The inclusion of a public relations office, or public affairs department, or community promotion section, in the basic lineup of state institutions should be rejected by voters. Nowhere is this odious practice more common than at the federal level, where predatory PR firms have built an industry around the idea that the Washington bureaucracy must promote itself to the people.
The idea that federal bodies need a public relations section ostensibly stems from the idea that the "message" of such institutions needs to be fairly and clearly passed to the public.
The primary objection to this claim is that the role of the federal government is to perform, not promote. Interpreting the efficacy and propriety of government action though is both a dual role of the voters and their elected representatives. The Department of Interior, for example, should manage national resources, not pass out press releasing highlighting their implementation of the First Lady's (and just where did the First Lady get a budget? A mandate?) "Let's Move Program" in a self-promoting manner.
What should federal agencies do to make certain the public is informed of their programs? Respond quickly and thoroughly to inquiries. Public bodies should provide information when requested, not persuade in perpetuity. Perhaps if Congress spent more time examining existing institutions and searching for ways to improve efficiency, and less time holding hearings on horse racing and steroid use in baseball, sensible judgments about the utility of certain programs might be made, and this silly debate about raising the there-in-name-only debt ceiling might be avoided.
Sensible libertarian views on nearly everything- except foreign affairs.