USPS

Hi Everyone,

For a couple of years now I have been reading and hearing about how unprofitable the United States Postal Service has become. Because the USPS does not receive any taxpayer assistance, the USPS must be run like any other business. Being profitable is of the utmost importance or so you would think.

The decrease in USPS revenues is not a unforeseen occurrence. More and more people are paying bills on line. Less and less people actually write letters to friends etc. And when was the last time that you ordered something from a company that was delivered to you via the USPS? I can't remember any company using the USPS instead of UPS or FedEx or even the old DHL. So with at least those problems facing the USPS, you would think that they must be running it as efficiently as possible? Yea right! Due to the fact the we do not go to our local post office very often any more, I was surprised at what I found missing from ours.

For as long as I can remember, post offices always had at least 2 mail slots in which to mail your letters and bills etc. There was always a slot for out-of-town mail and one for in-town mail. Well lo and behold, when I visited my post office, the slot for in-town mail was permanently, covered over. All mail, both in-town and out-of-town mail went onto the one slot. When our daughter recently mailed some thank you notes, including some local ones, one of the local notes was returned due to an incorrect address. What surprised me was that the USPS postmark was from a city over 30 miles away. What? That meant that the locally addressed mail that she mailed from our local post office was driven 30 miles away, sorted at some USPS sorting location and driven back another 30 miles. Let me think about that one for a moment........ I know that no one really uses snail mail for many things, but just bear with me for a second; in order to mail say an invitation to a friend in the same town that we live in, it has to travel 60 miles instead of 2-3 miles. Can someone please tell me where the common sense is in doing it the USPS way? Oh yea, there is no common sense involved here. I just don't get why the USPS doesn't see the problem. To me the no brainer, common sense solution is to bring back the 2 mail slots. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.

Til next week.

Peter

Stop The Insanity

Hi Everyone,

The 7/21 horrendous massacre in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado should have never, ever have happened. What I am about to say will anger many people, but it needs to be said again and again until the situation is corrected.

So I have some questions. Why is it still legal to purchase an AR-15 assault rifle? Why is it also still legal to be able to buy: military smoke canisters, bullet proof vests, thousands and thousands of rounds of ammunition in one purchase, Kevlar helmets and neck and groin protection? Let's start with the rifle first. Doesn't just the name of it suggest what it is used for? An AR-15 assault rifle is made to kill people. Who takes an AR-15 or AK-47 rifle hunting? No one. Its sole purpose is to kill and injure as many people as possible in a short period of time. Additionally, why do law abiding people need body armor protection. For protection while they are hunting animals who don't have guns? I think not. Body armor has only one use and that is for protection from bullets flying at you. In my wildest imagination, I never thought someone could purchase thousands of bullets at once.

Even though background checks are mandatory that all dealers must do prior to selling any firearms, that doesn't prevent a law abiding person from doing something like what happened in Aurora. FYI,  private owners are legally allowed to sell any type of firearms to another person. So how is it possible to buy all this stuff? Well you can thank, take your pick: the 2nd amendment, the NRA and the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing this to continue. Someone along the line, this country has confused the right to bear arms with the supposed right to bear assault weapons that are used to kill people. When will this insanity end?

I was hoping that President Obama and or Mitt Romney would say something about this problem. They both acknowledged the tragic incident, but both of them failed to say one word about opening up dialogue regarding banning assault weapons. Both are obviously afraid of what the NRA would do to them in this election year. I just don't understand why it is so important that people should be able to own assault weaponry? That makes no sense to me. Why aren't people screaming out their windows that they are mad as hell and they aren't going to take this anymore?!

This issue should not be a political issue, but yet it is, unfortunately thanks to the NRA and a lot of republican backers. But I suppose it always will be a political issue. My common sense solution is simple and straight forward: make it illegal to purchase and or own any type of assault weapon that has the ability to shoot multiple rounds while holding the trigger. I would also make it illegal to purchase any type of body armor protection - period. Additionally, there must be some kind of limit in the amount of bullets one buys. There should also be a ban making it illegal to post anything online about how to make any kind of explosives. Until something is done about assault weapons, we should not be surprised when unfortunately another Aurora occurs. STOP THIS INSANITY!

Til next week.

Peter

When Will They Learn

Hi Everyone,

It happened again on 7/4/12 and this time all 24 people on board the bus, including the driver were injured. The bus driver was actually found on the shoulder of I-95 about 150 yards behind the bus. I don't know how he got there. There was another terrible bus accident on I-95 on 3/12/11 that killed 15 people and injured another 18. During the past few years there seems to be an increase in the number of chartered bus/tour bus company accidents between Boston and Washington DC. What disturbs me about these accidents, is that I believe that each and every one of them could have been prevented. I found many similarities between all of the accidents. Once I figured out the similarities, I used my common sense to come up with a solution that would saves lives.

So these are the similarities:

1) All of the accidents occurred on or near the I-95 corridor, between Boston and Washington, D.C.

2) The large majority of the accidents occurred in the early morning hours.

3) Lack of sleep and speed were involved in all.

4) The majority of the accidents happened after the buses left either a Connecticut or New Jersey casino in the early morning hours i.e.: 4:14 am and 4:45 am.

5) The majority of the corporate owners have been cited for safety violations.

So these are my common sense solutions that would save lives:

First of all, why is it so important to have buses leave a casino at 4:00 am? So gamblers can get to work that day? This practice should stop and the last buses should leave at midnight or even earlier. Then tiredness should not be a factor. I am not sure what it is called, but a GPS like unit should be installed in all charter and tour buses, so that the companies can find out which drivers speed and progressive disciplinary action up to and including termination should be either implemented or strictly enforced. Finally, if a company receives a certain number of citations, they should lose their license to operate for a period a time. If the companies still don't get it, their license to operate should be revoked, period, end of story. I don't think any of my solutions will be used any time soon, which is really unfortunate. How many more injuries and deaths have to happen before any real changes are implemented?

Til next week.

Peter

Have You Checked Yours Lately?

Hi Everyone,

As the title of today's blog asks, have you checked yours lately? I am talking about the interest rates on your savings or CD accounts. It is hard to swallow when banks offer "high value" interest rates of around one half of one percent or 0.50%. Where is the high value? Higher then zero percent? The prime interest rate is stuck at the historical low rate of 3.25%. But, are you aware that the prime rate has been at 3.25% since 12/16/2008? Can you remember how much the interest rates were in your accounts during the years 2008,09,10,11 and 2012? Don't remember? That's ok, because I am pretty sure that what you do remember is that your savings and CD interest rates that you received have dropped substantially since 2008. I just read an ad for a bank that is offering 1.20% for a 3 year CD. If memory serves me correctly, back in 2008 you could get a 1 year CD with a 5.00% interest rate. What has happened?

Back in the day, bank savings and CD rates raised or lowered interest rates when the prime rate went up or down. That made sense. But wait, the prime rate hasn't changed in more then 3 1/2 years. If the prime rate hasn't been lowered since 2008, why have the rates gone down hill? According to what I have read on the subject, it seems that even though the big bank bailout times 2, stopped the bleeding it didn't stop the banks from hoarding the TARP money and not loaning it out. So what is the reason? Oh yea........their hunger for more money. Now some people say that federal regulations is the cause, but the important regulations like the Volker rule has not been passed. The credit card regulations should have nothing to do with interest rates on savings. I truly believe that banks have learned very well from the airline industry. Flying now is like an a la carte experience. They charge extra for anything and everything they can i.e.: pillows, blankets, carry on luggage, weight of checked baggage and where you sit, etc., etc. So now banks are charging excessive fees and lowering savings rates for the sole purpose on making more and more money.

I have a great common sense idea. Since banks need lots of money to invest, why not entice existing and new customers to deposit their hard earned money with the bank by offering higher than normal interest rates? Say 1.50% or even higher. The bank(s) would receive a new influx of money that would most likely beat their current amounts. Even though they would pay a higher interest rate, they would more than make up for it with their new investments. Unfortunately, bankers haved proved time and time again, that they don't have a lot of common sense. Just wait, someday soon, one bank will realize this and do it.

Til next week.

Peter

WHAT???????

Hi Everyone:

Just when I think I have read about all of the lack of common sense things that people, companies and politicians do, this one certainly takes the cake and is right on the top of the heap of?. When I tell you this story, you will not believe it and then you will scratch your head and say it couldn't happen. Well, it did happen and this story is true. I read the story in my Gannett newspaper.

Anyone who has bought a house, knows that the price that you pay for the house is the basis for the school and property, (city and/or, county and/or town or village) taxes that you will pay. That has been the system for eons and is correct in using that selling price to determine the tax assessment of that building. Well, well, well, it seems that the Town of Greenburgh, located in Westchester County, in New York State, doesn't base their tax assessments on the price that you just paid for your abode. The story goes like this: A couple bought their house on April 23, 2012, for $580,000. Unfortunately for the couple, the town has assessed their home at $1.3 million and they are sticking to it. That is more then twice the value of what they just paid for the house. How can this be?

Fairness in the property-tax system is based on homeowners paying a portion of their property's fair-market value. In this case, fair market value is the price that they paid for the home, which was $580,000 and not the absurdly inflated amount of $1.3 million. Their recourse is to file a case on "tax grievance day". Having done that numerous times on our own home, as long as you have 3 comparable similar homes, (including the lot size), that are assessed lower than your own, you will win a decrease in your assessment. It is just that simple. I have never lost an assessment grievance for ourselves and our friends. What amazes me is that, the tax assessor did not lower the value of the house to the price paid when it was filed. But since he/she didn't, even if the homeowners win their grievance, the most reduction that they can receive is 25%. Another stupid rule that makes no sense. The couple is seeking a 55% reduction, but they can't and won't get the additional 30%. Oh boy, if that isn't a rip off, what is?

The failure of municipalities to periodically revalue their properties has left many homeowners with assessments that do not reflect what the house would sell for in the open market. Greenburgh's last revaluation was in 1956. The politicians know how to fix this problem, but it has always been a hot potato and therefore nothing has been fixed since 1956. Where is the common sense here? Oh right, there isn't any.

Again for the umpteenth time, politicians don't seem to be able to get it right. It is and always will be all about their re-election and not what's good for the people that they say they represent.

Til next week.

Peter

What Does Retire Mean?

Hi Everyone,

What do you think the definition of retire is? Webster's definitions that apply to today's blog are: 1) having discontinued work after long service. 2) withdraw from business or public life. 3) make inactive; relieve of duty. The definition of retire seems to be pretty cut and dry doesn't it? It is either black or white with no gray matter in between. Under normal circumstances that would be correct, until you mention New York State. It is painfully apparent that NYS politicians do not know what the meaning of retire is.

I previously blogged in 2009 about the huge problem NYSwas and still is facing with high pension costs from high (bloated) salaries reported during employees final 3 years before retiring and double dippers. But having double dippers, (NYS employees who have retired and receive their pensions and then go back to work for the state and collect a salary) makes no sense at all. To make matters even worse, there are 15 NYS lawmakers (both Republicans and Democrats) who collect both. Come on, either you are working for the state or you are retired from working for the state. Their should be no in betweens. You should not be allowed to collect a pension and a salary together. Just since 2011, there has been a whopping 32 percent increase in state employees who collect both their pensions and a salary. When will this madness end?

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that it should not be legal to collect both a pension and a salary simultaneously. Isn't this an abuse of taxpayer money? Why can't politicians see this problem and solve it? Why isn't there an uproar over this bad policy? Citizens of New York need to know that this is happening and to try to have it stopped once and for all. Politicians never cease to amaze me! They have a take, take mentality.

Til next week.

Peter

Innie or Outie?

Hi Everyone,

A while back, I watched a show on HDTV, (don't recall the name of the show), but it was about building hurricane proof homes. I remember that the house was circular which helped high winds go around the house. I also remember that the front and rear doors opened outwardly. When you think about it, if you live in a hurricane prone area, wouldn't it just make common sense to have exterior doors that open outwardly instead of inwardly? When exterior doors open outwardly, external winds can not blow open the door, which leads to more severe interior damage.

I know a lot of people in this country don't like the government interfering with their lives. But if you think about it, wouldn't it be better protection for one's life, famly's lives and property if there were things you could do to better safe guard in case of a hurricane? But what if states passed laws that prohibited inwardly opening doors at all shore line communities and then another 50 miles inland? The addition of outward opening exterior doors, along with other safety precautions, (for high winds) would dramatically reduce insurance claims. That would then reduce insurance premiums.

I do realize that there are issues with outwardly opening doors. For instance, preventing the door from hitting the house when a small to moderate breeze tries to blow the door off the hinges. That could be an easy fix. But another issue is that the door would be subject to the elements and no one wants the interior part of the door to be soaking wet. So yes there are drawbacks, but isn't a safety feature more important then some inconveniences? If I lived in a hurricane prone area, common sense tells me that I would rather have the outwardly opening door than an inwardly one. I would opt for safety every time.

Til next week.

Peter