Wealthy Washington
The U.S. capital thick with rich folk is not the Founders’ vision
Wealth continues to concentrate in and around the nation’s capital. “Maryland, Virginia and Washington are all in the top 10 for millionaires per capita,” a recent article in The New York Times notes, and now there are 34 billionaires living in the region, as well as more than 2,000 residents with at least $30 million.
For generations after the founding of the republic, the capital was little more than a sleepy, Southern town. People who came were usually eager in leaving as soon as possible — to beat the oppressive summer heat. In the 1980s and ’90s, crime spiraled out of control, giving rise to the nickname the “Murder Capital of the United States.”
But crime declined throughout the 2000s, bringing an influx of wealth. And, of course, the proliferation of air-conditioning made Washington a livable city. Now, it has all the trappings of luxury: fine dining, wonderful museums, gorgeous old houses, luxury apartments, and a thriving arts and culture scene.
Of course, the real reason the wealthy want to come to Washington is proximity to the federal government. Washington is not a center of finance, like New York, or industry, like Pittsburgh and Detroit once were. The economy of the region is founded upon the government. Wealth is not created there so much as it drawn there because the government wields more power than ever before. Through taxes, regulations and subsidies, Washington, D.C., has the power to make or break entire industries.
Concentration of wealth in Washington is a worrisome development. The region is home to an extensive middle class — the millions who work in federal agencies are hardly rich. Insofar as people of wealth are attracted to D.C., the middle class is pushed farther and farther away from the center. This is a problem that does not exist here in Pittsburgh, where commutes are reasonable. But metropolitan Washington is becoming more and more like New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, where it is quite difficult for the middle class to attain a comfortable standard of living.
Additionally, our country is supposed to be a republic, in which citizens have equal access to the government. None other than James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” made this point in 1789, over a debate in the House of Representatives on where to locate the capital. Rep. Tom Scott of Pennsylvania suggested locating the capital close to the center of wealth, but Madison objected, arguing “government is intended for the accommodation of the citizens at large,” not just the wealthy. It was unfair to make it easier for the rich “to transmit their grievances or requests” to the state, “or to receive those blessings which the government is intended to dispense.”
Madison’s objections carried the day, and the capital was located near the then-sleepy village of Georgetown along the Potomac River. But in the intervening years, the wealthy have pulled up stakes and moved next to the government.
Normally, advocates of larger government claim that it helps the poor and middle class, while opponents tout the free market, which tends to benefit the wealthy directly. However, a larger government also tends to favor the wealthy. This is a point that many of the Founding Fathers — including Madison and Thomas Jefferson — understood, but that subsequent generations have forgotten. An expansive state, with broad discretion to create winners and losers, is liable to be captured by the rich and powerful, for they have the resources available to influence politicians and policymakers, thus tilting the playing field in its direction, against the general welfare.
The increasing exclusivity of the nation’s capital is just one small illustration of this timeless principle. Government can be bought, and the bigger it gets, the more valuable a commodity it becomes for the wealthy. And the high cost of living in Washington gives the rich an opportunity to place their bids that the rest of us literally cannot afford.