But, the professor takes it a bit further, saying that the federal bureaucracy should take a hike as well, to more places where they can actually improve the local habitat.
So perhaps it’s time for a role-reversal. I propose that over the next several years, we transfer a lot of federal employees out of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, to parts of the country that aren’t doing so well economically. This would provide a boost to places like Buffalo, New York, or Quincy, Illinois, or Fresno, California, while getting federal bureaucrats out of the D.C. bubble.That's good, as far as it goes, but I'd propose a much further reaching reform. Transfer them to where they could do the least damage, while helping local economies with feeral largesse. And, they don't really have to do anything. For example, we could move the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to sleepy little Pollock, LA. That would spur home construction, increase the tax base, give local businesses an economic boost, and remind federal workers just exactly who they work for.
I think it's a great idea. Soldiers and sailors have long been blessed by being posted at lovely little vacation spots all over the US. What Air Force guy fails to remember Minot, or what Army dude doesn't wax eloquent about Leesville LA, or Dothan, AL, or yet Lebanon, MO. No one can doubt the economic benefit that those towns receive from federal dollars, yet the local areas don't seem to have been harmed by the federal activity.
President-elect Trump should immediately order all federal agencies to pick a town in the US with a population under 50,000 and make immediate plans to move, lock, stock, and barrel. I think it's a great idea, and would serve to de-centralize government i a way that we haven't seen in decades.