NASA Considers Eliminating Its Headquarters in Washington D.C. (politico.com) 76
NASA is considering "closing its headquarters and scattering responsibilities among the states," reports Politico, citing two people familiar with the plan.
"The proposal could affect up to 2,500 jobs and redistribute critical functions, including who manages space exploration and organizes major science missions."
While much of the day-to-day work occurs at NASA's 10 centers, the Washington office plays a strategic role in lobbying for the agency's priorities in Congress, ensuring the White House supports its agenda and partnering with foreign countries on critical space projects. Some of the headquarter's offices might remain in Washington, the people said, but it's not clear which ones those would be or who would keep their jobs...
One of the biggest fallouts is the damage it could do to coordination among NASA leadership on pressing issues... It would also limit cooperation with international partners on space, which is often done through embassies in Washington. NASA works with foreign partners on a range of projects, including the International Space Station and returning to the moon. The European Space Agency, for example, plans to provide modules for Gateway, a lunar space station that is central to NASA's Artemis program to land American astronauts back on the moon... The agency also helps coordinate support from foreign nations for the Artemis accords, which set goals for transparency and data sharing — and help create a level of trust in an unregulated part of the universe.
But the reallocation could have some benefits. Such a move would bring headquarters employees closer to the processes they manage. And it would give legislative liaison staff a chance to interact with lawmakers in their districts. "You're probably getting a lot more time with [lawmakers] at the local center or hosting events in the state or district," said Tom Culligan, a longtime space lobbyist,, the space industry lobbyist.
One of the biggest fallouts is the damage it could do to coordination among NASA leadership on pressing issues... It would also limit cooperation with international partners on space, which is often done through embassies in Washington. NASA works with foreign partners on a range of projects, including the International Space Station and returning to the moon. The European Space Agency, for example, plans to provide modules for Gateway, a lunar space station that is central to NASA's Artemis program to land American astronauts back on the moon... The agency also helps coordinate support from foreign nations for the Artemis accords, which set goals for transparency and data sharing — and help create a level of trust in an unregulated part of the universe.
But the reallocation could have some benefits. Such a move would bring headquarters employees closer to the processes they manage. And it would give legislative liaison staff a chance to interact with lawmakers in their districts. "You're probably getting a lot more time with [lawmakers] at the local center or hosting events in the state or district," said Tom Culligan, a longtime space lobbyist,, the space industry lobbyist.
Re:Can you really call it privatization... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No one expects the SpaceX Inquisistion!
Still hoping/waiting for the "comfy chair" torture option .... (sigh)
Welth transfer from the USA to 25 miles around DC (Score:3)
It's moving where federal money is spent on salaries, lobbyists, expensive luncheons, contractors, etc. from being spent in and around Washington DC to the rest of the country.
It's moving that money outside of Washington DC so that the army of lobbyists, spouses holding nonprofit leadership jobs, lawyers, etc. has less of a trough to feed at.
give it a rest (Score:1, Flamebait)
"king"? President Trump is no more of a king than Obama or Biden were. For all the rantings about his lawlessness, he has done the same things as all previous presidents in regards to the rule of law: enact policies, have his DoJ argue in the courts when challenged, push things where reasonable as things play out, and ultimately obey the Supreme Court on any final rulings. Sure, his opponents are upset he is doing ANYTHING they do not like, but that's just a mirror image of the opponents of Obama being upse
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree with the overall gist that people should take a deep breath and think before posting yet more hyperbolic kneejerk commentary. But I do take issue with this:
I'm sorry, but somebody has to be seriously screwed-up to consider it some sort of human rights violation to be asked "name 5 things you did last week"; any productive human being can EASILY answer that question in a moment without really having to think about it.
For certain jobs this is very true, but for others, not really. Take a sculptor, for example. Their answer to the question would be "I worked on my sculpture all of last week. And that, four more times." Same thing for a writer writing a novel, same thing for a scientist trying to get the math for some complex theory to add up, same for a s
In other news... (Score:2)
We've seen this playbook. We know what will happen (Score:5, Informative)
USDA Research Agencies 'Decimated' By Forced Move. Undoing The Damage Won't Be Easy [npr.org]
February 2, 2021
Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score:5, Insightful)
USDA Research Agencies 'Decimated' By Forced Move. Undoing The Damage Won't Be Easy [npr.org]
February 2, 2021
Imagine if Trump really was a Russian asset, and this was not a secret at all. So much so that Trump received explicit instructions emailed from Moscow, followed them, and all of this was reported openly in the press. If that was the situation, how exactly would anything be different than all of Trump's presidential decisions and the consequences that are happening?
Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider: Trump is notorious for spouting bullshit. Just an endless stream constantly falling out of his mouth. But not all of that shit is his own, remember that thing with the Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs? That didn't come from Trump originally, that came from Twitter. He just read it there and, somehow, believed it.
And I do think he genuinely believed it, just as he genuinely believes that having a trade deficit means that we're being robbed. He is not a smart man, and if something on Twitter catches his attention in the right way then he will buy into it. As so many people do on social media.
He doesn't read intelligence reports, he doesn't listen to experts (except for self-proclaimed internet experts), he gets essentially all of his information from Fox News and Twitter. And so if Putin wants to separate us from our allies, spreading some rumors on Twitter that our allies are taking advantage of us in a way that Trump and his ilk would find to be intolerable seems like a very effective approach. It doesn't need to be targeted at Trump specifically and Trump doesn't need to have specific instructions, Trump himself is not essential if Putin can generate enough ill-will between us and our allies.
And it's not just Trump. I would argue that Musk is even more of a junkie than Trump is, more effected by his addiction. And of course many millions of other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score:5, Interesting)
I very much doubt Trump is a Russian asset, he's far too stupid to function in that role.
On the contrary, he is perfectly suited for the role. He has no moral compass. Whatever he thinks will get him a reward, in any form, he'll do it. We know two separate people have said he was recruited [thehill.com], providing corroborating information. We also know Russians have files on him [politico.com] outlining his predelictions. He is subject to flattery as outlined in this exchange:
Dubinina said she picked up her father at the airport. It was his first time in New York City. She took him on a tour. The first building they saw was Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, she told Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper. Dubinin was so excited he decided to go inside to meet the building’s owner. They got into the elevator. At the top, Dubinina said, they met Trump.
The ambassador—“fluent in English and a brilliant master of negotiations”—charmed the busy Trump, telling him: “The first thing I saw in the city is your tower!”
Dubinina said: “Trump melted at once. He is an emotional person, somewhat impulsive. He needs recognition. And, of course, when he gets it he likes it. My father’s visit worked on him [Trump] like honey to a bee.”
He is a Russian asset not in the sense they are directly giving him instructions, but using his vanity to guide him in the direction they want. He thinks he's a great businessman so he's always trying to "make a deal". All they have to do is give him something he wants and he'll do what they want without realizing or understanding the implications.
In the case of Putin, he wants to appear "strong" because he admires Putin. No pesky Congress or judges to deal with. What he says goes. People who oppose him have clumsy accidents falling out of windows. By dismantling our country he's showing Putin what he can do, that he is just as strong, and together they can make "deals". You're right, he is far too stupid to understand what he's doing, which makes the situation even worse.
Finally, if you listen closely, he is saying he's a Russian asset. Listen to him "brag" about all the deals he does in Russia, how he knows people high up the food chain, and related comments. He's telling people he has an inside track and so long as they keep lauding him, praising him, bribing him, he'll do what they say.
Re: We've seen this playbook. We know what will ha (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it is immaterial whether it is easy to manipulate him when he's engaged in destroying the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
All they have to do is give him something he wants and he'll do what they want without realizing or understanding the implications.
To support your point, it has recently been reported Putin sent Trump a portrait of Trump [dailymail.co.uk] painted by a well known Russian artist, which seems to have done the trick. This painting is now most likely valued by Trump just like the "love letters" sent by Kim Jong Un [youtube.com].
Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score:5, Insightful)
I very much doubt Trump is a Russian asset, he's far too stupid to function in that role.
You seem to be confusing asset and agent.
Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score:5, Informative)
I presume you're referring to the piece of fake news debunked here:
https://archive.ph/d7rVd [archive.ph]
Am I right, or is there another story that isn't a fake?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why no civilian can tour a CAFO
According to Wikipedia there are over 200,000 designated CAFOs. Who works there besides civilians?
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
USDA Research Agencies 'Decimated' By Forced Move. Undoing The Damage Won't Be Easy [npr.org]
February 2, 2021
From your article: "During the Trump administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers published and funded objective analyses of issues such as climate change, the efficiency of food assistance programs, and tax cuts that mostly benefit the richest farmers. "
Scope creep is why these agencies all need to be pared back
Climate change reports should be handled by the EPA.
Food assistance programs should be handled by HHS.
Tax policy falls under Treasury
Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you opposed to these studies or just who is doing them?
If the climate change report is $2M in the USDA you oppose that but if they swapped that $2M to the EPA for the study you then support it?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you opposed to these studies or just who is doing them?
If the climate change report is $2M in the USDA you oppose that but if they swapped that $2M to the EPA for the study you then support it?
The scope creep leads to duplicate efforts and costs. Great for the departments, bad for the taxpayers
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, you can make that argument and you'd have to prove it but you didn't answer the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, you can make that argument and you'd have to prove it but you didn't answer the question.
Yes I did. If this was the private sector and one department started treading on the responsibilities of another they would get smacked down hard. Obviously they have too many employees because they have enough free time to branch out. That's what's going on here. This combination of layoffs and realignment is way overdue.
Re: (Score:2)
Still didn't answer the question
Question is "If the climate change report is $2M in the USDA you oppose that but if they swapped that $2M to the EPA for the study you then support it?"
Re: (Score:1)
Still didn't answer the question
Question is "If the climate change report is $2M in the USDA you oppose that but if they swapped that $2M to the EPA for the study you then support it?"
That's not the question. The question is, why is USDA spending $2m on climate change studies at all when this is the responsibility of a different department which probably has spent the same money doing similar studies already.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the question I asked though, it's got a yes or no answer and you are trying to jump ahead. I have a reason for asking it.
If you answer "no" then who does the study is irrelevant we're just talking about climate change.
If you answer "yes, of course, the EPA is the best suited to do climate change studies" then I probably agree! As long as someone is doing them in good faith and in the manner the other agencies require since, you know, the climate does affect agriculture if you can imagine.
But to answer
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change reports should be handled by the EPA.
You really don't think climate affects farmers and agricultural production? Do you think the EPA understands farming and agriculture well enough to analyze how climate change affects them?
Food assistance programs should be handled by HHS.
You don't see how this is relevant to the agency that oversees food production?
Tax policy falls under Treasury
You don't see how the effect of tax policy on farmers is relevant to agriculture?
It makes perfect sense to me that agencies are researching issues that affect their work.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Informative)
"SpaceX emphasizes keeping engineering and management closely integrated with factory floor operations. This approach aligns with their philosophy of hands-on problem-solving, rapid iteration, and minimizing disconnects between design, production, and leadership. ... if you believe Grok :-)
Musk has emphasized the importance of avoiding "ivory-tower management" by ensuring that engineering and management are physically and operationally close to the factory environment. This setup fosters direct communication and immediate feedback between those designing the systems and those building them."
Hindustan Times (July 7, 2024) - In "Why Elon Musk is against getting an MBA," Musk criticizes excessive focus on meetings and spreadsheets, advocating instead for leaders to be "out on the factory floor."
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
And, arguably, the current crisis at Tesla is because Musk is playing President rather than being "out on the factory floor".
Re: (Score:3)
And, arguably, the current crisis at Tesla is because Musk is playing President rather than being "out on the factory floor".
I think even Telsa has got to the point where they don't need him on the factory floor, and it would be better for everyone if he went back to SpaceX full time :-(
Or send him into the wilderness for a while like Apple did with Steve. He came back a better person.
Re: (Score:1)
And, arguably, the current crisis at Tesla is because Musk is playing President rather than being "out on the factory floor".
The "current crisis" is manufactured and amplified externally. Nobody is doxxing Tesla owners with maps using Molotov cocktails as map cursors or burning lots full of vehicles in for service in some way that is a function of whether Musk is personally present on the factory floor vs doing something else he thinks is vital to our economic survival. All of it is ginned up hate based on the politics surrounding the pruning of vast left slush funds and debt-funded waste that has to go away. That's an entire in
Two Starship explosions in a row (Score:4, Insightful)
Kill NASA. Replace it with SpaceX. What could go wrong?
Re:Two Starship explosions in a row (Score:4, Informative)
SpaceX Positioned to Secure Billions in New Federal Contracts Under Trump [nytimes.com]
or http://archive.today/NH25Z [archive.today]
Re: (Score:2)
Kill NASA. Replace it with SpaceX. What could go wrong?
Between capricious, maniacal oligarch and lumbering, (mostly) benign bureaucracy I'll take the latter please.
you do realize that these starships are... (Score:2)
unmanned experimental test vehicles designed to gather data and inform the already-planned next versions which are also unmanned experimental test vehicles, right?
SOME American aerospace companies (like Boeing and Lockmart) like to spend YEARS designing a vehicle and trying to make it nearly perfect before building one and flying it, and they presume the first flight will succeed. They then hand-build individual follow-on vehicles as close to the same as possible at a snail's pace and fly each of those with
Re: (Score:2)
Ivermectin will get the brain worm out of you, Chekov.
April (Score:1)
Is it April 1st already?
Re:Decentralize the swamp (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoken like a true Maggot vomiting the usual Fox bs. The "swamp" is the private companies that have bought congress and la Presidenta. The agencies were just fine before Elmo decided he could fuck them up. You can tell it is a sham by the all the fake "expenditures" he claims he has save the gov.
Re: (Score:2)
Move the HQs closer to the places they regulate is called COMMON SENSE.
NASA's HQ doesn't NEED to be in DC. Many agency HQs don't NEED to be in the DC area.
Interior department HQ should be in a western state. Most of the land they regulate is west of the Mississippi.
The FBI HQ with all of its labs doesn't need to be in the DC area.
HUD doesn't need to be in the DC area.
HHS doesn't need to be in the DC area.
Labor dept doesn't need to be in the DC area.
Transportation dept doesn't need to be in the DC area.
Veter
Re: (Score:1)
Move the HQs closer to the places they regulate is called COMMON SENSE.
Having the HQs located in a central location is called common sense. The other people in the government are the people they need to interface with the most. The only problem with having them all located in one place is that when some skipping Nazi dipshit shuts down their jobs, all of the victims are in one place where it's hard for them to find other jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
- Which Western state, since as you said, like half the states are west of the Mississippi, so which one and what determines which is the "most western"?
- FBI has jurisdiction over the entire nation, which state is "the most FBI?" They also have field offices everywhere, that's kindof the idea of an HQ
- HUD has nationwide jurisdictions, homes are all over the country, every state has at least one "urban" area
- HHS has nationwide jurisdictions, humans are all over the country
- Labor Dept has nationwide juris
so, you basically had nothing productive to say (Score:2)
Your political opponents are not "Maggots". When your guy was in office screwing things up, I doubt your opponents called you a "maggot". The insults are no substitution for a fully-functional brain. There's nobody named "Elmo" involved, as far as anybody knows. Posts like yours are the very reason a "TROLL" rating exists.
No, the agencies in DC were most-certainly NOT "fine" before somebody decided to look into them for the first time in decades. Most of the federal government's agencies have been consuming
This is payback (Score:5, Insightful)
Spreading NASA's main functions to various states is a reward to those states who voted for him. He can brag he brought jobs to those states and stuck it to the liberals by moving NASA out of Washington.
It's that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the real goal, it makes it easier to privatize everything to reward donors.
actually, there's a history here which you may... (Score:2)
have missed. Republicans, as one of their core beliefs, have always held that governmental power is best handled by government that's closest to the people. I personally am unsure of this, having seen how most people seem to focus attention on national politics and have little understanding of their state and local politics, but as I said, it's a long-standing deeply-held view in the GOP. As a result, Republican policies (in the philosophical realm) have long held that power should NOT be focused in the cit
I know, right? (Score:1)
One of the biggest fallouts is the damage it could do to coordination among NASA leadership on pressing issues
I know, right? I mean it's bad enough dispatching the mounted messenger to the other side of DC.
Sheesh, it's not like we have some form of instant communication.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the biggest fallouts is the damage it could do to coordination among NASA leadership on pressing issues
I know, right? I mean it's bad enough dispatching the mounted messenger to the other side of DC.
Sheesh, it's not like we have some form of instant communication.
As a Canadian facing this 51st state bullshit I loathe this administration with an intensity well beyond the folks who've lost their jobs and what not.
That said, I don't see the down-side to anything in this article's summary. Up to 2,500 government employees whose jobs are to... lobby the government? Or "interface" with folks in international embassies? Folks who actually actually doing any of the things NASA does. These sound like they're all paper-pushers. Now sure, some of that paper needs pushin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To my Canadian friends - Trumps blather about annexing Canada is pure vapor. Every 24-48 hours he says something designed to feed the news cycle, make his right-wing worshipers salivate and trigger the libs. Im sure one of his assistants has a list of stupid wacky right-wing announcements and he just churns through it like clockwork. Three weeks ago “annex Canada” made it to the top of the list. None of this stuff has any base in reality. Its theatre. You should view it like a professional wrestling match, and take it about as seriously. Bringing in new states is very clearly defined in the constitution, and the executive branch has almost nothing to do with it. All the action is in the legislative branch and delegated to the states. And Trump does NOT control congress or the states. Our separation of powers is working quite well to contain him, although you wouldnt know it if youre listening to what he says. Also, just making the observation, if Canada joined the US, it wouldnt become state number 51. It would probably become state number 51 through 55 and completely change our politics.
So... we hear you. But... no, we can't take it that way. Sure, there's been wavering back and forth on some of the trade war, but other parts are already in force. We're in a trade war, effectively. When you put that together with the main excuse (fentanyl) as the legal justification for the new tariffs... he's had to invoke "emergency" powers. He's invoking what are effectively war-time powers to escalate deportation, declaring a gang a terrorist organization so he could deport them quicker. Because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, yeah I agree that this guy is especially disrespectful and assholish as far as US presidents go. He's an outlier in that regard. Beyond that, he's no different than any of the other Republican presidents in my lifetime. I'm old enough to remember Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. Every time, left-leaning people were sure that democracy was dying, dictatorship was right around the corner, everything good about the US was going away, and blah blah blah. Conservatives felt the same way during Clinton, Obama and Biden. And yet, somehow, in the end, surprisingly little changed from one potus to another. The putus might be one of the most important people on the planet but they're also severely boxed in by congress, the courts, and the power devolved to the states. And, it might not be evident from outside the border, but those entities are viciously guarding their turf. They haven't rolled over, and the aren't going to. I get that the rest of the world has to take his words seriously. But, I just can't. His record is too fictional. For all his drama on immigration, the numbers haven't changed much at all. All of his government-cutting drama has resulted in a federal workforce that's losing people at a rate of "very slightly above baseline". Every week he announces a 10,000 percent tarriff on somewhere, but very little actually changes because 24 hours before it's set to take effect, he goes on X and declares a "yyyyuuuugggge win for America MAGA woot woot woot" and delays it indefinitely. Heck, he hasn't even gotten a tax cut through congress, and that's practically the only major legislation that republican presidents manage to pass. Go back and look up the history. A GOP president gets a tax cut through in their first few months, and then practically nothing else. I could go on and on. Everything he does is made-for-social-media but look under the hood and it's all deliberately low-impact. This guy is going to change surprisingly little. I've seen this story too many times before to think otherwise.
That's all well expressed and I thank you for that.
Meanwhile we literally have businesses shuttering already because of the tariff gamesmanship. And yeah, it sounds like I'm just a bit older than you but not a lot. I know what you mean about the doom & gloom but basically none of that has escaped the US before. Reagan wasn't terribly impactful on the rest of the world, for instance.
Anyway, I'd love to have optimism. At this point all I can hold onto is that today our federal government called an
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
sure, some of that paper needs pushing. Granted. Time to learn how to send an e-mail or use Teams
A lot of the paper being pushed is being pushed because of laws and regulations which were placed on government organizations in order to provide audit information. If you want to keep track of what is government is doing and evaluate its expenditures, the paper must be pushed. If you want less information and transparency, by all means, reduce the paper pushing.
You seem to think that government creates new forms to fill out for the sake of filling them out, then spends its time filling them out. This is of
Re: (Score:2)
sure, some of that paper needs pushing. Granted. Time to learn how to send an e-mail or use Teams
A lot of the paper being pushed is being pushed because of laws and regulations which were placed on government organizations in order to provide audit information. If you want to keep track of what is government is doing and evaluate its expenditures, the paper must be pushed. If you want less information and transparency, by all means, reduce the paper pushing.
You seem to think that government creates new forms to fill out for the sake of filling them out, then spends its time filling them out. This is of course entirely ignorant bullshit which can only come from not actually having had to do paperwork as a government employee.
It's massively unlikely that none of that paper needs pushing.
It's massively unlikely that all of that paper needs pushing.
I settled on "some" as being somewhere between those two. Some of it needs pushing. As I volunteered, granted.
That said, I recognize my tone was skeptical - at best - regarding how much necessary work these folk are doing. I mean, maybe most of them don't belong on the Golgafrinchan B Ark, but mention of such nebulous duties as "cooperating" with international partners makes one
Re: I know, right? (Score:2)
"mention of such nebulous duties as "cooperating" with international partners makes one wonder. Can that really be an eight-hour-a-day job?"
Of course it can. There are legal requirements which someone has to be sure are being met. Both compliance and proving compliance is legally mandated to ensure both that the job is being done, and that it's being done in compliance with the law. Congress passes laws with such compliance requirements, so that's on Congress. If you don't like accountability, that's on yo
Re: (Score:2)
"mention of such nebulous duties as "cooperating" with international partners makes one wonder. Can that really be an eight-hour-a-day job?"
Of course it can. There are legal requirements which someone has to be sure are being met. Both compliance and proving compliance is legally mandated to ensure both that the job is being done, and that it's being done in compliance with the law. Congress passes laws with such compliance requirements, so that's on Congress. If you don't like accountability, that's on you.
We're getting pretty far off into the weeds here.
What is it about "compliance" that requires two physical human beings from different governments to be in the same room for eight hours a day, five days a week, while the actual work they're doing paperwork is hundreds or thousands of kilometers away. (This is science, so they better be measuring how far from the work they are using metric units. )
I don't buy it. I am not inherently anti-government, and I'm willing to accept that for every $X that is s
Small problem (Score:5, Informative)
NASA is odd compared to most federal agencies - the NASA administrator reports directly to the President, not like, say, NOAA which is under the Commerce Department.
IF NOAA closed its DC area headquarters, the stuff it does would be absorbed by Commerce, and the executive chain of command would still work. If NASA closed its Washington DC headquarters, the current administrators would have literally nowhere to go.
Bureaucracy aside, they do perform the important function of deciding what functions are performed at which NASA centers. Without them, Congress would have to do it directly in legislation. Which is how we got some of the current absurdities like Houston Space Center, which takes control of manned launches after they clear the tower (LBJ got Houston as his fee for getting the man-on-the-moon legislation through Congress).
Don't worry, tradition is helpful here (Score:2)
NASA was created after the Soviets launched sputnik, and both political parties in DC decided drastic action was needed. President Eisenhower (Republican) and Senate leader Johnson (Democrat) joined hands to take NACA (the nation's then preeminent Aeronautics research agency) and join it with the work being done by the recently imported German rocket guys (at that time working for the Army's ballistic missile agency) to create a civilian space agency NASA.
In 1960 When Jack Kennedy got elected President, he
NASA Vital to US Military (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That sounds more like hardening.
Actually that's a good idea! (Score:2)
The farther away they can get from the DC swamp, the better off they'll be.
Besides, there should be plenty of room left at Fort Meade. I got to visit the big bronze mirrored cube one time (long long ago) to explain to the crippies my source code for an encryption file/communication program they were somehow interested in. Very intimidating, to say the least (since I wasn't really a crippie myself, and they had to explain the questions they asked as much as I had to explain the code (8086 assembly language