Among the proposals the Trump administration has offered for drastically restructuring and shrinking the Federal government is one for privatizing the US’ Postal Service.

Of course, the American Postal Workers Union opposes the move, but that’s just wind in the trees and nothing to take seriously.  The union claims that such a move would harm e-commerce and rural America as well as do away with regular mail and package service at affordable costs.  Because competition in the market place doesn’t drive down costs or spur innovation.  And because we all need our regular, daily fix of junk mail.

The administration’s proposal isn’t yet ready for prime time, though.

A privatized Postal Service could be structured like an investor-owned utility and continue to be regulated by the Postal Regulation Commission or another governmental body, “consistent with the existing models of privatization in Europe,” the plan said.

There’s no need for the postal entity to be a regulated monopoly, nor is there any rational reason to imitate Europe for the sake of imitating Europe.

Either privatize the USPS or don’t, but don’t waste even more money on halvesies.

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have agreed a proposed EU budget.  As you might expect, I have a question.  One of the points of agreement is the purpose of the “single eurozone budget” they want to create:

The EU will set up a single eurozone budget to boost investment and promote economic convergence among all 19 member states.

What does this purpose statement mean, exactly?  Who will pay into the budget and in accordance with what parameters?  Who will pick the investments to be supported and on what basis?  On these two matters, details are yet to be worked out, certainly; it’s early in the process.

But the larger matter is what these two mean by “economic convergence.”  Do they seriously intend to move the successful nations—the ones fiscally responsible, that don’t tax heavily or spend profligately, that actively enforce their (tax) laws—toward those nations that are less responsible, even irresponsible, that see their tax laws as suggestions rather than requirements, in addition to seeking to move (with what enforcement mechanisms?) those less responsible, even irresponsible, nations toward the successful ones?

That is, after all, what convergence means: bringing the two sides toward each other, rather than just one side toward the other.

So: why should the successful nations, the fiscally responsible nations, be held back in favor of those nations that have chosen a lower course?  Or is that not what Macron and Merkel meant with their convergence plan?