The Post Office vs. the Founding Fathers

On July 15, the postal rates for America's most important political magazines, both left and right, increased by twenty to thirty percent after the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) adopted a rate plan written by lobbyists from Time-Warner.

The lobbyists' plan, unsurprisingly, has the effect of shifting the burden of new postal increases away from its large circulation corporate clients like Time and People toward smaller, independent publications like The Nation and National Review. (The Nation is looking at roughly $500,000 in increased annual postal costs.)

The rate hikes turn more than two hundred years of postal policy on its head and have led numerous small publications to the brink of bankruptcy. As the Founding Fathers understood, political magazines of all perspectives and persuasions are invaluable incubators for political ideas and discourse. Their disappearance degrades our media and cripples our democracy.

Postal rate increases for the magazine industry generally don't generate major news and the PRC was counting on its obscurity to insulate it from the criticism it well deserved. But last spring when we at The Nation found out about the PRC's abdication to Time-Warner and what it would mean, not just for us, but for all publications in our category, we started talking to colleagues and friends and a bipartisan grassroots fire was soon lit with the non-profit media reform group Free Press leading the charge. (Even the blogosphere, which obviously need not concern itself with postal costs, took on the issue, rightly insisting that Time-Warner's efforts to harm the independent press off-line mirrored Big Media's goal of upending the net neutrality that guarantees that web users can access small, independent websites as easily as they can find the big boys.)

A bipartisan group of publications banded together and shot off a letter to the Postal Board of Governors demanding a delay in implementation of the new rates until an investigation into the process was completed. A massive media campaign was undertaken that saw scores of newspapers, radio programs, websites and magazines come out against the rate increase. Almost 1,000 academics started a petition drive to Congress requesting hearings on the matter and the public responded to the coalition's joint call to similarly petition Congress to address the charges being directed at the PRC.

....And they listened! Next Tuesday, October 30, the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia chaired by Danny Davis (D-IL) will hear testimony from a series of witnesses, including The Nation's Victor Navasky. It's unlikely that the increases will be overturned but stranger things have happened and just the fact of the hearings themselves is a testament to the power of grassroots protest.

Help keep it going by signing the Free Press petition to Congress to reverse the unjust postal rate increase for small political publications. It'll also help to call the offices of the members of the subcommittee prior to the hearing next week, especially if you happen to live in one of the subcommittee member's districts. Names and number follow:

Danny K. Davis, Chairman, (202) 225-5006
Eleanor Holmes Norton, (202) 225-8050
John P. Sarbanes, (202) 225-4016
Elijah E. Cummings, (202) 225-4741
Dennis J. Kucinich, (202) 225-5871
Wm. Lacy Clay, (202) 225-2406
Stephen F. Lynch, (202) 225-8273
Kenny Marchant, (202) 225-6605
John M. McHugh, (202) 225-4611
John L. Mica, (202) 225-4035
Darrell E. Issa, (202) 225-3906
Jim Jordan, (202) 225-2676

There are precedents for the Postal Rate Commission's rulings to be revised but it's going to take a massive groundswell of public opposition similar to the explosion of outrage over the FCC's 2003 decision to change media ownership rules. The Post Office should not use its monopoly power to favor the largest publishers and undermine the ability of smaller publishers to compete. With your help we can reverse this decision and salvage the postal system that has served free speech in America so well for so long.

Comments (63)

1. one

   Posted by Will C. at 10/24/2007 @ 2:23pm

2. more attempt to screw the little guy

   Posted by Will C. at 10/24/2007 @ 2:23pm

3. PETER,

   Given the bipartisan nature of the opposition ("Nation" to "National Review") and Dems controlling Congress now...

   isn't it "in the bag"? What Dems (or even Repubs) on the Committee would oppose it?

   Posted by Mask at 10/24/2007 @ 2:31pm

4. The problem is that the power of the corporate sector--and its campaign contributions!!--are trumping the interests of left and right on this issue.

   Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/24/2007 @ 2:38pm

5. If the Post Office didn't have its monopoly, The Nation could go with a competitor. Of course, that's capitalism, which is evil. So I guess the little guys will just have to continue to spend money that they could have spent on postage to fight the big lobbyists. It would be nice if the power that Time-Warner is leveraging with all its money wasn't there to be leveraged in the first place, but, again, I am sorry, that would be capitalism (man, what is with me today?).

   Posted by BlueSpark at 10/24/2007 @ 3:14pm

6. PETER: The rate hikes turn more than two hundred years of postal policy on its head and have led numerous small publications to the brink of bankruptcy.

   Just since July 15??????????????

   Let me put you on the spot PETER, can you give us a sample of these "small publications"?

   Posted by Happy at 10/24/2007 @ 4:05pm

7. Oh, NOT that I'm not sympathetic......like the first poster said...seems a minor non-partisan issue and let's see if the Dems are friends of "small" businesses of the (publishing types)!

   Posted by Happy at 10/24/2007 @ 4:06pm

8. Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 10/24/2007 @ 2:38pm

   Well, it's hard to believe that Danny Davis (Illinois 7th) is in the pocket of "corporate interests" and if it comes out of his Committee that Pelosi would kill it....

   uh...isn't it?!??!?

   Posted by Mask at 10/24/2007 @ 4:07pm

9. Too bad the Founding Fathers didn't have enough foresight to outlaw lobbying.

   Posted by ACook at 10/24/2007 @ 4:29pm

10. HAPPY -- In These Times in Chicago is one. And I know that a small, libral relgious publication called Sojourners is another. Noth cite the postal increase as bringing them to the brink.

    FRANK -- We talk about this stuff all the time. We do actually spend what little money we have to advertise the website on TV and radio and we've recently begun offering digital-only subscriptions in recognition of the trends you're citing. But this issue is really akin to the net neutrality debate relating to the internet--that of corporate trying to push the independents out of the marketplace.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/24/2007 @ 4:53pm

11. You're absolutely right, Peter. The subject of the Time-Warner-generated postal rate restructuring is inexorably tied to the issue of net neutrality. The administration openly colludes with corporate America to limit our choices, simultaneously reducing both the information that we need to make our most important choices and the amount of disposable income in our pockets.

    In fact, I'd like to read how any of my fellow posters rationalizes this insane concept of letting lobbyists write our legislation.

    Posted by drhammer at 10/24/2007 @ 6:57pm

12. So....we, the tax payer, should what? Subsidize yet another low demand publication or say, radio broadcast show? If we subsidize the nations stamps, why not AIRAMERICA on the radio even when there are not enough listeners to cover the cost of oh, say, AL Frankens salary?

    Or maybe Limbaugh should be forced to send stamps to the Nation...we could have FRANK moniter the whole thing, since he seems to have experience at monitering Limbaugh for us...(and he still doesn't get Rush or his schtick)

    What ever happened to volume discount? Economy of scale? IF we are in danger of "losing the Nation Mag", why not have those who love it and find it a valueable voice pay more for it? It should be obvious to anyone who values the point of view expressed in the Nation, and if the "general belief" here is that the nation is left and liberal, ten all the readers should be happy to cover a few more cents..

    Why not have Corn take some of his cash from his Plame fiction and donate, er, contribute, er, invest in the Nations, ah, state of being...

    Or, as KVH is so fondly advocating...take the money out the big guys hands and distribute it fairly amongst those who need it...or is KVH one of the "Big Money Libs" in our land....

    Pony up Katrina, or pass the cost along as any other business is forced to do with other types of "fees, taxes, mandates, and costs"....

    for the children, of course..or is that for another thread?

    Posted by JoMa at 10/24/2007 @ 8:31pm

13. Posted by JOMA 10/24/2007 @ 8:31pm

    bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk! bonk!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2007 @ 9:48pm

14. Why don't you put up Hillary's donors.

    Posted by ZERO 10/24/2007 @ 10:20am

    DLA Piper $352,835

    Goldman Sachs $338,690

    Morgan Stanley $326,190

    Citigroup Inc $303,865

    National Amusements Inc $192,435

    Kirkland & Ellis $176,820

    JP Morgan Chase & Co $166,890

    Skadden, Arps et al $156,060

    Greenberg Traurig LLP $150,900

    EMILY's List $147,003

    Cablevision Systems $129,513

    Time Warner $125,870

    Bear Stearns $124,865

    Merrill Lynch $123,700

    Lehman Brothers $123,350

    Patton Boggs $117,529

    Ernst & Young $107,650

    Blank Rome Llp $105,300

    Latham & Watkins $100,290

    Credit Suisse Group $98,900

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/24/2007 @ 9:34pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2007 @ 9:49pm

15. Damn good Post, Frosty....

    GRITFORBRAINS: Now tell us Hillbillary isn't bought and paid for by Corporate Fat Cats...(heh,heh)

    Next he'll tell us that it's not true, but even if it is, so what, because everyone else does it too.......

    Posted by davebarlett at 10/24/2007 @ 10:03pm

16. DAVE -- The Nation has run numerous recent articles about how bought Hillary is. REad the magazine. You might learn something.

    JOMA -- You're on the right thread. You're just wrong. Pubs are willing to pay their fair share. No one is asking you to chip in. Congreess has a law that the postal service must make ends meet. The issue is that the Postal Service adopted a plan written by Time-Warner that disportionately shifts the burden onto small independent publishers to the benefit of large mega-publishers.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/24/2007 @ 10:26pm

17. Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 10/24/2007 @ 10:26pm

    i googled "written by lobbyists"

    gambling: http://www.daveralis.com/pavethegrass/071904bandits.shtml

    telecommunications: http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/May%202007%20Washington%20DC/Levitt%20PPT.pd f

    lobbying: http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/la/meas/R/

    elections: http://news.ufl.edu/2006/03/17/citizens-iniative-oped/

    taxes: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,826672-4,00.html

    and so on,

    Results 21 - 30 of about 1,600,000 for written by lobbyists.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2007 @ 10:47pm

18. Peter,

    You are one of the reasons I come back here...I just "plain old" like you...

    The problem isn't Time Warner, the problem is the POST OFFICE is govt hamstrung..perhaps the USPO should be cut lose and allowed to make its own decisions in the market...maybe things might work out better for all of us...and maybe they could cut a deal witrh the smaller mags and ignore Time Warners of the world,

    I for one do not want the Nation or National Review to disappear, especialy due to Postal Regs or govt...I feel the same about my health care choices, too, BTW.

    Posted by JoMa at 10/24/2007 @ 11:12pm

19. And Peter,

    ..I will "chip in" for the Nation...just as soon as KVH gives me an interview...

    Posted by JoMa at 10/24/2007 @ 11:13pm

20. .I will "chip in" for the Nation...just as soon as KVH gives me an interview...

    Posted by JOMA 10/24/2007 @ 11:13pm

    ah, so you enjoy the benefits of the thing but don't feel the need to pay your way .

    very conservative. very very conservative

    Posted by Will C. at 10/24/2007 @ 11:22pm

21. "ah, so you enjoy the benefits of the thing but don't feel the need to pay your way .

    very conservative. very very conservative

    Posted by WILL C. 10/24/2007 @ 11:22pm

    you assume I am enjoying the benifits..or, that there are benfits at all...

    I do not subscribe and do not read the Nation, but, I would be willing to chip in for one who can't afford the bump in postage..

    Very conservative...donations and giving to charity..

    Posted by JoMa at 10/24/2007 @ 11:52pm

22. I do not subscribe and do not read the Nation, but, I would be willing to chip in for one who can't afford the bump in postage..

    Posted by JOMA 10/24/2007 @ 11:52pm

    interesting, so when you said...

    I will "chip in" for the Nation...just as soon as KVH gives me an interview...

    Posted by JOMA 10/24/2007 @ 11:13pm

    ... you were lying?

    or were you lying on the 11:52pm post?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/24/2007 @ 11:57pm

23. Very conservative...donations and giving to charity..

    Posted by JOMA 10/24/2007 @ 11:52pm

    you forgot to mention as part of their tax planing strategy. But then I guess mentioning that takes all the altruism out of it.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/24/2007 @ 11:59pm

24. Will, you do know that this JOMA is Maasch don't you?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/25/2007 @ 12:58am

    frank why is it that the hamsters feel the need to change their name and hide their identity?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/25/2007 @ 01:01am

25. Come on, kids.

    JOMA could change his handle to Jesus, or Winston Churchill, or Monkeyspank.

    A 2-time listener could recognize that tune in 3 notes.

    Posted by drhammer at 10/25/2007 @ 07:46am

26. By the way, the Postal Service was designed to be a democratic institution.

    The notion that buying power=political voice is what brought us to this sorry chapter in our history.

    Posted by drhammer at 10/25/2007 @ 07:53am

27. I do not subscribe and do not read the Nation, but, I would be willing to chip in for one who can't afford the bump in postage..

    Very conservative...donations and giving to charity..

    Posted by JOMA 10/24/2007 @ 11:52pm

    So, if you don't read the Nation, then why in the hell are you here? Why not join in on one of the conservative blogs where you can discuss with others sharing your ideology and profit at any cost reasoning. They would welcome you with open arms and not argue one bit with your reasoning.

    If you don't even read the Nation, then that would imply that you aren't even open to the ideas put forth in the Nation. So, why waste your time here?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/25/2007 @ 08:01am

28. The problem is that the power of the corporate sector--and its campaign contributions!!--are trumping the interests of left and right on this issue.

    Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 10/24/2007 @ 2:38pm

    On this issue? I can't think of an issue where the corporatocracy isn't the major influencing factor.

    The only way to save the integrity of poltitics is to stop those with the most money from steering the country in a direction that benefits only a tiny minority (the rich and powerful). There is only one issue that really matters, and that is campaign finance reform. Without that, everything else is just a meaningless exercise in futility.

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/25/2007 @ 08:44am

29. By the way, the Postal Service was designed to be a democratic institution. ----Posted by DRHAMMER 10/25/2007 @ 07:53am

    Doc, postal systems date back to the Roman Empire and were coordinated throughout the Feudal Ages....what evidence do you have that it was "designed to be a democratic institution"?

    Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 09:24am

30. Posted by BLUESPARK 10/24/2007 @ 3:14pm

    The difference is that capitalism is at odds with an informed public that can govern itself. The false assumption in your narrative is that competition would make it cheaper - ignoring the fact that competition in some markets actually makes things more expensive or reduces service capabilities.

    Posted by MASK 10/25/2007 @ 09:24am

    He's referring to the government subsidizing distribution of periodicals through the post office - which was not a feature of a Roman postal system. This comment can only be called obtuse.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2007 @ 09:53am

31. Posted by SRJENKINS 10/25/2007 @ 09:53am

    Well, he didn't SAY that, SRJ.

    Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 10:08am

32. The difference is that capitalism is at odds with an informed public that can govern itself. The false assumption in your narrative is that competition would make it cheaper - ignoring the fact that competition in some markets actually makes things more expensive or reduces service capabilities.

    You'll have to explain how capitalism itself is "at odds" with an informed public that can govern itself. I am not even sure what you mean by that, or what it has to do with the Postal Service. It may be that everything is "at odds" (what a wonderful phrase--it allows one so say next to nothing while seeming insightful) with an informed public. As history has shown, government control of markets also has a bad track record in terms of keeping the public "informed."

    As far as what would happen if competition were added to the world of first-class mail: you are right, I was assuming that it would result in better service and lower prices. Given that this has happened in other delivery-service markets, it is a good assumption.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 10/25/2007 @ 10:25am

33. From The History of the US Postal Service (http://www.usps.com/history/his8.htm)

    "'The Post Office Department, in its ceaseless labors, pervades every channel of commerce and every theatre of human enterprise, and, while visiting, as it does kindly, every fireside, mingles with the throbbings of almost every heart in the land. In the amplitude of its beneficence, it ministers to all climes, and creeds, and pursuits, with the same eager readiness and equal fullness of fidelity. It is the delicate ear trump through which alike nations and families and isolated individuals whisper their joys and their sorrows, their convictions and their sympathies, to all who listen for their coming.'

    These words, used by Postmaster General Joseph Holt in his Annual Report of 1859, were inscribed on the postal headquarters building dedicated in 1934."

    (My bold.)

    I was referring to the US Postal Service. Sorry to confuse you.

    Posted by drhammer at 10/25/2007 @ 10:41am

34. From Wikipedia:

    "The first postal service in America arose in February of 1692 when a grant from King William and Queen Mary empowered Thomas Neale "to erect, settle and establish within the chief parts of their majesties' colonies and plantations in America, an office or offices for the receiving and dispatching letters and pacquets, and to receive, send and deliver the same under such rates and sums of money as the planters shall agree to give, and to hold and enjoy the same for the term of twenty-one years."

    (My bold.)

    Even the monarch who instituted our first system implied a democratically structured rate system.

    315 years later, it would appear that only the very largest of the "planters" get to determine the rates.

    But historical lunchpail-pissing aside, how do you feel about the USPS allowing Time-Warner to restructure the rate chart, without (initially) public comment?

    Posted by drhammer at 10/25/2007 @ 10:50am

35. But historical lunchpail-pissing aside, how do you feel about the USPS allowing Time-Warner to restructure the rate chart, without (initially) public comment?----Posted by DRHAMMER 10/25/2007 @ 10:50am

    That the USPS is a dinosaur awaiting the final freeze after the K-T Event.

    Look, the organization itself is a chimera. It's "government", yet "commerical". If purely one, then postage rates would be fixed at a certain price and it would be financed by normal taxation/budgetary concerns....thus allowing ANYBODY to use it, like the Interstate or local fire service, regarless as to whether they were a taxpayer.

    But it isn't. Want to mail something? Then you have to pay the seemingly-always increasing postal rate....regardless of your wealth, but (as is so often pointed out here) "the rich can pay the postal rate much easier than the poor".

    If a government operation, then it should be "free"...as those who want universal health care would NOT refuse it to those who can't pay....right?

    If a business, then they have a right to charge whatever rates they want to WHOEVER they want...and Congress should butt out.

    But as they're a little of both, we get a "little of both" response.

    All of which is debating "price gouging" of BUGGY WHIPS in 1910....as FRANKG noted. Print is dying. No offense to PETER or the "TN" Gang, but...Do you REALLY get that much more from the "hardcopy" of "The Nation"...that we don't get on the website? Some other articles, a few "in-depth pieces"...but how much of the content is free here...70%, 80%? And same for "National Review" and the others.

    And with e-mail, UPS, Fedex, the USPS is facing some hard times....the question becomes...does mail matter? Or is this just a "business" cutting a deal with its best customer, perhaps at the expense of its "small timers"....in an era in which its usefulness is rapidly disappearing?

    Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 12:23pm

36. Posted by BLUESPARK 10/25/2007 @ 10:25am

    You'll have to explain how capitalism itself is "at odds" with an informed public that can govern itself.

    Let's start with an obvious case: justice. Capitalism is concerned with earning a profit - not administrating justice. Any attempt to make the administration of justice capitalistic, undermines the value of justice for profit.

    Same applies to information. It is why we have the government printing office, federal depository libraries and so forth because citizens can't govern or choose representatives intelligently without having the relevant information available to them.

    The founding fathers understood this - which is why preferential (you should read this as subsidized government distribution) rates have always been given to periodicals.

    As history has shown, government control of markets also has a bad track record in terms of keeping the public "informed."

    For one, prove this as a fact. For two, we are talking about subsidized distribution - not market control. For someone that seems to believe in the magical power of markets, you don't demonstrate much knowledge about how markets work, their characteristics and the fact that they aren't effective for certain things like - developing nascent technologies, building infrastructure, widely distributed access, creating standards, or when the whole enterprise depends on a value that is undermined by profit - such as justice.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2007 @ 3:16pm

37. Posted by MASK 10/25/2007 @ 12:23pm

    If a government operation, then it should be "free"...

    My brain hurts from thinking of all the counter-examples - particularly everything that comes from sales and property taxes. Gas, tobacco, tolls, many utilities - all government taxes that apply to those that use the service. Even property taxes, which pay for everything from schools to animal control, can be viewed as a suite of services that we pay for. Much like those that pay for cable - but don't watch every channel.

    Here's a bit of news too...I bet everyone here subscribes to a periodical, has purchased a book and printed off something from the Internet - probably even today. There's a reason for that - it's useful. I've been hearing about the death of print for decades - and you know what? Print isn't any closer to going away.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2007 @ 3:25pm

38. developing nascent technologies, building infrastructure, widely distributed access, creating standards, or when the whole enterprise depends on a value that is undermined by profit - such as justice.----Posted by SRJENKINS 10/25/2007 @ 3:16pm

    SRJ, did I just read that right...or do you need to flesh it out?

    Are you claiming that ONLY Government and/or government-regulated markets can produce "nascent technologies" or see that they receive "widely distributed access"?

    (Hint--I'll start with the light bulb and move to when how we got to the Internet, and YES, I'll mention it was originally started by DARPA!)

    Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 4:18pm

39. Posted by MASK 10/25/2007 @ 4:18pm

    Mask, can you explain how you get from this premise:

    "...how markets work, their characteristics and the fact that they aren't effective for certain things like..."

    To this one:

    "Are you claiming that ONLY Government and/or government-regulated markets can produce "nascent technologies" or see that they receive "widely distributed access"?"

    These are not the same thing. The key words in my premise are "market" and "effective" - and at no point did I mention government much less ONLY government.

    Take the telephone industry. It has high fixed costs and declining average costs as more subscribers become part of the system. It is a fact that there are many benefits that came from having them all grouped under AT&T - primary among them is a single, standardized network that would not have happened in competitive market conditions.

    AT&T's position had a lot to do with patents and acquisitions, but I think you could make the argument that government-regulation came in only after they had secured an almost monopolistic position on their own.

    Check out System Building at the Margin: The Problem of Public Choice in the Telephone Industry by Kenneth Lipartito in The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 49, No. 2, The Tasks of Economic History. (Jun., 1989), pp. 323-336.

    I would also argue that the government, meaning we the people, foot the bill for a lot of research - DARPA and the Internet is a good example. Once the idea moves to the point where it can become profitable and the majority of the risk has been assumed by the public, these ideas are then turned over to private industry for next-to-nothing.

    I'm of the old-fashioned line of thinking that people that take the risk, should reap the reward. Unfortunately, in the U.S., when the people taking the risk are the citizens of the U.S. as represented by their government, it means they can be swindled anytime a Bush/Cheney comes to town and wants to cash in.

    Clear enough for you?

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/25/2007 @ 10:17pm

40. Posted by SRJENKINS 10/25/2007 @ 10:17pm

    General observation: Based on what we say on a limited or specific basis, MASK is the most capable in terms of jumping off into space, doing twisting, 3+half somersaults and end up with us defending ourselves for something we DIN'T say or intend! What can one do vs. somebody with that kind of time?

    On with your risk-reward issue......On one level, you are correct in that much of the innovations from the R&D money spent by our Gov't are "turned over to private industry for next-to-nothing". However, you are focused only on the reward part but overlooked the "risk" part! Easy to understand....since there are NO RISKS to the Gov't for R&D that leads to nothing or are abandoned! Sure, the money comes from us taxpayers but the decision makers (in and out of Gov't) and the researchers have NO MONEY AT RISK while being provided high paying jobs of some prestige!

    Perhaps you've read of the budding privately-funded space ships....famously with Richard Bransom's backing! You can bet that without the Gov't, the cost of any R&D would be a whole lot cheaper since the money would have to come from private investors who care a great deal about accountability!

    Don't mean to take all credit away from Uncle Sam, it does dream up its own needs to initiate a great deal of research but it it the private sector that takes the technology and do further R&D to commercialize most every `new' discovery funded by us taxpayers.

    I know you Libs/Leftists mean well but you just can NOT get past the inherently wasteful spending, along with corruption, of ANY large Gov't programs....literally, no one involved in doling out all that money (on our behalf) have any `skin' in the game.....in fact, the revolving-door ensures wasteful spending! The standard response of more oversight is weak....the oversighters also don't have any skin in the game but necessarily have to have the relevant industry background....as the door revolves and revolves.....

    Posted by Happy at 10/25/2007 @ 11:41pm

41. Posted by HAPPY 10/25/2007 @ 11:41pm

    Agreed. Mask frequently smuggles in assumptions based on his mental model. Still, I think he has an interesting perspective and frequently asks good questions. I probably comment more on things he has written than anyone else that posts here. Got to take the good with the bad.

    I disagree with you regarding risk and rewards in government. There a simple reason as to why. The same comments you make could be said of any sizable organization that has people who work for it that make decisions and perform research.

    Now, you might be able to argue that failed R&D projects aren't going to sink the U.S. government, but you could say the same of a major corporation like G.E. So, you have to identify a relevant difference. In my mind, the difference is that the U.S. government gives away these innovations. G.E. doesn't and G.E. can ignore certain areas of research that might otherwise explore because they are effectively outsourcing it to the U.S. government, i.e., getting it done on our tax dollar.

    It is not necessarily a problem for the government to give the fruits of research away. But it is a problem when it is done in a way that has the public paying for all the risk or acting as a outsourcing arm for corporations.

    Privately funded space ships are a bad example. They obviously would be decades off without the efforts of NASA. There is also a market for getting things into space that wasn't even there a decade ago. I'll not even mention that there isn't much behind the hype yet either.

    I could use other examples. You think the airline industry is doing research on scram jets? You think they might see a market for getting to New York to Beijing in 3-4 hours? But who is doing the work to make scram jets a reality? Government. Airlines are still trying to figure out how to make airline service profitable - they don't even have the wherewithal to do this kind of research. Nor do airplane manufacturers without government.

    I'm not against commercializing discoveries. I'm against companies coming in on the tail in and making money after the hard work has been done on the taxpayer dollar and not appropriately sharing the reards based on the risk assumed. Further, I especially take exception to people that then have the balls to talk about how efficient corporations are when they are living off corporate welfare.

    Any sufficiently large organization has waste and corruption. All the comments you make about government could be made of any company in the Dow. I don't pretend that government doesn't have its problems - but private industry has many of the same problems and more besides.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/26/2007 @ 12:18am

42. Any sufficiently large organization has waste and corruption. All the comments you make about government could be made of any company in the Dow. I don't pretend that government doesn't have its problems - but private industry has many of the same problems and more besides.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 10/26/2007 @ 12:18am

    A case can be made that the Gov't be paid a % of revenue or profit based on its fundational technology just as I understand, certain universities, Stanford being the most prominent w/its close ties to Silicon Valley, already do w/research funded out of endowments. But even doing this, it would create a layer of bureaucracy and issues related to patent protections, expirations, valuing spin offs funded by corps.....

    Having worked for two Fortune 100 cos., I certainly know of wastes but no corruption at my level (up to lower-mid VP level)...and I routinely structured 7~8 figure deals w/out effective oversight. Even the wastes I witnessed, are mostly personnel types...overstaffing or under-worked/qualified folks kept on due to being friends w/the boss. That said, private cos.' profit incentives, along w/serious career aspirations, bonuses, firing, options, etc. are effective as `oversight' factors....and swift in application.

    Large cos. also do hold its very senior management accountable, at least far more so today! Of all the wastes & corruption coming out of Washington, I bet you could not find but a handful of directly related firings! A couple of Congressmen resigned or won't seek reelections!

    There was a time (before I came of age), going into Gov't meant to serve the people....I just don't believe that's true in recent decades...like "doctors going into medicine to help people"...sure, a few do and actually goes to 3rd world country or set up inner-city clinics. Most goes into medicine for the money! Cynical as hell, ain't I?

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2007 @ 01:29am

43. No one's been paying much attention to the Post Office. The Reagan Revolution started the downward decay on the Postal Board of Governors (criminal conspiracies covered only by the Washington Post). Where's the last Postmaster General: on the board of Fed Ex, after he initiated sole source contracts with Fed Ex and put Fed Ex boxes at every post office. Fed Ex has to make a profit, that's why rates are up. Discounts given to large mailers for presorting mail exceed the Postal Service's savings in handling the presort mail. Newspapers, magazines and books have historically received favored rates because the Founding Fathers's believed the free exchange of ideas was essential for a democracy. I doubt they would think People magazine and Sports Illustrated qualified. The USPS's preferred customer is a corporation. Why do you think a trip to the Post Office is such an aggravating experience. USPS doesn't want people to come to Post Offices. Walk-in customers aren't cost effective. A couple of billion's been spent revamping the brand. Remember the USPS's original emblem with the eagle and "US Mail"; then they dropped "mail", and then butchered the eagle, leaving us with the "Sonic Eagle", which I thought was a chicken sandwich at the fast food restaurant.Next they'll drop "Service" from the name and make it official. Texas's fine populist Senator Ralph Yarborough predicted all this when the old Post Office Department was reorganized in 1971; so did Ralph Nader. And excuse me, but I recall some of Victor Navasky's rants against the Post Office as bit irrational. Reagan appointees to the Board of Governors fired the Postmaster General (for opposing sole source contracts). He sued to get his job back. Case went to the Supreme Court, after Judge Bork through out the case on appeal. THE USPS'S ATTORNEYS AGREED THAT THE FORMER PMG WAS FIRED AS A RESULT OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY ON THE POSTAL BOARD OF GOVERNORS; but that the Postal Reorganization Act of 1971 allowed no recourse through the courts. The only recourse was through the Excutive Branch. Supreme Court through it out. Reagan appointee (former Ohio campaign manager) pled guilty to one of 40+ charges of defrauding the USPS; and spent a a few months at Club Fed. He billed for first class tickets while traveling coach. Conspiracy charges not pursued because no money changed hands. Plan was to use a certain executive search agency to pack USPS management with the "chosen ones"and sole source contracts to firms paying kickbacks. Potential fraud was millions. Automation improvements were delayed several years, costing the USPS (and us) an estimated $500 million. Replacement PMG, former American Airlines CEO, fired Asst PMG for also opposing sole source contracts. One month after PMG left to teach at SMU business school, American Airlines is low bidder on mail contracts. Six months later, national mail delivery standards were changed, slowing the mail. Excuse for not remembering all names, dates, etc. It's been a long time. But I'll stand by the gist of it, after 28 years at the Postal Service. Once upon a time Congress made decisions about the Post Office Department, based on "what was best for the American people". Is there anyone left in Congress who makes decisions by that standard?

    Posted by georgepweb at 10/26/2007 @ 01:55am

44. I forgot to mention the former postal executive in the Stamps Division who helped to initiate the change to privately printed, more easily counterfeited stamps. He left to found a company that guess what? Prints stamps) (Didn't see much on this in the paper did you?) Large quantities of counterfeit Flag stamps originating in Asia? How much did USPS lose? No one knows, it's a secret. National Security. Stamps are security paper, like dollar bills. But it's okay, the US Mint now sells money with certicates of authenticity!

    Posted by georgepweb at 10/26/2007 @ 02:02am

45. Posted by HAPPY 10/26/2007 @ 01:29am

    But even doing this, it would create a layer of bureaucracy and issues related to patent protections, expirations, valuing spin offs funded by corps.....

    In other words, the same problems businesses face - and call the cost of doing business.

    If I were to take your position, I think I might argue that if government starts acting like a business, it can pit the public interest against the new focus on profit. You could also argue that government gets a cut from the taxes put on the new revenue. I think this is a place where government needs to innovate.

    ...private cos.' profit incentives, along w/serious career aspirations, bonuses, firing, options, etc. are effective as `oversight' factors....and swift in application.

    I would argue that layoffs by corporations are another way that corporations shift the burden onto government. Bonuses? Stock options? Profit incentives? What percentage of the work force benefit from these? If it is a small percentage, and it is, then how is the private sector that much different?

    I also see how round upon round of layoffs has on morale. Nothing like seeing boxes appear on your floor and spend the day wondering if you are going to be "let go" - to kill enthusiasm for work. More so when you make it - because now your stuck doing the work of the other half of the department that is no longer there.

    Senior management is held accountable? Hardly. Senior management in many companies is an exercise in musical chairs with CEOs making more per hour than many of their employees make all year and who have golden parachutes that entitle them to millions if they get fired. Hold up, I think I'm tearing up at how tough their lives are...

    As for public service, I agree with you. I think politics tends to attract the worst element in our society. Doctors, I disagree. I know several and few are in it only for the money.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/26/2007 @ 03:26am

46. Eric Alterman -- thenation.com -- posted September 5, 2002 (September 23, 2002 issue) -- Devil in a Blue Dress

    '...While promoting her hysterical screed against "liberals"--a category so large she occasionally includes, I kid you not, Andrew Sullivan--this malevolent Twiggy with Tourette's [Ann Coulter] ... incitements to murder and terrorism have been cheered and defended in the Wall Street Journal and National Review ...'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2007 @ 09:39am

47. SRJ, who is the "they" you are talking about here?

    "they aren't effective for certain things like - developing nascent technologies, building infrastructure, widely distributed access"

    You were making a blanket statement about "markets" and "government" and didn't add all the extra fleshing-out that you added later at Posted by SRJENKINS 10/25/2007 @ 10:17pm.

    To which of course we could point to TONS of examples where "markets", not "government" came up with the nascent technology (light bulbs for instance, as I warned. Edison get a NSF grant? Or Morse? Or A.G. Bell? Or the Wright Brothers?).

    And YES there was goverment involvement in promoting the use of those items for the Government. But that doesn't mean that they get to grab the licensing or patent rights for that stuff.

    As for the Internet, it WAS part of a Government program. A DEFENSE program. (That's the "D" in DARPA) Which oddly, means that given the Left's mindset about defense spending, if they had gotten their way, it likely would have been CUT as part of the evil "Military-Industrial-ACADEMIC Complex"....or locked out if "peace-loving" professors had refused to take part in a Pentagon inter-connected information system.

    Back on point, plus the Internet wasn't even USEFUL to most Americans until things like Compuserve, Netscape, and of course Internet Explorer came along....so does the Government (due to DARPA creation of the Internet) get to reap the benefits of ....amazon. com and Ebay and Expedia?

    Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 09:47am

48. Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 10/26/2007 @ 09:39am |

    How does Ann Coulter figure into a discussion of the Post Office, governmental/market relations, etc.?

    Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 09:49am

49. Posted by WILL C. 10/24/2007 @ 11:59pm

    Will, you do know that this JOMA is Maasch don't you?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/25/2007 @ 12:58am | ignore this person

    Will, you do know that this JOMA is Maasch don't you?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/25/2007 @ 12:58am

    frank why is it that the hamsters feel the need to change their name and hide their identity?

    Posted by WILL C. 10/25/2007 @ 01:01am

    Sounds like WILL and his boy, FRANK don't read the Nation either...Bushfools gave me the name JoMa a few weeks ago and I took it...publicly..

    How many do you two genuis' have on your ignore list?

    Frank has all who disagree with him, so he may only be posting to himself, Hillary and Will.

    Posted by JoMa at 10/26/2007 @ 09:51am

50. Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 09:47am

    They refers to competitive markets. Competitive markets didn't make a unified telephone network. A near monopoly did.

    Here's news, most research is for "defense" purposes. It doesn't need to be that way.

    As anyone who has used an electronic catalog in the 1980s or GOPHER, ARCHIE, etc. can tell you, the internet was plenty useful before Amazon. Just because you weren't there or can't remember doesn't mean when you got on in the era of Compuserve is when usefulness began.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/26/2007 @ 10:04am

51. Peter Rothberg -- Posted 10/24/2007 @ 2:04pm -- The Post Office vs. the Founding Fathers

    '...The lobbyists' plan, unsurprisingly, has the effect of shifting the burden of new postal increases ... toward smaller, independent publications like ... National Review. ...'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2007 @ 10:17am

52. Why can't KVH$$ pay for it?

    Posted by woodyee at 10/26/2007 @ 11:44pm

53. I would argue that layoffs by corporations are another way that corporations shift the burden onto government....

    I also see how round upon round of layoffs....

    ....Senior management in many companies is an exercise in musical chairs with CEOs making more per hour than many of their employees make all year...

    Posted by SRJENKINS 10/26/2007 @ 03:26am

    Every state has some Unemployment Insurance paid for by the companies operating in each state....during severe recessions, the Feds do help out by extending the periods of benefit payments and/or extend loans to the state funding mechanism which are later repaid by jacking up rates on those companies that laid off people. NOT shifting of burden generally!

    In your ideal world, there would be NO LAYOFFS which of course, would require every business to have perfect vision of the future. I guess you have never experienced hard times or ran (I did--16 yrs ago, a $600k/yr small business w/half-dozen employees) a business. Of course, I know you are targeting primarily the fat cat corporations with unlimited amount of capital to keep everybody employed....unlike GM or US Steel!

    So, CEO plays musical chairs? Sure, some, but only AFTER they have demonstrated success so that if they do stumble later, perhaps due to circumstances beyond their full control, another outfit would give them another "chair". Most serious investors DO have some problems w/CEO pay but it's not their multi-million dollar salaries...it's the way their stock options are overly generous and dilutive..plus stuff like backdating or repricing or options!

    Setting the right strategies is worth a lot! Look at Steve Jobs' reviving Apple. In this day and age when ball players can get $100 million contracts, plus more in endorsements, CEOs' getting `mere' tens of millions while increasing their companies' worth and jobs for employees, are downright reasonable.

    What you want is an idealized form of socialism requiring the gov't to have a heavy hand....no more superstars and little incentives for the brightest and most ambitious to go out and create wealth! A few decades ago, to remake America in the image of Old Europe might have been possible....to try to do this today, is suicidal; unless you can force/persuade: 1) Europe to stop unshackling its economy, 2) India to REGRESS to its socialist ways and 3) China to REVERT back to `Old China' of just 20 yrs ago!

    Posted by Happy at 10/28/2007 @ 12:42am

54. Posted by HAPPY 10/28/2007 @ 12:42am

    Layoffs are primarily a sign of bad management. Sure, people make mistakes, but layoffs should be used like tourniquets - because they work in a similar fashion. And who ultimately pays for the impact of bad management? Why it's externalized and shifted to government - which is partially why unemployment insurance exists in the first place to put some of that burden back where it belongs.

    For every example like Steve Jobs, there are hundreds of CEOs making millions who are incompetent.

    You actually don't understand what I want at all Happy.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2007 @ 01:05am

55. For every example like Steve Jobs, there are hundreds of CEOs making millions who are incompetent.

    You actually don't understand what I want at all Happy.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 10/28/2007 @ 01:05am

    I think you are slandering MOST American CEOs! It's more like for every super star Jobs, there are hundreds of excellent-to-good CEOs! Otherwise, few US companies would be among the most highly valued or emulated in the world! On the flip side, for every Lay/Skilling, there probably are dozens more that are doing things fraudulently...almost always, they will get caught!

    So, what do you want of our society....that is not a dream but actually within the realm of realism....say by 2030...and how to get there!

    Posted by Happy at 10/28/2007 @ 3:30pm

56. Posted by HAPPY 10/28/2007 @ 3:30pm

    I did this a few months ago for Mask and was greeted with silence.

    I don't remember all the details, so I'll just mention a few ideas that I have in my mind at the moment.

    1. Media reform - local control and supported by community, trust or others funds and creating alternatives to media exclusively supported by advertising and the elimination of paid political advertisements. Paid politics can create their own channels advocating their perspective and licenses are granted for these channels based on increasing diversity of the media landscape and subject to democratic oversight.

    2. Universal access to food & housing - limited barracks style housing in exchange for a few hours of work to maintain facilities.

    3. Universal access to basic preventative health care - vaccines (such as the flu), physicals, blood tests, teeth cleaning, etc. Probably pay for itself in reduction of emergency room health care spending.

    4. Election day holiday

    5. Universal access to college education - subject to performance requirements. Start with reducing indebtness by 50% in the next 5 years.

    6. Universal work availability - minimum wage, hard or monotonous labor to anyone who has no better alternative provided by government.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2007 @ 4:49pm

57. 1. Media reform - local control and supported by community, trust or others funds and creating alternatives to media exclusively supported by advertising......

    Posted by SRJENKINS 10/28/2007 @ 4:49pm

    Sounds good! Now, how do we select those who actually exercise the "local control"......for that matter where does the "we" come from? Those that successfully pushed through the idea of "local control" throughout the land?

    How will the "supported by community" come about? A sales tax? Outright tax per head? Fed allocations? Tax on commercial media?

    Now, suppose the above are solved, equitably to all major, minor and tiny points of view in any `local', what if very few people choose to `frequent' this locally-controlled media....maybe most folks DON'T want to listen to a diverse range of views from the Far Right to the Far Left to Libertarian?

    I could go on with questions after questions for each of your 6 `platforms' and even after you answer them, I can generate even more questions......."The Devil is in the Details", indeed!

    Posted by Happy at 10/28/2007 @ 10:12pm

58. Posted by HAPPY 10/28/2007 @ 10:12pm

    Easy to answer. "We" is local, democratic government and "we" would answer all those questions depending on local preferences. See how easy that is? It's called democracy - be fantastic if we actually tried it rather than spent so much time talking about it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2007 @ 10:49pm

59. See how easy that is?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 10/28/2007 @ 10:49pm

    LOL! Good thing we all like to `talk' here, sure is "easy"!

    Posted by Happy at 10/28/2007 @ 11:22pm

60. How many do you two genuis' have on your ignore list?

    Posted by JOMA 10/26/2007 @ 09:51am

    I don't have anybody on my ignore list maasch. I'm a big fan of the freedom of speech.

    And my apologies for not recognizing you sooner. It's been so long since you tried to make an actual argument that I forgot that you can't follow your own train of thought for more than two or three posts.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/30/2007 @ 01:34am

61. Hammering sounds again....

    Posted by JoMa at 10/30/2007 @ 09:16am

62. you should get that checked maasch

    Posted by Will C. at 10/30/2007 @ 1:57pm

63. i would be more than happy seeing all print media disappear.

    from where does paper come? to where does it go?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2007 @ 2:28pm