Postal Service Seeks Permission to End Saturday Delivery

I think this is great news! I could care less if I had Saturday delivery. Since my mail usually comes late in the afternoon, I often forget to even check my mailbox on Saturdays. Most of the mail is junk mail anyway. Yep, no Saturday delivery is not a deal breaker for me.

But not only should they cut Saturday deliveries, except for special mail (express), there are many things they could do to cut costs. I wish Postmaster General John Potter all the best in his endeavor to get the USPS out of the red and not subsidized by the taxpayer!

The financially struggling Postal Service is trying to find ways to get out of the red without resorting to taxpayer aid. Potter announced Tuesday that the service could lose a staggering $7 billion this year -- losses attributed to a combination of the recession and the predominance of e-mail and other electronic forms of communication.

Updated March 02, 2010

FoxNews.com

Postmaster General John Potter said Tuesday that he intends to seek congressional approval to cut Saturday delivery as part of a wide-ranging plan to close a multi-billion dollar budget gap.

Though the idea of cutting service from six to five days has gotten a cool reception on Capitol Hill, Potter said that the plan would include enough flexibility so that customers who need Saturday service can get it and that this and other changes need to be implemented for the Postal Service to survive.

"We built a plan that we think is very reasonable. ... We intend to pursue that," he said. "It's a move that we simply have to make."

READ FULL STORY at FoxNews.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

A libertarian at Fox ~ By John Stossel

From WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: September 23, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine." Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health-care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement." So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias? The New York Times took its bias to an absurd length. Its Page One story on the big anti-big-government rally in Washington, D.C., referred to "protests that began with an opposition to health care. ..." Apparently, in the Times reporter's and editors' view, opponents of the Obama health-care plan oppose health care itself. (The online article was later changed.) Economic-policy reporters usually present the views of supporters of new regulations as objective and public-spirited. For a contrary view, at best they'll ask a Republican or a representative of the regulated business, who is portrayed as self-serving. (Republicans tend to offer a watered-down version of the Democrats' proposals.) A recent Bloomberg report on President Obama's plans to rewrite financial regulations is typical: "Obama has proposed new regulations overseeing the systemic risk posed by large financial institutions." The reporter quoted White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers in support of the plan. Although there are plenty of reasons to doubt that regulators are competent at judging systemic risk, no skeptical economist was quoted. Readers are led to believe the program is perfectly feasible. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]