The Post Office Gets It

I can't believe this, but for the second time in two weeks, I'm singing the praises of the US Postal Service. Why? Because they get it. Someone there understands that when you don't have the money, you don't ignore the fact and keep spending. You make cuts. From a CNNMoney report:

According to documents obtained by CNNMoney, the United States Postal Service is appealing to Congress to remove collective bargaining restrictions in order to lay off 120,000 workers. It also wants congressional approval to replace existing government health care and retirement plans.

The post office claims it needs to eliminate 220,000 positions, or more than 30% of its staff by 2015, but only 100,000 of those positions can be made through attrition. The other 120,000 must come from lay offs, according to the documents.

"To restore the Postal Service to financial viability, it is imperative that we have the ability to reduce our workforce rapidly," the USPS wrote.

Two weeks ago, the USPS announced the plan to close 3,600 offices. Now plans to cut workforce. How about that. Nip at the edges to save the whole. Not raise the price of stamps, thereby driving away yet more customers. Cut costs. The picture will be complete if the USPS lowers the cost of postage. I won't hold my breath. How can I? I'm singing me some praises! Rah-rah, USPS! Dare I even dream of selling off this antiquated beast? That would be so appropriate, but hey, let's not get greedy. A move in the right direction warms the heart and clears the bleary eyes.

Feh. Congress will probably stand in the way.

Predictably, Deal Struck

Without surprise, we are arriving at the 11th Hour, and voila! A debt deal is struck! Completely predictable. Let's see how it follows through, for I saw it coming thusly:

1. A deal will be done.
2. The chest thumping on both sides will continue right up to the moment when the Kumbaya press conference happens.
3. The cuts to the budget will be heavier on symbolism than substance, by a ton.

#1? Check. #2? Well, the chest thumping part is a check. The press conference shouldn't be far behind.

As for #3? Well, since the devil is always in the details, this may take a day or two to sort out, but I have no doubts it will play accordingly.

Indy Star Reports on Kole Campaign

Indianapolis Star reporter Carrie Ritchie interviewed me recently about the campaign and about Hamilton County politics. Here's a link to the report.

Though Republicans have a strong grip on county offices, Kole thinks he can take some votes from Levine on Nov. 2.

"I think I'm a little more aggressively fiscally conservative and I can step to the right on economic issues," Kole said.

Kole worries the county spends too much money and believes it could make deeper cuts, especially now that it's struggling to balance its budget.

The budget and number of county employees has always been too high. Now that the county cannot afford to keep a bloated payroll, it should be obvious to anyone that the time to cut deeply is now.

Pro-War Senate Democrats Pass Defense Budget

Let's see... The Dems have roughly a 60-40 majority in the Senate. Republicans hold the reputation for being hawks. Can't wage two wars without big money. $628 Billion in the bill. Will the Dems oppose their Administration? From Politico:

Coming in at dawn Saturday in the middle of a snowstorm, the Senate finally caught up with its budget calendar, approving a $626 billion bill to fund the Defense Department for the fiscal year that began nearly three months ago.

The lopsided 88—10 vote followed a 63-35 roll call in which most Republicans stood back and again forced Democrats to come up with the super-majority needed to waive budget rules before passage. The measure now goes to the White House where President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the bill into law to end the impasse.

So, only 10 Democrats voted against? I guess it's fair to call bullshit whenever a Democrat claims the desire to hem in 'the military-industrial complex'.

Nice, how the media buried this story. Almost like it didn't happen. Must be nice to have a complicit media so as not to upset the Democratic base that would largely like to see us out of Iraq (esp) & Afghanistan, and to curb the military budget. They can't count on the people they elected to do their will. But, if there's one thing we can count on with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, it's gigantic spending at every turn.

The Right Thing To Cut

In a time when budgets are tight, cuts must be made. You hear that a lot, but I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter whether the budget is tight or not. Some things just shouldn't be purchased, no matter how flush you are with cash, because they aren't proper for you to buy.

I don't buy Russian language books. Even though I have a friend who is from Russia and could read them, I leave it to her to buy the Russian language books for herself.

So, I am thrilled that Indianapolis' mayor is putting the city's arts budget on the chopping block. From the Indy Star:

Mayor Greg Ballard's plan to cut public funding for the arts by a third, to $1 million, next year dominated the discussion by about 25 speakers in front of a crowd of roughly 100. The council is scheduled to vote on the budget Sept. 22 and is not expected to make major changes.

It's a shame the cut is only going to be around 33%, and not 100%. Socialized art is not a proper function of government. Public safety is. Courts are. Infrastructure is. These things should be fully funded before anything else is even considered. It seems this Mayor gets it, at least by a third, that public safety affects everyone, and that the arts are a private concern, because not only do they not affect everyone, but art is so specific to taste, that it really only benefits a few.

Is that what we want? Public policy that benefits the select few?

What was interesting about a previous outcry about the proposed cuts was to see the line of representatives of local museums at the podium. That told me a lot about the nature of the funding. Mainly, it isn't going to starving artists. It's going to well-funded institutions as a corporate welfare.

Is that what we want? Public policy that benefits corporations?

No, cutting the arts is the right thing to do. Our federal government could take note here.

Update: Indiana Barrister has the list of recipients of arts funding largesse.

Budgets and Relative Belt Tightening

When the budget gets tight at the Kole house, the vacation budget is eliminated. It's a 100% budget cut, until such time as we can afford it. We eat out 75% less. Entertainment is little more than a trip to the library. New clothing purchases are halted. Etc. In sum, the cuts are pretty harsh.

Elected officials are therefore hilarious in comparison. They whine and moan about 3% or 4% budget cuts. Boo-friggin'-hoo!

Here's an interesting bit from Cato's David Boaz:

Time to stop spending, eh? That would be most people’s response to an unprecedented deficit. And they do mention “irresponsible spending” later in the piece. But somehow, it appears that the governors thought that was a good lead for an article in the Washington Post demanding more federal spending to subsidize state governments.

They lamented the the plight of the state budgets; New York, for instance, asked state agencies “to slash their state budgets by 3.35 percent.” Now, if I had to cut my budget for a new sofa, say, from $1,000 to $966.50, I don’t think I’d call that a “slash”; it’s more like margin of error.

Hilarious. And there are some who make it out that Grover Norquist has won the day, that fiscal conservatism has triumphed, with taxes almost nil, and the federal government shrunk to the size of that of the Polk Administration.

Reason has picked up on this willful ignorance, also, noting how some fans of larger government are tying the downward slide of the Republican Party to the idea that said slide is proof of the failure of fiscal conservatism. I took Balloon Juice to task on this just last week. From Reason's Matt Welch:

"...a strain of curious left-of-center analysis I'm seeing more and more this election: That the Republicans are losing because limited-government ideas don't work, and are no longer popular.

This critique requires a significant leap of logic − that George W. Bush, and his would-be GOP successor John McCain, practice and/or believe in limited government principles."

Fiscal conservatism wasn't even tried out by the Republicans. Tax cut, borrow and spend simply isn't a fiscally conservative ideal. McCain thinks cutting earmarks is a slash, just as NY's governor thinks a 3% nick is a draconian reversion to primitive barbarism.

At the Kole house, and I'm quite sure at many others across the land, when the money isn't there, we radically cut our spending, by as much as 40%. We don't take out loans so that we can keep spending. We don't commandeer from our neighbors under the premise of 'the common good'. We cut spending.