The United States Postal Service is a bloated government agency that is charged with delivering our mail efficiently. It charges for the service so the money it gets to operate is not supposed to come from the taxpayer. The establishment of the Post Office is a Constitutional requirement but there is no Constitutional requirement for that service to be run by the government.

Government does NOTHING efficiently and money is never a concern because government begs, borrows, or steals the money it gets and since it makes the laws, it can beg, borrow, or steal as much as it wants without the fear of being jailed.

The Post Office is a prime example of government inefficiency. It has grown, and grown, and grown, over the years while offering extravagant benefits to the people who work for it. The Postal Service has tens of thousands more employees than it needs but can’t seem to downsize appropriately.

In addition, those tens of thousands of employees retire and receive very generous benefits. Those benefits are a huge part of the Postal Service’s fiscal problems because the Service is required to pay into the benefit fund up front and the cost has risen to more than the Service can afford.

This has not stopped the Service from keeping employees on or from closing facilities over the years regardless of the dire circumstances. It seems to live in a vacuum ignoring the reality of its fiscal circumstances in hopes that some Congressman will bail it out.

The Postal Service claims it is finally doing something because it is facing bankruptcy. Some sorting facilities will be closed and the cost of a First Class letter will rise to 45 cents (up one cent) starting January. I doubt the increase will have an immediate impact because the Postal Service sells what it calls forever stamps. Purchase them at the current price and you can use them forever regardless of what the actual rate is. People will be buying a lot of forever stamps this month. In addition, the Service will have reduced service in that letters will take longer to arrive. Yes, we will pay more for decreased service.

There are several problems with what the Postal Service is doing. The biggest is that it is retaining its employees. No one who works at the closing facilities will be released, they will just be reassigned. The amount of mail has decreased year after year but they can’t seem to downsize the workforce.

Another problem is that the Postal Service is a branch of government. It is, by its very nature, inefficient. There is little regard given for costs or to fiscal responsibility (until they start talking about reducing pensions) and there is no concern for efficiency. One only needs to go to a Post Office this time of the year to see one clerk at the counter with a line around the block. It is not like they don’t have enough people to man the place, they just don’t do so. It is almost as if they do it on purpose to fool the public into believing they need more help (or to punish us)…

The government is responsible for the Post Office. This cannot change as it is a Constitutional requirement. However, serious consideration should be given to making the Postal Service a private entity that can work efficiently and for profit. The government would still have legal and oversight authority but a private company would work to deliver our mail. It could earn a certain profit and all other money would go to the federal coffers. If several companies were allowed to carry out postal functions they could compete for our business and provide better service.

Don’t look for this to happen any time soon (if at all).

Perhaps it is time to go postal on the Postal Service…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The postal service is a Constitutional item that is run by the federal government and it is run like a typical government bureaucracy, that is, there is a lot of waste and a lot of overhead and a lot of cost overrun. The kicker is that the postal service actually charges for its service and should, if run properly, be able to pay its bills. Unfortunately that is not the case. The postal service is billions in the red and has suspended its share of retirement contributions for its employees.

Will Congress and Barack Obama step in and bailout the postal service? The government already believes that it has the authority to force you to buy products. Obamacare mandates that we all buy health insurance and the Democrats stand by that generous and incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Democrats assure us that health care is unique because everyone will, at one time in their lives, enter the health care system so it is OK, according to them, to make people buy insurance.

What would stop the Democrats from making the same argument about the postal service? Everyone at one point in their lives gets some sort of mail. What would stop Congress from forcing us to use the postal service or force us to buy a certain dollar amount of postage stamps each month? Maybe Congress will decide that in order to boost postal revenue all online bill paying activities must stop and people have to mail their bills in. Maybe they will take down the email contacts for all members of Congress and make us send them letters via the postal service.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the government could force us to use the postal system citing the Commerce Clause like it did with Obamacare.

I would not put it past them to step in and screw over the taxpayers in order to make the postal service solvent.

There is nothing that prevents the government from moving the postal service to the private sector. The Constitution says Congress has the authority to establish post offices and postal roads (which actually means they don’t have to but have the power to) but it does not say that Congress (or the government) must run the post offices and postal roads. Congress could establish the post offices under the private sector and let that company compete for business against other similar services. Congress would have oversight and a portion of the revenue could go to the Treasury.

In any event, I would not put it past the Democrats and their messiah to try to bailout the postal service by putting into place policies that would force people to use the service.

Let’s face it, we are losing more and more freedom so it is not hard to imagine this taking place.

Then again, perhaps they could start reducing the number of employees, increase the amount employees contribute to their pensions, force them to pay the same rate for insurance as the rest of the federal employees (contrary to popular opinion, federal employees pay quite a bit for their health insurance), and stop delivering mail on Saturday. They could also cut the number of post offices and consolidate routes. Greater efficiency would help the bloated system to be more solvent.

Then again, why do all that when Congress could force us to use them.

Be wary. The Socialists in our government would love to intrude even more into our lives.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Oh, this should be good. The article linked talks about the $2 trillion (that’s $2,000,000,000,000.00) shortfall in pension funding. That is money that states have promised to give to state employees. Remember now, the states are out of money. They have simply spent it all. So, what are they going to do? What’s the most likely plan?

The very unfortunate consequence is that various safety nets for the most vulnerable citizens will be cut back.

So this is the Democrat Party, saying that they’re going to reduce funding for social issues so they can pay pensions. Oh, did you notice this was New Jersey? The place where huge numbers of public “servants” get 6-digit pensions? Tell me again how the Democrat Party is for the “little guy.” Oh, and try and tell me in a way that’s at least partly serious while paying retired bureaucrats $100+K and shorting medicaid.

Social Security was never supposed to be a complete retirement plan. It was a plan that provided insurance to those who retired so that they would have some income after their working years ended. There have been revisions along the years and they have expanded the scope of Social Security to something it was never intended to be. One of the provisions enacted was to index cost of living allowances (COLA) to inflation. When there is inflation the COLA goes up and when there is no inflation there is no COLA.

The government has announced that, for the second year in a row, there will be no COLA because there is supposedly no inflation. Prices are rising but there is not yet a measured inflation.

One would think that since there are rules in place that they would be followed. This is a pipe dream when it comes to Washington DC. Last year the politicians passed a law to give Social Security recipients a $250 check to make up for not getting a COLA. If the mechanism in place determined that there should be no COLA then why did they circumvent that mechanism and pay the money anyway?

When I originally wrote about this recent COLA news I indicated that it would not be long before Congress worked to send another check to people who did not get a COLA. Keep in mind that they did not get a COLA because of the law that Congress passed, but that makes no difference.

After all, it is an election year.

As I predicted, the Congress is working to pay another $250 to offset something to which Social Security recipients are not entitled (in accordance with the law).

Representative Earl Pomeroy (Democrat, North Dakota), who introduced the legislation, had this to say:

“Seniors who rely on their modest Social Security payments need these cost-of-living adjustments for their day-to-day survival,” Pomeroy said. “Passing this bill will ensure that the lack of cost-of-living adjustment will not jeopardize seniors’ ability to survive on their benefits.” My Way News

The message here is that Seniors are DEPENDENT on government. Seniors, according to Pomeroy, rely on the payments from government which means that they are at the mercy of the government when it comes to the amount of money they will receive. He also is saying that the laws the Congress passed dealing with COLA jeopardize senior’s ability to survive.

In other words, seniors depend on government to survive. This is not a place anyone should EVER desire to be.

By any measure, money paid to Social Security would have returned much better profits than government if invested in the market. The claim that seniors would have been wiped out is wrong. First of all, the most recent legislation would have exempted people over a certain age so they would have been unaffected. Those who are younger would have had plenty of time to recoup the loss. Second of all, if the money had been invested the return would have been higher so the amount lost would not have been as devastating.

In addition, had the system been set up that way decades ago, people would be much better off and not waiting for government to hand them a few more scraps. If those accounts belonged to the people (it IS their money) they would control it, it would not be taken by the government to spend on worthless endeavors and the money could be passed to heirs thus ensuring growth of wealth in this country.

But government can’t have people being wealthy and independent in their senior years.

How else will government control the people if they are not at its mercy?

The lesson is to save as much as you can. The old saying about paying yourself first is great advice. Decide how much you can save and then invest it in a vehicle that pays good interest. A balance between interest and risk is a good idea.

If people fail to save they will be at the mercy of government, which is just where they want you.

They need that to pander for votes.

And to control the population…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Social Security is in the red this year meaning that it will pay out more than it takes in in payroll taxes. The system was already unsustainable but was expected to have money for at least a few more years. However, the economy has millions of people who are not working and when they are not working they are not paying into Social Security.

That, of course, is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is that the federal government has spent all the Social Security money collected over the years. We have been told for years about the Social Security trust fund as if there is actually a fund with money in it. There is not but that myth continues as evidenced in this article:

The deficit will last through 2011, then an improving economy will put it back into balance for three years, then it will dip back into the red in 2015, the actuary said. The program has enough money in its trust fund to cover the annual deficit for two decades beyond that. Washington Times

This is an actuary perpetuating the myth. If the uninformed were to read that paragraph the assumption would be that there is a trust fund full of money that will fund SS for two decades.

In reality there is nothing more than a drawer with a bunch of IOUs. The federal government requires SS to send the money it collects (above what it needs to make payments) to the Treasury and in return the Treasury issues a Treasury Bond. It is basically a piece of paper like a bank deposit slip. It tells the Social Security Administration that it deposited a certain amount of money into the Treasury.

The problem is, once the money hits the Treasury it goes into the general fund and is spent by Congress. In other words, Congress is using Social Security money to pay for other things under the guise that it will pay the money later. The only fault in the plan is that the government does not have the money to pay back. We are trillions of dollars in debt and there is no way that we can afford to pay our bills without borrowing even more money. Social Security money has been spent and will not be replaced. We will either go deeper and deeper in debt borrowing money or burden people with tax increases to pay back what should have never been spent in the first place. Keep in mind, the special bonds purchased are supposed to be redeemed later but as the Office of Budget and Management states:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense…. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

If the money collected over the years had been invested in precious metals or placed in interest bearing accounts there would be no worry about the solvency of SS. We would have more than enough money to pay people and things would be good.

But the greedy politicians in DC could not keep their grubby little hands out of the till. They have committed malfeasance and bankrupted the socialized retirement system that was established long ago. SS should never have been created but if they had to do so then they should have ensured it would be protected from the greed and corruption that permeates our government.

Face it. If a private company did this with retirement funds the people responsible would be in jail and the dolts in Congress would be attacking them mercilessly. You can bet that no CEO would be able to get away with saying that he would simply borrow the money to fund the system.

And no company could remain in business being run by such people. This might explain why we are on our way to financial collapse.

The Treasury bonds Social Security holds in place of its money are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.

Given how the OBM described the bonds (quoted above), that should comfort absolutely no one…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

It was not expected to happen until no sooner than 2016 but Social Security will pay out more this year than it takes in.

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The New York Times

Officials say that Social Security has 2.5 Trillion dollars in the “trust” fund so they can pay retirees (and the myriad of others who have become eligible over the years) for some years to come.

The problem is, there is no real trust fund. A trust fund would be a place where they put the money and can get to it when they need it. Instead, Social Security is forced to buy government bonds and the money it collects goes into the general fund where politicians, instead of saving it for Social Security (as it was intended) spend it on other things.

We have no money in the bank for when the government bonds are cashed. The government paper is not worth the ink that is on it because we have no money to honor the commitment.

We borrow a lot of money from other countries to pay our debt and the interest on the debt is astronomical.

There is no way that government will be able to honor the commitment it made because it did not keep our money safe like it was supposed to. If the money had been put away we would be in good shape.

So if they are going to be collecting money for the next four years to pay for health care what are the odds that they will spend it one something else and there will be no money when it comes time to deliver Christmas to all the serfs?

Never surrender, never submit.

Movie history was made this week, as the Governator was slapped down regarding the ballot measures that would have allowed the California Budget to be “reduced” from a staggering 21.5 billion dollar deficit to a mere 15+ billion dollar deficit. Okay- this is where it gets a little strange, because if I have a -21 dollars in my pocket, I can just SAY I have a -15 dollars in my pocket. It’s all the same NOTHING that I have (or not, depending on whether you are Democrat or Republican, I guess) in my pocket. It’s all a shell game, performed unconvincingly by the politicians, first in California, and soon to come to a Capital Dome near you.

The measures, which would have prolonged tax increases, capped state spending, earmarked money for education and involved the state in a complex borrowing scheme against its lottery, were rejected by roughly 60 percent of those who voted. The failure of the measures, combined with falling revenues since the state passed its budget, leaves California with a $21 billion new hole to fill, while foreclosure rates and unemployment remain vexing problems here.
The Pols take non- money, and make more of the non- money to pay for these programs they want so desperately. It is no longer a question of whether the program is even worthy or not. There is just no money to pay for it, or any others either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/20vote.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

When regular folks run low on money, we all have to tighten our belts, but not so the politicians, as we can see. This continues a long and shameful tradition of “borrowing” from every source of money, including the Social Security program, which was never very robust, earning only around 1.5% per year as it was. Now, however, there is no money. Let me say this again.

THERE IS NO MONEY. All of this spending, all this stimulus, all this tarp money is just an illusion that the present government, as have all the past governments dearly wanted you to believe in.

Money has only so much buying power as the government’s word guarantees- and this one is writing checks with his mouth that noone can cash. That’s unfortunate, but true.

The Chinese, who had been buying our bonds, have ceased doing so, and Barama has been trying to get lines of credit at the nearest branch of Saudi Arabia with little luck.

I’ve got an idea- stop every new program, look at all other programs to see whose we can safely cut, and by the way, rescind all of those raises Congress hasn’t earned. Congressional employees are OUR employees, and I know I didn’t okay a raise- did you?

No new “green” programs until we know of a system that works- it’s way too expensive to go charging off in a direction that holds no true promise.

Health care needs to remain private, but I agree that access and affordability are key to the whole process. Cutting costs has to happen for the Insurance Industry, but one thing that needs to change is our habits. Use the insurance for when you need it not just for any old bruise or sprain- that is a part of the rise in costs. The insurance companies need to begin charging real world prices, and the most onerous part of the whole process, paperwork, needs to end.

I know that there will be those who will say that the government needs to regulate health care, but there is nothing government does well, and I wouldn’t expect them to begin now. If government governs best when it governs least, as Thomas Jefferson once said, government health care should be the smallest component of the whole process, and the least intrusive. If government could smooth the process, well and good, but government doesn’t do smooth very well. This would be a new dance for them.

I know Barama has all these really great ideas he wants to try out, but now is not the time to do this, and yet he goes right on ahead, oblivious to the fact that he is holding monoply money, for all the guaranteed value it really has right now.

Only when we institute fiscal responsibility, will we be truly able to do things socially that might or might not need to be done.

I have an idea- Why don’t ALL members of Congress- both parties, and the President too- turn their pockets inside out, just so that reminds them just how broke we really are.

Perhaps then they will get the picture.

It looks like two Connecticut newspapers might be out of business as soon as next week. The Bristol Press and The Herald have millions of dollars in debt and the slow economy is hurting them. They obviously do not have the circulation or ad revenue to sustain the business so they are headed for the recycle bin.

Or are they? A Connecticut lawmaker named Frank Nicastro wants to have the state bailout the newspapers. He believes they are vital to the community and that the people would be best served if the government used taxpayer money to keep them afloat.

He views it as his duty but there are others who think this is a dangerous move because it puts government in bed with the press. Some seem to think that the press is a watchdog over the government:

Relying on government help raises ethical questions for the press, whose traditional role has been to operate free from government influence as it tries to hold politicians accountable to the people who elected them. Even some publishers desperate for help are wary of this route.

Providing government support can muddy that mission, said Paul Janensch, a journalism professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, and a former reporter and editor.

“You can’t expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it,” he said. al-Reuters

I can understand where those with traditional views of government would have a problem with this whole idea much for the reasons stated. But one would have to be a complete lunatic to believe that the modern day press (all media for that matter) are objective and view it as their job to hold politicians accountable. None of them held Obama accountable.

The New York Times is a storied newspaper but it is only a watchdog over half of the government. If it is Republican they watch it and report anything (even national secrets) but if it is Democrat they ignore the story.

As a matter of fact, some in the media think it is their job to make Obama successful. These would be the same who worked tirelessly to harm the current president every chance they got.

There is nothing objective about most newspapers and none of the major ones are watchdogs over government.

When it comes to the press and Obama calling the newspapers guard dogs would be more appropriate.

Government does not belong using tax dollars to bail out ANY business including newspapers. That is the reason this should not happen.

If we actually had a press that acted like watch dogs over politicians then the arguments presented in the article would be valid but since they lost objectivity a long time ago there is no sense in pretending that this is an issue.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

Swing States Beware

There are a lot of states that rely on the coal industry. Barack Obama says he will bankrupt that industry.

When Joe Biden told people in the rope line that he and Obama were against coal, he was telling the truth regardless of what spin they put on it afterward.

Source:
Newsbusters
The West Virginia Record

I am the Big Dog and I approve this blog post.