 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 9 April 2001 | Vol. II #49 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 9 April 2001 | Vol. II #49 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
Washington, D.C. – This summer the U.S. Postal Service, fresh off its January rate hike, is gearing up to petition to hike mail costs yet again – this time by as much as 25 to 30 percent. The price hike comes in response to the Postal Office's projected losses of $2 to 3 billion this year. Meanwhile, USPS's own Inspector General reports $1.4 billion per annum in waste, fraud, and abuse and the General Accounting Office has added the Postal Transformation Process of the USPS to its high risk list. Due to its blatant failure to eliminate the bloat while attempting to raise prices, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) names the Post Office its April Porker of the Month.
Since 1980, despite falling postal demand, the Postal Service has increased its workforce by 36 percent. It now employs more than 900,000 people. Meanwhile, despite multi-billion dollar outlays on technology upgrades, USPS's productivity is expected to be an anemic 0.7 percent this year and has had only an 11 percent increase in productivity over the last 30 years. In addition, the Postal Office had $9.3 billion in debt at the end of fiscal year 2000 and has no repayment program for this mounting debt. The only things propping it up are its special tax breaks and government-granted monopoly status in the First Class Mail business.
To offset declining revenues, the Post Office, a top-heavy, bricks-and-mortar bureaucracy, now wants to merge onto the Information Superhighway to bring its lightning-fast efficiency and innovative service to e-commerce, where it is already losing money. If history is a guide, once on the Information Superhighway, it will probably use its regulatory authority to prevent its competitors from getting into the passing lane.
Charges of abuse at the Post Office include lavish executive parties, large-scale junkets, and generous annual bonuses – last year more than $200 million, exactly the same as the agency's loss. Adding to the perception of a badly mismanaged Postal Service that definitely does not need more public money are recent reports it rented a train as part of a publicity campaign. In the final analysis, the United States ought to follow the lead of countries like Germany and Canada – eliminate the first-class mail monopoly and privatize the Postal Service.
For refusing to downsize its workforce, reduce waste, and make good use of its new technology; for attempting to raise rates and inappropriately expanding its mission; and for behaving like a bloated bureaucracy instead of a consumer-oriented business, CAGW awards the U.S. Postal Service its April Porker of the Month.
[ CAGW ]
Many ballots that were cast by American military personnel were not counted in last November's presidential election. Some members of the House have introduced legislation to protect the voting rights of military personnel and their immediate families. It is expected to receive wide bipartisan support in the House.
Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), Sam Johnson (R-Texas) and Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) are sponsoring the bill. It would clarify the voting process for military members and their families by guaranteeing residency in all federal, state and local elections, as well as establishing a standard time frame for military absentee voters to receive and send back their ballots so their votes will count.
The bill would also compel states to find clear and convincing evidence of fraud before discounting votes in federal elections.
The bill's sponsors say problems in the military voting system have been documented from as far back as the Truman administration. They also believe more than 1,500 military and overseas ballots were not counted in last November's presidential election. They cite statistics from the Congressional Research Service and Defense Department that show that more than 40 percent of Americans troops on active duty reside in states that have no specific legislative provisions protecting their right to vote.
"You can't ask someone to take up arms in defense of our country and then deny them a ballot when it comes time to vote. A military person's vote should not be overshadowed by postmark discrepancies, confusion about residency requirements, or other technicalities that are often times out of control," Thornberry said.
[ CNS ]
President Bush's budget blueprint hit a significant snag Wednesday, when the Senate voted for a Democratic amendment that would drain billions of dollars from the $1.6-trillion tax cut Bush wants.
The Democratic amendment would shrink the tax cut by $450 billion - using the money for education programs and debt repayment instead of tax cuts.
Three Republicans vote against Bush
The vote in favor of the tax-siphoning amendment was 53-47. Three Republicans -- James Jeffords of Vermont, Lincoln Chafee of R.I., and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania - voted with the Democrats, while Democrat Zell Miller of Georgia crossed party lines to vote with Republicans.
When it became clear that the amendment would pass, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) also voted for the Democratic amendment, not because he liked it, but because under Senate rules, that gives him the right to demand a new vote on the amendment later.
"Yes, I'm worried," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) after the vote, adding, "We think $1.6 trillion is the right tax cut" to get the economy moving.
Democrats were gleeful. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) called the vote "a repudiation of the president's policies and priorities." He told reporters, "We're getting further and further away from the administration's budget."
Horse trading
The Senate is expected to take a final vote on Bush's budget blueprint on Friday, and as of Wednesday, Sen. Jeffords said he expected to vote against it "unless a miracle occurs." In return for his vote, Jeffords wants Republicans to approve more funding for special education programs.
The challenge for Republicans on Thursday is to bring Jeffords back into the fold and to restore the money that was drained out of the tax cut on Wednesday.
The legislation before the Senate sets broad tax-and-spending limits, with details to come later in separate budget bills. The budget blueprint now under consideration is seen as an important statement of priorities.
Government dishonesty is nowhere more evident than in the income tax, both in the way the American citizen was conned into accepting it, and in the way so much tax money is currently being collected...through the deception of withholding.
"The government's premise is simple: the taxpayer won't miss the money he never sees.... The goal of withholding is to make the taxpayers less aware of how much they really pay each month to fund our massive federal government...," stated Representative Ron Paul.
Tax bureaucrats have been only too successful in lulling some taxpayers to sleep. That is why Representative Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1364 - The Cost of Government Awareness Act on April 3, 2001. H.R. 1364 will end federal income tax withholding.
Once employers are free of the burden of tax collecting for the welfare state and we productive Americans begin to write checks to the federal government along with our other monthly bills, the true cost of what we pay to fund our massive federal government will jump out at us. An enlightened debate on spending and tax reform can then begin and millions of once-unaware Americans can voice their opinions.
Nothing strikes fear in the hearts of politicians and bureaucrats like threatening to cut off the seemingly endless flow of money to Washington. They will fight passage of H.R. 1364, because, even though it is a small first step, our success would mean the beginning of the end of taking the American taxpayer for granted.
If any part of you is hesitant about ending the deception of withholding and igniting a nationwide debate on the true cost of government, please read the compelling "Finding and Purpose" section of H.R. 1364 at http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/hr1364text.htm .
Because we are stronger, with over 54,000 of us working together as activists through The Liberty Committee, we can take on this major battle. Here are three things you can do:
1. House and Senate leaders of both political parties talk about "fiscal responsibility." Passage of H.R. 1364 will substantially make "fiscal responsibility" a reality; not rhetoric. Add your name to our petition addressed to the House and Senate leadership. Go to
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/taxpetition.htm .
2. Ask your U.S. representative to cosponsor and work for passage of H.R. 1364. Go to
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?billnum=H.R.1364&congress=107 .
3. Spread the word among your friends. Ask them to do these three things too.
Then wait for the explosion. Once productive Americans are confronted, month after month, with the now-hidden price they pay for government, the debate we are calling for will begin for real -- thanks to you!
On C.B.S. 60 Minutes II, Tuesday, April 3rd, I.R.S. Commissioner Charles Rossotti stated, "We have a Congress and everybody has the right to go talk to their congressman or senator about what they like and don't like about the tax code." We agree and that's what we are going to do.
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
The gun control lobby has just received a stunning setback in a new article appearing in the spring issue of the Medical Sentinel.
Written by Miguel A. Faria, M.D., the study finds that most gun violence studies of the past two decades are based on flawed methodology and unduly influenced by political agendas, leading to biased and incorrect conclusions.
The Medical Sentinel, the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, argues in effect that many of those who conducted the studies decided in advance what they wanted to prove, and then were "prejudiced" by that goal. Thus, Dr. Faria argues, the studies were not objective at all.
The doctor, who is editor in chief of the Sentinel, debunks a number of incorrect, widely accepted claims "promoted by anti-gun interest groups based on tainted studies."
Faria's findings are that:
The health establishment's stated objective in 1979, according to Faria, was "total eradication of handguns in the United States," and the follow-up studies were influenced by that objective.
The doctor faults "those in public health with a proclivity toward the promulgation of preordained research such as the gun and violence research conducted by many investigators with a gun control agenda and disseminated in the medical journals."
"Much of this information is tainted, result-oriented, and based on what can only be characterized as poor science," he concluded.
[ NewsMax ]
** School officials tell kids to sign funding form for parents
SPRINGFIELD, Va. – High school administrators encouraged dozens of students to forge their parents' signatures on forms that help the school get federal aid.
Student reporters at the West Springfield High School newspaper The Oracle broke the story Wednesday. Fairfax County police are investigating.
"I don't think there will be any criminal charges," police spokeswoman Julie Hersey said Thursday. "We just want to make sure that they know that we know what happened so it won't happen again."
On March 22, school officials gathered 47 students in the cafeteria and asked them to forge their parents' signatures on a county form that the school system uses to seek federal funding. Ten to 20 students did so. Several students told The Oracle that school security staff and Bill Renner, a coach at the school, pressured them to forge the signatures.
"We had two options," freshman Christy Gudely told the paper. "Fill it out and sign it or put 'refuse' and be dealt with."
The school's honor code states that forging a parent's signature is punishable by at least a one-day suspension.
The forms are used to determine whether a student lives on federal property such as an Army base. The federal government reimburses school systems for the education of those children because their parents do not pay county property taxes.
Mr. Renner defended his actions to the paper, saying the students were supposed to turn in the forms three months ago.
"They didn't do it, and that's open defiance and disobedience. They need to have a better attitude," he said. "They don't have any reason to speak their voice, because they were in the wrong."
Principal David Smith told The Washington Post he takes responsibility for the incident and had asked Mr. Renner and the security staff to have the students sign their parents' names.
Mr. Smith told The Oracle, "I would say that it is not a good thing that we ask students to forge their parents' signatures, but if these students had done what they should have done for this form three months ago, we would not be in the position where we need to look for shortcuts."
On Thursday, Mr. Smith's secretary referred calls to the county school system.
County schools spokesman Paul Regnier said the incident is under investigation and that Mr. Smith and Mr. Renner could face disciplinary action. Mr. Regnier said the forms will be sent back so that forged documents can be weeded out.
The principal saw the article before it was printed and had the option to kill it but chose not to.
"I was not entirely comfortable with the slant of the article," Mr. Smith told The Post. "But I would have been even less comfortable censoring it."
[ Dallas Morning News ]
TCN Comment: According to Smith and Renner, it is just fine to break the rules if there is money to be made. This is a poor example of character building, but it is to be expected from government bureaucrats.
This fiasco is in complete harmony with the PC philosophy that there are no absolutes. Nothing can be said to be right or wrong because there may be a time when you catch me doing it!
Hogwash!
This is just another good reason why anyone sending a child(ANY CHILD) to a state schools(ANY STATE SCHOOL) is guilty of child abuse.
By Daniel B. Newby
On July 2, 2000, a couple days before the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, my family drove up Big Cottonwood Canyon to enjoy the mountain air. Not far up the canyon, signs appeared warning us to prepare to stop and be searched, and that search dogs were in use. In stubborn fashion, I promptly made a U-turn and headed back the way I had come.
An unmarked police vehicle soon pulled out behind our car and followed us down to the mouth of the canyon. There police lights flashed and we were pulled over. An officer in civilian clothes approached our car, asked to see my driver's license and inquired as to why I had avoided the search. In as rational and calm terms as possible, I reminded the officer of the recent Utah Supreme Court decision against such random searches and explained that I did not want to have any part in it.
The officer immediately became defensive. He justified the checkpoint by the number of drugs taken off the street and the safety that was being assured for people like me. I responded that it was very concerning to me that Americans would prefer this type of security over the risks associated with freedom.
The officer explained the difficult situation the police are in: people go up the canyons, do drugs, and kill somebody on the way down, and then everyone demands to know why the police didn't do something to stop it. I could empathize with his predicament, but still did not agree with the supposed remedy.
After some back and forth, the officer walked away from our car and held a discussion with another officer. Upon his return, I was given a warning ticket for making an unsafe U-turn (the officer specified that my violation was not regarding the drug search, which I presume was to avoid any legal action on my part).
As we concluded our debate on whether freedom was more important than efficiency in fighting crime, I learned that we had both served in the military and had law enforcement experience. In fact, he had served in my birth nation of Germany, and my father had served as a police officer in Utah.
As human beings we parted on friendly enough terms, but as Americans we parted with the strongest of ideological differences. As a native of Germany, I had relatives on both sides of the Iron Curtain and also frequented Berlin as a child, passing via train or car between the walls and watchtowers. I vividly remembered the searches, the soldiers with their weapons at the ready, and the intimidation. I remembered Checkpoint Alpha in Helmstedt, where Americans were briefed and prepared for the suffocating ordeal of passage. Those memories made each return to, and moment in, America all the more refreshing and wonderful.
.... As I started my car again, visions of East German checkpoints flew through my head and I wondered to myself, "Has Utah really changed this much? Have we become so dependent on security that we no longer value freedom?"
If traffic checkpoints represent an acceptable loss of freedom today, what will be acceptable tomorrow? If a few fundamental rights can be rationalized away to stop the bad guys today, what additional rights will be disregarded tomorrow?
In the February 4, 2000, Utah Supreme Court case I cited, then-Associate Chief Justice Christine Durnham poignantly argued that:
"Broad-based, suspicionless inquiries are reminiscent of the much hated and feared general warrants issued by the British Crown in colonial days, where British officers were given blanket authority to search wherever they pleased and for whatever might pique their interest. It was precisely this type of activity that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prohibit. Indeed, the use of general warrants was an important factor giving rise to the American Revolution. This state's early settlers were themselves no strangers to the abuses of general warrants ... A free society cannot tolerate such a practice."
These eloquent words fell on deaf ears in Utah's law enforcement community. Exactly one month to the day of this Supreme Court decision, the Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) operated another dragnet traffic checkpoint between Salina and Sigurd in Sevier County in blatant violation of the Supreme Court's decision. The UHP officer in charge even ordered reporters to leave the search area, stating, "No media is welcome here ... This is for troopers and officers only. This is a work area; we don't necessarily want anybody else here."
Two hundred years ago, American sage Benjamin Franklin predicted Utah's growing dilemma: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Utah should not disregard the warnings of Franklin or those who have tasted what it means to pass through Checkpoint Alpha.
Several thousand Palm Beach residents met recently for a "Democrats Are Not Stupid" convention. Al Gore says, "We are all here today to prove to the world that Palm Beach Democrats are not stupid. Can I have a volunteer?"
A small elderly woman gingerly works her way through the crowd and steps up to the stage. Gore asks her, "What is 15 plus 15?" After 15 or 20 seconds she says, "Eighteen!" Obviously everyone is a little disappointed.
Then the crowd started cheering, "Give her another chance! Give her another chance!" So Gore says, "Well since we've gone to the trouble of getting all of you people in one place and we have the world-wide press and global broadcast media here, gee, uh, I guess we can give her another chance." So he asks, "What is 5 plus 5?" After nearly 30 seconds she eventually says, "Ninety?"
Gore is quite perplexed, looks down and just lets out a dejected sigh -- everyone is disheartened - the little old lady starts crying and the Democrats begin to yell and wave their hands shouting, "GIVE HER ANOTHER CHANCE! GIVE HER ANOTHER CHANCE!"
Gore, unsure whether or not he is doing more harm than damage, eventually says, "OK! OK! Just one more chance -- What is 2 plus 2?" The lady closes her eyes, and after a whole minute eventually says, "Four?".
Throughout the stadium pandemonium breaks out as every Democrat in the audience jumps to their feet, waves their arms, stomps their feet and screams...
"GIVE HER ANOTHER CHANCE! GIVE HER ANOTHER CHANCE!"
[ Chuck Muth ]
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.