I’m not a fan of federal bureaucracies and I don’t like the undeserved wealth of the Washington, DC metro region.
So I’m very open to ideas that would address these problems.
Paul Kupiec of the American Enterprise Institute suggests, in a thought-provoking column in the Wall Street Journal, that one possible solution would be to move federal bureaucracies out of Washington.
Donald Trump pledged to rebuild America’s troubled inner cities, “drain the swamp,” and restore Americans’ confidence in their government. The president-elect can deliver on these promises by moving federal government agencies out of the nation’s capital and closer to the citizens they serve in cities like Detroit, Cleveland or Milwaukee.
He points out that two bureaucracies are currently looking to build new headquarters.
The FBI’s current headquarters, the J. Edgar Hoover Building, was built in 1975. It is now too small to meet the FBI’s needs, and it requires major repairs. The specifications for a new FBI headquarters include 2.1 million square feet of office space with access to adequate transportation. The construction budget alone is about $2.5 billion. …The Labor Department is also looking for a new headquarters… The new building could be as large as 1.4 million square feet and, if costs are similar to those proposed by the FBI, the building budget alone would exceed $1 billion.
So why, he asks, don’t we locate those headquarters in places that would benefit from federal redistribution?
…consider what relocating the FBI headquarters to Detroit would do. Moving 11,000 FBI employees would hardly make a dent in the D.C. economy. Over 275,000 people—over 14% of the workforce—are federal-government employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management. In contrast, 11,000 well-paid federal government jobs and $2.5 billion in construction spending would provide a significant boost to the Detroit economy, where less than 2% of the workforce are federal employees.
Here’s the basic argument.
With modern communications technology, there is no reason that the FBI’s new headquarters, or the headquarters of other federal government agencies, must be located in the nation’s capital. The concentration of federal agencies in a single area increases the potential for a breakdown of government services in the event of a terrorist attack… Reducing risk is but one benefit. It would also be healthy for the country to more broadly distribute the wealth and power of federal-government agencies across the nation.
And Kupiec points out that it’s not fair that the DC-metro region gains such disproportionate benefits from overpaid bureaucrats and fat-cat consultants.
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 11 of the 20 richest U.S. counties—including the three richest counties—are in the Washington, D.C., metro area. Incomes near the national capital are bloated not only by generous federal-government payrolls, but also by “Beltway bandit” consultancy firms that provide contract services to federal agencies. It is little wonder that many Americans view the federal government as a money machine for bureaucrats and political insiders.
Here’s the most persuasive argument for moving government departments to other spots in America.
Taxpayers would save money if bureaucracies were built and operated outside of DC.
Many towns and cities across America would welcome the economic development and stability that accompanies a well-paid federal-agency workforce like the FBI or the Labor Department. The expense of managing the federal government should be used to spread wealth beyond the nation’s capital and revitalize the economies of America’s ailing cities. Moving agencies out of Washington will also save millions of dollars because the costs of acquisition, building maintenance and housing for federal employees will shrink outside of the Washington bubble. In 2016 federal employees in the D.C. area receive a 24.78% premium over the base federal pay scale because they work in a high-cost region, according to the Office of Personnel Management.
Part of me likes this idea, especially since the burden on taxpayers presumably would decrease.
But I confess to being conflicted on the issue. Here are my concerns.
- Shouldn’t we focus on shutting down counterproductive bureaucracies rather than moving them? Whether based in Detroit or DC, departments such as HUD, Agriculture, Energy, Education, and Transportation shouldn’t exist.
- If we move bureaucracies (whether they are necessary ones or useless ones), does that create the risk of giving other parts of the nation a “public-choice” incentive to lobby for big government since they’ll be recipients of federal largesse?
- Will we simply get duplication, meaning a new bureaucracy somewhere in America without ever really getting rid of the original bureaucracy in Washington, DC?
Though maybe if I was in charge of the process, it wouldn’t be a bad idea.
I could locate some bureaucracies in the dodgy parts of cities such as Detroit. Especially departments such as HUD and HHS since they helped cause the economic misery in inner cities.
And the Department of Education could be placed somewhere like Newark where government-run schools are such awful failures.
As for other federal bureaucracies, I’m wondering whether seasonal switches would be possible? Maybe stick them in North Dakota in the winter and Brownsville, Texas, in the summer?
Any ideas from readers on this libertarian quandary?
Bad idea. You’re just spreading around the voters who depend on the Federal government for their continued employment. Much better to keep that voting bloc in one spot where they can’t taint the rest of the country.
Except for the small national HQ, the IRS has the four main business operating division headquarters all outside DC. Philadelphia, Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Baltimore host SB/SE, W&I, TE/GE, and LB&I respectively. Most of the IRS workforce is dispersed away from DC.
As with most government activity, it is the unintended consequences that bite you in the butt.
Obviously the positives sound awfully good, but when it comes to actually spending the money, congressmen will be fighting for a piece of the action, and you’ll get into an Abrams tank situation, where costs spiral out of control for something that is really not needed.
If you do something for Detroit, you must placate Newark, and on and on…
If Republicans do something for one city, they will be hated in all the other cities that were left behind. The community organizers will be happy to light the torches, to protect their power base.
Purely from a tactical standpoint, I think it’s a bad idea. If the bureaucracies are kept concentrated in DC there is a small hope that the rest of the country will eventually resent them enough to revolt against them. Whether that revolution is a healthy one or one that increases coercive collectivism even more is another story.
We can take cues from the way people in Europe are starting to resent Brussels. Some of those revolutions seem to be moving in the direction of less statism, while some seem to be actually increasing statism even more. But at least there is diversification and multiprong exploration of new ideas, and that is a net positive for humanity. Of course, in Europe the crises are just symptoms of the trajectory of slow growth and decline that the continent has been in and continues to pursue. But since our trendline growth seems to have descended to 2% we may be in somewhat similar dynamics. Remember, decline brings discord, and that is ultimately a good thing, it is the natural self correcting process that is trying to kick in, so that at least some may escape the drain vortex.
A flat income tax, rules-based monetary policy and now moving federal beurocrats to different cities, does not fix the problem. Complete elimination of the income tax, the Fed.and all federal agencies not specifically created under the Constitution, is the solution.
I think there is one bureaucracy that isn’t centered in Washington DC – the Social Security Administration. It is in Baltimore. It is rated high in performance, particularly as a good place to work. True, but even SSA can do better. It has lagged technologically using systems at least two generations back. Once again it is desperately in need for modernization. Secondly, please note that it hasn’t changed in size since the mid ’80s when it had recorded staff reductions, and performance improvements at 3 about percent per year. Apparently, it is bogged down in self-preservation. I know. I retired as an SSA senior executive.
lerudefrog
I’m afraid the right wing utopian solution you mentioned is as unattainable as the left wing socialist utopia. As we say in New England, “you can’t get there from here.”
Moving isn’t cheap. Spreading the bureaucracy doesn’t help.
Prune the Federal Government – give the money & decision-making back to the States, Counties, Cities & People.
Confirm SCOTUS Justices that won’t ignore the 9th & 10th Amendments.
With modern tech, no need for a Congress in DC. Make them stay close to their constituents. Maybe that would incentivize their constitueto increase the clamor to repeal the 17th amendment.
What I’ve noticed in several years at several companies, is that you are more efficient when you can just walk next door or down the hall and talk to somebody. What I’ve noticed about the federal government is that we are all better off when they are less efficient. So, on that basis alone, I agree it would be good to break them up. The further apart they are the less capable they are of having “power lunches” and the likes from which they grow their base of influence and therefore control. Just think what such a move would do to the main stream media, and to the K-street lobbyists. Even they would be less effective in maintaining the control they seem to have attained.
I had similar experience when the previous Soviet Union broke apart. Those who had been wining and dining the power structure were at a loss when it suddenly became dispersed out to the various states. Of course, you know that with that in mind the real answer is actually to shut down Washington- return the power to the states, and revert to a constitutional republic. Wow- why didn’t somebody think of that before? Of wait they did- they were called founders.
So, you hit both topics- disperse the required departments across the nation, and shut down the others (you listed my favorite targets). Having appointed personnel to run these departments, do you think there’s a possibility that Trump will give them orders to work at shutting them down? I’m just hanging on to see if he does away with “czars”. Still watching this guy hopefully.
fact is… there is no way to rid the federal government of worthless bureaucracy as long as members of congress are allowed to serve until they are comatose… senator Ted Cruz and representative Ron DeSantis plan to introduce legislation next month to amend the constitution and limit the terms of elected officials…. 3 terms in the house… and 2 in the senate… President Elect Trump has verbally supported the idea of term limits… but who knows what “The Donald” might do? a sure bet is McConnell and his ilk will oppose the legislation… if we are to downsize government a good first step is to support term limits… that might increase the chances of elected officials doing the right thing… and acting in the best interests of our country and it’s people…