The Cato Institute’s really impressive “Downsizing the Federal Government” project includes, among many other things, a section on privatizing the U.S. Postal Service. From the report:

The USPS is in deep financial trouble as a result of declining mail volume, bloated operating expenses, a costly and inflexible unionized workforce, and constant congressional meddling. At the same time, electronic communications and other technological advances are making physical mail delivery less relevant.

America’s postal system needs a radical overhaul. This essay discusses the problems of the USPS and looks at some recent postal reforms abroad. It concludes that taxpayers, consumers, and the broader economy would stand to gain with reforms to privatize the USPS and open U.S. mail delivery up to competition.

But it’s not just the libertarians at Cato who think the USPS needs some market-based reforms. Writing for the Independence Institute back in 2001, Colorado Congressman Jared Polis made the case for “Privatizing and eliminating the monopoly of the United States Postal Service,” warning of its ongoing slide into irrelevancy:

We as a society have invested heavily in our postal service, and it would be a great shame to write off the hard work of the men and women who built and run USPS. Unless we unshackle USPS and allow it to leverage its infrastructure effectively as a normal privately owned company, then USPS will sadly fade away as it becomes increasingly irrelevant in the marketplace, destroying an infrastructure and logistical system that could otherwise be leveraged to provide great benefit and causing even more harm in its regulation-casting death throes.

Whole thing here.

We’re number 4! We’re number 4!

Sometimes being number four isn’t such a great thing. Especially when it comes to completely wasting taxpayer money. Our resident transparency guru Amy Oliver wrote a fantastic blog post on Mothers Against Debt outlining how much each state spent to “report” a job “created” or “saved.” All through the magic of “stimulus” spending of course. Colorado clocks in at 4th worst when it comes to efficiency in using our federal “stimulus” dollars. Each job reported to have been created or saved cost our state a hefty $658,037. That’s BEFORE interest! When it’s all said and done, and interest has been calculated on the money we borrowed to “save” these jobs, we’ll be looking at what… a million dollars per job? Maybe more? That’s almost enough money to save Carmelo Anthony’s job.

Furthermore, most of these jobs saved or created have been government jobs. Not exactly the most productive jobs to have been saved eh? That’s like running into your house as it is burning down to save that piece of scrap paper you scribbled the grocery list on. Really? Eggs aren’t that hard to remember are they?

Ever feel like Congress can just do anything it wants? Like the Constitution doesn’t mean anything anymore? If the rules of the game have been degraded to “you can do anything you can get away with,” then those really aren’t rules are they? As depressing as these thoughts are, they need to be raised. Professor Rob Natelson addresses these important questions in this new iVoices.org podcast.

Think the idea that unemployment benefits “stimulate” the economy is silly and dangerous? We do too. Therefore, we had to make fun it via Mothers Against Debt’s latest and greatest video. Please share with anyone you believe would enjoy it!

You know that one childhood friend you’ve got in your close group of friends who can’t ever seem to get anything right? He’s the guy who can’t drive anywhere without getting lost or getting a ticket. He always seems to have forgotten his wallet after you all go out for a beer and some wings. He can’t even remember to bring the wings to your house to watch the big game. He can’t hold a job, but of course it is “never his fault.” You’ve longed since learned not to let him borrow anything because you won’t ever get it back. And if you do, it won’t be in one piece anymore. (Speaking of, he still has my Frampton Comes Alive record).

Regardless, he’s still a good friend and a part of your crew. “The guys” as your wife calls it. You can’t cut him loose, that would be cruel. And besides, you guys have a ton of history together. As the years go on, you and your buddies have learned how to deal with him in a way that limits the damage he can do. For example, no one was willing to let him hold the rings at your wedding. Or plan the bachelor party for that matter. Or stand at the alter near anything breakable. This is what you have to do when you have that friend.

The moral of this story is that in large part, government is that “friend.” It’s the bumbling, forgetful, wasteful, mean, and awkward friend with sticky fingers you can’t take anywhere but have to anyway. The Constitution is the document that attempts to limit the damage this overbearing friend can have on our lives. (Even the Founders had that friend in their circle. Alexander Hamilton perhaps?) In other words, the Constitution prevents your overbearing friend from making a pass at your wife during her baby shower because it prevents him from showing up in the first place. Without it, your friend is set loose, fully able to wreak havoc anywhere and everywhere.

Take for example the Colorado gun-permit database. Why on earth we would want the bumbling, wasteful, perpetual screw-up government to keep such a database is beyond me. Isn’t it obvious that if tasked with doing something outside its useful (enumerated) activities, it would mess the entire thing up? Take a look at the list of errors on top of errors on top of mistakes this database has. The government can’t even keep a simple list of names going for cryin’ out loud! How could we expect it to manage the entire health care system? Or keep an anonymous and accurate All-Payer Health Care Cost Database?

Like not giving the car keys to your friend that can’t get anything right, how about we quit giving government the keys to our private lives? Not only can we not trust them with the information, we can’t even trust that they will get the information right to begin with. It’s time we learn the lesson we have all learned from our childhood friend: limit the damage by limiting the responsibility. Don’t give him your wedding rings. Don’t give him your car keys or your favorite records. And for Pete’s sake, don’t give him information you want kept secret!

The constitutional whiz kids at the Denver Post are at it again.

Their latest batch of constitutional miscues appears on page 5A of the December 20 edition, in a story on the “Repeal Amendment.” The Repeal Amendment would change the U.S Constitution to allow two-thirds of state legislatures to veto federal laws and regulations. The idea is to bring some discipline back to an out-of-control federal government.

The story originated from the New York Times, but the Post edited it to make it worse. For example, the Times version, while critical of the Repeal Amendment, did balance its viewpoint with comments from supporters. The Post version left in criticism by liberal law professor Sanford Levinson, but omitted almost all the favorable comments appearing in the Times version.

But errors and omissions appear in both versions. Here are three:

#1: “Like any constitutional amendment,” the story says, “it must be approved by both chambers of Congress.”

FALSE! The Constitution allows the state legislatures to bypass Congress by requiring Congress to call what the Constitution denotes a “convention for proposing amendments.” This is a meeting of state representatives who draft a proposal that Congress is unwilling to draft. The convention is not, as some have thought, a “constitutional convention,” but essentially a drafting task force. Its proposals can be accepted or rejected by the states.

The Repeal Amendment sponsors, like those promoting other amendments to rein in Congress, are currently going the convention route, which the Founders inserted in the Constitution in case Congress ever became abusive.

#2: “[T]he idea that the health care legislation was unconstitutional was dismissed as a fringe argument just six months ago.”

MISLEADING! While some extreme liberals took that position, concerns about the law’s constitutionality were very widespread. Not only does the law violate the Constitution’s original meaning, but most writers recognize that it stretches even modern court interpretations. Whether the Supreme Court strikes down or upholds the law is likely to depend on which of two different groups of cases the Court follows.

#3: States have passed “sovereignty resolutions, largely symbolic, aimed at nullifying federal laws they do not agree with, mostly on health care or gun control.”

FALSE! Most state actions directed against federal overreaching in health care and gun control have nothing to do with nullification, and go far beyond symbolism. The various state “Firearms Freedom Acts,” such as Montana’s, are designed largely to set up court challenges and protect state citizens. The most prominent health care measures, such as Arizona’s, are designed to protect patient rights under state law.

How do you close a billion dollar state budget gap? Tune in to Devil’s Advocate this Friday as I am joined by Penn Pfiffner, project director of the Independence Institute’s recently released “Citizens’ Budget” project, to lay out the road map to balancing the Colorado state budget and moving towards sustainable state government in the future. That’s this Friday, December 17 at 8:30PM on Colorado Public Television 12. Re-broadcast the following Monday at 1:30 PM.

And on the other Obamacare cases in federal district courts. Rob Natelson and I discuss the various issues. 25 minutes, MP3 from iVoices.org.

Yesterday big news came out of Virginia when a judge struck down a critical part of ObamaCare – the individual insurance mandate. Virginia Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the Constitution’s Commerce Power was no justification for Congress regulating economic inactivity. Like our good Professor Rob Natelson puts it, punishing economic inactivity because of Congress’ power to regulate economic activity is like punishing us for NOT being a pirate because of our Constitution’s clause against piracy.

This is the first serious legal blow to ObamaCare, and it could help bring the issue to our nation’s highest court before the individual mandate kicks in in 2014. The Colorado Independent quotes Research Director Dave Kopel in this quite fair article on the ruling here. Remember all the comments made about Suthers’ taking part in a “frivolous” lawsuit that would “waste taxpayer dollars?” Well, Kopel wonders where all the apologies are that ought to start coming AG Suthers’ way. This Virginia court ruling proves that the AG’s suit is not frivolous. We won’t hold our breath.

My little minion Justin Longo sat down with both Professor Rob Natelson and Research Director Dave Kopel – legitimate legal and constitutional royalty mind you – to discuss the Virginia court’s recent ruling in this iVoices podcast. What does this decision mean for AG Suther’s ObamaCare suit that is about to be heard in Florida?

Keep checking back here for commentary and podcasts following new developments. We’ll be keeping a watchful on Florida as they take on the lawsuit brought by 20 States – including our state – before Judge Vinson in Pensacola.