I figured I was probably going to like any article with the headline Skyscrapers in DC would be good for America. I was not mistaken.
The main issue is that DC area real estate is one of the primary "inputs" to the federal government. If housing in the DC area became cheaper, then in effect real compensation of DC-area federal employees would rise (allowing the government to attract better workers) at no cost to the taxpayer. Similarly, the federal government would just straightforwardly save money if it didn't need to pay such high rents for office space. And as well as being the most expensive office market in America, DC also has one of the most expensive hotel markets in the country which raises the cost of doing routine federal business which often requires federal workers based elsewhere to travel to agency headquarters' in the DC region.
I have occasional arguments with people about whether the US should be more urbanized. I think it should. A lot of people think that living in the city is an occasionally necessary evil which everyone should avoid if they can.
According to the CIA world factbook, 85% of Americans lived in cities as of 2010, so making cities better is kind of a big deal. And one of the problems with American urbanization is sprawl. When I say "Bigger cities," I don't mean "More sprawl." I don't mean that more of the empty space in America should be turned into two-to-three story tall fields of suburbs and strip malls.
Instead, I think we need to make the existing cities more friendly to increasing density. Skyscrapers are a great way to do this, and since DC is the most important city in American politics, it needs to be more open to access and development.