Many pages have past, I will just jump back in - someome said (Irish, I think) that decisions are better made at the federal level because, due to the diversity of regions/interests, etc., hurried, dubious legislation is less likely to be passed.
Completely false, for one reason - Money.
States have to balance budgets, which means even if the house is full of puzzlewits and crooks, they must still face hard choices forced by having limited resources. The federal government has no such limitation (in the short run).
The federal goverment can invent money. This is bad for all kinds of economic reasons, but possibly even worse for political ones. Why? Politicians are incentivized to vote for all kinds of trash at the federal level because they can always get some kickback stuffed in the bill with invented money.
Easy example - let’s say a Democrat actually believes a bill to be bad and would, on principle, not vote for it. But, he gets promised $4 million for a dog-walking park in his hometown by Obama or Pelosi, and he votes “aye” without a blink.
Where does the money come from? The feds invent it by tacking it on to the deficit. The law gets passed because there is “unlimited” political capital with which to secure its passing.
Now, before Irish has a meltdown, Republicans are just as guilty. The problem, of course, is one of degree - Democrats are actually worse about this, on the basis that have no philosophical restraint against federal monies being spent for anything. Republicans are bad, but at least there is a kernel of argument that the federal government shouldn’t spend money on some things. I offer this only to make it clear I think both parties are guilty, but it is also entirely fair to highlight when one is worse than another.
This is not to say that corrupt horse-trading doesn’t occur at the state level. It’s just that political realities - the inability to invent money to buy political favors - hampers state governments in a way it does not for the federal government.