Immigration patrols on domestic Amtrak

Hatunen wrote:

Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they
earmarked somehow for wages?

I asked.

Post office income remains segregated as postal funds and isn't paid to
the Treasury (except for specific federal programs the post office must
contribute to, like pensions). The post office administers its own
payroll. I don't know if postal retirees get federal pensions like other
federal employees.

Hatunen wrote:
On 04 Aug 2007 05:33:53 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
Merritt Mullen wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is
legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch."

The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says:

"There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal
Service."

I know, picky, picky.

More than "picky, picky". As I said, "agency" has a specific
legal meaning that does not apply to independent units such as
the USPS or the Federal Reserve.

If you're talking about things like civil service pay grades, the postal
service isn't subject to that (thanks to much better representation by
postal unions than civil service unions years ago).

Teh legaal term "agency" has nothing to do with pay grades.

You haven't cited the statute defining "agency" for whatever point you
are making. You want to tell us?

Hatunen wrote:
On 04 Aug 2007 05:47:19 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
Hatunen wrote:

And, under changing requirements of identification for
employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system
and has an SS number. For about the last fifteen years I have had
to present by SS card to propective empoyers. Needless to say,
they are easily fakeable, but the potential empoyers still
photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for their records. I
believe it gets them off the hook on certain federal
requirements.

Hardly. Demanding a birth certificate would put an employer on the hook for
violating civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring older
Americans.

Nevertheless, they do.

Another cute trick is when an employeer demands to know the year of
graduation from high school. That usually lets you learn someone's age
within a few months.

On 05 Aug 2007 02:49:33 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On 04 Aug 2007 05:33:53 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
Merritt Mullen wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

It is a government agency in the common meaning of the word, but it is
legally defined as "an independent establishment of the executive branch."

The law (39 U.S.C, sec. 201) says:

"There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal
Service."

I know, picky, picky.

More than "picky, picky". As I said, "agency" has a specific
legal meaning that does not apply to independent units such as
the USPS or the Federal Reserve.

If you're talking about things like civil service pay grades, the postal
service isn't subject to that (thanks to much better representation by
postal unions than civil service unions years ago).

Teh legaal term "agency" has nothing to do with pay grades.

You haven't cited the statute defining "agency" for whatever point you
are making. You want to tell us?

An agency functions as an agent.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 05 Aug 2007 02:46:25 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they
earmarked somehow for wages?

I asked.

Post office income remains segregated as postal funds and isn't paid to
the Treasury (except for specific federal programs the post office must
contribute to, like pensions). The post office administers its own
payroll. I don't know if postal retirees get federal pensions like other
federal employees.

So then it is not true that "[the postal service] is not any kind
of corporation, such as Amtrak is, and its employees are
government employees paid by the Treasury Department"?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 05 Aug 2007 02:51:24 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On 04 Aug 2007 05:47:19 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
Hatunen wrote:

And, under changing requirements of identification for
employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system
and has an SS number. For about the last fifteen years I have had
to present by SS card to propective empoyers. Needless to say,
they are easily fakeable, but the potential empoyers still
photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for their records. I
believe it gets them off the hook on certain federal
requirements.

Hardly. Demanding a birth certificate would put an employer on the hook for
violating civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring older
Americans.

Nevertheless, they do.

Another cute trick is when an employeer demands to know the year of
graduation from high school. That usually lets you learn someone's age
within a few months.

I checked back. What is actually required is proof of
citizenship, which for many people will be a birth certificate
(accompanied by some sort of photo ID). I presume a passport will
also serve.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
On 05 Aug 2007 02:46:25 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
Hatunen wrote:

Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they
earmarked somehow for wages?

I asked.

Post office income remains segregated as postal funds and isn't paid to
the Treasury (except for specific federal programs the post office must
contribute to, like pensions). The post office administers its own
payroll. I don't know if postal retirees get federal pensions like other
federal employees.

So then it is not true that "[the postal service] is not any kind
of corporation, such as Amtrak is, and its employees are
government employees paid by the Treasury Department"?

So argue with Merritt. He got part of it correct.

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:00:33 GMT, Merritt Mullen
wrote:

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:


Do the proceeds from postage sales go into Treasury, and are they
earmarked somehow for wages?

I don't know the details and am too lazy to research them, but,
presumably, yes.

I don't think I care to proceed on your uncaring assumptions. You
cared enough to make the flat our assertion, "As you say it [the
postal service] not any kind of corporation, such as Amtrak is,
and its employees are government employees paid by the Treasury
Department."

In what way were you intending to proceed? Are you thinking of taking a
job with the USPS?

You do me a disservice implying I think you are fool enough to take my
assertions as fact. I certainly don't think that and would expect you to
check for yourself and have the courtesy to correct me if I am wrong (I am
sure I am often wrong). We are having a conversation here, not making a
legal deposition, or writing a paper for peer review.

Merritt

"Sapphyre" wrote in message
oups.com...
They also have details of my commercial crossings too, since the
last time I crossed (recently) he asked if I had any of those things
with me on "this trip" (since it was a rare time for me not to be in
the commercial lane). So I figure with my commercial stuff, that's
definitely keyed in by someone in some detail, that they know
what I'm carrying, even if it's only by Tariff code.

It'd slipped my mind that you cross commercially; that's what's getting you
more scrutiny, particularly on occasions where you deviate from your
pattern. The fact you weren't actually born in Canada is also going to
hurt, though how much I can't guess since AFAIK you haven't said where you
_were_ born or what ethnicity you appear to be.

My comments apply only to those crossing infrequently and exclusively for
business meetings or pleasure. I know dozens of folks, with passports from
both sides, and nearly all of their experiences match mine: as long as you
aren't seeking employment in the other country (or, in the case of the US,
appear hispanic or middle-eastern), they don't ask many questions.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Hatunen wrote:
On 04 Aug 2007 05:47:19 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
Hatunen wrote:

And, under changing requirements of identification for
employment, for giving evidence that one is part of the SS system
and has an SS number. For about the last fifteen years I have had
to present by SS card to propective empoyers. Needless to say,
they are easily fakeable, but the potential empoyers still
photocopy my SS card and birth certificate for their records. I
believe it gets them off the hook on certain federal
requirements.

Hardly. Demanding a birth certificate would put an employer on the
hook for
violating civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring
older
Americans.

Nevertheless, they do.

Another cute trick is when an employeer demands to know the year of
graduation from high school. That usually lets you learn someone's age
within a few months.

US law requires persons seeking employment to present proof of
citizenship (birth certificate or passport), and proof of identity (long
list of qualifying documents including drivers license). For those who
are legal residents, they are supposed to present a valid green card.
All items presented are copied and kept on file in case the
company/business is audited/raided by the government and needs to show
proof to cover their backs they did not knowingly hire an illegal alien.

Yes, SS cards are easily forged, everyone knows that and the government
has shown little real effort in putting a stop to the practice. All that
has to be done is to order the SSA by law or presidential executive
order, to stop accepting duplicate/fraudulent SS numbers. However since
those numbers translate into millions if not billions of dollars
collected yearly, it would cause fiscal panic in Congress should those
funds stop. It is a dirty little secret that even those so against
illegal aliens working won't entirely admit. What they are proposing is
to make those payments off limits to the worker (and his heirs) in the
future.