Most innovation and progress now is at the city level (I'm not the first to say it). Name the last thing government achieved at a national level in the U.S. - there's health care, but that's now looking shaky.
The priority of one major party in the U.S. is to shut down government as much as possible; that party can block progress everywhere but in cities, where they have no power for now. However, they are trying to pass 'pre-emption laws' in many state governments which block cities from doing anything the Republicans in the state capitals don't like. So much for the belief in liberty and local control.
I'd argue in most cases both the federal government and the various state governments have largely stopped governing. They make lots of noise about social issues and do some day-to-day stuff but I don't really see them as doing their jobs in the way they used to. Not making any comments or guesses as to why, just saying that seems to be the world we're living in.
If cities and municipalities are our hope for good governance we're are all pretty screwed. Cities across the country basically bankrupt and state and local governance is rife with corruption.
I don't agree. Is there some way you can back up that claim and be more specific? (Though I think you and I have had this discussion before?)
All human institutions are 'rife with corruption' if the standard is some ideal, but until we adopt our computer overlords we're stuck with people. On a relative scale, I don't see them as so corrupt; and I'm not willing to wait in order to make progress. (EDIT: Name the non-corrupt institution that you want to make these decisions.)
Most importantly, the cities are getting things done.
I believe state and local governments are unable to run a deficit. If the federal government had to play by the same rules it would be bankrupt as well.
> I believe state and local governments are unable to run a deficit.
That's true in at least many places, but they still can borrow from the future by issuing bonds, or by pushing off massive costs like pensions. They underfund pensions now and let the next mayor/governor deal with it; this process repeats until they can't meet the cash flow needed to pay current pensions and are effectively bankrupt.
Remember when Detroit went bankrupt: According to an article I read about it, there were at least two main causes: 1) Going back to at least the 1990s their pensions were overfunded because they would need that money to pay future pensions when the ratio of current workers to retirees would drop. Instead of saving the money, they distributed it to pensioners as a '13th month'. Detroit also invested in some financial engineering instrument sold to them by Wall Street that the city couldn't pay off.
The priority of one major party in the U.S. is to shut down government as much as possible; that party can block progress everywhere but in cities, where they have no power for now. However, they are trying to pass 'pre-emption laws' in many state governments which block cities from doing anything the Republicans in the state capitals don't like. So much for the belief in liberty and local control.