Tag: mail

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

President Goes Postal?

China, mail, postal service, letters, shipping,

A bullying bull in a China shop?

“President Donald Trump is taking another swipe at China,” Jen Kirby wrote for Vox back in 2018, “by ripping up an international treaty that’s more than a century old.”

We’re talking about the Universal Postal Union — or UPU. “At 144 years old, the UPU is one of the oldest intergovernmental agencies,” she explained. 

“The organization made possible the international mail system,” offered Washington-based attorney and UPU expert Jim Campbell. 

Wellesley College Professor Craig Murphy, “an international organizations expert,” called Trump’s threat “absurd.”

“It makes the international postal system run smoothly,” explained Kirby, “it’s the reason why you can get a package from South Africa or a postcard from your aunt on vacation in Bali.”

So why gum up the efficient delivery of letters and packages?

“Trump does have a legitimate gripe,” Kirby abruptly changed tone, “and administrations going back to Ronald Reagan have voiced similar complaints about the UPU.” 

But did nothing about it.

“Countries like China that were developing nations in 1969 . . . still pay the U.S. Postal Service a pittance to deliver mail,” Foreign Policy’s Keith Johnson clarifies, which “means that Chinese firms had a tiny edge in shipping goods to the U.S. market — making the Postal Service pick up much of the tab for actually delivering the package, even while costing U.S. firms potential sales.”

“Tiny edge”? 

Bull.

“[I]t’s actually cheaper to ship some products from certain places overseas to the US,” Kirby acknowledged, “than it is to deliver something between New York and Kansas.”

The gripe? 

The “disproportionately dramatic response . . . reveals the White House’s obsession with what it sees as China’s unfair advantage in global trade.”

Yet, this is an unfair advantage. 

Er, well . . . was. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom government transparency national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Post Dated

USPS, Postal Service, Post Office, Mail, bankrupt, government, inefficiency, Common Sense, Illustration

What does a business do whose market share is decreasing, is billions of dollars in debt, and which incurred one-third of that debt just last year?

Realistically, it cannot be sustained. Not as a normal business.

Of course, the business in question has been struggling to reform, has been cutting costs. But can’t cut enough.

I’m referring to the United States Postal Service. Not a “normal business,” either: no “normal business” is authorized in the U.S. Constitution — or must suffer with the 535 members of Congress as its board of directors.

Kevin Kosar, writing at the Foundation for Economic Education, says the “existential crisis is already happening.”

And by this he doesn’t mean that the organization is going through a bout of anxiety leading to Nausea, or is so estranged from humanity that on a beach the company will kill an Arab — though that may be indeed true, “going postal” and all. He means, simply, what his title says: “USPS Is Going Down, and It’s Taking Billions with It.”

Many on the left say the problem is Congress’s insistence that the enterprise fund its employee retirement program. Kosar quotes an economist who figures that, even without current (and still inadequate) levels of pension contributions, the post office would have “lost $10 billion over the past seven years.”

Besides, those pensions must be paid for at some time — postponing them just delays the inevitable, making a future bust that much bigger, less manageable. (Current level of unfunded liability? $54 billion — which is not accounted for in its official debt.)

The Internet is more important than the post, now. Could it be time to junk mail?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

USPS, Postal Service, Post Office, Mail, bankrupt, government, inefficiency, Common Sense, Illustration

 

Categories
national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

Authorized, But in the Red

According to the late economist James Buchanan, there exist three basic categories of government functions: protective, productive, and redistributive.

The protective functions are most basic. As inscribed in the Declaration of Independence, we are to be protected by government not in a scattershot way, but by having our rights delineated and defended. Think courts and the military.

The redistributive functions make up the bulk of the federal government, today . . . according to a recent Heritage Foundation chart, “More than 70 Percent of Federal Programs Goes to Dependence Programs.” Most of these, like Social Security and Medicare, were not originally contemplated as tasks for the federal union, and are flagrant violations of the Constitution.

But some “productive” (business-like) functions were placed into the Constitution, the most famous being the authorization to create a postal service.

Though no longer an official wing of the U.S. Government, the Postal Service is still hamstrung by congressional micro-management, as the shrinking mail biz busies itself trying to erase red ink.

The current notion is to drop Saturday delivery of all but packages. The enterprise hopes to save billions on this reform, alone, and was able to initiate the service cut without Congress’s approval by gambling on what some are calling a legal loophole.

Perhaps as politically dangerous is the ongoing attempt to get rid of post offices in smaller communities, replacing them with “Village Post Offices” that private enterprise would run.

It’s worth noting that though the Constitution allows for mail delivery and a few other “productive” services, these aren’t very productive — at least, they tend to operate in the red.  Besides, what is authorized by the Constitution doesn’t mean required by the Constitution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.