The case for breaking up Washington -- and scattering government across America
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Americans are angry at Washington, and it's not hard to see why. Not only does the federal government seem more ineffectual than ever in the face of ongoing economic hardship, but the capital has so far coasted through the downturn relatively unscathed.
The unemployment rate in metro Washington is 6 percent, well below the national average of 9.5 percent, and Virginia and Maryland have two of the three highest job-creation rates in the country. Meanwhile, the region is siphoning off many of America's brightest workers: The nation's five most educated counties, judging by the percentage of residents with college degrees, are all in metro Washington. The area's prosperity gap with the rest of the country is increasingly glaring -- particularly if you're sitting in Michigan or Rhode Island or Nevada.
But instead of just ranting about Washington -- or running against it, for those on the hustings -- how about breaking it up? It's an admittedly improbable idea, given the universal instinct for self-preservation, but with Washington burgeoning in a time of general economic gloom, why not address the imbalance by dispersing the government more broadly? Such a move would spread more evenly the benefits of federal employment (and its contractor hangers-on). It would make the federal bureaucracy more attuned to regional issues. And it just might help dissipate some of the anti-Washington venom that's coursing through the country.
Splintering the federal government holds both political benefits for the country and economic benefits for the regions to which jobs are dispersed, said Robert Rupp, a political scientist at West Virginia Wesleyan College -- and a resident of a state that has enjoyed a very targeted form of federal job relocation, thanks to the late senator Robert Byrd. "If we begin with the fact that Washington has grown far bigger than the founders ever contemplated, and that voters are mean and mad and distrustful of Beltway politics, it makes sense," he said.
Already, the federal government is less clustered on the Potomac than many think. Eighty-three percent of its 1.9 million civilian employees (not counting postal workers) are outside metro Washington, from Homeland Security agents at borders and in airports to rangers in national parks to NASA engineers in Houston. The country's federalist system further distributes public jobs outside Washington, to the 50 state governments.
But Washington's share looks bigger if you don't include civilian military and Veterans Affairs workers, who are scattered at bases and hospitals across the country. Of the remaining federal employees, a quarter are in this region. Metro Washington has more federal workers than New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami and Seattle combined.
Exacerbating the imbalance is the massive growth of the national security apparatus since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, much of it concentrated among private contractors. As The Washington Post reported in a three-part series last week, a good deal of this expansion has occurred in metro Washington, where 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work have been started or finished since the attacks, occupying nearly as much space as three Pentagons. All told, the government added 13,000 employees in the Washington area last year -- and George Mason University's Center for Regional Analysis predicts that the region will add 6,500 federal jobs in each of the next few years.
The contrast wasn't always so stark. Although Washington's federal employment base has long insulated it against downturns, other regions grew more quickly in boom years. But for the past decade, the metro area's growth has surpassed that in the rest of the country in good times and bad. It's leading the charge with biotech jobs on the I-270 corridor (convenient to the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration) and defense, intelligence and IT jobs clustered around the Pentagon and the CIA in Northern Virginia. Since 2000, home prices in the region have gone up 78 percent, more than in any other city. Six of the country's 10 wealthiest counties are in metro Washington.
To some degree, the region's primacy is to be expected. All capital cities accrue mass, and countless jobs -- legislative aides, presidential staff and military brass among them -- belong at the seat of government. But of the work that is justified, plenty could be done just as well in Buffalo or Topeka, where the cost of living is lower, where people could get to work without adding to the crush on the Beltway and on Metro, and where their presence might encourage a less us-versus-them attitude toward the federal government.
Take the Health and Human Services Department, which is more concentrated in Washington than many other departments, with nearly half of its 64,000 employees in the metro area. If the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can thrive in Atlanta, why can't some of the NIH or the FDA make a go of it in, say, St. Louis or Cleveland, cities with strong biomedical sectors?
Last year, the Health Resources and Services Administration brought on 134 people at its Rockville headquarters to oversee $2.5 billion in stimulus spending. Could it have had those people work somewhere else instead? The new health-care law will require still more bureaucracy -- do all of those jobs have to be in Washington? Could they be in Texas, the state with the highest rate of uninsured people? Or Baltimore, a city with affordable real estate that is a short train ride to Washington? (Already, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are based there.)
Or take the Consumer Financial Protection Agency created by the new regulatory overhaul. Why not put it in Charlotte, the banking hub hit so hard by the crash -- or in one of the Sunbelt states or Rust Belt cities where unscrupulous lenders did the most damage?