An astute reader notices an angle on the D.C. House-seat folly that I had overlooked. Both versions of the bill would increase the size of the House of Representatives permanently from its present 435 to 437. One seat would go to D.C., the other to Utah, supposedly benefitting the two parties equally. But Utah was set to get the next seat anyway, and under the existing arrangement of 435 seats, could only get it shifted from a state with a (relatively) declining population–most probably a “blue state” seat and probably therefore one currently held by a Democrat. So leaving the status quo means a net shift of one seat to the GOP (or its stronghold states, at least) in the 2012 election, while giving Utah a new additional seat could well save some blue state from the loss that would otherwise come. With D.C. dominated by Democrats and a blue-state seat saved by this bill as well, one strongly possible outcome is that after 2010, the Dems will be able to laugh up their sleeves at having canoodled Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah into reserving two safe House seats for the Democratic Party. These Republicans know how to play hardball, huh?