Let’s just do it. Why oh why do we need a government run post office? Why cannot and should not this be privatized?
[quote]It’s time to privatize the U.S. Postal Service. We no longer need a federal agency to deliver our junk mail. The facts are plain. Even with a locked-in monopoly, the USPS can’t make ends meet. Its accounting is so murky and convoluted it makes our Enrons and WorldComs look like models of financial transparency. We mail-users
Customers have moved more to use email and faxes. That is how the post office is driving them away. Let’s privatize this mess. Read on in the article. EVEN socialist Europe is moving to privatize ALL EU Post offices by 2009. Why cannot we do the same?
Europe is actually more advanced than the US in a couple of areas of privatization. I’m pretty sure Europe generally has, for example, far lower rates of government forest and land ownership than the US. Presumably population density is a major factor in that regard.
Um, personally I’ve moved from the PO to emails and faxes because they’re much much faster and cheaper. I presume most other people share those reasons. The PO cannot compete with the immediacy of email, but it’s disingenuous to say the PO is driving people away.
Privately owned or not, the PO is not going to get my letter to dear old mum to her in less than a minute.
Well the post office is losing tons of money, competing unfairly with private companies and not paying taxes on its extensive property holdings and this in particular hurts inner city schools. So? let’s get rid of it.
nice to see you care about the deficit while at the same time supporting that big money pit iraqi war. sounds a little hypocritical. but if you think spending all those billions of dollars and thousands of lives was worth getting rid of him, i think you need to change your priorities.
nice to see you care about the deficit while at the same time supporting that big money pit Iraqi war. sounds a little hypocritical. but if you think spending all those billions of dollars and thousands of lives was worth getting rid of him, I think you need to change your priorities.[/quote]
Nonsense. Favoring spending on one thing and not on another doesn’t make one hypocritical.
If it did, then liberals who whine about the deficit while wanting to spend more on failed social programs rather than on defence would also be hypocites.
Umm if the postal service were privatized some communities would not be served because it costs too much to get mail to them. Private companies would not serve these communities. Keep it in the government.
[quote=“fred smith”]We could also pay a huge chunk off on the deficit by privatizing the following:
Power distribution systems
This would in turn guarantee that these facilities and services were provided more cheaply and more efficiently.
Let’s just do it![/quote]
I’d like to know how you’re going to privatize highways. Make every road a privately-owned toll road, and the owner charges whatever he wants?
Recently the Republican governor of Alaska has decided to privatize the state parks. This was done to save money. Turns out the state is losing money on the deal (running the concessions in state parks was profitable).
For all their budget-cutting and privatization zeal, why are the Republicans running the biggest budget deficit in history (which the last few years of the Clinton administration saw a significant surplus)?
And what is this Republican religious obsession with privatizing everything? Not even the Nazis went this far (and the Nazis didn’t have a budget deficit). Is there some reason why we shouldn’t have a few government-run services, like roads, parks, postal service, schools, police and fire protection?
It’s done in some countries. Not all roads, mainly freeways. The operators get a concession (?) for several years and charges are controlled.
Comparable are perhaps taxi companies - even they are privately owned they cannot charge you what they want.
Malaysia is an example where privatization of freeways is done; if I recall correctly the operator owns the freeway (or several) for 33 years after which they have to surrender them to the government. Charges are based on pricing per kilometer and raising of charges (every few years, usually based on increasing costs for maintenance etc.) needs government approval.
I stopped using the US mail system a long time ago. It’s a bad (and expensive) joke. If I can’t email something, I fax it or FedEx it. Simple. Back in November, I went to the Post Office in my hometown. It’s huge but they had only one person working at the counter and 20+ people waiting in line. I left. It’s simply not worth the trouble.
Malaysia is an example where privatization of freeways is done; if I recall correctly the operator owns the freeway (or several) for 33 years after which they have to surrender them to the government. Charges are based on pricing per kilometer and raising of charges (every few years, usually based on increasing costs for maintenance etc.) needs government approval.[/quote][/quote]
I don’t know much about Malaysia, but I spent some time in Indonesia and I remember hearing about the privatised freeway between the airport and downtown Jakarta. Seems like it belonged to Suharto’s daughter (Suharto was the president/dictator at the time). That “freeway” was a license to print money - money that should have been going into the government’s pockets but instead went to the Suharto family.
I’d rather that all roads be free, but if there has to be a toll, it might as well go to the government. Presumably, the money goes towards paying for road maintenance and construction. I realize that some will inevitably be wasted, but that’s still better than seeing it go into the president’s Swiss bank account.
There are numerous guidelines for this. Why not? The user pays. That is much fairer.
You cannot privatize state parks. You can privatize the management of them. So when the contract is up, take it back or renegotiate the terms. Right?
Much of the growth of the Clinton years and the soaring stock market resulted in high tax revenues. This was Reagan’s plan for cutting taxes to push growth. He suffered high deficits too, but he was right and Clinton reaped the benefits. The deficits we are experiencing now are NOT the highest as a percentage of GDP so don’t let it worry you. If it does, might I suggest cutting back on more failed government programs? Also the high deficits are partially attributable to a high proportion going to medical costs. Two thirds of government funds now go to social security and medicaid and medicare and prescription drug coverage. We must do more to lower medical costs. Bush’s push to enact tort reform should take some of the wind and money out of the trial lawyers (all Democrat’s) sails. Let’s hope Bush continues to push for deregulation and also for outsourcing government jobs. Let’s cut cut cut. Let’s start with agricultural subsidies, get rid of the departments of commerce, agriculture, labor, transportation, energy, interior, HUD and health and human services, but especially the department of education. All other needed duties can go back to the states where they can handled more efficiently while empowering more people.
The Nazis were a party of the left. They were socialist. Many on the left like to point to the fascists as rightists but that is not true. They were leftists. People on the right believe in individual not group rights and in private ownership not state ownership and in market not government forces controlling the economy. Better read up on your history again.
Also, there are ways to deal with small rural communities. They will continue to be served in two ways:
Hire the local 7-11 or coffee shop to also handle mail services. People can come and get their mail at central pick up points.
For those who are incapacitated, local church groups and charities can assist OR the government can pay to have someone deliver to these areas. Eligibility can be determined the same as for other government programs.
The government can subsidize unprofitable routes. This way it is the government paying for a welfare service. It makes the business more rational since this is really a welfare service that the government is essentially forcing a private company to pay for. This is the same problem with British rail. It cannot devote the needed funds to upgrading track in important corridors because it is wasting too much time and money on providing services to small feeder lines. Also in any privatization the government would have to be responsible for the ridiculously expensive and oversubscribed pension plans.