Why is [not] spending always a problem? Congress can’t get it right.

2013

The US postal service loses about $15 billion a year, including required funding for pension obligations. If you were invested in such an organization it’s a pretty good bet you would want those losses trimmed. Actually you are invested in the postal service, but what does that matter, Congress knows best, or perhaps a better way to put it is that you matter far less to members of Congress than special interest groups and small town voters in their district.

The postal service wants to stop Saturday delivery to save money (and they want to make a number of other changes as well). The House of Representatives just passed a funding resolution that also prevents five day mail delivery. Congress has blocked other changes too.

Remember, these are the guys and gals who are in charge of the federal budget, who profess hand-wringing over sequestration, who think a 5% budget cut is just short of Armageddon. Congress never seems to get it right in the best interest of the entire Country. When the military wants to close bases, it’s blocked. When the Secretary of Defense wants to adjust the cost of health care for retired military that had not increased in fifteen years, he is denied the change.

No wonder we are in the fiscal shape we are . . . spending is always rationalized while not spending is always a major problem. Isn’t that the definition of marriage too?