The UK government approved the £5.3 billion sale of International Distribution Services (IDS), Royal Mail’s parent company, to Daniel Kretinsky’s EP Group. This acquisition, subject to a national security review due to Royal Mail’s vital infrastructure status, includes legally binding agreements to maintain UK-based operations, the universal service obligation, and a government “golden share.” A key aspect of the deal provides Royal Mail employees with 10% of dividends and establishes a workers’ group to engage with company leadership. The deal is expected to finalize in the first three months of 2025 pending shareholder approval.
Read More
Trump eyes privatizing the U.S. Postal Service, citing its financial losses. This isn’t a new idea, and it’s fueled by a long-standing debate about the Postal Service’s role in a modern economy. The argument often centers around the fact that it’s not a for-profit entity, and therefore shouldn’t be judged solely on its financial performance in the same way a private corporation would be. Many argue that the USPS provides a vital service to the entire nation, and that its worth extends far beyond simple profitability.
The claim of financial losses is often used as justification for privatization. However, a significant portion of these losses can be attributed to a Congressional mandate from 2006 that required the Postal Service to pre-fund its retiree health care benefits 75 years in advance—a unique and exceptionally burdensome requirement not imposed on any other entity.… Continue reading
Running the government like a business would be a disaster because the fundamental goals are diametrically opposed. Businesses prioritize profit maximization for owners and shareholders, often at the expense of worker well-being and long-term sustainability. Governments, on the other hand, should focus on the well-being and happiness of their citizens, even if it means sacrificing short-term financial gains. This difference in core objectives makes direct comparison misleading and dangerous.
The idea of applying business principles to government often serves as a dog whistle for those seeking to shrink government services and redirect public funds towards private interests. This “streamlining” often translates to cuts to essential programs benefiting the majority, while simultaneously enriching the wealthy through tax breaks and deregulation.… Continue reading
Senator Mike Lee’s X posts, characterizing Social Security as a deceptive “tax plan,” were amplified by Elon Musk, raising concerns about potential cuts to the program. Lee’s assertions, which misrepresent Social Security’s history and functionality, are supported by right-wing talking points and contradict President Trump’s campaign promises. Advocacy groups strongly condemn these attacks, emphasizing Social Security’s consistent reliability and the negative impact of privatization efforts on beneficiaries. This coordinated effort threatens the financial security of millions of Americans reliant on the program.
Read More
Musk’s Efficiency Department is, ironically, proving to be remarkably inefficient, even before it’s truly begun its work. The very concept of a department dedicated to improving governmental efficiency, spearheaded by individuals known for their unconventional and often chaotic management styles, raises immediate questions. The inherent contradiction is striking; entrusting individuals with a history of disregarding regulations and prioritizing speed over meticulousness to streamline a complex bureaucratic system seems inherently flawed.
The stated goal of increasing efficiency feels like a thin veneer over a more significant agenda. It’s far more plausible that the true aim is to dismantle and privatize government functions, potentially leading to a substantial transfer of wealth and power into the hands of private entities.… Continue reading
As a long-time government employee, the news of Project 2025’s plans to dismantle the federal agency that tracks hurricanes strikes a nerve with me. The reasoning behind this decision seems absurd at best and utterly dangerous at worst. Why would anyone think it’s a good idea to abolish a crucial agency responsible for monitoring and predicting one of the most destructive natural disasters on the planet?
The fact that this move is driven by the desire to privatize the functions of the NOAA raises major red flags. Privatizing such essential services opens the door for exploitation by billionaire contractors who are more concerned with profits than public safety.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood