Evans’ declaration came just days before Rep. James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who is chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, pushed his newly introduced D.C. Taxing Authority Review Act through that panel on a 23-18 party-line vote. As approved by the committee, the bill would require an affirmative vote by the House and the Senate within 60 days of receiving legislation from the DC Council that would create or increase taxes or fees in the city, with the exception of a fee below $500 as long as the proposed law does not impose or increase any other fee; the same requirement for explicit approval would apply to any legislation to revise the portion of the DC Code that includes taxation. Without a joint resolution of approval, the city could not proceed.
“Radical DC Democrats want to solve their spending problem by reaching deeper into taxpayer pockets and driving farther on the path to socialism,” Comer argued at Wednesday’s committee markup session.
He cited as dangerous examples the Business Activity Tax — a proposal discussed by DC mayoral nominee Janeese Lewis George, a self-described democratic socialist. She may be talking, but she has not introduced any such tax increase, although as the current Ward 4 councilmember she may do so between now and December.
Comer also took aim against a newly imposed food delivery fee and other revenue-generating actions that he claimed “only serve to hurt small businesses and the District’s vulnerable residents.”
“These are just more examples of bad policies that disincentivize investment, drive residents out and undermine the economic competitiveness of the city,” added Comer.
Unsurprisingly, the committee’s Democratic members vehemently opposed the measure. Robert Garcia of California, the ranking member; Maxwell Frost from Florida; Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts; Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico; and DC Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton all spoke during about 40 minutes of debate.
“This whole wacky idea would have Congress become the de facto city council of Washington, DC,” said Lynch, who like others, noted the absurdity of expecting that Congress would be able to act in 60 days.
“Seriously. We can’t even pass our own bills. … It’s foolish to add this to our plate,” said Frost.
“If enacted, this bill would be the most consequential reduction in D.C.’s authority to govern itself since the D.C. Home Rule Act was passed in 1973 — the entire modern history of D.C. home rule,” said Norton, noting the broad impact of the bill. Title 47, she said, “has more than 50 chapters and encompasses not only taxation but also licensing, permits, assessments and fees, among other things.”
