Here is my proposal;

  1. Automatically enroll all Veterans in a Platinum ACA – Obama Care Plan, with an Olive Green Supplement – under which they will pay NO co-pays and NO deductibles.  Additionally, provide them with an automatic “line-jump” to the head of any cue created to wait for any and all medical care or procedures – treat them as the special class of citizens that they are!  They will, as will all Americans under ACA be able to access; we are told the best medical care available.  They deserve no less than that best!
  2. Immediately close and sell off, at current market value, all VA Healthcare facilities to private industry.  Since the same number of patients will then be seeking care in the same areas as are presently being serviced all of the good facilities will be acquired.  Those facilities not up to snuff will be sold at a discount and renovated.  Those not capable of being modernized should be torn down by the VA and the land sold at auction.  All of the proceeds should go to the general treasury.
  3. Terminate all VA Healthcare employees. Since the same number of patients will then be seeking care in the same areas as are presently being serviced all of the good employees will immediately be rehired at market wages.  Those employees not up to snuff but who are willing to be retrained and have their skills updated should be allowed, at the VA’s expense to be reeducated retrained and re-enter the job market.  Those not capable or willing to be retrained and have their skills updated of being modernized should receive currently contracted benefits and seek their futures in another segment of the economy.
  4. Since the VA healthcare system will no longer be a stand-alone system all administrators, managers and bureaucrats will no longer be needed and should re-enter the labor market.  Those with desirable skills will be employed and the others – well they are best not retained in any system providing care.

Now what possible objection could there be to these proposals?

  1. We are told quality and quantity of care under ACA will be first rate, so these cannot be issues.
  2. Since the same number of patients will need and be receiving the same high level of care, but without the extra costs attendant in the ACA (co-pays and deductibles) the Veterans should be happy.  They can like the rest of choose their own doctors and medical facilities!
  3. Since the same number of patients will need and be receiving the same high level of care, all of the good, worthy and caring employees of the VA Healthcare system will be immediately rehired and similarly with respect to the market need for good, modern, well located medical facilities!
  4. Costs the taxpayers will be dramatically reduced in several ways.
    1. Under ACA the typical family will save $2500.00 and since the VA will be paying all co-pays and deductibles, these saving will accrue to the Treasury.
    2. Since we will have integrated the care giving with existing organizations we will o longer need duplicative, facilities, support staffs, management organizations, administrations, record keeping etc.
    3. Old, unfit, poorly located facilities will be eliminated recycled and placed back on the market for re-use in their highest and best use.  This will leave the Veterans able to avail themselves of all the benefits of modern medicine (as available to all Americans under ACA.)

We will, however need to deal with a few pesky little problems, but none of these should affect the quality or quantity of care to be delivered to our Veterans.

  1. Politicians will have to give up the notion of retaining VA service facilities and employment in their own states and districts, where they are not needed – the market will cause them to be located based upon need and use, not political consideration.
  2. Unions will of course scream, but there is no law prohibiting them from organizing in the new to be expanded private medical sector.

But most importantly we will once and for all times not be providing our most worthy citizens and Veterans allegedly “SEPARATE BUT EQUAL” medical care and facilities with the stated intention of providing better care but with the actual delivery being uniformly SUBSTANDARD CARE!



In that our Federal Income Tax Code, has become so large, so over-encompassing, so impossible for even full time experts and scholars to decipher with any consistent agreement, LETS START OVER!

The sole purpose of the code should be to raise revenue for legitimate Federal governmental purposes as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.  It should not be a vehicle for achieving, the financing of State and Local governments within the United States or foreign governments without, no matter how friendly.  Funds for those purposes should be raised at the State or Local levels or NOT AT ALL!

Therefore I hereby propose the following New Federal Income Tax Code:

  1. REVOCATION: The Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) including the taxes assed on individuals and all artificial entities and each of its regulations and authorities are hereby revoked as of this date in its entirety, except as specified below.
  2. CORPORATE CODE; There is herby levied upon each and every legal (non-human) entity (without exception), a tax of;

(a) either 5% of gross receipts without deduction or exemption, or

(b) at the election of any entity having equity, member, partner or                   shareholder interests, (made by its first filling its annual return), 0,                   with the delivery to each of its of a proportional pass-through of all                   net income as determined under the Code.  Which passed through                   income shall be taxable to such individuals.

  1. INDIVIDUAL CODE; There is herby levied upon each and every individual (human) entity, a tax of 15% without deduction or exemption, of all gross receipts as determined under the Code.
  2. Procedural Matters:

(a) A gross receipt is any amount deposited or capable of being deposited in any financial account or its equivalent value in goods or services rendered delivered or given without consideration.

(b)  The full amount is be deducted and remitted upon each deposit.  For equivalent value in goods or services rendered delivered or given without consideration not deposited such amount is to be calculated and remitted by the recipient with in 30 days.

(c)  Failure to comply fully in any respect will result in the immediate loss of all social services and benefits payable in whole or in part from the Federal government until payment in full, with interest and a 25% penalty has been satisfied for the Taxpayer, the Remitter and their families.

Lest this be thought unfair and unprogressive here are three examples;

  1. An individual earning $10.10 per hour over 2000 hours in the year will pay $303.00 in total – far less than her current payroll taxes alone.
  2. Two earners in a home in a community property state, one earning nothing and the other earning $200,000,00 will pay $30,000.00, which is less than their current average tax burden.
  3. An individual earning $2,000,000 composed of distributed profits from entities, tax-free interest from municipal bonds and earnings from work will pay $300,000.00, most probably more than he is currently paying.

In sum, that above tax code is SIMPLE, EASY to apply, understand and enforce.  Favors no one with political or economic clout and will greatly diminish the cost of the current tax collection and administration system.




It is time to form a new political party, when the old party is so corrupted that it no longer deserves the support of its members.  As a life long Republican I am saddened to see the passing of the Party of Reagan, but not nearly as saddened as he would be to see the his Party, the Party of Lincoln and Roosevelt (Teddy that is) and Bush (41 and 43) become irrelevant!  (Since third parties always loose elections and in fact guarantee the loss of the party that they “split-off from” the hope is that with enough backing the New Party – will NOT be a THIRD part but rather BECOME THE  SUCCESSOR TO THE OLD PARTY AND TAKE OVER THE EXISTING PARTY – A REVOLUTION FROM WITHIN!)

Conservative lessons learned or Parenting a Nation:

Our last two National elections have, I believe left a number of clear messages.

  1. Julius Caesar was right – to divide and conquer is still a valid strategy.
  2. Marx and Engels were right – democracy and free enterprise cannot be taught to those with an empty belly.
  3. Goebbels was right – repeat a big enough lie often enough and it becomes the truth
  4. Thatcher was right – socialism fails when government runs out of other peoples money to spend

All of the above paraphrases are mine, but the lessons belong to us all.  As an unrepentant Conservative and a putative Republican I am well aware of the fact that politics “is the art of the possible.”  It makes no sense to alienate an electorate by taking positions that CANNOT prevail if you are seeking an elective victory.

This does NOT mean that Constitutional Conservatives need to give up their dearly held beliefs and values.  It does mean that we must reinvent ourselves, rebrand our image and remarket those core values and beliefs that can prevail and de-emphasize those views that are “out-of-favor.”  We must recognize that total agreement across the board within and across any large heterogeneous group is not only impossible to achieve but will necessarily result in a verbal regression to the mean with a resultingly bland statement of beliefs and values.

So lets start with a clear statement of conservative Constitutional beliefs and values;

We the Constitutional Conservatives (REPUBLICANS) of the United States of America believe:

  1. All men and women, irrespective of race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, country of birth, condition of health or environment, or any other current or future politically correct modifier, are entitled to “equality of opportunity”.
  2. Equality of opportunity does not mean or imply that all individuals are possessed of equal skills, intelligence, drive, interest, financial or social resources, or work ethic and we acknowledge that these differences, as well as many others exist and will result in inequalities of out comes.  And that those differences add to the richness and variety of our society.
  3. Civilized and compassionate society does have an obligation to provide for the truly unfortunate, (by any measure) and to provide a “hand-up” to the less fortunate but does not have any obligation to those who seek to avoid their own responsibilities for themselves and others, in other words there is no obligation to provide a “hand-out.”
  4. It is reasonable and appropriate to expect a Quid for each Quo, all actions have a cost and all members of society who benefit from the society must contribute the whole.

Our Founders (who art in heaven hallowed be their names,) created in their divinely inspired wisdom, a framework for a government for the protection of individual liberties and freedoms FROM governmental overreach.

We have wandered far from these moorings and allowed, by our inaction those very freedoms and liberties given to us all by “natural law” (our Creator) to erode! And we must reclaim them or perish!

  1. The Constitution provides for just 18 enumerated and certain specified powers and authorities to be delegated by the People to the Federal Government, (See The U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8) and expressly reserves the remainder to the States and the sovereigns  – “the PEOPLE.”  (See The U.S. Constitution Article I, Amendments IX and X)
  2. Accordingly each of the following divisive issues should be banished from the national – FEDERAL debate as having been expressly reserved to the individual states or the people.
  1. Marriage
  2. Sexual orientation
  3. Equality of outcomes
  4. Family matters and arrangements, including all aspects of procreation
  5. Religion (Except as expressly provided in The U.S. Constitution Article I, Amendments I) the non-establishment clause.
  6. Gun Control (A natural right of the people which the Federal Government “shall not infringe”.)

We must resolve NOT to allow the terms of the debate and the very words used in description of issues to become loaded with secondary emotional uses and meanings distractive to logical free debate of issues and negotiated settlements and compromises on truly Constitutionally Reserved Federal issues.  We can accomplish this by agreeing on the meaning of words and making those meanings clear and using only those words with those meanings in the National Debate and REFUSE to participate in national political discussions of issues that are expressly not Federal Constitutional issues!


Dad Should I Go To College and Will You Pay For It?

Dad Should I Go To College and Will You Pay For It?

The answer depends on the intention.  If it is the intent to (a) avoid going to work i.e. extended day-care or (b) defer entry into the real world of self-dependence (assuming you can get someone else to pay the costs or you will finance the costs with debt that you neither intend or are able to discharge) then ABSOLUTELY, ENJOY!  On the other hand if the intent is to make a rational decision based on lifetime economics and return on investment, lets take a closer look.

When I asked myself this question in 1965 (it was clear that college was an option only if I paid for it) I answered –yes.  But I did not, I am sorry to say do an analysis of the net present value of the education.  So here is my retroactive analysis;

Cost of Education = Out-Of-Pocket Cost of Education (tuition, books, fees etc., net of scholarships, and fellowships) + loss of earnings while continuing education (measured by probable earnings as a high school graduate) – part-time earnings during education = the

Value of Education = actual earnings as a college (and law school) graduate –             probable earnings as a high school graduate – Cost of Education

To refine the calculation we might look at the full cost of education, not just the portion paid by me, which we can measure by making the assumption that the state-public school system I attended had a cost not greater than the equivalent private schools offering a similar education in the same geographic location.  The of course reducing all cost to comparable dollars through a present value calculation.

When I do this analysis for myself going to college and on to grad-school was a very clear winner.  But this was as of 1965which is interesting but not instructive for those looking to make the decision today.  The same analysis performed for my daughters (using average costs and earnings) and starting in 1990 is a closer question but still yields a very positive result.  Again, this is interesting but not instructive.

The factor absent from these calculations is one that did not exist in 1965 or 1990.  In the job markets that existed at those times there were plenty of opportunities for employment without a college education, albeit at lower compensation, slower advancement opportunities and levels.  In 2013 the job market is noticeably and remarkably different in at lease the following particulars;

  1. The top-line unemployment rate has gone from the 4-6% range to 7-10%, and that is despite the facts that both the labor force participation rate (63.3%) and the ratio of those employed to the total population (56.8%) have fallen to new lows!
  2. Recent college graduates, predominantly falling in the 20 to 29 year old age category have seen overall employment, for their age group, fall in just the last 5 years by in excess of 1.1 million jobs! (In fact there are more than a million fewer people in the 16 to 25 year old category employed today than in 2007!)
  3. Although there are approximately the same number of high school drop-outs and those with only a high school diploma in 2013 (over age 25) employed, as there were in 1990 there are more than 27 million more people employed with at least some college than in 1990!

This leads to the conclusion that college now serves, at least, as a gate-keeper or threshold to employment, whether or not it enhances the net lifetime present value of earnings.   On the other hand it may just be that there are more college graduates available in the labor market, irrespective of learned skills, and employers have concluded that they might just as well hire someone who at least has shown some interest in learning skills, by attending college, whether or not those skills are applicable in the work place.

However, this information should also be included in our formulaic calculus, as suggested above.  And for this I would suggest that the resultant Value of Education be adjusted by weighting the result by the increased likely-hood of finding employment over an individuals lifetime, in other words by the inverse of the differential between those who are employed with and without college attendance.

As an example of the calculus as of 2010:


  1. Annual wage of an employee without any college in 2012 $22,000 at high school graduation
  2. Annual wage of an employee with some college in 2012 $40,000 at college graduation
  3. Increasing rate and ceiling on earnings for attending college over not attending 50% (premium on earnings acceleration 50%)
  4. Out of pocket cost of state undergraduate college education (tuition, fees, books, living expenses) per year $14,000
  5. Same as 3 for non-residents $36,000 thus representative of the full cost of education
  6. Living expenses during college $18,000
  7. Age of graduation and workforce entry 24
  8. Length of work force participation 41 years (to age 65)
  9. Cost of money 6%

10. Average number of years to graduate college 5

11. Adjustment factor for a lifetime of better employment opportunities 115%


  1. Out of pocket cost of education – 5 X ($22,000+$14,000+$18,000)=$270,000
  2. Societal cost of education– 5 X ($36,000-14,000)=$60,000
  3. Total cost of education $330,000
  4. Differential in life time earnings (nominal) 41 X $18,000=$738,000 X 150% (for accelerating earnings potential) = $1,107,000 X 115%
  5. Present Value of differential of life time earnings at 6% $479,000 approx
  6. Differential between 3 and 5 $249,000

Now having said this if your money is worth less than 6% the differential increases.  Similarly reducing the number of years of college, the cost of college or increasing the differential in earning over time, for the college graduate.  Of course in each case the reciprocal is also true.  Bottom line, college is THE BEST CASH INVESTMENT a parent can make in a child, provided ONLY THAT the child is willing to invest their energy in their own future!






5-15-13 by Ronald C. Lazof


Trend is Toward Fewer Hours Not More Jobs
First, let me offer congratulations to the 165,000 families who’s personal unemployment rate went from 100% to 0%, always a joyous event, both in terms of economics, as well as self-worth and esteem, during the last month!

Unfortunately, it is widely estimated that the minimum average monthly number of new jobs needed, to maintain both work force participation levels and reduce underemployment and unemployment numbers (U6 is currently in excess of 22,000,000 Americans, and the civilian work force increases by more than 200,000 a month) is 250,000!  And the percentage of those employed to our total population has now shrunk to a  low of 56.8%.  This is a different number than the civilian work force participation rate which is now at 63.3% (the ratio of those in the work force to those that are employed and unemployed and still looking for work.)  Of the 165,000 added 176,000 were in the private sector.  This is also a cause for celebration, as it means government employment shrunk by 11,000!

Let’s look closer at one segment of the employment numbers, that of the food and beverage (sometimes denominated as the leisure and hospitality) industry.  We were told that included the 165,000 new jobs were 39,000 jobs in this sector – that is clearly a good thing.  We were also told that included within the 165,000 new jobs were 278,000 involuntary part-time and 163,000 voluntary part-time or temporary jobs, for a total of 441,000 new part-time jobs, which in turn means that the reciprocal or 276,000 FULL-TIME JOBS WERE LOST – CLEARLY NOT A GOOD THING.  Part-time being defined as all jobs less than 32 hours per week. During the past year involuntary part-time employment increased by 222,000 jobs.  Another factor to consider is that the average work hours continued to fall and is now down to 34.4 hours.

If we put all of this information together with the number of total jobs existent in the food and beverage sector we can easily make an explanatory supposition that this increase is related causally to Obama-care.  We know that employers in general are acting to arrange their affairs to comply, or avoid the necessity to comply, with the mandatory coverage and penalty provisions.   This would naturally lead to reduced hours, less than 30 per week and additional part time employee head-counts, at the ratio of 3 to 1.  In other words if an employer has 21 employees capable of part time scheduling and had previously had them working 40 hours, the employer could now provide the same hourly coverage with 28 employees working 30 hours per week.

There are 14,000,000 employees in the food and beverage sector of the labor market. If only 50% of those jobs were capable of part-time scheduling and only 50% of the employers capable of scheduling those employees were to make this calculation and take the above action, this would result in the “manufacture” of 1,112,000 additional “jobs” (all of them part-time) and the loss of 3,500,000 fulltime jobs, having the result of changing the “Job Report Top Line Unemployment Rate from 7.6% to 6.8% without doing our economy any good at all!

Perhaps that is the real intention of Obama-care; if we can just (a) encourage more employers to make their employees part-time and (b) encourage more former employees to leave the work force we can drive the Unemployment Rate down and at least claim to have a fully recovered economy, unless of course you really care about more than just having fun with numbers!

Lets talk about the Second Amendment; and “Gun Control”

Lets talk about the Second Amendment;


1. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of Americ

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

2. Infringed, as per the new on line Dictionary

Infringe – To impinge, to come into contact or encroach or have an impact; to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate.”

 3. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America

 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 4. Arms, as per the new on line Dictionary


 A weapon, especially a firearm


 For those of us for whom the words of the Constitution still have the meaning for which they were intended, the issue of regulation of arms by the Federal Government would seem particularly straight forward.  Clearly by the ordinary meaning of the words used, it was the Framers intent to prohibit the Federal Government from any regulation of arms.  Since any ‘regulation’ is by definition an infringement, and the power to regulate implies the power to abolish or terminate, this should be case closed on national regulation!

If there is a consensus of the People (the citizens of the United States of America) to change this mandate, then the Framers provided not one, but two methodologies for Amending the Constitution.  One of which has never been used (the calling of a Constitutional Convention) but the other was been successfully used 27 times. Accordingly if the President and or his allies or others wish to advocate the abridgement or infringement or regulation of the 2nd Amendment their Constitutional course of action is clear, and they should proceed to the work.  If I am given the opportunity to vote or participate by advocacy or other means I will oppose such an amendment.  If not, and it passes, I will abide by the then revised law of the land.

Alternatively, those who would regulate arms may proceed at the State level.  In many (44) States such as Colorado and Texas the State Constitutions contain similar provisions;

Colorado “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”  Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

Texas Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.  Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876)

So in Colorado you may carry arms openly but not concealed unless the State so permits and in Texas the State reserved to itself the right to regulate the carrying of arms whether concealed or not.  In each case further regulation would seems to require Amendment of the State Constitutions.  No where is there a right to further regulate or specify the kind, size, description, features, rate of fire, size of magazine, components, or color of the arms.

Furthermore or all State Constitutions contain provisions for their amendment so again if there be the “will of the people” for regulation the course of required action is clear.  Proceed under our laws and advocate and pass, if you can and dare, the amendment you desire.  As for me, and many others, again, if I am given the opportunity to vote or participate by advocacy or other means I will oppose the proposed amendment.  If not, and it passes, I will abide by the law of the land.

It is not the Constitutional exercise of our laws, including the right of the people or any group of people to assemble and petition the government, be it at the Federal or State level that creates issues for many of us described as “on the right,” but rather the Extra-Constitutional use of power not granted, that cannot be endured or permitted!

Therefore, if you believe in regulating arms, at the State or federal level, proceed as you would have others proceed, within the law!

Abortion, Choice or Right to Life: An Issue of “Focus.”


1. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy, other than by natural causes

2. Pro – choice (Democrat) or Pro-Abortion (Republican) are each evocative characterizations, designed to, unfairly I think, obscure the issue. The word “choice” as currently used by Republicans implies encouragement to abort, as opposed to encouragement to have the individual make an informed and independent choice (Democrat or Libertarian,) which must be juxtaposed against having a government make a moral choice, for its citizens, as a reflection of the then existing majority’s expressed will (Populist.)

3. Killing: terminating a human life 4. Murder: unlike homicide, any form of an unlawful termination of human life 5. Life: a. biologically – reproducing, ingesting, excreting organisms b. religio-spiritually – the divine spark present at inception c. legally – somehow related to viability (problematic with test tube babies and advances in medicine now and in the future)

Beliefs and Viewpoints:

1. All abortions are, if you accept “but for” reasoning, a Killing, but all Killings are not Murder for example killing in self defense, or defense of another, Murder is only what a particular society’s laws define as an unlawful killing etc.

2. The question itself is often determined by the observer’s focus.

a. If you focus on the mother, then until the fetus is “born” it is part of the mother’s body, and I believe she, and every other person, should have the absolute right to govern and choose their course of care, (and no, this does not mean that I accept that pregnancy is a disease to be treated.) Health, or lack thereof, so long as the individual bears the entire effects of their own choices, other than the moral consequences inherent in a society that acquiesces to any act of one of its members, is and should be an exclusively personal matter where the individual acts according to his or her own moral tenants and bears the consequences of their own actions or failures to act.

Thus, choice, which should, I believe, be informed, in this as in all decisions, here because of the moral consequences inherent to an acquiescing society, focuses ONLY on the mother. Society should, I believe, have the right to require that choice made be in an informed and timely manner. Say within the first trimester, and only by minimally competent persons under the law (as currently defined for criminal purposes – the ability to know the difference between right and wrong, not to say or characterize this as even remotely a criminal act.)

b. If you focus on the fetus, our society has irrefutably granted certain rights at birth. Although these rights, until very recently, did not vest in the child until a latter date i.e. majority, baptism, confirmation, bar mitzvah, etc. As to the question, why should the date be moved to an earlier time, and if so to what age, what logic can there be, in view of modern medicine, to draw any line other than inception, once and if you agree to any earlier time. Since the fetus will not be capable of communicating cognizance of its death, if this occurs before birth, what are the consequences to society of its death, other than the moral issue? And if it is solely the moral issue then do we really want any government making moral decisions by the majority expression of will? I do not!

3. Does this mean that the poor and/or ignorant are more likely to abort than the financially secure and educated – yes. But then the poor and/or ignorant are also more likely to be pregnant with an unwanted child and less likely to bear the consequences of their action and require that society bear the consequences of their individual choices, welfare etc. Is this characterizable as racial or class centric, possibly but anything can be characterized by “look-back” causality, the question is repeatability and whether the intent was somehow racial of class centric or whether there are concurring unrelated common causes of both effects or even if one is merely an unintended consequence of the other.

Proposals, what may be elected, and who makes the election:

1. If a single (unmarried) woman over the age of 18 is pregnant; then the mother makes the decision, in writing, after a minimum 48 hour (cooling off period), post notification of right to counseling (with no requirement of counseling).

2. If a married woman is pregnant; then the mother makes the decision, in writing, after a minimum 48 hour (cooling off period), post notification of right to counseling (with no requirement of counseling), and either the written consent of her husband or a written acknowledgement that he has been notified.

3. If a single (unmarried) woman over the age of 14 but not yet 18 is pregnant; then the mother makes the decision, in writing, after a minimum 48 hour (cooling off period), post notification of right to counseling (with a requirement of counseling) and either written consent of her custodial parent or a written acknowledgement that he or she has been notified.

4. If a single (unmarried) woman under the age of 14 is pregnant; then the mother makes the decision, in writing, after a minimum 48 hour (cooling off period), post notification of right to counseling (with no requirement of counseling) and either written consent of her custodial parent or a written acknowledgement that the custodial parent shall as of the birth adopt the child and assume responsibility for same.

5. In the event that the election is made to terminate the pregnancy in any of the above circumstances, or in the case of incest, rape, or the health of the mother is endangered; the pregnancy may be terminated, at government expense at an approved facility.

Fixing the Postal Service

Fixing the Postal Service

The United States Postal Office is broken.  It is fixable.  As currently operated it attempts to survive in the unfriendly environment of 21st century communications with 18th century methods.  It is time to make a change, a leap, and move to an innovative platform supported by current technology that will result not only in improved service levels but perpetual break-even operations without additional cost or taxpayer support.


  1. Recipient one who receives information in electronic or traditional paper format.
  2. Sender one who sends information in electronic or traditional paper format.

We propose the following solution to the continuing U.S.P.S. survival problem;

  1. All mail Recipients will be issued a personal zip code without charge.
  2. All mail Recipients may elect to; (a) have all of their mail scanned and forwarded to an Recipient’s email account; or (b) to a new email account, available without charge at the post office of the Recipient’s selection; or (c) may elect to receive all mail in paper form, as is, at a P.O. Box of the Recipient’s selection; or (d) any combination of the above.
  3. P.O. Boxes will only be available on a monthly or yearly rental, equal to the full cost of their maintenance (break-even.)
  4. There will be NO, Federally paid for, postal home or office delivery.
  5. There will be only one class of postage; equivalent to today’s first class.
  6. Special delivery will be available only through U.P.S., FedEx or a similar private service, with drop off available at any post office.
  7. Package delivery will be available only through U.P.S., FedEx or a similar private service with drop off available at any post office.
  8. Senders using electronic-to-electronic delivery will have all mail forwarded through a Post Office I.S.P. without charge.
  9. Senders using the post office to open, scan and deliver paper-to-electronic mail will be charged ½ the regular First Class Mail Rate to forward mail through a Post Office I.S.P.

10. Senders using the post office to print and deliver electronic-to-paper mail will be charged ½ the regular First Class Mail Rate to forward and print mail through a Post Office I.S.P. to a P.O. Box..

11. Senders using conventional mail will be charged the actual fully loaded cost of deposit, transmittal and delivery to the recipients P.O. Box.

12. The new First Class Mail Rate, to be automatically adjusted on a monthly basis, must be electronically charged by Postal swipe or credit card to the Sender.

13. In lieu of Stamps Senders will bar code their individual zipcode on the envelope of paper mail and enter their individual zip code on electronic mail.

14. Private industry will be authorized and encouraged to contract for P.O. Box-to-home or office delivery with mail Recipients.  As a new public utility awardees will be granted exclusive (monopoly) rights by current zip code or a portion thereof and will be required (part of the cost of doing business) to provide free to delivery to the disabled, and the aged.

15. Private industry will be encouraged to bid and pay for the right to place P.O. Boxes on their property (in their store, Home Depot, Kroger etc, for enhanced foot traffic.)

16. These changes are estimated to reduce the employment requirement from approximately 600,000 to less than 200,000 and reduce the number of vehicles used and maintained along with fuel used by more than 2/3rds.

17. The Postal Department will become a GSE and will proceed through a transition allowing current employees to retire under an early buy-out pension agreement providing, at their option, immediate or deferred benefits based on the net present value

Solution task Forces

Solutions Task Forces

The country faces a number of challenges, few of them small.  In recent history, our Federal government has been tasked with developing and implementing solutions.  One might suggest this approach has resulted in more bureaucracy, significant waste of precious resources, party bickering, and ultimately ineffective programs with little REAL progress toward solving the problems.

Indeed, solutions seem to work through the process in dribbles and bits.  A piecemeal approach will not solve today’s significant problems and in fact may only muddy waters further.  The scope of the problems is large; so must be the solutions.

At the same time, our country is blessed with a population of willing, capable people—a wealth of talent in the private sector, experts in their fields—who often feel impotent watching leaders in Washington (often with NO real-world experience in a particular field) trying to manage these complex issues.

To solve our nation’s ills, the vast resource of our citizenry must be tapped.  The development of solutions needs to move away from the experienced politicians and their cohorts and into the hands of people competent and experienced in industry, service or issue.  How might this be achieved?

  1.  Ask the President in cooperation with Congress to identify the key, broad problems/issues facing our nation.
  2.  For each issue, ask the President to recruit and appoint a citizen task force, a small, working body of approximately 10 – 20 members who bring special experience/qualifications relative to the particular issue.   Task force members are selected from the private sector to provide a year of service to government.  Task force members agree to serve VOLUNTARILLY and, so that they can invest themselves fully in this process, must not be otherwise employed during this period.   Those seeking to serve will provide for their own expenses, either through personal resources or sponsors, solely at the individual’s discretion.
  3.  Each task force is empanelled with the expectation that it will determine its own structure, order and plan of action.  Each task force is charged with four broad goals:
    1. To review and identify the Federal government’s limits and responsibilities relative to the issue in accordance with the Constitution.
    2.  To research possible solutions by consulting with/engaging a broad community of those with relevant, market-based experience
    3.  To evaluate possible solutions
    4.  To devise a recommendation, a comprehensive approach to solving or improving the critical issue facing our nation.

The Task Force reports should be made to the President, to Congress and to the American people.

While the results and success of the Task Forces cannot be guaranteed, at the very least, a large body of information and a wealth of knowledge is coalesced for the country’s good – at no cost to the taxpayer.  At most, workable solutions are put on the table for which Congress can be accountable.  It is hard to find a downside.

Debate and Communication Across and Without an Aisle – Bipartisanship

Hello. I’m Cal, and I have a topic that I hope will inspire some good discussion and hopefully turn up some good ideas.I’m persuaded, from what I read, discussions with friends, and from my own personal experience, that many Americans would like to see more bipartisanship in the actions of our leaders in Washington. And yet it seems that our leaders have largely been at loggerheads over most everything. So, I thought that it might be good for this new forum for ideas to explore the topic of working together in general: what makes an activity in governance “bipartisan”, why do there seem to be larger than average obstacles to bipartisan collaboration at present, is this a problem that should motivate the search for ways to foster bipartisanship or not, and what sorts of things could be done to improve the situation (either to encourage more bipartisan work or to derive better overall governance from a lack of bipartisan efforts)?
I’d like to suggest we begin with what constitutes bipartisanship.  To some extent, I’ve gotten the impression that some feel that it now refers only to working on those things that we all agree on.  But important bipartisan efforts have generally involved collaboration despite disagreement, and even compromise.  Is agreeing to disagree and hence do nothing a bipartisan activity?  What, in general, does it mean for one to act in a bipartisan fashion?
I’m certain that discussion of this topic, like any related to politics, could easily degenerate into an airing of grievances and finger-pointing.  But I’d encourage us all to aim for something nobler and more worthy by engaging in honest and respectful discussion. Who knows? Perhaps we’ll come up with some good ideas for improving things