If you have a government monopoly advantage on any service, whether postal, education, transportation, garbage collection, health care, etc., the standards of service drop.
Showing posts with label U.S. Postal Service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Postal Service. Show all posts
02 November 2009
A National Assessment of Educational Progress Study
The U.S. Department of Education has released a study of the fourth and eighth grade reading and math testing performed in 2007 compared to that of 2005. They found that 15 states lowered standards in one or more of the tests, while 8 states raised their standard on one or more test. Using the standards of 2007, 17 states required proficiency in fourth grade reading at a Basic Level, while 31 set their standards below the Basic Level. The standardization of the requirements was performed according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). State testing is required by the No Child Left Behind Act. By law, all students are required to be proficient in reading and math by 2014.
However, the states do the testing. It is clear that in their desire to achieve the results required, the government-run schools are lowering the standard requirement, rather than requiring the students to hurdle the bar. The NAEP standard in Tennessee is 198, while it is 254 in Massachusetts. Maine, Oklahoma, and Wyoming lowered their proficiency standard in both math and reading in both the fourth and eighth grades. Maine at least maintained a standard at the Basic Level, but Oklahoma and Wyoming did not.
If you have a government monopoly advantage on any service, whether postal, education, transportation, garbage collection, health care, etc., the standards of service drop.
25 October 2009
The Magnificently Efficient U.S. Postal Service
One of the relatively few things the federal government does that is actually constitutional, is the operation of the U.S. Postal Service. One can question whether this function ever should have been a government function, but it was made so by our Constitution. Now one would think that the government would take its actual constitutional duties more seriously than its unconstitutional actions. The reverse often seems to be true, though there is also a problem in that Congress' taking something seriously only means that the politics involved is taken seriously, not the actual delivery of any real service. The Postal Service has come under renewed evaluation as an indicator of how a government-run health care system will evolve, not that we do not have many more direct indicators of that!
John Potter, the Postmaster General, says the U.S. Postal Service is in acute financial crisis. He has been the Postmaster General for the last 8 years. In FY 2009, the Postal Service lost $7 billion. Its mail volume decreased by 28 billion pieces compared to the year before. The recession economy has reduced its business, as well as the Internet and e-mail. Its Christmas mail has been way down. In response, Potter cut $6 billion of expenses and 40,000 employees. Despite this, Potter expects the Postal Service to lose $5 billion every year for many years.
Potter bragged that the fleet of 219,000 vehicles included 44,000 alternative-fuel-capable vehicles. I'll bet they cost a pretty penny to buy. Most people do not buy these vehicles because it is difficult to rationalize on an economic basis. But if you are a government-run business, where politics is everything, you have to back the government story, however fictional, that man-made CO2 emissions are a catastrophic threat to the planet.
This U.S. Postal Service always had plenty of positions considered to be ripe political plums. Local postmasters were often chosen by politicians. Nowadays, that still happens, but also political correctness, rather than on-the-job skills, dictates who gets many of these positions. White males need not apply in many cases. Having a relative in the Postal Service, I have heard many a story that would make any real businessman's blood boil.
U.S. Postal Service facilities were also long considered great pork. No doubt, many a facility is badly located and sized as a result. Politics still limits the closing of many of these facilities.
It is interesting to observe that the U.S. Postal Service tried competing with Federal Express and UPS on next-day deliveries and found that it could not. It contracted its next-day service to Fed Ex in the end. Of course, it charges more than Fed Ex does.
Shades of government rationing of health care services, the U.S. Postal Service is now thinking it will have to cut services. It wants to cut Saturday deliveries, which it says will save it $3 billion a year. It also wants to offer new products, as the postal services of Japan and France do. In other words, it wants to compete more with the private sector, which should be considered unconstitutional. Evidence would suggest it cannot compete successfully. But, those long lines waiting for counter service are a tempting market. They could offer them sodas, coffee, candy and other survival goods to enable their captive customers a chance to survive the long waits.
15 August 2009
Hudgins - Postal Service Style Health Care
Ed Hudgins, Director of Advocacy at the Atlas Society, has written an excellent commentary on Obama's denial that his health care plan will create a government-only health care industry. Obama said that just as Fed Ex and UPS manage to compete with the U.S. Postal Service, so will private insurers compete with the government insurance "option." Obama ran on to mention that it is the USPS that has problems. Hudgins points out that this should worry us. Do we really want a health care industry run as badly as the U.S. postal service? He also notes that the postal service did not have a monopoly on first-class mail until 1845 and that private companies could pick up mail at the post office for subscribers and deliver it to their homes and businesses until 1872. Similarly, it is likely that the government will move over time to restrict competition to their health insurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)