Is it time to break up Washington, DC?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    This thread was triggered by two articles that I read recently. I've heard of this concept before, but the time seems to have arrived where it makes sense to get the process started.

    Spread the swamp? Trump administration wants to move government offices out of Washington - LA Times
    Census Bureau: 5 Richest Counties Are D.C. Suburbs- 9 of the top 20 counties by income are located in the DC area.

    It is not the first time that Americans have had to deal with a remote, unaccountable and unresponsive government. There are many reasons why breaking up Washington DC would be beneficial including:
    • More equitable distribution of money and power around the US.
    • We currently have bureaucracies with all of the power of the legislative, judicial and executive branches merged in a single organization (ex: EPA), but are located thousands of miles from the people that they most affect. Moving them should create better accountability and responsiveness to those affected.
    • Concentrating US power structures into a single, few square mile area makes the Federal government more vulnerable to attack or disruption. This setup is a relic of the 18th century when it was created. Distributed structures are much more resilient and with the growth of Internet communications channels makes a more flexible organization very viable.
    • Access to a more diverse population of workers than those living or attracted to the DC area.
    • Lowering the cost of government by moving workers to lower cost-of-living areas.

    Some examples of how Washington departments/bureaucracies could be distributed:
    • Dept of the Interior- Move them out west, possibly Utah or Nevada, where they control more than half of the land.
    • Dept of Energy- Louisiana, Alaska or Wyoming, where major oil and coal industries are located.
    • Housing and Urban Development- Baltimore or Detroit, where real urban revival is most urgently needed
    • Dept of Agriculture- Iowa or Nebraska- some of the largest agricultural production states
    • Departments with no obvious regional affiliation- move them to depressed areas that could use the economic boost.

    This would obviously take years to implement, but would be a worthwhile change to create a more accountable, flexible and just federal government for the US. There would be plenty of bureaucrats who would push back against such a move, but being located among those they are impacting would combat the power-seeking and non-accountability described by Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
     

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    Not really. Federalism is about having a compound form of government- federal and regional/state local levels with power divided among the different levels. This concept is only about the Federal government. It is too concentrated and unaccountable. I believe that breaking it up would improve the responsiveness of the Federal level of government.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Sounds expensive to be moving govt offices back and forth with every change of the party that occupies the White House.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Instead of moving, say, the department of energy, how about just eliminate it? The problem isn’t that the federal government is to concentrated. It’s that it’s too big and powerful. The heft the government has grown to is a result of becoming several regulatory bodies. At most they should just enforce laws enacted by representatives.
     

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    Sounds expensive to be moving govt offices back and forth with every change of the party that occupies the White House.

    So, you are saying liberals want to concentrate power and conservatives want it more dispersed and accountable to the people. If I had said that, you would have argued the point.

    As for more expensive, there are multiple arguments both that the benefits are large and that many costs will be reduced. I listed some of them above- lower salaries to deal with cost of living issues, reduced infrastructure spending, the potential to improve regional economies by stimulating where it is most needed.

    A prime example is FBI headquarters. The Hoover building is old and dilapidated and they are looking to build a new headquarters. The estimate is $2.5B. That is a huge amount of money and would be spent in a very expensive area. It was so costly, that the entire project was canceled. How about moving it to an area that would result in significantly lower costs in personnel and infrastructure? Such a project would be a major benefit to help a region in construction, direct support services and ongoing business needs.

    Instead of moving, say, the department of energy, how about just eliminate it? The problem isn’t that the federal government is to concentrated. It’s that it’s too big and powerful. The heft the government has grown to is a result of becoming several regulatory bodies. At most they should just enforce laws enacted by representatives.

    Dept of Energy- I'll concede the point.
    The rest- I'm suggesting a means to help achieve that end. Being remote and unaccountable is part 1 of how they grow large and abusive. Part 2 is Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    I would take that a step further and have the house and senate meet electronically for debate and posturing on issues and only meet physically for non-pro forma votes. It would have the dual benefits of keeping representatives close to the people they represent and their concerns and making lobbying much more difficult, expensive and easier to track

    Perhaps revert back to a three month period or residency actually in DC to conduct most legislativbe votes, much like when the country was young. does anyone really think congress' actual accomplishments legislatively in any given year wouldn't fit into a shortened timespan (with votes on, say, creating National Hot Dog Day conducted electronically)

    A side benefit might be encouraging more 3 and 4 star restaurants in flyover country once our 'dedicated public servants' are forced to live there
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,686
    113
    .
    Been saying this for years, the consolidation of power and the law/lobby/consultant firms that surround it are disconnected from the people of this country in many ways. They represent an unchangeable curia that really makes all the decisions that matter and are beholden only to those that pay. Each election cycle when we as citizens get to exercise our "power" it seems that the candidates are picked by this same dc bloc so how many times do we choose based on the lesser of two evils. Everybody understands this and it isn't going to change barring some sort of big upheaval. Members of this forum, ask yourself where you get the most protection for your gun rights, the representative that you "choose" or the NRA, a lobby group?
     

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    This is a interesting idea.
    How would this effect the Government if FBI HQ was like in Salt Lake City,UT ?
    Not sure. The Mormons have a reputation as a very straight-laced and lawful culture. Given the corruption that appears to have infected the FBI, they might have a positive influence.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    So, just so I'm getting this strait, you guys are willing to risk the possibility that by eliminating the federal district of Washington DC, you'd in all likelihood be creating 2 more Senate seats? Have ya'll really thought this through?
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Non sequitur. The land and populace revert to MD and VA and start paying state and local taxes. Maybe a couple of house seats, no senators. With the outflow of swamp creatures and subsequent drop in population, maybe only one house seat
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I jave no problem with havin the national seat of power in a capital city. I do have a problem with giving it too much power. There shouldn’t be 4 branches of government. Just three.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    At most they should just enforce laws enacted by representatives.

    Nobody is an expert in everything. Asking representatives to know what's appropriate regulation of, say nuclear waste safety or how many ppm of lead is safe, or what level of PPE you need in a given industrial setting, etc. is unrealistic. Your only recourse is a staff of experts for every rep (which isn't going to happen) or just letting the lobbyist write the bill even more often that happens now.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Nobody is an expert in everything. Asking representatives to know what's appropriate regulation of, say nuclear waste safety or how many ppm of lead is safe, or what level of PPE you need in a given industrial setting, etc. is unrealistic. Your only recourse is a staff of experts for every rep (which isn't going to happen) or just letting the lobbyist write the bill even more often that happens now.

    The experts can make their cases and lobby for the laws they think are necessary. At least then the people making the regulations will be accountable to the people who have to live by those regulations.

    So what level of PPE you need? I think that doesn't need a government bureaucracy. Well enforced responsibility would make it in employers best interests to decide what kind of PPE will best protect themselves from liability.

    And look. I'm under no delusions that we'll ever not have regulatory bodies. But unelected bureaucrats tend to become partners in cronyism, and I think the best cure for that is not to give them enough power to be effective cronies.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    The experts can make their cases and lobby for the laws they think are necessary. At least then the people making the regulations will be accountable to the people who have to live by those regulations.

    So what level of PPE you need? I think that doesn't need a government bureaucracy. Well enforced responsibility would make it in employers best interests to decide what kind of PPE will best protect themselves from liability.

    And look. I'm under no delusions that we'll ever not have regulatory bodies. But unelected bureaucrats tend to become partners in cronyism, and I think the best cure for that is not to give them enough power to be effective cronies.

    It's a nice thought, but history shows us something else. For that matter, so does modem day.
     
    Top Bottom