[wahern]

> What resources and knowledge does the federal government have that the states don't?

The problem is democracy. Local governments are more democratic in the sense of being directly responsive to community interests, especially since the 1960s-era reforms. But more democracy is not always better, especially when the community makes contradictory demands. Often you end up trading away administrative efficiency.

So what does the federal government have to offer? A dispassionate, distant, and non-responsive administrative apparatus. At least in the current political context. Whether it could be effectively utilized is another question as there are also other pathologies at play, such as ideological sentiments that the federal government shouldn't be involved, period.

[avmich]

"More democracy is not always better" is an interesting statement. I'd agree that democracy can be inefficient, but in a relatively small community contradictory demands supported by roughly equal numbers of participants is a textbook case of democracy working - you don't change things if half doesn't want it.

That federal government shouldn't be involved is also not only ideological sentiment. Current opinion is that smaller problems are better visible closely, and can be solved locally - as they are smaller - and levels of bureaucracy add significant friction.

There is a position that good democracies are local ones. Some have to delegate for common problems to higher levels, but more remote levels become less democratic - as they are more detached from people. There are counterarguments, some of them are countered in a vague "good" prefix.