By Kerby Anderson Should the next president try to relocate some branches of the federal government? Presidential candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders expressed their disillusionment with a government that seems to live by the motto “business as usual.” The concentration of power in Washington with bureaucracies and lobbyists almost assures that nothing will change. Perhaps moving some of the government outside of Washington would be a positive step. Over the years I have tried to get a conversation going about this. Once I brought the subject up at a Washington dinner. The woman at the table was horrified by the idea, so I dropped the subject. So I was glad to read that Paul Kupiec is also suggesting that it may be time to relocate the federal government. When I was in graduate school at Georgetown University I saw how Washington was a money machine for government employees and political insiders. Eleven of the twenty richest counties in America are located in the Washington, D.C. metro area. It is not only rich, but it is out of touch. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey described Washington as 26 square miles surrounded by reality. The cost savings could be significant. Moving the Department of Homeland Security to another state would cost less. Every year government employees receive cost-of-living federal salary adjustments because it is so much more expensive to live in the Washington, D.C. area. Why not relocate the Department of Agriculture to a state where agriculture is the main industry? In previous centuries, it made sense to have all the government functions in the same area. Modern telecommunications and transportation systems make that unnecessary. Distributing some of the federal bureaucracies across the country could reduce cost and bring economic development to parts of the country that need it. It would also lead to increased voter perception of equality and fairness. Relocating the federal government may not happen, but it should if we really want to shake up Washington.