It would help make Washington, DC more affordable and liveable, and it would put agencies closer to their constituents and where they're accessible and needed. It's a win-win.
I don't know about interior in Utah but I absolutely agree with leaving California out of the mix until we straighten things out here. I wouldn't want Sacramento's dysfunction to infect anything more than it already has.
We need to aim before we shoot. We're getting rid of people not because of any alignment in the role of government, skills, etc. but based on who we can legally get rid of.
Way to make sure your shitty Loudon County exurban cookie-cutter house becomes even less desirable than it already is. 'murica!
I don't know about interior in Utah but I absolutely agree with leaving California out of the mix until we straighten things out here. I wouldn't want Sacramento's dysfunction to infect anything more than it already has.
If any administration were to make something like this happen, it would be the current one! I like your way of thinking!
This would make more sense if 80% of federal employees didn't already live outside the metro DC area.
Even if your fact were true - it's suspect at best - that's still nearly 500,000 federal employees in the Washington, DC area.
https://ourpublicservice.org/fed-figures/beyond-the-capital-the-federal-workforce-outside-the-d-c-area/#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20the%20federal,20.0%25
We need to aim before we shoot. We're getting rid of people not because of any alignment in the role of government, skills, etc. but based on who we can legally get rid of.
Good ideas.
Quick note: Forest Service is under USDA not Interior
Good point; typing too fast. I might send it to where the forests are, and that's not Kansas City.
Great ideas.