There are good reasons to relocate some D.C. agencies

THE federal government has made a lot of people wealthy. Indeed, the three counties with highest per capita income in America are all suburbs of the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. Real estate values are also through the roof. Many have noted that an Inside-the-Beltway mentality afflicts the Washington intelligentsia, leaving them little understanding of or compassion for the people in the hinterlands who pay for everything.

In an era of easy travel and communications, does it make sense for so much of our nation’s bureaucracy to be centered there?

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue doesn’t think so. In an August news release, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it would be relocating the Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture outside of Washington. The plan is to complete this move by the end of 2019.

The reason given? First, such a move would improve the agencies’ ability “to attract and retain highly qualified staff with training and interests in agriculture, many of whom come from land-grant universities.” Second, it would “place these important USDA resources closer to many of stakeholders, most of whom live and work far from the Washington, D.C. area.” Third, for taxpayers it would create “significant savings on employment costs and rent” and “allow more employees to be retained in the long run, even in the face of tightening budgets.”

As former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels pointed out in a Nov. 6 Washington Post column, several organizations vehemently disagree with the USDA’s decision. The Housing Assistance Council, for instance, “complained that moving the Economic Research Service away from Washington ‘is yet another way rural voices will be out of earshot.’” The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition felt the plan would cause the U.S. to “experience a disastrous reduction in its agricultural research capacity.”

Yet, as Daniels pointed out in his column, the agencies in question “together comprise less than 1 percent of total Agriculture Department employees, a large majority of whom already work elsewhere in the country.”

The theory of “Washington getting out of Washington,” as Daniels coined it, isn’t anything new. During the construction of what ultimately became the Homeland Security department during George W. Bush’s presidency, he (unsuccessfully) proposed keeping it out of Washington for economic and technological reasons — and, most importantly, away from a potential terrorist attack.

There will always be a need to situate some government departments and organizations in Washington for practical reasons. Yet it wouldn’t be a bad idea for the Trump administration to consider moving some government departments and organizations out of Washington and into different districts. It could enhance the potential talent pool, give current or would-be employees a chance to live in more affordable communities than in and around the nation’s capital, increase work opportunities in other states, and connect more bureaucrats to the wider country.

This editorial is from the Providence Journal, a member of the Gatehouse Media family of newspapers.