The financial welfare of the United States Postal Service (USPS) has been of particular concern for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) and other concerned taxpayer advocates. Financial instability, continued loss of focus on delivering the mail, and a lack of leadership and accountability are all plaguing the agency. Unfortunately, there appears to be no recognition of the problems. Last week, USPS issued an improper statement on the upcoming expiration of the exigent surcharge for mailing products and services. The USPS is now inappropriately calling on Congress or the courts to extend the inflated postal rate, which is set to expire on April 10. The exigent surcharge was an emergency 4.3% rate increase on Standard Mail approved by the Postal Regulatory Commission 9PRC) in December of 2013 in response to loss of revenue during the most recent recession from December 2007 to June 2009. From what the USPS’s filing shows, many of these products (primarily related to letter mail) are already pulling in more revenue to cover their costs at a nearly 2 to 1 rate. Yet, arguments to extend, or possibly even make these inflated rates permanent, continue to be made. The reality is that financial troubles at the USPS are driven by products such as delivery of packages, specialty services for groceries and fish, other ill-advised ventures, and spending billions on new vehicles when there are alternatives that will save billions . The exigent rate they are seeking from Congress amounts to a handout from the American people to subsidize their poor business choices.

This article appeared in Townhall.com on February 23, 2016 Many serious issues remain undebated as the national dialogue around the 2016 Presidential campaign focuses on silly distractions such as one candidate’s Canadian birth and another’s high-heeled boots. One such issue of critical importance that needs to be discussed is Social Security. No one should be more concerned about this vital issue than the next generation of retirees. According to an alarming report by the Social Security Board of Trustees, the program will begin to pay out more than it takes in by 2034. For this reason, conservatives have argued for years that this valuable safety net program is in need of structural reform. Unfortunately, their calls for fiscal prudence have often been met with attacks from the left; attacks so effective the program remains on a collision course against demographic realities to this day. The situation is well known. Due to the Baby Boom generation reaching retirement age and living longer lives, we have more Americans receiving Social Security and fewer paying into the system. Without structural reforms future retirees could face automatic cuts to their benefits. AARP, the nation’s largest lobbying outfit for older Americans and generally no friend to Republicans on such matters, has launched a campaign called “Take A Stand” designed to encourage dialogue and debate on Social Security reform. They catalogue whether a candidate has articulated a plan on Social Security and are remaining neutral on the content of these plans. The group has run television spots in early caucus and primary states and has recruited volunteers to question the candidates about their plans. So where do the candidates stand?