The USPS is more than a service. It's a symbol of a functioning society

[American]

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) has noted about the USPS that "It's not a business, it's a service. And this whole notion that you've got to get rid of the post office because they've been losing money — the post office ain't losing money. ... You're paying for a service to keep this country together." Clyburn bashes Postal cuts: It's a service, not a business (the Hill). He's not alone in that sentiment:
The USPS is more than a service. It's a symbol of a functioning society (CNN, Opinion)

So why did I start this thread here? Because the Postal Service is a Constitutional creation. Indeed, the US Post has existed longer than the nation itself. It was one of the first "national" institutions established to separate "the colonies" from its mother country. (CNN)

When Trump (and Republicans) try to dismantle the USPS they are not just making a "business decision" - they are ****ing with the Constitution. It has been a Republican effort going back more than a decade to dismantle the Post Office, and it needs to stop. (CNN)

Why do Republicans hate the Post Office? Because of " its central role in establishing democratic ideals." Democracy, we can't have that!

One of the dumbest rants I've ever seen posted.

 

[NWRatCon]

One of the dumbest rants I've ever seen posted.

ROFL. Listen to yourself. Keep it in the basement where you belong. Civilized society doesn't suit you.

 

[NWRatCon]

I wondered, as I picked up a bit of junk mail at the mailbox today, why the USPS is in such trouble. What about instant communication, going paperless, packages being delivered by UPS or Fedex?

How about, "none of the above". I learned long ago, if you don't know anything about the subject, don't comment.

 

[NWRatCon]

Here's the reality: USPS picks up the slack for FedEx and UPS. They deliver where FedEx and UPS don't. They deliver FOR FedEx and UPS.
For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office - WSJ

The USPS is economically sound absent deliberate sabotage by Congress.How Congress Manufactured a Postal Crisis — And How to Fix it (ips)

In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation.

If the costs of this retiree health care mandate were removed from the USPS financial statements, the Post Office would have reported operating profits in each of the last six years. This extraordinary mandate created a financial “crisis” that has been used to justify harmful service cuts and even calls for postal privatization. Additional cuts in service and privatization would be devastating for millions of postal workers and customers.

Now, The PAEA also gave the USPS flexibility in other respects, which is why it got overwhelming support in 2006 (a point deliberately ignored by other posters). But this particular mandate never made sense.

 

[NWRatCon]

Another point someone made in this thread about the Royal Mail and Deutsche Post (DHL) also merits response. The privatization of the Royal Mail has not been all sunshine and roses. Yes, it had been profitable for investors, who got in for cheap because of bad government planning, and because the government divested the profitable elements but retained the unprofitable infrastructure (post offices and mail assets), yet just seven years in, it is in financial trouble. It's largest investor is a Czech tycoon hoping to cash in on its depressed value. Meanwhile, DHL closed its electric vehicle venture at a huge loss, and is retrenching its services, having been burned the last time it tried to enter the American market. .

 

[NWRatCon]

I meant to include this link with my last post: Three Years On From Its Sale, The Privatisation Of Royal Mail Is A Story Of Our Times (HuffPo UK, Opinion).

The Post Office was split from the profitable Royal Mail business in order to pave the way for privatisation - and all too predictably it is now at crisis point. This year alone it is shedding 2,000 jobs and closing down flagship branches across the country.

Similarly, in a privatised Royal Mail 11,000 jobs have been lost, a fifth of its mail centres have closed and 5% of its delivery offices have shut with more due to follow. These things are not just down to privatisation - but shareholders are exerting more and more influence to maximise their own profits.

As a sign of these shifting priorities, while staff are constantly seeing their workload increase and face the threat of the pension scheme closing, Royal Mail is paying out dividends of £220m per year.

It's not just staff who will question the wisdom of this. As mail users we're the ones paying the cost. And as tax payers - given that this dividend would pay for thousands of teachers or nurses every year - the idea we were better off rid of Royal Mail could not be further from the truth.

The bottom line?

It's sad to say, but the story of Royal Mail's privatisation is a story of our times: the loss of democratic control; the transfer of wealth and power to the richest in society; and the growing pressure on working people to work harder and faster for less.

That's where the GOP wants to take us.

 

[Terryj]

Where in the Constituion is the US Postal Service "mandated"?

In Article 1 section 8 clause 7, Congress shall have the power to establish Post Offices and post Roads.

 

[JMaximus]

In Article 1 section 8 clause 7, Congress shall have the power to establish Post Offices and post Roads.

Good.

Now read that again - closely. Note the difference in wording between what you said "mandate" and what the Constitution says "have the power to establish".

 

[NWRatCon]

Good.

Now read that again - closely. Note the difference in wording between what you said "mandate" and what the Constitution says "have the power to establish".

I was waiting for you to make that stupid argument. I guess Congress doesn't have to regulate commerce, or the military, or coin money, or provide for the common defense, either, but that wouldn't be much of a Congress, would it? Kinda like Trump's attitude toward the Constitution that he took an oath to defend - it's all optional, not important, and certainly not mandatory. Not what we, as citizens, expect, though.

 

[JMaximus]

I was waiting for you to make that stupid argument. I guess Congress doesn't have to regulate commerce, or the military, or coin money, or provide for the common defense, either, but that wouldn't be much of a Congress, would it? Kinda like Trump's attitude toward the Constitution that he took an oath to defend - it's all optional, not important, and certainly not mandatory. Not what we, as citizens, expect, though.

You are confusing your desire for a government-run post office (which I share) with the notion that the government is obligated to provide the public with a postal service just because the Constitution grants it the power to do so.

 

[NWRatCon]

You are confusing your desire for a government-run post office (which I share) with the notion that the government is obligated to provide the public with a postal service just because the Constitution grants it the power to do so.

Functionality, I agree, but realistically, the citizenry expects a functioning service (91% approval) and socially, the service is a vital part of our democratic society (hence this thread). Given the advent of virtual currency, do you think we really need the US Mint anymore? Or State militias? We haven't been invaded for more than 150 years...

 

[Terryj]

Good.

Now read that again - closely. Note the difference in wording between what you said "mandate" and what the Constitution says "have the power to establish".

The point I was trying to make was the fact that Trump can not end the Post Office, this is a creation of Congress and not the Executive Branch, only Congress can put an end to the Post Office and I don't see that happening.

 

[Vadinho]

It appears to me that abolishing the post office would require an amendment to the constitution.

 

[JMaximus]

The point I was trying to make was the fact that Trump can not end the Post Office, this is a creation of Congress and not the Executive Branch, only Congress can put an end to the Post Office and I don't see that happening.

Well that seems a lot different from what you actually said, but okay, if that's what you mean to argue, I don't think anyone will disagree with you.

I scanned the thread and couldn't find anyone claiming the President has unbridled authority to close down the US postal system.

So I think you're good on that one.

 

[JMaximus]

It appears to me that abolishing the post office would require an amendment to the constitution.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[JMaximus]

Functionality, I agree, but realistically, the citizenry expects a functioning service (91% approval) and socially, the service is a vital part of our democratic society (hence this thread).

Honestly, I could probably get by without it. I have no doubt I could get what I need delivered to me through other means.

That said, I would probably pay more.

And with the exception of subscriptions, I have no real use for the postal service at all. And I imagine most people have even less need for it. Just because the approval rating is high doesn't mean it's essential.

Given the advent of virtual currency, do you think we really need the US Mint anymore? Or State militias? We haven't been invaded for more than 150 years...

Probably not.

However, it's become pretty well established that the government isn't actually obligated to do much of anything. The US Constitution lays out what it can't do, but not much else (except where it's explicit in how the government must go about establishing itself, etc.).

Now for me I am of the opinion that a government should exist not simply to get out of the way of its citizens but also to serve them. To me it isn't just enough for the government to, say, abstain from infringing on my right to free speech, but it should go further and ensure no one else infringes on that right, either.

Unfortunately, the system I wish we had is not the system we actually have. And hence my comment that the government isn't - Constitutionally - obligated to provide postal service.

 

[newpublius]

It appears to me that abolishing the post office would require an amendment to the constitution.

The Postal Clause does not require the government to run a postal service, it permits it, nothing more. The federal government can absolutely privatize USPS tomorrow.

 

[newpublius]

The USPS is economically sound absent deliberate sabotage by Congress.How Congress Manufactured a Postal Crisis — And How to Fix it (ips) Now, The PAEA also gave the USPS flexibility in other respects, which is why it got overwhelming support in 2006 (a point deliberately ignored by other posters). But this particular mandate never made sense.

No it isn't actually.



The 'controllable' loss is less, but its still bleeding cash because its a declining business.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No it isn't actually.

View attachment 67296241

The 'controllable' loss is less, but its still bleeding cash because its a declining business.

Except it has never BEEN a business, and your figures, by the way, include those annual PAEA payments @NWRatCon was talking about.

 

[newpublius]

Except it has never BEEN a business, and your figures, by the way, include those annual PAEA payments @NWRatCon was talking about.

The purpose of the postal service was to provide revenue actually. It wasn't designed to be a net drain and fact is, it is.

That's what the Germans did with Deutsche Post and Deutsche Post/DHL now makes a positive tax contribution to the German government.

Even if we completely eliminate USPS pension costs, the USPS still loses money and alot of it. Now, for sure, when we do count it, the USPS does lose more money, but here's the thing, they're not even paying it all anyway.



"Further, USPS has missed $48.2 billion in required payments for postal retiree health and pension benefits as of September 30, 2018. This includes $42.6 billion in missed payments for retiree health benefits since fiscal year 2010, and $5.6 billion in missed payments for pension benefits since fiscal year 2014. If USPS does not make any more payments for retiree health benefits, the fund supporting these benefits is projected by the Office of Personnel Management to be depleted in fiscal year 2030. "

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The purpose of the postal service was to provide revenue actually.

Where do you get this idea? Specifics, please.

"Further, USPS has missed $48.2 billion in required payments for postal retiree health and pension benefits as of September 30, 2018. This includes $42.6 billion in missed payments for retiree health benefits since fiscal year 2010, and $5.6 billion in missed payments for pension benefits since fiscal year 2014. If USPS does not make any more payments for retiree health benefits, the fund supporting these benefits is projected by the Office of Personnel Management to be depleted in fiscal year 2030. "

And those funds are the manufactured crisis being talked about.
Show me where in the PAEA it says that there is a GUARANTEE that those funds will be used EXCLUSIVELY FOR postal retiree health and pension benefits.
Show me the exact clause and line IN the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act that GUARANTEES those funds will be avaialable 75 years from now.
Because I am betting those funds go "POOF" less than twenty years from now when another crooked pol decides his pet project deserves the money more.

What's next, "unfunded liabilities?"

 

[newpublius]

Where do you get this idea? Specifics, please.

This isn't historically disputed. Federalist Papers, debates in convention, etc. They wanted those funds to fund the 'post roads' like, famously, Boston Post Road, etc.

And those funds are the manufactured crisis being talked about.
Show me where in the PAEA it says that there is a GUARANTEE that those funds will be used EXCLUSIVELY FOR postal retiree health and pension benefits.
Show me the exact clause and line IN the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act that GUARANTEES those funds will be avaialable 75 years from now.
Because I am betting those funds go "POOF" less than twenty years from now when another crooked pol decides his pet project deserves the money more.

What's next, "unfunded liabilities?"

The financial statements provided speak for themselves. The whole thrust of the argument regarding the finances is that they feel congressional mandates mandating that they make retirement payments ordinary businesses wouldn't have to make their bottom line look worse. That's true actually, but fact is, even if those payments weren't counted USPS is a complete debacle.

What's actually amazing about this is that if you're a betting person and you're betting on whether the US will have the fortitude to face the fiscal debacle that is imminent, look no further than the USPS. There are difficult choices that are going to be made and they can't even make the easy decisions. Turn a negative into a positive like Germany did with DHL Deutsche Post. Nope, they just can't do it.

The USPS is the low hanging fruit. That's the EASY decision.

 

[NWRatCon]

This isn't historically disputed. Federalist Papers, debates in convention, etc. They wanted those funds to fund the 'post roads' like, famously, Boston Post Road, etc.

THAT'S called a "dodge". Cite, chapter and verse. I challenge the assertion.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

This isn't historically disputed. Federalist Papers, debates in convention, etc. They wanted those funds to fund the 'post roads' like, famously, Boston Post Road, etc.

No no, I need you to actually pull up the specifics IN the Federalist Papers, because as we all know, there is no longer any such thing as a post road anymore because we HAVE a fully built out system of roads, unlike the 18th century.
I need you to pull up the actual clause in the Federalist Papers that lays out the exact demand to raise revenue and explain how that jives with today...
Because it doesn't

This is YOUR claim, so do not ask me to do your work for you or to just take it on faith.
In the 1700's when there were no national roads to speak of, it made sense just as it made sense for the Post Office in some foreign countries to run the telephone system, which is what some countries like the Netherlands used to do back before privatization of the global telecoms.
Would it make sense to accuse the Dutch Post Office of failing to adequately maintain a phone network they aren't in charge of anymore?
Now that we not only HAVE roads but a Department of Transportation and a federally funded Interstate Highway System, it is obvious that the Post Office was relieved of "post roads" around the time "horseless carriages" became a "fad".

The financial statements provided speak for themselves. The whole thrust of the argument regarding the finances is that they feel congressional mandates mandating that they make retirement payments ordinary businesses wouldn't have to make their bottom line look worse. That's true actually, but fact is, even if those payments weren't counted USPS is a complete debacle.

The financial statements also show that absent those annual $5Bn payments, USPS would be either in the black, break even or only slightly in the red. And NO OTHER agency, outfit or business has EVER been required to do these kinds of payments.

You are zero for two so far because right now, we still have NO guarantee that these PAEA funds WILL be available 75 years from now when they are needed, or forty years from now, or even twenty years from now.
And that's because the PAEA made no guarantees of that nature, so those funds might get raided the same way Trump is currently raiding everything else for his projects.
And if he gets a second term, count on him zeroing out whatever USPS has in their coffers.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Goddamn I hate privatization "experts".
They go into song and dance about this or that government agency losing money but when it comes to evidence that the privatized replacement has driven performance down, costs up and waste and fraud are running rampant, they just repeat the song and dance about government not being able to do anything right.

I refuse to pay eight bucks to mail a letter and fifteen bucks to mail a DVD when fifty cents is okay for a letter and three bucks is okay for the DVD.