The point isn't the government services are currently high quality. The point is that the current environment foster low quality service. In some cases voting in politicians that drove top-down management changes would help. And that would require the populace to value such changes. We might need to structure the incentives for government employees, contractors, or the regulatory environment to better align with delivering good service. That might mean more pay, which means either higher taxes or strong prioritization of efforts. We can't do that intelligently if nobody cares, or is skilled enough to drive these large institutions. Because it is hard. We almost certainly are using the wrong tradeoffs: some things privatized and outsourced should be done by government agencies. Some functions should be privatized or just regulated on the open market. Some things are better handled at regional levels that today are handled at local or national levels. The mix of tradeoffs is wrong. Incremental work to fix this requires a society-wide agreement to make progress. Not necessarily agreement on any particular (and even when there is agreement, we are going to get it wrong a bunch) but agreement on the project of bettering our society and social collaboration. That seems like it is missing and thus progress is made only in fits in starts, in a hostile environment. A hard-one deregulation here, a new bill to fund a project there, contested on ll sides, and undermined before the initiatives get started.