[rauljara]

Not saying there isn't gross mismanagement and systematic corruption, but not being a state also puts DC at a serious disadvantage. They don't have access to state funds, or any government programs that only work through states (though many government programs working through states do make a point of including DC, not all do). Also, they lose out on a lot of corruption not having senators at all. Senators regularly ship large amount of pork back to their state. No senators, no pork.

A large city in your average state can get away with a lot more corruption and mismanagement than DC could. They'd have state government, certain national programs, and national representatives to fall back on. DC gets none of that.

[gojomo]

On the other hand, given the amount of time they spend in the area, and their dependency on the federal workforce in DC, to some degree every other Senator and Representative looks out for DC's interests. DC has plenty of de facto power to get pork, even without the de jure representation.

[thrdOriginal]

Spending time in DC does not equate becoming a resident of DC, nor does it posit in one a sense of ownership necessary to take care of DC. This is especially true when the part of DC these senators et al live in is not representative of DC as a whole: DC does a very good job of fencing off the haves from the havenots (e.g. no metro stop in Georgetown).