Big Dogs House

Post Office To Charge More For Less

Dec 6, 2011 Political

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.

Tags: bankrupt, constitution, disaster, government, pensions, post office. inefficient

Bankrupt Cities

Dec 20, 2010 Political

So, the city of Central Falls, RI, says that they cannot continue to exist because they simply cannot afford to. They need to merge with a larger city AND receive state help (cash), or they will collapse fiscally.

Oh, and the state already took over their school system and gave the city $604 million in the past 2 decades. The city says they need $2.1 million immediately from the state. Oh, and the city has a $48 million unfunded pile o cash that they owe to government employees. Oh, and another $36 million they owe in government employee health care payouts.

The city has only 19,000 subjects and owes $80 million that they don’t have. In case you’re interested, that’s over $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in the city, that they owe right now, not including ANY current obligations or to keep the city running. Quick: what’s the solution?

Of course, it’s make other taxpayers give them money. The state, the feds, other cities, whatever. Just take the money and give it to them because they want it.

The other solution, a nice, freedom-based solution, would be to let the city go bankrupt. And I don’t mean one of these halfway bankruptcies, where they continue to exist and just don’t pay back loans and that stuff. Let the city cease to exist. Other than government employees, do you think anyone would notice? I bet not.

Of course, if the city did just disband, opportunities would abound. People could start up schools without government interference (well, maybe not, because of state laws). People could create businesses to do the things the city was doing (like trash collection) at a lower rate (well, it is a union state, so they might not be allowed to). Arrests would likely go down because police would not be spending all their time trying to raise revenue for the failing city.

In the end, if a city should cease to exist, I think most non-government employees honestly would not care and would, in fact, be MUCH better off than being forced to continue to support a failed system. Sadly, in America today, a country based on government control and power, that will never happen. Instead, tax rates will be raised and other people will be forced to pay to continue the pointless city of Central Falls. Why? Because government employees will continue to use force to rationalize (and pay for) their own existence.

Tags: bankrupt cities, government, money, taxpayer bailout

Rights-Free Zones

Dec 17, 2010 Political

I find it interesting, but also quite consistent, to note that another government agency has decided to set up an area where people do not have rights. This time it’s the Washington Metro. After all, claim the police, you don’t HAVE to use the Metro, so they’re not taking away your rights — instead you’re volunteering to give them away — to use a government service.

We have already created numerous places where you have no First Amendment rights — courthouses, public gatherings, places where government officials gather, and “free speech zones” during times of meetings.

We’ve created other zones where you have no Second Amendment rights — near government employees, post offices, banks, anywhere near schools or children, etc.

We now also have places where you have no Fourth Amendment — airports, courthouses, and now the Washington Metro. Why not?

Do you notice one of the similarities between all these places where you have to surrender your rights (voluntarily, of course)? Nearly all of them are places that are built with taxpayer dollars, and/or include people who are paid with taxpayer dollars. And that, of course, is the absolutely opposite of what was intended by the Constitution. But hey, the US Constitution hasn’t been used in decades, so why start now?

Side note: 5th amendment doesn’t apply any more — you can be literally deprived of liberty without cause (arrested without being charged with a crime); 6th amendment doesn’t apply: impartial juries are outlawed in many places today (see FIJA); 7th amendment varies, you can be “administratively” fined without jury; I could easily go on.

I do wonder why they skipped the third amendment. After all, we could save a lot of money if we’d just force people to quarter military members in their homes. I mean, have people “volunteer” to house soldiers.

Tags: government, rights, taxpayers

People: Slavery Okay When It’s For A Nice Reason

Oct 6, 2010 Political

I’m not really amazed at the reaction to most people to the fire in Tennessee, I just wish more people would think with their minds instead of their hearts. I wish people would do what they wanted to, but at the same time allow me to be free. Sadly, I’m in a tiny minority in America today.

In case you missed the “front page” news, a man in Tennessee burnt down his house. Now he, and a lot of other people, are mad that there weren’t slaves there to extinguish the fire for him. In fact, on the web site linked, the simple poll there indicates that 75% of people who read the story and voted, fully support slavery and believe that everyone (except themselves, presumably) should be slaves in America instead of free.

Here is the story, in brief: A man was offered insurance on his house. For $75 a year, a group of people would provide a fire truck, firemen, and a method to attempt to extinguish his house, should it catch on fire. The man made the choice to not pay the $75. Then, when his house caught on fire, he (and many others) are very angry that some people were not forced at gunpoint to pay for putting out the fire in his house.

Hey, Mr. Cranik, I’m real sorry that your house burnt down. No, I’m serious. I wish it hadn’t happened. And in fact, if I were in position to, I’d be glad to help you out now. However, at the moment, I’m losing about 50-70% of the earnings I make to the government, so I’m kinda broke. I would suggest you head on over to your local church and ask for help, I bet they’d be happy to help you.

But sadly, so many people, Mr. Cranik included, think that they are owed things by “the government.” People are upset and angry that “the government” didn’t show up to save Mr. Cranik’s home. This is just another illustration of people today that expect that things should be handed to them, and they shouldn’t have to do anything to get them. He was offered fire coverage, and he refused it. But now its government’s fault that they didn’t show up and give him something for free.

The part that so many people ignore or don’t care about is that government is literally incapable of producing anything. Instead, the ONLY way that government can provide anything to anyone at any time is to first take that something from someone else by force. In simple terms, the only way government could have showed up and put out Mr. Cranik’s fire would be for government to first come to my house with guns and take money from me to pay the firefighters and pay for the equipment. It indeed shows how far from freedom we have come to know that so many people believe that it is “right” to steal from me to provide for Mr. Cranik.

Certainly, some liberals will attempt to take this post and make moronic claims like, “Oh, gee, you don’t care about Mr. Cranik, and you want people to die in fires” and “How would YOU feel if YOUR house got burned down?” But of course, that’s all self-projection and outright lies. I honestly care about Mr. Cranik. But I also care about freedom. And I think freedom is a hell of a lot more important than feeling good about yourself at the expense of others.

Tags: fire, government, insurance

Why Would Birther Issue Matter?

Sep 27, 2010 Political

The Dem Whip, James Clyburn, is worried that if the Republicans regain control they will issue birther subpoenas which will grind the government to a halt.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned Republicans will investigate President Obama’s birthplace if they take over Congress.

Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, said Republicans will grind the government to a halt by issuing subpoenas against the Obama administration over a number of issues if they take power. He predicted that “gridlock” in Congress would “define” Obama’s first term if Republicans win the House, but expressed confidence his party would prevail. The Hill

Before I get to the main point, it would not be a bad thing for government to grind to a halt. The less they can do the better it is for us. The only safer time is when they are not in session.

As for the issue that concerns Clyburn, why does it matter and why would it grind things to a halt? I don’t think that these so called birther subpoenas will be issued but let us assume they will be. Why would it have such a devastating effect on Congress and the government?

If a subpoena were issued then the appropriate documentation could be produced and the matter laid to rest. If it so happens that Obama has his papers in order then it would become a moot point and make some folks in Congress look rather foolish. Since Democrats keep telling us all is in order, how could this be a negative for them? They could campaign for two years on the folly of the birther subpoenas.

Is there some other reason that Clyburn is worried? Grinding government to a halt is not a concern because it can be solved in a few moments so why would Clyburn worry? Why use this tact to scare people into voting against Republicans? This concern makes it look like Clyburn is saying; “Don’t vote for them because if they take control they will find out the truth about Obama.”

I just don’t understand the reasoning. It sounds more like a concern about what will be discovered should these alleged subpoenas be issued rather than any concern about halting government.

What does James Clyburn know that we don’t?

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: birther, democrat whip, Democrats, government, james clyburn, lies