Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Government Logic

Looks like the government is finally going to go paperless next year. At last. Of course that doesn't bode well for the Post Office to lose another 120 million letters each year (but then again, I am not sure if the government actually had to pay for mailing those letters). In any case, there will be 120 million less expenses that the Post Office has, so maybe it is a good thing (especially if they are losing money on each letter anyway).

But of course, the policy is too good to be true. In spite of allowing direct deposit or money recharged onto a debit card, there had to be exceptions for those few who A) don't have a bank or B) don't shop at places with a debit card. The government estimates the number at 275,000. I estimate that number at 0 (counting for the fact that if you meet both A and B above, you shouldn't be in charge of your own finances).

Near the end I saw this gem:

"In addition to the automatic waiver from electronic payments for those 90 and over, people living in remote areas who might have trouble getting to a bank can also petition for a waiver from the new rules."

Why give 90+ people an automatic waiver in the first place? Are we saying they are incompetent? Do we give them a waiver for registering to vote as well and just assume they are voting Democratic since the majority of seniors do?

And the waiver for people who have trouble getting to a bank? Sending them a check is suppose to help them get to a bank? At least with direct deposit or the debit card it will save them a trip. With this waiver you are forcing them to continue their unnecessary trips in this modern age. With global warming/cooling/climate change looming large, we should actually be fining these people. This waiver is completely backward. If someone has trouble getting to the bank, they should have no option other than direct deposit or debit card.

Then again, I am not in charge of the government. I would probably be cruel and heartless and just not mail out any checks period.

No comments:

Post a Comment