I will admit that calling for the privatization of the United States Postal Service (USPS) by free-market, limited-government policy people like me is hardly new. It’s a pretty standard viewpoint for people in positions like mine, sort of the libertarian equivalent of progressives calling for the government to fully fund public schools. But having said that, it really is time to privatize the post office.

In 1934, a federal law was passed that banned any entity except the USPS from placing items in any mailbox. That is the law that limited UPS and, later, FedEx, to parcel delivery. Even your neighbor is not allowed to put that party invitation in your mailbox. (If you are the type of person who reports neighbors who do so to the USPS, you probably don’t receive many party invitations in the first place.)

Until recently, the best defense of the post office monopoly was that, in all honesty, it worked fairly well. Sure, it was a monopoly that somehow managed to lose money each year, but at least the post office did a good job at its primary job of delivering the mail. You put a stamp on a piece of mail and it was delivered the next day if it was going nearby; two days later if it was going a little further; and three days if it was going a long distance. Big-picture concerns about USPS finances could be overlooked because stamps were cheap and the mail reliably went where it was supposed to go. That is, unfortunately, no longer the case.

A recent report on the post office by federal inspectors general found that, on average, on-time delivery of first-class mail has dropped 16 percent over the past year in the exact areas the post office has targeted for improvements. In St. Louis, over just two days in June at the downtown mail processing center, 2.6 million pieces of mail were delayed. There was no weather or mechanical reason for the delays, just bad operational management. Worst of all, sending mail in St. Louis puts your personal finances at risk. There have been multiple federal court convictions in the past year of St. Louis-area postal workers for stealing checks from the mail. The author knows two people who have had their identity stolen and finances ruined in this manner.

If the post office is no longer doing its main job well but is continuing to lose money, the entire system should be opened to competition. I’m well aware that FedEx won’t deliver a Christmas card for 78 cents (the current USPS rate), but if someone wants to pay more to make sure their Christmas card reaches Grandma before Christmas Day, why shouldn’t they be able to? UPS and FedEx should absolutely have a right to deliver first-class mail and place it into a mailbox where it will be better protected from rain and theft. (A reminder that you buy your own mailbox—the government doesn’t give it to you.)

USPS has long had a less-promoted role as a jobs program for political supporters and interest groups. When he was serving as a presidential advisor in the 1960s, former U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan famously recommended changing to twice-a-day mail delivery, for the sole reason that it would allow the federal government to double the number of mail carriers.

It seems that, at present, the purpose of USPS is to deliver mostly junk mail in order to fund over $400 billion in postal-retiree pension and healthcare costs. Maintaining a failing monopoly to benefit those retirees may be politically popular, but it’s hardly good public policy. As the use of mail continues to decline, hard choices have to be made. Rural post offices shouldn’t be kept open just to appease rural interest groups, and urban post offices shouldn’t be protected against competition just to appease federal employee unions.

I would favor an attempt to sell the entire post office off to private operators. In 2025, the mail is no longer a necessary function of government (I will agree that it used to be). However, simply allowing other operators to compete against USPS by removing the mailbox monopoly would be a great step, too. You get to choose which phone, television, and internet services you use. You should have choice for your mail delivery, too.

The post Let’s Privatize the Post Office appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are many arguments for maintaining the current post office monopoly on mail, and economic efficiency isn’t one of them. Arguments include:

• The necessity of subsidizing rural life (especially really, really, rural life)
• General feelings about preserving “public goods,” as if getting a folder of advertisements delivered to your door each day is a “public good.”

And the one argument supporters of the post office usually don’t say out loud:

• Maintaining a small army of allied voters on the public payroll.

There are several ways the nation could go about privatizing the post office. The easiest would be to simply remove its monopoly protections against other companies delivering mail. That wouldn’t be privatization, but it would give people a choice to use other options for routine mail services.

Even with all the advantages the post office has over Fed Ex, UPS, etc., such as not paying taxes, exemption from parking regulations, and so on, it still manages to lose a lot of money each year.

Let’s face it. In the modern world, mail is no longer a necessary public service for the vast majority of people. For the people who still need it, there is no reason they should get subsidized service paid for (even if indirectly) by the rest of us. If you don’t want to adapt to technology or choose to live in outer Alaska, that’s fine, but you should pay more for your mail.

I write this at Christmas time, which is the only time that many people make use of the mail anymore. My family is sending out Christmas cards now, and we will pay the same price whether we mail a card to neighbors across the street or to friends and family in New York. Those price mandates and mail protections are absurd. I’d like us to sell the entire post office to the highest bidder, but short of that opening it up to competition is the next best thing.

The post Yes, We Should Privatize the Post Office appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this last streetcar election in Kansas City, residents who lived within the boundaries of the TDD were required to follow these steps in order to have their vote counted:

• Obtain and complete the official ballot request form
• Obtain proof of voter registration;
• Return the ballot request and the proof of voter registration by May 23 at 5:00 p.m.

When the ballot itself was received,

• The ballot had to be completed and placed inside a white envelope;
• That white envelope had to be placed inside a blue envelope; and signed in the presence of a notary;
• That blue envelope had to be received by the Court by 5:00 pm on August 1.

To put things in perspective, civil rights groups sued the state of Missouri simply for requiring photo identification to vote. But when the law required voters to request ballots, provide proof of registration and seek out a notary, those same groups were silent.

At least one Kansas City voter tried to play by these Byzantine rules and had his ballot discarded. According to KSHB, John Toms mailed in his ballot 5 days in advance only to have the court claim it wasn’t received on time. There was no USPS post-mark on the rejected envelope.

Multiply these burdens to voters by the 230 TDDs in Missouri that together collect an annual average of $50 million in sales taxes alone and it is clear that this is something that needs more stringent taxpayer oversight. HB 1234 is a move in the right direction.

Click below to read the entire testimony

The post Taxing District Reform Testimony appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One might ask, if the city’s payroll tax is illegal, why hasn’t it been challenged before? After all, the tax has been in place since the late 1980s, ever since the city reformed its business license fees. The explanation here may come in the answer to another question: Who pays the payroll tax? The city of Saint Louis’s private-sector payroll was more than $11 billion in 2014. If all businesses paid the payroll tax evenly, the city should have received more than $56 million. In fact, the city earned only about $37 million. Most of that gap comes from the fact that nonprofits (along with government) do not pay the payroll tax. While that sounds charitable, it’s important to remember that Saint Louis City’s top employers are large, wealthy nonprofits like St. Louis University and BJC Healthcare. Small nonprofits like the Show-Me Institute have an impact as well.

But it doesn’t end there. Companies are regularly given payroll tax exemptions as part of incentive packages to keep them in the city. Anthem and Polsinelli are two such companies and are listed in the previously mentioned lawsuit. Do companies with legal departments large and savvy enough to know that the payroll tax has constitutional issues receive exemptions? Or is it simply clout that allows large companies to avoid the tax? Whatever the case, of the top ten employers in Saint Louis City in 2013, only one might have been paying the full payroll tax:

With the payroll tax, we have a policy that not only raises legal questions, but is also implemented unevenly. Does the full rate only apply to for-profit, private businesses without the clout to get a tax break or the wherewithal to make a fuss? If so, the city might want to reevaluate its tax policy, whether it is legal or not.

The post Does Saint Louis Have an Illegal Tax? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here are five market-oriented resolutions for a more prosperous 2014:

1. Privatize the United States Postal Service (USPS). The United States should follow the lead of other Western nations, including Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Britain, in deregulating and privatizing mail service. It is a form of economic insanity, which can only be explained by the power of the postal union and its political friends, to require daily delivery of mountains of mostly junk mail to U.S. households. The USPS should have to compete with FedEx, UPS and other private concerns in the delivery of first-class mail.

2. Follow suit with other public services. Look for other ways to benefit consumers and taxpayers by deregulating or privatizing other public services, with airports, roads and public utilities at the top of the list. There is a reason vacation travel is much cheaper and more convenient within European and Mediterranean countries than it is in North America and the Caribbean. Europe has widespread airport privatization and greater reliance on market forces to allocate scarce resources. As travel writer Rick Steves says on his website, “Ryanair routinely flies from London to any one of dozens of European cities for less than $20” (through its most heavily discounted fares paid weeks or months in advance).

3. Do not buy the “living wage” rhetoric. Recognize the folly of calls to increase the minimum wage — now $7.25 nationally — to $10 or more at a time of sky-high youth and minority unemployment. Why would a fast-food restaurant — or any other business — want to hire someone for $10 an hour who adds, say, only $6 an hour in additional profit, before counting the cost of his or her wages? To do so would be to accept a $4-an-hour loss. Raising the minimum wage thus has the perverse effect of causing unemployment. It artificially reduces the demand for labor and makes the first rung on the job ladder higher than it ought to be for young and unskilled workers.

4. Break the health insurance oligopoly. The next stage in the seemingly never-ending debate about health care, now entering its sixth year, might be between full-scale nationalization — as one way of rescuing the Affordable Care Act from going into a full-scale “death spiral” in 2014 — and the creation of a much more market-oriented system than the status quo ante. The starting point for a market-oriented approach should be in freeing — and, indeed, forcing — insurers to compete across state lines on both price and range of product offerings, without a great assortment of government dictates or mandates at either the state or federal level.

That would give individual consumers the right to buy low-cost, low-price health insurance — from a far larger universe of sellers. And it would cause big insurers to lose the monopolistic or oligopolistic positions they have built up over the years through assiduous lobbying at statehouses around the country. Their cozy arrangements with state regulatory offices have resulted in mandates to cover everything from hair pieces and contraceptives to acupuncture and marriage counseling. Opening the insurance market to open-ended interstate commerce will cause all producers — both insurers and health care providers — to reduce costs and look for more and better ways to satisfy the health care customer.

5. Choose growth over class warfare. Be prepared for the proponents of big government to try to turn every debate — whether it is about health care, privatization, the minimum wage, entitlement reform, curbing the power and privileges of public sector unions or any other issue — into another rant on what President Obama has called “the defining issue of our time”: namely, income inequality. However, the president and others greatly exaggerate income disparities between different quintiles in the distribution of income by ignoring the effects of high taxes on high earners and, for lower earners, the effects of income tax rebates, food stamps and other welfare. One study finds that income inequality actually declined between 1993 and 2007, after adjusting for taxes and transfer payments.

But the real takeaway here is what the poor and the middle class really need to achieve a better life for themselves and their children. That is faster growth, not more income redistribution. It is the opportunity for self-improvement, not the fallback of welfare dependency.

Andrew B. Wilson is resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Let Market Guide Us To Prosperity In ’14 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It now seems the proposal will not materialize. Congress passed legislation last month, which President Barack Obama signed, that obligates the USPS to maintain six-day delivery. The USPS may still alter the kind of mail it delivers on Saturday, with plans to eliminate first-class mail delivery and pick-up service while continuing delivery of packages and pharmaceutical drugs on Saturdays.

Officials with the USPS have warned that a $47 billion bailout, which taxpayers would fund, may soon be necessary if it is not given more freedom to change course. Everybody knows that the Postal Service needs to cut costs (or increase revenue), but Congress is standing in the way. This is all part of a broader pattern: It is precisely this inability and/or unwillingness to confront economic reality that made the sequester necessary.

One of two scenarios seems likely: Service will be cut to avoid bailing out the USPS or Saturday service will continue at the price of funding a bailout. This is a false alternative, one that the free market would not present. The proper course of action — privatizing and abolishing the monopoly status of the USPS — would yield a twofold benefit. Companies would compete with one another to not only keep their costs sustainable, but to continually improve their services. Moreover, if one such company failed to maintain financial solvency, it would simply go out of business. In short, these forces would function to keep customers satisfied without putting their property at risk (through taxpayer-financed bailouts).

The dilemma about the USPS is totally unnecessary and such situations can be solved if we keep the government out of business and out of our pockets.

The post We May Still Have Mail Delivery On Saturday appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post All Options Should Be on the Table for North Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is nothing wrong with a business manipulating its prices and practices when it is confronted with a budgetary dilemma. But there is something wrong when it fails to adequately serve customers while the state prohibits competition. In the private sector, businesses compete to provide the best for the least. In the case of the USPS, however, customer satisfaction can simply be sacrificed for financial health. After all, why worry about quality customer service when a competitor cannot put you out of business?

The least weak argument in favor of public mail delivery is that private enterprise could not profitably serve rural areas. For example, my grandfather often patronizes the post office in Centertown, Mo., a small town in Cole County. He prefers it to the one in Jefferson City, as there is never a wait. My guess is that the privatization of the USPS would spell the end of the Centertown branch, as well as countless other small town post offices across the state. Or perhaps they would remain, but mail delivery to and from such remote locations would be significantly more expensive.

Public support is likely necessary if many rural areas are to maintain their post offices, but this is not a justification for such support. Many things are relatively expensive for rural dwellers (e.g., Internet, gas to get to the grocery store); others are comparatively cheap (e.g., land).  The reverse is true for urbanites. What sense does it make to subsidize something simply because it is comparatively expensive in a given area?  The bottom line is that living in a particular locale comes with its unique set of costs. The most sensible route to take is to stop artificially reducing the cost of mail service in rural areas; let those who remain in these areas face the commensurate costs.

Privatizing the USPS, in short, makes both practical and moral sense.

The post One Day Down, Five To Go! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post McGraw Milhaven – David Stokes on KTRS appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal wrote a similar piece about the incentives handed out for the Power & Light District in downtown Kansas City. We at the Show-Me Institute have long-criticized the wasteful use of incentives in this state and around Kansas City. David Stokes has heavily criticized the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and has continuously advocated for statewide TIF reform. Last week, Michael Rathbone and I put forward a proposal to make Missouri more competitive and to mitigate the use of tax credits in Missouri. Soon we will publish an essay about the tax on pass-through income in the state, a topic about which Brenda Talent and I wrote in the Kansas City Star last month. Indeed, a lot can and will happen in the state over the next few months as the legislative session opens. Missourians who want to move the state forward do not have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines.

The post VIDEO: The New York Times Covers the Kansas City Border War appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is an example of an industry where there are strong private alternatives to a government-provided service. USPS has a monopoly on first class mail, but UPS and FedEx provide consumers with many other options to meet shipping needs.

As I read James Shuls’ blog post “What is Public Education?” it occurred to me that traditional public schools and the postal service have more in common than one might expect.

Public schools and post offices obviously provide different services, but they are both trailing behind their private counterparts. These government services are highly regulated, in what I assume is an attempt to make them well-run. But the opposite is true. Under these conditions, the postal service cannot adapt to the changing marketplace as easily as UPS and FedEx. Similarly, public schools cannot respond to changing school and student needs as swiftly as private and charter schools.

The success of UPS, FedEx, charter schools, and private schools shows us that people often prefer non-government services and (gasp) receive a better product.

Traditional public schools are not always able to attract and retain the best teachers, nor can they remediate or remove the worst. Bad schools stay open when they should close. And regulations prevent students from using technology to learn at their own pace.

I am certainly no anarchist, but I am rational enough to see when markets are better than government. Businesses thrive when they are able to adapt and compete. Just as restrictive burdens on the USPS have hindered the organization’s performance, government regulations are stifling education. In Saint Louis, for example, it often takes more than 100 days to remove a low-performing teacher.

We need to take a clue from the postal service: freedom, not regulation, produces better results.

The post Public Education Going The Way Of The Post Office appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The following graph shows the trend of subsidies to private industries in Missouri. I used Gross Domestic Product by State data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to produce the graph.

Some may dismiss these subsidies because they are small relative to Missouri’s gross state output (they equal 0.27 percent of GSP, on average). However, this view ignores the big picture; it ignores what Missouri is giving up when it gives handouts to private industries.

This is a considerable amount of money on an absolute level. According to the BEA data, the government allocates an average of $539 million in subsidies to private industries in Missouri each year. Many other programs compete for this money, so the government and taxpayers face an opportunity cost equal to the amount of the subsidy. This money could pay for essential services, reduce the state budget deficit, or be returned to taxpayers to spend, save, and invest in the private sector.

Trend of Subsidies in Missouri by Industry Category (Private Sector)

The post Missouri Spends Billions Propping Up Private Industries appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The city is cracking down on the long tradition of pretzel vendors along Jamieson Avenue in south St. Louis. Because of complaints, city officials say, they must enforce an ordinance that prohibits the vendors.

Kunkel began selling pretzels in 1980 after retiring from the U.S. Postal Service. He first worked at Grand Avenue near Carondelet Park, but later moved to the Lindenwood Park neighborhood, where he had more success.

He became a fixture on Saturday mornings. Until a couple of years ago, he was the lone vendor in the median at Jamieson and Fyler avenues. He sold pretzels for 50 cents.

Then brothers John and Reuben Galvin set up shop five blocks south in Jamieson’s median at Pernod Avenue.
[…]
John Galvin insists he wasn’t trying to run Kunkel out of business. He was always careful to not sell at his spot. The median was just too good a place to pass up.

“You can hit people on both sides,” Galvin said, adding that the city has few similar medians remaining at stop signs.
[…]
Kunkel says his customers called the city complaining about the Galvins. They thought they were doing Kunkel a favor by targeting his competition.

But it turns out both parties had been operating outside the law. The city forbids street vending outside of downtown.

“You can’t get rid of them without getting rid of me,” Kunkel said.

Todd Waelterman, director of streets, said city inspectors don’t typically enforce the rule without complaints. During the past month, some residents said the vendors blocked their view of traffic, and the city had to act.

Although it is always unfortunate to see a successful entrepreneur shut down by the government, if there are legitimate safety concerns, this move could be for the best. After all, major thoroughfares like Jamieson are primarily for driving, not selling goods and services. However, if the the city could institute some minimal safety rules, there should be nothing to stop these successful businessmen from serving hungry drivers. If that proves impossible, there are other, less busy, intersections where I have encountered pretzel vendors plying their trade without impeding traffic or endangering anyone — some of the intersections around Tower Grove Park, for instance. Hopefully, the city can ensure public safety with a few simple rules and go back to leaving the pretzel vendors in benign neglect.

The post City of Saint Louis Twisting Pretzel Vendors out of Business appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As I said back in August, the Postal Service’s decline seems to be inevitable. USPS is subsidized not by tax dollars but by regulatory capture: The Private Express Statutes limit private mail carriers from delivering mail to mailboxes and from charging less than $3 to deliver a letter.

Luckily for the USPS, it doesn’t have to compete in a free market, where its work schedule would be drastically insufficient to compete successfully with others. UPS and FedEx don’t have the same regulatory luxury, and consequently have some locations that are open 24 hours a day and on weekends, because that is what customers want. Private delivery companies also price shipments based on distance traveled, which makes more sense than the flat rate that the USPS levies for first-class letters. Mailing a letter to one’s landlord in the next town over has a lower marginal cost for a postal service than mailing a letter to a cousin across the country, but first-class USPS prices don’t reflect that.

Unlike private delivery services, the USPS does not face direct competitive pressure, and so has found it difficult to adjust to changing technology and market conditions. This has left the agency well past its prime, if that prime ever really existed. James Bovard pointed out in a review of USPS history that government-provided postal services were originally conceived as revenue generators, and that regulators had to actively stamp out competitors who were providing more reliable, trustworthy services at lower prices:

The early colonists inherited the tradition of government postal monopoly from Britain. In sixteenth-century England, the Tudor monarch outlawed private post in order to hinder communication between potentially rebellious subjects. Later, the monopoly was justified as a revenue raiser for the Crown. But even 270 years ago, private carriers were breaking the law and providing the public with better service than the government:

In 1709, Charles Povey used bell ringers to collect letters, which he delivered anywhere in London for a halfpenny. The Post Office prosecuted Povey, who was convicted and fined, and then it adopted his system for the government service.[2]

Since 1709, not much has changed in how governments run their postal monopolies.

In 1789 the Constitution granted the federal government the right to set up a post office, but it did not prohibit competition from private services. However, the first postal act, in 1792, did effectively outlaw private competition.

The first postage rates were extremely high, as Congress tried to force easterners to subsidize the more expensive service to outlying settlements on the western frontier. As the Postal Service’s official history notes, “Until 1851, the cost of sending a single sheet letter 40 miles was either 6› or 8›. When the letter traveled over 400 miles, it cost 25›. These prices doubled, tripled, or quadrupled with each additional sheet.”[3] In 1843, “it cost 18 1/2› to send a letter from New York City to Troy, New York, but only 12 1/2› to send a barrel of flour the same distance.”[4] The government charged 25› to deliver a letter from Philadelphia to New York.

Henry Wells (later of Wells-Fargo fame) entered the market, charged 6› a letter, and delivered faster.[5] In the Boston area alone, over a hundred private express companies carried the mail. Private companies delivered letters directly to addressees’ homes, while the government still required people to pick up their mail at the nearest post office.

As private business flourished, government postal revenues declined. The postmaster general admitted in 1843 that many people thought the government’s monopoly was “odious,” but insisted that it had to be preserved for the good of the country.[6] In 1845, Congress tightened the laws prohibiting competition and increased the penalties for violators. In 1851, Congress lowered postal rates and began providing a direct subsidy for postal operations.

An 1844 competitor, the American Letter Mail Company, was founded and operated by notable proto-libertarian Lysander Spooner. This competition was so effective and efficient that “The end result was that in 1851 Congress again had to lower the postal rates to a uniform 3 cents” from previous prices “of 18 3/4 cents or 25 cents.” Lawmakers simultaneously put Spooner out of business for good by strengthening the USPS monopoly laws.

The notion that government postal services may have been necessary to provide a crucial public service in the absence of trustworthy private alternatives doesn’t stand up to the historical record, and is even less justifiable in today’s electronic information age, in which private companies are the primary means by which most people send and receive sensitive communication.

Missourians — and the United States in general — would greatly benefit if the USPS lost its monopoly protection so that costs could be reduced through the efficiency of competitive pressure, rather than through elimination of services.

The post Maybe When Service Drops to One Day a Week, We Can Eliminate Its Monopoly Protection? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With a $6 billion budget deficit, the USPS surely needs an overhaul.  But the USPS has taken the wrong tack. It should be improving its service, rather than simply cutting it. Many businesses and individuals rely on the USPS for important mail; reductions to service fail to address that, instead exacerbating the existing problems. The advent of the Internet has made USPS service redundant in some areas, and a decrease in service would only serve to push its usefulness even farther to the wayside.

With the inevitable decline of USPS service, however, lawmakers need to reduce the legal restrictions that currently hamper other potential mail services. Although the USPS does not receive taxpayer funds, it has essentially been given a regulatory monopoly on certain types of delivery services. Mailboxes, by law, can only be accessed by postal service employees. The Private Express Statutes limit private mail carriers from delivering mail unless it has the proper USPS postage or is “extremely important” and priced at more than $3. These statutes stifle competition and hurt consumers.

Even long before the advent of the Internet and telephones, the USPS was inefficient. In 1844, abolitionist and individualist lawyer Lysander Spooner created the American Letter Mail Company to ferry letters to Boston, Philadelphia, New York, or Washington, D.C., for a third of the price that the USPS charged at the time. New legislation eventually halted his business, but his efforts did force the USPS to significantly lower its rates. The giant postal monopoly of today no longer has to respond to this sort of cost-cutting competition, because federal protection keeps it insulated from those who might provide a similar service more efficiently. Instead, it can get away with practices like paying employees to quit without having to address the real reasons that it cannot make a profit, while private companies like FedEx and UPS are flourishing.

It’s certainly a good idea for the USPS to cut jobs and make its process more efficient, in order to meet its budget constraints. But sustainable efficiency will not occur without real, free-market competition. Simply paying people to quit does not address the growing superfluity of the USPS, and instead makes the mail service slower and more expensive.

The post Snail Mail Payouts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I assume this piece was not original to the Post, but it may have been. I remember about 15 years ago when a state rep from south Saint Louis County wrote a similarly themed article for the Post, and then got in a lot of (political) trouble when it turned out she had just copied it from somewhere else. I remember her name, but don’t feel like printing it. She did lose her next election, if I recall correctly. (All that stuff predated the web by a few years, so no free links are available.)

Not everything he (or she) writes here is crazy or wrong, so feel free to take my lack of comment on certain areas as being along the lines of agreement in those instances:

Dear Tea Party Members:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly, Ameren UE, regulated by the US Department of Energy.

All true, as it goes, but are you really that dependent on the government to get you out of bed in the morning? And didn’t the alarm clock get built in the first place by the mechanics of the free market?

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility, Missouri American Water.

This is the first flat-out error: Missouri-American is a regulated, private company, not a municipal water utility.

The water was heated by the public natural gas monopoly, Laclede Gas,

Laclede Gas is a private company.

and disposed of by the the municipal sewer utility, Metropolitian Sewer District of St. Louis.

A government entity — ask Tom Sullivan about them.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the Federal Communication Commission regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

This totally ignores the role that private companies and people played in all of this, and ignores the fundamental question of whether this regulation is necessary. I can guarantee you the television needs of Americans would be met just fine without government regulation.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

This is all true, and a legitimate role for various levels of government, but let’s not pretend that nobody in America was able to feed their families before the government got involved. A nation of farmers fed itself just fine.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory,

Does the author really think people could not tell time before the government got involved?

I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation,

The private provision of highways is very common in other countries.

possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service.

The Post Office versus FedEx and UPS? Enough said.

If I had kids, I would probably drop them off at the nearby public school funded by the state and federal Department of Education.

Many Americans choose private education for their children for a number of reasons, the failure of certain public school systems among them. Clearly, there are many excellent public school systems as well.

At lunch time, I pick up a bite to eat at a nearby restaurant that has been inspected by the local department of health which enforces state and federal guidelines for food safety and workplace safety. I then return to my cubical where I listen to the local FCC regulated radio station

As with television, I will guarantee you that, beyond distributing the channel spectrum as a common good, government involvement is not necessary for radio to operate, at all.

as I work on a computer that has been certified by the Consumer Products Safety Comission to be safe and compliant with FCC Part 15B regulations.

The computer industry has grown as it has during the past 40 years because of private markets, not government involvement.

Sometimes instead of work, I go on a business trip and use an airplane inspected by the Nation Transportation Safety Bureau to travel. But first I have to take off my shoes and anything metal as a walk through the the inspection station set up by the Transportation Safety Adminstration.

Watching grandpa get a body cavity inspection because he shares a nickname with a terrorist is not an argument for government success.

After checking the weather with the National Weather Service, the Federal Aviation Adminstration gives the all clear for the airplane taxi off the tarmac and to take off.

Then, after spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the US Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I drive back to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes

People CAN build things on their own, you know.

and the fire marshall’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

It’s a sad view of society that assumes we would all descend into chaos without government force — perhaps a true view, but still a sad one. I tend to think people cooperate in many more ways without government coercion than the author does.

At home, I can call up my grandparents on a cellular telephone that is FCC Part 15B complaint and designated on a frequency regulated by the National Telecomunication and Information Administration.

As with computers, the telecommunications revolution is attributable far more to private initiative than to government control and regulation.

I then log onto the Internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration, an agency of the Department of Defense which is the parent agency of the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps who are defending our country so that I can enjoy my freedom to post on Freerepublic and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

End of letter. Many of the points the writer makes are valid to varying degrees, but he discounts or ignores the role individuals and private actors played in many of the advancements he credits to government. What is also missing is any even remote debate over whether or not these things are the proper role of government as set by our Constitution. As it stands, the letter makes Americans sound like a nation of people who could not blow their nose (the closest to a clean scatological reference I could think of) without government involvement and approval.

Seriously, you thank the government for helping you get out of bed in the morning? That is not the type of life I want to live and not the type of country I want the United States to become.

The post Intriguing, Yet Frightening, Comment Over at Political Fix appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

They are contract mail carriers, a phenomenon that is starting to take
root in the Kansas City area. It has union members and politicians
squawking, but Postal Service accountants are smiling.

Because of rising costs and lower revenues at the U.S. Postal Service, the move toward private mail carriers is a great way to reduce costs, especially for a government-run service that hasn’t produced a profit in the past few years. Yet, as always, unions and politicians see a problem in saving taxpayers some money:

Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, has introduced a bill to stop
contracting mail carriers except in the most sparsely populated rural
areas. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, is a co-sponsor.

The primary complaint that the politicians and unions have made is that mail carriers handle sensitive documents that should only be delivered by postal employees. Well, last time I checked, many delivery services other than the USPS handle sensitive documents, and they deliver them to their destinations on time. It’s not like the USPS delivers classified documents from CIA headquarters to the White House.

Overall, what the USPS is doing is the first smart move in ages that will facilitate cutting costs and saveing money for millions of Americans. Maybe, for once, I will receive the mail I really need on time — if it ever gets to St. Louis.

The post The U.S Postal Service is Privatizing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.