>...If you were in my shoes, would you make the move to FX?...
I wouldn't, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good move for you. Just looking at your post, a few questions:
You say short teles and wides don't cut it. Why? For example, what's wrong with a 10-24 at the wide end, or a 16-85 as a short tele? Both seem like good options within DX to me, and there are lots of other options for both wide angle and short telephotos. Since you aren't specific here about why DX lenses don't cut it, I'm not sure that an FX camera (and lenses) would solve whatever issues you have.
As for macro, DX gives you more depth of field, which you almost always want for macro, so again, maybe DX has an advantage here you'd be giving up by moving to FX.
For me, the big advantages of DX are that I can have a smaller, lighter, and less expensive kit. I'm completely satisfied with the images I get. I understand the advantages of FX, and certainly for some people that's the right way to go. But I do think that a lot of times people just want FX because they think it is better, or more professional, when for what they are doing it really won't make much difference in their photos.
You have to weigh your own specific needs and wants, but I didn't read anything very convincing in your post that made me think that somehow your DX kit is holding you back. What, specifically, do you find in your DX lenses that don't cut it?