I suggest that it is time to "turn down the volume" of this "discussion". The USGA, like most human institutions charged with administering a large activity, has strengths and weaknesses. Its job is made more difficult because of the varying interests and skill levels of the participants. Nonetheless, it is fair to evaluate its work. In doing so, we should keep in mind that, notwithstanding the professional staff, the USGA is governed by volunteers. Given its history and the time and cost demands of leadership, those leaders are generally drawn from the ranks of private clubs.
Rules. I concede the rules are complex. Having worked locally as an official, I have first hand knowledge. But the complexity comes in large measure from having to deal with the decisions. All of those come from questions arising out of actual situations that occurred on the course. It is not surprising that a game played over dozens of acres of irregular ground, replete with obstacles would lead to greater complexity than games played within controlled and often identical playing fields. Unless we revert to the simplicity of "tee your ball and don't touch it until after you hole out" complexity will follow. Even then, there will have to be rules regarding lost balls and the like. I also note that the USGA and the R&A meet periodically to discuss and amend the rules. So it is not just the USGA.
Could the Rules be simplified. Sure. Are they always applied appropriately. Probably not. But if you study them, you will find that they are internally consistent.
Equipment. I agree that the USGA and R&A failed to act when they could have to protect the game. I have no problem with distance qua distance. My issue is the need to extend courses because of the greater distance which has led to higher costs and longer rounds. One might ask whether longer courses are really needed but that ship appears to have sailed. In my view, rules-makers have to decide when a game has "matured" and then they must be careful about rules changes and equipment. Baseball is my best example. Prior to the early 1920's, baseball had many of the same rules but played in the "dead ball " era. For a variety of reasons, the ball was made livelier and the strategy of the game changed. Other related rules followed such as the elimination of the "spitter" and other trick pitches. Indeed, the liveliest ball used was probably in the early 1930's. Since then, baseball rules and equipment have remained remained about the same, larger gloves being the exception. In the major leagues, aluminum bats have been prohibited and, other than strategic changes, the game and the records are little changed, notwithstanding the same developments in nutrition and conditioning. I submit that golf missed the chance to declare that the game was "mature" and the explosion in distance resulted. I also submit that if the USGA had stared Karsten down on the square grooves matter, it might have done more. The profits made in the sale of "improved" equipment may also have played an important role. But again, that ship has sailed.
Handicaps. Much debate here but the USGA has been a driving force in creating a unified system. A real concern has been to discourage sand baggers, hence using the 10 best of 20 scores. Historically, the R&A faced the same problem by only using competition scores although that may also be explained by the greater prevalence of forms of play in which individual scores are not emphasized. The USGA, when faced with that decision many years ago, followed the lead of the CDGA in counting all scores. There are currently discussions between the governing bodies about a world wide handicap system with a target date of 2018. Do not be surprised if the world adopts the US system with slight modifications.
Turf grass research. Whether we like the trend of increasing green speeds or not, it is hard to ignore the contributions of the green section in encouraging research that has led to better conditions and the ability to grow grass in difficult climates. How some clubs use the technology may be questionable, but the overall history of the USGA in this area has been quite good. This area has not been mentioned in this discussion.
Competition. If you like the idea of competitive amateur golf, the USGA has been the most significant factor in keeping it alive by sponsoring, administering and officiating at its numerous championships. Local associations have provided opportunities as well but the USGA has been the leader.
Growth of the game. This one is hard to judge. I suspect that much of the ebb and flow in interest has been and will continue to be outside of the control of any agency. Much is economic. Rapid growth in players and courses, such as that seen in the mid 1990's until 2008 was fueled by a boom economy. The fall off post recession is likely related to the economy rather than the administration of the game. Nonetheless, a greater emphasis on junior programs, minority programs, women's programs, pace of play and the like would be useful and we are seeing some progress there.
War chest. There has been a fair amount of angst expressed due to the USGA's bank account. This angst is understandable. I note that the USGA's development of this fund largely occurred after the Karsten litigation where the USGA was reluctant to go "all the way" because of the cost of litigation and a perceived lack of resources at the time. They built the war chest so that they could withstand future attacks. Have they overdone it? Perhaps but I suspect that is a problem that could be remedied.
On balance, a mixed report card. No one else has stepped up to offer an alternative. Surely, no one suggests that the PGA or the PGA Tour would do a better job as stewards of the game. Perhaps if more people with our views volunteered, we might be able to make improvements.