Ron DeSantis offers to move part of US ag department to Iowa as part of relocation policy

[cigaretteman]

Dumb:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he would offer to at least partially relocate the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Iowa if he is elected president — part of a federal agency relocation policy he shared Saturday while celebrating the completion of his visit to all 99 Iowa counties.

DeSantis, his campaign and supporters celebrated in Newton his touted completion of a "Full Grassley" tour to all of Iowa's counties. The "Full Grassley" was coined by longtime U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who travels to every Iowa county each year.

But DeSantis offered to bring more to Iowa in the future than himself and his family.

“We have to take power out of Washington, D.C., and send it to other parts of the country,” DeSantis said. As president, “I’m going to order all of our cabinet secretaries to reduce their agency’s footprint in Washington, D.C., by at least 50%.”

IOWA CAUCUSES

Ron DeSantis offers to move part of US ag department to Iowa as part of relocation policy​

Phillip Sitter
Des Moines Register





Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he would offer to at least partially relocate the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Iowa if he is elected president — part of a federal agency relocation policy he shared Saturday while celebrating the completion of his visit to all 99 Iowa counties.
DeSantis, his campaign and supporters celebrated in Newton his touted completion of a "Full Grassley" tour to all of Iowa's counties. The "Full Grassley" was coined by longtime U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who travels to every Iowa county each year.
But DeSantis offered to bring more to Iowa in the future than himself and his family.
“We have to take power out of Washington, D.C., and send it to other parts of the country,” DeSantis said. As president, “I’m going to order all of our cabinet secretaries to reduce their agency’s footprint in Washington, D.C., by at least 50%.”

For Iowa, that would mean “you guys will have first dibs on the Department of Agriculture," he said.
“A number of people said they don’t like USDA Washington bureaucrats interfering with how people are farming, and they would much rather have this agency be run with people from their own communities."
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who campaigned for DeSantis with him Saturday in Newton, later said through a spokesperson, "It's a great idea. There's no better place to put USDA, because there's no one who knows farming better than Iowans."

Ron DeSantis offers to move part of US ag department to Iowa as part of relocation policy

The DeSantis campaign shared a list of 130 stops across 98 of Iowa's counties. Newton in Jasper County brought the total Saturday to 99.

www.press-citizen.com

 

[torbee]

Holy shit, it's an actual good idea from Rhonda.

I mean, obviously he's pandering to try and do better in the Iowa caucus and it won't work and this will never happen.

But it actually is a good idea.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Dumb:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he would offer to at least partially relocate the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Iowa if he is elected president — part of a federal agency relocation policy he shared Saturday while celebrating the completion of his visit to all 99 Iowa counties.

DeSantis, his campaign and supporters celebrated in Newton his touted completion of a "Full Grassley" tour to all of Iowa's counties. The "Full Grassley" was coined by longtime U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who travels to every Iowa county each year.

But DeSantis offered to bring more to Iowa in the future than himself and his family.

“We have to take power out of Washington, D.C., and send it to other parts of the country,” DeSantis said. As president, “I’m going to order all of our cabinet secretaries to reduce their agency’s footprint in Washington, D.C., by at least 50%.”

IOWA CAUCUSES

Ron DeSantis offers to move part of US ag department to Iowa as part of relocation policy​

Phillip Sitter
Des Moines Register


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he would offer to at least partially relocate the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Iowa if he is elected president — part of a federal agency relocation policy he shared Saturday while celebrating the completion of his visit to all 99 Iowa counties.
DeSantis, his campaign and supporters celebrated in Newton his touted completion of a "Full Grassley" tour to all of Iowa's counties. The "Full Grassley" was coined by longtime U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who travels to every Iowa county each year.
But DeSantis offered to bring more to Iowa in the future than himself and his family.
“We have to take power out of Washington, D.C., and send it to other parts of the country,” DeSantis said. As president, “I’m going to order all of our cabinet secretaries to reduce their agency’s footprint in Washington, D.C., by at least 50%.”

For Iowa, that would mean “you guys will have first dibs on the Department of Agriculture," he said.
“A number of people said they don’t like USDA Washington bureaucrats interfering with how people are farming, and they would much rather have this agency be run with people from their own communities."
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who campaigned for DeSantis with him Saturday in Newton, later said through a spokesperson, "It's a great idea. There's no better place to put USDA, because there's no one who knows farming better than Iowans."

Ron DeSantis offers to move part of US ag department to Iowa as part of relocation policy

The DeSantis campaign shared a list of 130 stops across 98 of Iowa's counties. Newton in Jasper County brought the total Saturday to 99.

www.press-citizen.com

Why is it dumb ciggy?

 

[IowaPackFan]

Why is it dumb ciggy?

If Biden proposed Ciggy would say great idea. No brainer. But an R proposed so it’s dumb.

 

[BioHawk]

If Biden proposed Ciggy would say great idea. No brainer. But an R proposed so it’s dumb.

The reason it is dumb is this isn't because it provides some logistical advantage or increased efficiency, it's to try and buy off Iowa voters with, wait for it, government jobs. And of course the only places that would benefit from these government jobs would be states that vote for Ron or Republicans. Because that's what our Federal Government should be doing. Moving jobs away from states that didn't vote for them and giving them to states that do. That's not wasteful spending or anything. Just another mark on the bedpost of Republican hypocrisy.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

If Biden proposed Ciggy would say great idea. No brainer. But an R proposed so it’s dumb.

Precisely

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Farm Bureau is already here.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

The reason it is dumb is this isn't because it provides some logistical advantage or increased efficiency, it's to try and buy off Iowa voters with, wait for it, government jobs. And of course the only places that would benefit from these government jobs would be states that vote for Ron or Republicans. Because that's what our Federal Government should be doing. Moving jobs away from states that didn't vote for them and giving them to states that do. That's not wasteful spending or anything. Just another mark on the bedpost of Republican hypocrisy.

Nonsense.

Spreading HQ operations uniformly across the nation should be something we can all agree on.

You're just against this because a R proposed it.

 

[BioHawk]

Nonsense.

Spreading HQ operations uniformly across the nation should be something we can all agree on.

You're just against this because a R proposed it.

He's not going to spread it "uniformly". Unless I missed the part where he was going to move some of the Department of Agriculture to Illinois as well. If it can be shown why this will improve the Department's ability to do its job then I would definitely support it. But I'm not sure how moving everyone out of the place where all the legislation is written will help that. I guess it would make it more expensive for lobbyists. But if you really think Ron was talking about this because he thinks it would allow the Department of Agriculture to do its job better I have some ocean front property in Nevada for sale that you can buy.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

He's not going to spread it "uniformly". Unless I missed the part where he was going to move some of the Department of Agriculture to Illinois as well. If it can be shown why this will improve the Department's ability to do its job then I would definitely support it. But I'm not sure how moving everyone out of the place where all the legislation is written will help that. I guess it would make it more expensive for lobbyists. But if you really think Ron was talking about this because he thinks it would allow the Department of Agriculture to do its job better I have some ocean front property in Nevada for sale that you can buy.

The federal government has never been the picture of efficiency.

Let me ask you this. Let's assume the efficiency would be the same regardless of location. Would you have a problem uniformly spreading federal agency HQ operations throughout the country? And I'm talking about more than just the Department of Agriculture.


Or do you prefer keeping all HQ operations within the D.C. area?

 

[JRHawk2003]

I dont see why he would be so desperate to win Iowa. History has shown that it doesnt matter at all.

Pat Robertson? Lol.

 

[BioHawk]

The federal government has never been the picture of efficiency.

Let me ask you this. Let's assume the efficiency would be the same regardless of location. Would you have a problem uniformly spreading federal agency HQ operations throughout the country? And I'm talking about more than just the Department of Agriculture.


Or do you prefer keeping all HQ operations within the D.C. area?

Efficiency for the federal government is relative. I just want the conditions that allow it to be the most responsive and most effective. Yes, it is helpful to have people in the places the policy affects but the people who write the laws are in Washington so the answer is "both".

But of course you ignored the most important part of my statement. DeSantis's move here had nothing to do wiith efficiency or effectiveness. It had everything to do with trying to buy votes and even if he were to do this he wouldn't spend 5 minutes considering effectiveness or efficiency. He would just find which person provided him the most money and how they could benefit the most and make that happen. How do I know this? Because that is how he has ran his state. So spare me this sudden interest in you trying to argue the virtues of the federal government. If it were a Democrat proposing this you would scream government intrusion and wasteful spending and in the case of unnecessarily moving them, you'd be right.

I'll leave the door open though. If he can show me how this move is beneficial to the operation of the Department of Agriculture then I can get on board with it. Of course, he would also have to explain why only Iowa and not Illinois, Wisconsin, or any of the other states with large agriculture industries.

 

[cigaretteman]

I dont see why he would be so desperate to win Iowa. History has shown that it doesnt matter at all.

Pat Robertson? Lol.

Rick Santorum? Ted Cruz?

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Efficiency for the federal government is relative. I just want the conditions that allow it to be the most responsive and most effective. Yes, it is helpful to have people in the places the policy affects but the people who write the laws are in Washington so the answer is "both".

But of course you ignored the most important part of my statement. DeSantis's move here had nothing to do wiith efficiency or effectiveness. It had everything to do with trying to buy votes and even if he were to do this he wouldn't spend 5 minutes considering effectiveness or efficiency. He would just find which person provided him the most money and how they could benefit the most and make that happen. How do I know this? Because that is how he has ran his state. So spare me this sudden interest in you trying to argue the virtues of the federal government. If it were a Democrat proposing this you would scream government intrusion and wasteful spending and in the case of unnecessarily moving them, you'd be right.

I'll leave the door open though. If he can show me how this move is beneficial to the operation of the Department of Agriculture then I can get on board with it. Of course, he would also have to explain why only Iowa and not Illinois, Wisconsin, or any of the other states with large agriculture industries.

Forget DeSantis for a second. It's clouding judgement here.

There is no reason these can't be spread out across the United States.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I dont see why he would be so desperate to win Iowa. History has shown that it doesnt matter at all.

Pat Robertson? Lol.

Obama 2008

 

[Aardvark86]

The geographic decentralization of agencies is something that should happen.

That said, if there one thing that I'm surprised Desantis hasn't done, it's use his evil genius powers to get his legislature and attorney general to sanction the CFB selection committee. I mean, the guy uses those crazy ass vindictive tactics in every other case, why not here?

 

[BioHawk]

Forget DeSantis for a second. It's clouding judgement here.

There is no reason these can't be spread out across the United States.

No, DeSantis is the whole point of this. Quit trying to shift the debate to something I'm not even arguing because you know you can't defend DeSantis on this.

 

[mthawkeyes]

It's bad idea because it makes for even cozier relationships between the regulators and the ones being regulated. There's already a revolving between industry and government agencies. This is just another step towards removing the door entirely.

Think how much better off we would all be if all states "managed" their natural resources related to agricultural the same way that Iowa does! That's the goal.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Obama 2008

That was one case, and on the other side.

Iowa loves them some evangelical types in the primaries.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

No, DeSantis is the whole point of this. Quit trying to shift the debate to something I'm not even arguing because you know you can't defend DeSantis on this.

Simple question.

Would you support the decentralization of federal agencies away from D.C.?

 

[BioHawk]

Simple question.

Would you support the decentralization of federal agencies away from D.C.?

I answered that the first time. None of this is why DeSantis is proposing this.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

I answered that the first time. None of this is why DeSantis is proposing this.

So you support spreading it out?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Forget DeSantis for a second. It's clouding judgement here.

There is no reason these can't be spread out across the United States.

Fair enough, but how do we ensure that it distributed fairly is in this climate?

Because the last administration seemed to base disaster funding on if a state voted for him. DeSantis himself likes to suspend elected local democrats for "not enforcing the law" while ignoring red county officials who have openly said they won't enforce any gun laws.

Convince me there is a way that this can be done in a fair manner and not one where the states that voted for the current POTUS gets all the government jobs.

I don't mind the idea in theory, but when it comes to actually doing these things, the politicians always are looking out for themselves and their tribe and not looking out for the country as a whole.

 

[BGHAWK]

And Kimmie is hoping for a desantis-reynolds ticket.

 

[OILCHECKER]

Everyone knows you never go full Grassley.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Fair enough, but how do we ensure that it distributed fairly is in this climate?

Because the last administration seemed to base disaster funding on if a state voted for him. DeSantis himself likes to suspend elected local democrats for "not enforcing the law" while ignoring red county officials who have openly said they won't enforce any gun laws.

Convince me there is a way that this can be done in a fair manner and not one where the states that voted for the current POTUS gets all the government jobs.

I don't mind the idea in theory, but when it comes to actually doing these things, the politicians always are looking out for themselves and their tribe and not looking out for the country as a whole.

That's the can do spirit. We should send you to D C.

 

[joelbc1]

Why is it dumb ciggy?

So, there would be no interest by Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nebraska, Mizzery, Kansas, Minnesota and others, in being the co- home of the LARGEST federal agency in the nation? How does DeSantis think this is gonna happen? By his declaration? THAT is why it is “dumb”, Northern. It is a simple answer to a complex question....if there is indeed a question at all.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

I thought Trump already did this.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That's the can do spirit. We should send you to D C.

No it's just thinking about where the rubber meets the road.

We need a way of doing it that doesn't allow whatever party happens to be in charge at the time to just reward all their voters with government jobs.

And you aught to know that's exactly what's going to happen if we let the politicians decide where to send these agencies.

 

[Tom Paris]

Dumb:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he would offer to at least partially relocate the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Iowa if he is elected president — part of a federal agency relocation policy he shared Saturday while celebrating the completion of his visit to all 99 Iowa counties.

DeSantis, his campaign and supporters celebrated in Newton his touted completion of a "Full Grassley" tour to all of Iowa's counties. The "Full Grassley" was coined by longtime U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who travels to every Iowa county each year.

But DeSantis offered to bring more to Iowa in the future than himself and his family.

“We have to take power out of Washington, D.C., and send it to other parts of the country,” DeSantis said. As president, “I’m going to order all of our cabinet secretaries to reduce their agency’s footprint in Washington, D.C., by at least 50%.”

IOWA CAUCUSES

Ron DeSantis offers to move part of US ag department to Iowa as part of relocation policy​

Phillip Sitter
Des Moines Register


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he would offer to at least partially relocate the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Iowa if he is elected president — part of a federal agency relocation policy he shared Saturday while celebrating the completion of his visit to all 99 Iowa counties.
DeSantis, his campaign and supporters celebrated in Newton his touted completion of a "Full Grassley" tour to all of Iowa's counties. The "Full Grassley" was coined by longtime U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who travels to every Iowa county each year.
But DeSantis offered to bring more to Iowa in the future than himself and his family.
“We have to take power out of Washington, D.C., and send it to other parts of the country,” DeSantis said. As president, “I’m going to order all of our cabinet secretaries to reduce their agency’s footprint in Washington, D.C., by at least 50%.”

For Iowa, that would mean “you guys will have first dibs on the Department of Agriculture," he said.
“A number of people said they don’t like USDA Washington bureaucrats interfering with how people are farming, and they would much rather have this agency be run with people from their own communities."
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who campaigned for DeSantis with him Saturday in Newton, later said through a spokesperson, "It's a great idea. There's no better place to put USDA, because there's no one who knows farming better than Iowans."

Ron DeSantis offers to move part of US ag department to Iowa as part of relocation policy

The DeSantis campaign shared a list of 130 stops across 98 of Iowa's counties. Newton in Jasper County brought the total Saturday to 99.

www.press-citizen.com

This is a big fat thank you to Kim.

 

[BioHawk]

So you support spreading it out?

Read my response.

 

[Aardvark86]

Fair enough, but how do we ensure that it distributed fairly is in this climate?

Because the last administration seemed to base disaster funding on if a state voted for him. DeSantis himself likes to suspend elected local democrats for "not enforcing the law" while ignoring red county officials who have openly said they won't enforce any gun laws.

Convince me there is a way that this can be done in a fair manner and not one where the states that voted for the current POTUS gets all the government jobs.

I don't mind the idea in theory, but when it comes to actually doing these things, the politicians always are looking out for themselves and their tribe and not looking out for the country as a whole.

Distribution should be unrelated to fairness, it should be related to efficiency (and recognizing that some agencies actually ought to be sited where command and control is key).

DoD/DHS/State - DC
Ag - midwest
Interior - Mountain west
Commerce (and maybe treasury) - NY
Energy - south central/gulf
Transportation - Columbus
Labor - ?
DHS - probably DC
Education - who cares
Hud - CA
HHS - Connecticut

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

I know Meatball is in full on panic, press all the buttons mode because tick, tock, tick, tock...

But this is pandering and a dumb idea and I don't care who would've come up with it, it would still be a hare brained idea.

 

[theiacowtipper]

The federal government has never been the picture of efficiency.

Let me ask you this. Let's assume the efficiency would be the same regardless of location. Would you have a problem uniformly spreading federal agency HQ operations throughout the country? And I'm talking about more than just the Department of Agriculture.


Or do you prefer keeping all HQ operations within the D.C. area?

I have no idea how it would work. What about current employees? Are they getting relocation assistance?

 

[theiacowtipper]

Distribution should be unrelated to fairness, it should be related to efficiency (and recognizing that some agencies actually ought to be sited where command and control is key).

DoD/DHS/State - DC
Ag - midwest
Interior - Mountain west
Commerce (and maybe treasury) - NY
Energy - south central/gulf
Transportation - Columbus
Labor - ?
DHS - probably DC
Education - who cares
Hud - CA
HHS - Connecticut

Except the agencies are typically nation. I.e. there is transportation and ag in almost every state.

 

[Aardvark86]

Except the agencies are typically nation. I.e. there is transportation and ag in almost every state.

obviously, but the reality is that ag is a bigger issue in some places than in others.

As for transport, you focus on major hubs - that could be Columbus (major ground hub), Chicago, Atlanta, St. Louis, Denver. Because as much as we like interstate highways for vacation travel, the key job is making goods and services move.

 

[theiacowtipper]

obviously, but the reality is that ag is a bigger issue in some places than in others.

As for transport, you focus on major hubs - that could be Columbus (major ground hub), Chicago, Atlanta, St. Louis, Denver. Because as much as we like interstate highways for vacation travel, the key job is making goods and services move.

Except, what is the benefit to the nation in having The Dept of transportation in Columbus? Or ag in Iowa? Are farmers going to dc to talk with ag? Are the people running ag programs coming to Iowa to see farms? I don’t see how decentralization provides any real benefit.

 

[Aardvark86]

Except, what is the benefit to the nation in having The Dept of transportation in Columbus? Or ag in Iowa? Are farmers going to dc to talk with ag? Are the people running ag programs coming to Iowa to see farms? I don’t see how decentralization provides any real benefit.

A more collaborative relationship. Most "law" and 'policy" entails much more 'implementation' than it does 'oversght.' That requires continual information flow, and on a basis that is unlike the current "i hired a lobbyist for agency access" model that currently applies.

 

[lucas80]

Look at all the dipshits in this thread that don’t understand there are USDA offices all over the place. Actual farmers have all the access they’d ever need. You want to place Ag someplace useful by stature, try California.
Pudding Fingers can’t even pander right. You will wind up with major institutional loss by putting the main office in the sticks.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Look at all the dipshits in this thread that don’t understand there are USDA offices all over the place. Actual farmers have all the access they’d ever need. You want to place Ag someplace useful by stature, try California.
Pudding Fingers can’t even pander right. You will wind up with major institutional loss by putting the main office in the sticks.

Tell us more about this institutional loss.