Sounds Good but Is It?

This summary

" 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.

from Cultural Offering does not sum up Glenn Reynolds orignal artile correctly.

While the idea may be the point of the short essay the theme of the piece is the dystopian economic outlook of the country and how to fix that by moving the buracraxy away from Washington D.C. to areas that are struggling because it used to be cheaper to live and work and play in D.C. before Nixon exploded the regulations of the government.

It's a cultural clash piece disguised as a move the government around piece. If you are worried that D.C has become more extravagant than Hollywood because of lobbyists and lawysers and that etravagance is pushing working people out of the city then moving the working people away is definitely not going to change the extravagance. It will do the opposite.

Not to mention the Hunger Games remark in there; what does moving the working class to areas that are stuggling economically sound like to those that have seen the movies or read the book?

Moving people from Distrct 1 to Distrcit 4 because they aren't Capital worthy. Sounds very un American but, hey, if we're going to boost economically challanged areas by moving government agencies then I'm all for giving it a try.