we are unable to tax at the source of income. Two-thirds of our income is earned
by suburban residents, whose tax dollars go to surrounding jurisdictions. Meanwhile, more
than 40% of property in Washington is not taxable. Our federal annual payment should more
closely reflect this foregone revenue. Instead, it was done away with altogether. My
administration will lobby fiercely for a resumption of the federal payment.
While I applaud the federal government finally taking back their pension liability, it
is worth pointing out that they also received a significant portion of our assets in the
deal.
But in looking at the flow of finances, there is no excuse for the chief financial
officer failing to use available federal funds. We know that my opponent allowed $141
million in federal grants to go unused in FY1997. This is money that could have and should
have been used for our people. It was a tragic error that we cannot and will not afford
again.
JOBS
The federal government has both an obligation to, and a vested interest in the well
being of our city — not just to the marble masses downtown, but to the diverse
communities struggling in the shadows and yearning for the light of renewal. However, in
the last 8 years more than 54% of new federal jobs have been placed in the suburbs.
According to the DC Appleseed Center, the District lost 12% of its federal jobs between
1980 and 1994. In 1997 alone, Congress pushed to relocate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms to Virginia; the few remaining District-based operations of the Food and Drug
Administration to Maryland, and new facilities of the Bureau of Printing and Engraving to
Texas. I support the creation of legislation that would require the federal government to
prove a compelling need to relocate a substantial federal facility out of the District.
At the same time, my administration will call upon the federal government to take part
in the innovative internship program I will outline in my forthcoming plan on economic
development. We must build bridges and pool resources if we are to begin the process of
renewal.
RETURNING CONTROL
Power should — and will under my leadership — revert back to the mayor and
the elected Council as soon as possible. Andrew grimmer agrees, making these his parting
words as chair of the financial control board. While there were valid arguments for the
creation of the financial authority at the time, the arrangement precluded any involvement
of elected local officials. This was wrong and had not been the case in other cities where
temporary financial authorities had been put in place — e.g. New York Philadelphia,
and Cleveland. Once again, our electorate was effectively locked out of the process.
My candidacy affords the greatest opportunity for a return to true home rule. My work
as chair of the Council's Committee on Local, Regional and Federal Affairs, my
relationships with members of Congress, and — yes — my party affiliation will
work to our advantage as we bring back self-determination to local government.
While I resent having to "prove" our worthiness for self-governance (imagine
Wyoming or another similarly populated state having to do the same), my administration
will bring effective, efficient government to the District. Gone will be the days of an
ineffectual bureaucracy in the District. My administration will provide safe streets,
solid schools, and streamlined services. Under my leadership, DC will be seen as
ameliorating the ills that have for too long tarnished the image our nation's capital. In
the coming days and weeks I will continue to put forth comprehensive plans that will bring
about the renewal of our city.
GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Our Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) are one of our strongest investments. They
are inexpensive outlets that bolster our communities, empowering individuals to take part
in the civic life of our city. They form the core of grassroots democracy in DC, making
government more accessible to those most in need, while providing a platform for community
leaders. I have been lobbying for continued funding of our ANCs, and I am hopeful that my
efforts will bear fruit.
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Some are calling for further changes to our structure of governance, changes that would
reject the strong mayor model in favor of a city manager model. There is nothing
inherently wrong with the strong mayor form of government. It has been very successful in
cities across the country. As in any government, conscientious, competent, and fiscally
responsible leadership is the answer. In addition, it has long been my view that the city
administrator can and should be used as our city manager.
This year, I have held governance hearings to lead an open discussion with our citizens
about the form of our government. I am willing to lead this discussion as mayor, but it is
an issue that should — and will — be decided by our citizens, and not imposed by
outsiders.
CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION
At present, DC has the same representation in Congress as do Guam and Samoa —
neither of which pay federal income taxes. It is absurd. Our people are forced to
have Congress sign off on how we spend our hard-earned tax dollars, and yet we have no
vote in Congress. My plan for gaining full voting rights in Congress has been 3 fold:
- Court Case
My committee's hearing brought attention to the possibility of a court case under the
equal protection clause of the Constitution — a case which has now been filed before
the court. I have worked with the Corporation Counsel and the lead attorney in the case,
Charles Miller, to put together a diverse group of plaintiffs. This case is long overdue.
Why should American citizens, born and raised in Washington, be conferred fewer rights
than any other citizen?
- Voting Rights Amendment
We cannot simply rely on the court case. Therefore I will concurrently, in concert with
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, work to get the Voting Rights Amendment reenacted. I am
confident that I will be able to make a strong argument for equal representation. My
commitment to this issue is long and steadfast. I offered to lobby at my own expense on
behalf of the amendment when it was before state legislatures in the late 70s and early
80s. By the time I was taken up on my offer, time had virtually run out on the proposed
amendment. I offer DC's best hope for arguing our case with the Republican dominated
Congress and state legislatures.
- Resumption of Committee Vote
The first step, though, is the resumption of our delegate's vote on the Committee of the
Whole. To this end, I commend Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va) and Rep. Connie Morella (R-Md) for
their support of that initiative.
It was Bobby Kennedy who said that the future belongs to those who blend passion,
reason and courage in a personal commitment to ideals. I have lived my life and my career
that way. It is this passion, reason, and courage that will garner true democracy for our
citizens for the first time in our history. This is people's campaign to take back our
city from unaccountable outsiders. We can — and will — bring it home. |
