@shockwaver

Forgive me for being Devil's Advocate for a moment...

The major difference between these cases is whether a given #public #service benefits the public as a whole (not "each individual separately, but all of them") or if they benefit the #individual(s).

Military or police spending? That's benefiting #society as a whole - you can't really say "Hey, Fred used a whole lot of police last year and cost me $X" (though some people try). It's even dafter in the military case.

But the post office ... well, if Fred sells and sends out 10,000 #tchotchkes at public #expense, he individually is solely benefiting from that, and the rest of us are picking up the tab. Or if some fundamentalist religious group decides to send "Chick tracts" to every household in Canada, should the #taxpayer really be picking up the #millions of dollars that those bible-thumpers cost everyone?

It's a tricky issue; there is no good solution.

But it pisses me off that they still aren't doing the *obvious* stuff to save money. For many years it's been bloody #obvious that eliminating legacy home delivery, installing community mailboxes for those just like every house built since the mid-80s, would save huge amounts of money.

And they still haven't done it, because the #politicians are afraid it'll cost them a few #seniors' votes.

#ChickTract #BibleThumper #PostOffice