Kicking up the usage in international relations differentiations, a "failed state" typically does not have military control of more than part of its territory (prototypically, the capital and perhaps other cities). So it's hard to match that one. There is an argument -- as example, the website following -- that the US could well be called a "semi-failed" state because it is within other criteria commonly cited with "failed" states. On that site it's a skeleton argument, but I don't think the directional points are so disputable. It would be more a question of what quality and degree of these one considers acceptable. http://samvak.tripod.com/failedstate.html
Perceived as a threat by others; history of attacking peaceful or militarily incapable ("pacified") others
Weak institutions re: national disasters, environmental law, consumer protection
Corrupt legislators and unstable separation of powers
Reliance on private organizations to fulfill national priorities
Also... In my understanding the US is doing unfavorably compared to most other "developed" countries in terms of health care costs, satisfaction with its health care, literacy rates, infant mortality rates, and availability of public transit. I don't know so well about crime rates, but we're also real infamous in Britain and Japan for the prevalence of gun violence.
The CIA (do they care to check such things?) lists us around 71 of 122 for reported unemployment in early 2009 (making 122 fewest unemployed) -- only slightly better than India or the EU average (at 69). Included in the countries with higher employment are many of the Western EU countries, Canada, S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Australia, Vietnam, China, Russia and other CIS, Nicaragua... http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/unemployment_rate_2009_0.html