My local police and schools are currently governed better than how the federal government, governs things. If they weren't, I would either move to a different area, or I would stay and fight the corruption, and face a better chance of beating the corruption than if I had to fight the police and schools run at the federal government level.
My local and state taxes are too high. Since I haven't been able to change that, in a few years I will be moving to a different state and locality to try to resolve that problem.
If Obama and Sharpton had their way as this article states, they would take control of all government functions and make things worse. They want to federalize everything and that includes the police.
The opposite of that philosophy is what is represented in our Constitution . It limits federal government power and leaves government power to the states, and better yet, to the people. This idea is one of the basic principles that is defended on this website.
I don't think anybody here is saying that there isn't local government corruption and that we are guaranteed to beat corruption at all levels of government. If that's you think people are saying here, then you are setting up "amateur" strawman fallacy "propaganda".
The point is that to centralize government is not to make things overall, better. Overall it makes things worse.
When it comes to government centralization and federalization, are you on the side of the US Constitution or are you on the side of Obama and Rev. Sharpton??
Answer the question.