At the Cato Institute, Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven discuss President Donald Trump’s plans to move government agency headquarters out of Washington, D.C., and into areas closer to the operations they regulate. Instead, Edwards and DeHaven suggest they shrink government outright. They write:
President Trump campaigned on moving tens of thousands of federal workers outside the “Washington Swamp.” He initiated such efforts in his first term, and now a bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced a bill to support the process. The sponsors say that the “Strategic Withdrawal of Agencies for Meaningful Placement (SWAMP)” Act would help “drain the swamp” in Washington, DC.
Moving agencies elsewhere would reduce DC traffic jams, but we’re skeptical it would save any money. And we’re concerned that such efforts would distract policymakers from the more important task of cutting agencies to tackle exploding debt. We would rather see a bill to “Shutter Wasteful Agencies and Most Programs.”
SWAMP Act co-sponsor Rep. Jared Golden (D‑ME) said, “Redistributing federal agencies and jobs around the country would bring the government closer to the people.” But that is the opposite sentiment of President Ronald Reagan, who quipped, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” We should shrink the government, not entangle it more closely in our lives.
Federal relocation would impose new costs for logistics, leasing, and construction. Trump wants new buildings in beautiful classical designs. The SWAMP Act says that relocation costs would be offset by the proceeds of building sales, but government projects usually impose cost overruns and Congress would likely pass more funding for projects down the road.
It would be more difficult for congressional committees and the White House to oversee agencies and meet with agency officials if they were spread across the country. And there would be new costs for flights and hotels for thousands of far-flung workers to attend meetings and hearings in DC. Federal decision-making would be slowed.
Moving agencies to distant cities could reduce workforce skillsets. Today, federal IT experts move between agencies within DC spreading knowledge around, while federal executives move around sharing best practices. That sort of cross-pollination would be lost if agencies were distributed and isolated.
Moving agencies closer to the people may have advantages, but it could also intensify the grip of special interests. If the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) moved to Iowa, for example, it would make that state’s economy even more dependent on farming and Iowa legislators more resistant to farm subsidy reforms.
Action Line: There are many ways America can improve its government, but ultimately, the best way is to shrink its size and power. The smaller the federal government gets, the more local control states can enjoy, and the Tenth Amendment protections Americans were given by the Founders will be restored. Click here to subscribe to my free monthly Survive & Thrive letter.
Originally posted on Your Survival Guy.
If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for the Richardcyoung.com free weekly email.