So you think that every state should have its own postal service? How cheap and effective do you think that would be? What is the problem with the Postal service anyway? They will pick up a letter from your porch and deliver it anywhere in the country for less than 50 cents. That is not a bad deal. IRS? Do you think the country can run on zero income? How naive can you get? AG? EPA? AMTRAK? These are national issues. The state and local governments cannot handle national issues. What the hell do you think a national government is for. How would you handle it? Break the US down into 50 countries? You want to go through customs just to pass from Mississippi to Louisiana. Get real! How about the GOP shutting down government? Think there were political reasons there?
It is a massive money loser. The only reason it still exists is because federal laws prohibit UOS or FedEx from delivering first class packages. The private market could handle 90% of the volume much better. The country needing income does not make the IRS a good agency. It is inefficient and ineffective, by every measure. Each branch office makes different determinations on specific tax items, so what is a deduction in New York may not be a deduction in Dallas. There are no uniform standards, no effective audit procedures, and no common sense applied, they overcomplicate any and every issue possible. If you have ever dealt with the IRS you know that what I say is true. The entire service is void of intelligence.
The POst Office does not rely on taxpayer funds to function. They lose money because Congress takes $5 billion off the top every year, something they do to no other federal agency. Fed-Ex and UPS do not have near nearly the infrastructure of the USPS. In fact 30% of Fed-Ex Ground is delivered by the USPS. The private carriers do not come to every house every day to retrieve mail. You have to call them to pick up mail. USPS prices are far lower than private carriers and the volume they carry is far higher. Yes, there is inefficiency, yes there are too many post offices. But the point Gyver was trying to make was that it would be better being handled by the states. How efficient would 50 post offices be? How would we calculate rates with 50 different systems? The problem with the mail losing money is Congress, not the USPS. Again, I do not maintain that the IRS is efficient and effective. What I maintain is that it must be done by the federal government, not by the states and certainly not by local government. What kind of uniform standards would we have with 50 states collecting federal taxes? How much political interference would 50 state legislators have versus one federal Congress? Focus on the point of my position. There are certain national responsibilities that must be done by the federal government. It's the whole idea of a federal system--states handle state issues and feds handle fed issues. Can more privatization be done? In many cases yes. Can agencies be improved? Certainly. But to just say that these agencies should disappear and the work be done by the states is ignoring just how bad state governments are.
The point gyver was making is the waste involved in these federal programs. The private sector is more efficient and several land issues would be better handled by states.
I've asked you before . . . WHY do you imagine this? What evidence exists for the states handling national public land better than the US government?
Because the national land is in the states boundaries for one. The Feds have already proven that they can't manage the land without politicizing. If it's under state control it's harder for the Washington politicians to cut backtoom deals with corporations and get richer off of it.
Irrelevant. They are also in the federal boundaries. This is not evidence. Not only is it unproven that the feds manage land poorly, but neither is it apparent that the states are less politicized. Most people would say that states are far more politicized. For evidence one need only observe what Huey Long did with state lands and Texaco, enriching the Long family permanently.
