Here’s an idea that most people should like – ABOLISH JUNK MAIL

Do you like to receive junk mail?

What is junk mail? The USPS officially categorizes it as “marketing mail” but the more accurate definition is: “Unsolicited mail promoting, through an offering of some form or structure, goods and services for public or private enterprise, political, or social causes”. The key word is “UNSOLITICED”.

Does anyone like to receive junk mail? Are you thrilled every time you receive your mail knowing most of it is trash? Do you enjoy the process of sorting thru junk mail and throwing literally tons of paper away each year? Does junk mail create unnecessary waste in a world of ever focus on conservation? Does junk mail make any sense to you? What if I told you junk mail is contributing to the global warming phenomenon?

Eye Opening Facts about junk mail:

• Each year over 100 billion pieces of junk mail are delivered by USPS
• Equates to more than 4 million tons of paper – that’s 8 billion pounds – an 8 followed by 9 zeros
• That’s a staggering 300 pieces per person
• That equates to over 100 million trees being harvested for paper for junk mail
•  Generates CO2 equivalent to more than 2,000,000 automobiles
•  Many sources estimate junk mail at 90% of consumer daily mail

So why do we get junk mail? Especially in an internet and email world where customers are just a “click” away? After all, isn’t marketing thru the internet virtually free?

The answer comes from the producers of junk mail. Namely, Companies with products or services to sell that want to reach directly to prospective customers of their products or services. Or charities seeking direct contact with prospective donors. Or politicians looking for financial or other support. The list goes on and on but essentially any person or business looking for direct marketing solutions as a means of generating interest in their product or service currently finds creating junk mails pieces as the most effective way of reaching its customers or consumers because the cost is so low. Businesses using bulk mail (junk mail) approaches readily admit that the majority of their mail pieces are thrown into the trash without a look. But they have discovered that the act of getting the mail from the mailbox and going thru it, requires the consumer to “touch” the mail piece and that act in itself is often more effective than simply “deleting” all of your “promotion” emails in one click. So “gross waste” is inherent in the system of direct mail through the USPS…but no one cares. It takes roughly 3 pieces of junk mail to equal the contribution of one first class piece of mail according to the USPS. Certainly, the USPS thinks they need the revenue. And the users are not going to push for higher costs when what they have is apparently working.

The USPS by virtue of pricing junk mail below what it actually costs, is providing the lowest cost avenue that businesses can use to reach its customers and target audiences. And in the end, the US taxpayer is paying for the USPS deficits and thereby indirectly subsidizing a failed business plan of the USPS and in the process contributing to global warming. If  junk mail postage were to cost what it actually costs, it is highly unlikely than businesses would choose this method of customer contact.

So, what’s the answer?

Stop subsidizing business with cheap, below cost postage. Make the USPS charge its junk mail customers what it actually costs to mail junk mail. If first class mail in fact costs 60 cents, then other similar mail pieces should cost the same. Currently bulk mail rates can go as low as half of first class. I predict that if USPS raised its rates to comparable first class rates, that almost overnight, the junk mail phenomenon would drop significantly as other means of direct outreach would be sought by those businesses currently generating junk mail.

What about the USPS? The USPS has problems for sure. USPS lost $4.9 billion in 2021 on revenue of $79.6 billion. Marketing Mail (junk mail) accounted for $14.6 billion of revenue. But seeking revenue by subsidizing its bulk customers will not solve the problems USPS have.

THE ANSWER: Raise the costs of mail to what it needs to be and at the same time force USPS to adjust their business to a more efficient operation. Let capitalism drive a better solution. And help save the planet by eliminating a measurable contributor to global warming – JUNK MAIL.

And ask yourself the following questions: Why isn’t anyone in government talking about this ridiculously wasteful issue that nearly everybody agrees with? Are we that dumb that in the 21st century we tolerate, and accept, junk mail with all of its unqestionable negative impact to the environment along with the inherent waste of everyone's time? Stop subsidizing junk mail. Or are we all just plain DUMB?

 

 

 

Sources: USPS, NY TIMES, Product Stewardship Institute, NPR – State Impact Report – New Hampshire

 

---

 [JO1]

Politicians can’t even do the one thing they know how to do - SPEND

Silly me for thinking the aid necessary for Israel's defense and support couldn’t breeze through the congress without a hitch. Afterall, approving a bill to spend money that we don’t have is exactly what Congress excels at. They are experts at justifying, and spending, monies that is not theirs to spend and that they don’t actually have. So, what’s the holdup? After all both sides agree that money needs to be spent to support both Israel and Ukraine and of course a myriad of other unrelated “needs” of the country. That's right, they both agree the money needs to be spent. The totals that both the Democrats and Republicans want to spend is actually very close to the same number subject to a few rounding errors.

 So, what’s the problem? It comes down to "packaging" the money. How the money gets spent "politically". Democrats want the monies needed to be lumped into one of their infamous “omnibus” bills and Republicans want it broken down into individual bills with each bill justified on its own merits. Oh, one other thing, Republicans want to have any emergency bills of this type to be “paid for” by cuts somewhere else. To get it clear, Republicans want to take monies from previous spending bills that were built without any concern for where the money would come from and apply those monies to the emergency needs of the wars. Makes sense. Sort of. Use money that you didn’t have which was previously approved to pay for something now that is more pressing. In this case, the Republicans are proposing using funds from the 80,000 IRS agents Biden wants to hire to go after so called billionaire tax cheats that in fact do not exist except in the fantasy world of Democrats.

Ask yourself the following: How many billionaires do you think there might actually be in the US? 80,000? 40,000? 20,000? According to Google search there are actually only 735 billionaires in the US. If there were 80,000 (which there are not) Bidens planned IRS expansion would equate to Biden having one IRS agent for every billionaire. Make sense? What bout this question: Of the total billionaires in the US, how many do you think are “cheating?” Half? A quarter? How about this: If the government in fact believes there are billionaire cheaters, where did that theorem come from? A wild guess? Or actual knowledge? And therefore, if in fact, the government had specific knowledge of billionaire cheaters, why doesn’t the IRS target those individuals now? Why wait? If all of them cheat, we’re talking only 735 agents needed assuming you assigned one agent per billionaire. If this is where the urgent need of tax recovery is, then send your dogs directly to the best place to “mine for” unpaid taxes. The answer is that none of this argument for tax agents makes sense.

The only thing that makes sense is that Biden wants to grow the IRS to go after everyone of all earnings classes. And that is why it makes even more sense to take funds from the bogus IRS expansion funding and apply it to the real and immediate needs of this country’s global interests.

Morality 101 for Politicians

 

Morality is a word that is used all the time for political debate. This cause is moral…that cause is not. We use morality to justify many political decisions and to disaffirm others. Morality is about distinguishing right from wrong. We talk about historical immoralities such as slavery. Slavery is immoral because it is wrong…period. And we talk about the government responsibility for underwriting social needs as a moral necessity. Whether you are on the political left or right, we find ourselves arguing fervently for social needs and citizen rights using the argument that it would be immoral to not “take care of” those needing the support of government. That adding this social service is a moral cause. One result of this thinking and policy enactment is a growing government. Each election cycle brings more government growth as the politician’s secure votes through promises made by a growing government. And morality is the lightning rod that activates the voters. 

But is it moral to spend money that we don’t have? How is it that the fiduciaries of our country are not fiduciaries of our dollars and cents? When is it “moral” to spend? With no thought or ability to ever pay it back? Wouldn’t private enterprises and individuals be considered as committing fraud if they were spending money they don’t have? And doesn’t everyone agree that fraud is immoral? My basic thought is that “morality” starts with conducting oneself in “moral” ways. Spending money we don’t have cannot be moral. So, before we talk about all of the moral needs of society, think about doing that in a moral way and not spending money we don’t have. Can’t we all agree as citizens that it is immoral to spend more money than we collect through taxation?

Here's the standard response from the Left…if the rich paid their fair share, then we would have the budget to spend on all of these moral causes. Closing the gap between what is spent and what is received would require confiscating literally all of the top 1% income who by the way currently pay 40% of the individual tax receipts. The result: Socialism. So before going into a debate regarding the moral platform of standing up for increasing social causes, think long and hard about the larger moral question of spending money you don’t have and further recognizing that you have no plan, or intentions, for ever paying it back. How moral is that? Morality 101 is as basic as that.