US Post Office.....what is really going on?

[ocean515]

If the federal government had no control over federal employees' pay increases, who did? I thought those were civil service jobs. Who is responsible for the pay grades in place? I definitely think I am missing something here. :wow:

Besides, asking any entity, government or business, to figure out how to prepay years of future pensions is a tad unreasonable. Why was the USPS singled out? Most everyone uses the Post Office from time to time, and I'm happy they are there! :thumbs:

My neighbor is on the USPS Board of Governors. We've had a number of conversations on the subject. Of course, by no means does that mean I am informed. As I understand it, when Congress in effect spun off the USPS in the '70's it wanted to make it responsible for it's actions. I guess with pensions tied to pay, Congress did not want taxpayers to have to shoulder the burden of pension liability stemming from an agency that would seem to be "to big to fail".

Since they missed the ball on updating their business model as technology changed (email, etc.) it was inevitable they would grow smaller. That pension liability was going to be massive, and taxpayers would end up footing the bill for the pay and benefit actions the USPS made without any reprecussion.

I can tell you my neighbor is really concerned about the future of the USPS. Its a vital link to millions of people, but a bureaucratic nightmare to try and re-focus.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Why should I have to pay for postal service when all I get is nothing but junk mail? I have go out there to the ****ing mailbox everyday just to clear it out of crap that will end up in the trash. The only thing they offer me is wasted time and money.

The Post Office one of the few things the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to create and maintain. Why they have to fund 75 years worth of retirement is beyond me. Do most retired postal workers normally live to be 112 years old?

 

[specklebang]

The catch is Congress mandating that 75 year buffer on benefits that has to be paid inside of 10 years. That's unprecedented for anyone. It made me wonder why Congress would do such a thing except to drive USPS into the red and make it look bad.

Congress is not really an entity. It's more like a ship of fools. Do we have any idea of who in congress actually wrote this and who voted for it? Where did this appear from and when? Usually, "congress" is a sub-group that benefits from these type of really weird events. Based on your theory, and I think you're making a smart guess, all "congress" needs to do is cut this to 10 years or 20 years since the present demand is so outlandish. And yet....

I've only been a small businessman, not a "big" businessman but IMHO the whole post office system is terribly flawed as a business model even without this additional silly requirement. The prices are off, the product is off. But of course, I am strictly guessing through my own assumptions.

 

[Diving Mullah]

What do you think?

Shock Doctrine at U.S. Postal Service: Is a Manufactured Crisis Behind Push Toward Privatization?


Today, postal workers and their supporters are holding events across the country to press their demand for repealing the benefit-funding mandate and push back against calls for their workplace to be privatized.

For months, Americans have heard dire warnings about the impending collapse of the United States Postal Service due to fiscal insolvency and a drop in the use of mail service. In early September, the U.S. Postmaster General told Congress that the USPS is close to default and unveiled a series of radical proposals to cut costs by firing up to 120,000 workers, closing several thousand facilities, scaling back deliveries, and reducing benefits for retirees.

But many postal workers say the much-touted crisis facing the U.S. Postal Service is not what it seems. They argue the greatest volume of mail handled in the 236-year history of the postal service was 2006. They also point to a 2006 law that forced the USPS to become the only agency required to fund 75 years of retiree health benefits over just a 10-year span, and say the law's requirements account for 100 percent of the service's $20 billion in losses over the previous four years, without which the service would have turned a profit. For the whole transcript: Democracy Now!: Shock Doctrine at U.S. Postal Service: Is a Manufactured Crisis Behind Push Toward Privatization?

Post Office was solvent and profitable until Republicans who hate government melding started to meddle with a perfectly well function and independent entity and broke it, just out of spite. Also what is so funny is the despite the none-compete clause restriction imposed on Post Office, they are cheaper, faster than FedEx and UPS and both FedEx and UPS uses post office to deliver packages and letters to places they might don't go.

Judging by threads here it is clear that US post office will most like vanish, simply due to people ignorance. Once they are gone, naturally Fedex and UPS will raise prices and make delivery far more expensive and inconvenient. Then the very people who cheered the death of the US post office will bitch and moan about how things are gotten worst and why everything is so expensive and more likely blame everybody but themselves for that.

Oh well!

People deserve the government that rules them...Enjoy!

Diving Mullah

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Post Office was solvent and profitable until Republicans who hate government melding started to meddle with a perfectly well function and independent entity and broke it, just out of spite. Also what is so funny is the despite the none-compete clause restriction imposed on Post Office, they are cheaper, faster than FedEx and UPS and both FedEx and UPS uses post office to deliver packages and letters to places they might don't go.

Judging by threads here it is clear that US post office will most like vanish, simply due to people ignorance. Once they are gone, naturally Fedex and UPS will raise prices and make delivery far more expensive and inconvenient. Then the very people who cheered the death of the US post office will bitch and moan about how things are gotten worst and why everything is so expensive and more likely blame everybody but themselves for that.

Oh well!

People deserve the government that rules them...Enjoy!

Diving Mullah

Yes, Bruce Bartlett termed it starve the beast. He specifically warned us what his party was doing in order to rid of government. He wasn't kidding! The goal is to privatize as much as humanly possible. I agree, prices will go up because under privatization, the goal is always profits despite 1) what their employees will make, 2) what consumers will be charged because they know business and many, many, many people depend on that service and can't just go without it due to high prices. Since, they are virtually a monopoly, they will set the price. We'll also have a whole host of unemployed people whose jobs may turn part-time, or low wage if they are lucky. And, so the dominoes go. I suppose it's always a relief to learn a few people will become ungodly wealthy from such a deal.

Anyway, I'm one of those rural people who get UPS packages dropped off at the local post office for them to deliver. It should be interesting to see what happens.

 

[MoSurveyor]

That wouldn't actually work due to the idiotic government using the mail service to send me things that if I don't respond to I will get fined.

Then you do have a reason to have one. At least that much of your rhetoric has been debunked.

Around here, sending your voting card to your address of record is one way we use to check if you're registered to vote at the correct address. Isn't that one of your Supergoals, to make sure everyone has an ID to vote and that they're voting at the correct place?

 

[MoSurveyor]

It makes sense the USPS would reject the results of the GAO's study. I think the GAO did a good job explaining the rational behind the pension payment requirement.

I thought this line from page 2 of the GAO's report was particularly relevant.

"Congress considered that USPS was to be self-sustaining and that the
federal government, which had no control over USPS pay increases, should not
be liable for pension benefits attributable to those increases."

Which doesn't address the issue that the pension actuarial method used is unheard of in either the public or private sector or that Congress essentially raided the old USPS pension fund - to the tune of several billion dollars - and hasn't replaced it.

Nor, as I noted earlier, will Congress allow the USPS to set it's own delivery schedule or many other efficiency measured the USPS has proposed. In essence, Congress has worked to sabotage the USPS, plain and simple.

 

[ocean515]

Which doesn't address the issue that the pension actuarial method used is unheard of in either the public or private sector or that Congress essentially raided the old USPS pension fund - to the tune of several billion dollars - and hasn't replaced it.

Nor, as I noted earlier, will Congress allow the USPS to set it's own delivery schedule or many other efficiency measured the USPS has proposed. In essence, Congress has worked to sabotage the USPS, plain and simple.

I appreciate your opinion, but that is not what many others have found, including the GAO.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Congress is not really an entity. It's more like a ship of fools. Do we have any idea of who in congress actually wrote this and who voted for it? Where did this appear from and when? Usually, "congress" is a sub-group that benefits from these type of really weird events. Based on your theory, and I think you're making a smart guess, all "congress" needs to do is cut this to 10 years or 20 years since the present demand is so outlandish. And yet....

I've only been a small businessman, not a "big" businessman but IMHO the whole post office system is terribly flawed as a business model even without this additional silly requirement. The prices are off, the product is off. But of course, I am strictly guessing through my own assumptions.

It passed back in 2006 when the Republicans controlled everything in DC.

Postal rates are set by Congress as are many other operating parameters, like delivery schedules, post office availability/locations, etc. I have no doubt the USPS could easily be profitable but with Congress dictating terms like they are it's ridiculous to expect a break even. It's like tying someone's hands and feet and tossing them into a lake - then expecting them to swim.

 

[specklebang]

It passed back in 2006 when the Republicans controlled everything in DC.

Postal rates are set by Congress as are many other operating parameters, like delivery schedules, post office availability/locations, etc. I have no doubt the USPS could easily be profitable but with Congress dictating terms like they are it's ridiculous to expect a break even. It's like tying someone's hands and feet and tossing them into a lake - then expecting them to swim.

Then why don't they change it instead of bitching about it? Can't be that difficult.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I appreciate your opinion, but that is not what many others have found, including the GAO.

I skimmed through your link but even the GAO cannot adequately explain why they used such an overblown actuarial methodology for the pension fund - nor can any independent firm that's been asked to look into the matter.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Then why don't they change it instead of bitching about it? Can't be that difficult.

Well, you'd think so but, hey, this is Congress we're talking about. If I read right (I just kind of skimmed it) the appointments to the Board are six year and have to be approved by the Senate - and we all know how appointments have been (not) handled by the Senate these past 4+ years.

 

[ocean515]

I skimmed through your link but even the GAO cannot adequately explain why they used such an overblown actuarial methodology for the pension fund - nor can any independent firm that's been asked to look into the matter.

I appreciate that you don't think anyone has adequately explained what you term the overblown actuarial methodology applied to funding the USPS Pension program.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the line about the government being held responsible for the unilateral pay and benefits action of the USPS seems to be at the base of what they have done.

Another sentence that caught my eye in the GAO's summary was this.

"The key impacts of transferring assets out of the CSRS fund to USPS based on
the current proposals would be to increase the federal government's current and
future unfunded pension liability by an estimated $56 billion to $85 billion."

Again, looking at what was written about the actions of Congress to separate the USPS from the federal government, it seems reasonable the USPS should be held liable, and not assume the US taxpayer the ultimate backer of their unilateral pay and benefit decisions.

If transfering assets back to the USPS results in the federal government being exposed to an increased liability for unfunded pensions to the tune of $56 to $85 billion, is the method overblown?

 

[Henrin]

Then you do have a reason to have one. At least that much of your rhetoric has been debunked.

If the government didn't send out jury summons and car registration stickers in the mail and probably a few other things that I'm forgetting at the moment the box would be nothing but a junk mail holder. It's like the box is only there so the government can nag me and send me junk mail from people I don't care exist.

Around here, sending your voting card to your address of record is one way we use to check if you're registered to vote at the correct address. Isn't that one of your Supergoals, to make sure everyone has an ID to vote and that they're voting at the correct place?

Ah...no.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why should I have to pay for postal service when all I get is nothing but junk mail? I have go out there to the ****ing mailbox everyday just to clear it out of crap that will end up in the trash. The only thing they offer me is wasted time and money.

Then don't buy stamps or send stuff via the USPS. Problem solved.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It makes sense the USPS would reject the results of the GAO's study. I think the GAO did a good job explaining the rational behind the pension payment requirement.

I thought this line from page 2 of the GAO's report was particularly relevant.

"Congress considered that USPS was to be self-sustaining and that the
federal government, which had no control over USPS pay increases, should not
be liable for pension benefits attributable to those increases."

LOL...

So pay increases that don't amount to any more than anyone else gets, shouldn't be considered?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I appreciate your opinion, but that is not what many others have found, including the GAO.

Do you believe everything the GAO says?

I most certainly don't. Look at how wrong they are at times.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The USPS in absolutely useless. Your medicines can come by FedEx or UPS or DHL or ????.

It seems that by that logic, FedEx, UPS and DHL are also "useless" because one can send things via USPS.

Sure, its cool that you can send a letter 4000 miles for 46¢ but as a business model? If a letter was $2.00 they could stay in business.

Yet, it seems that they actually turned a profit except for the peculiar pension funding model foisted on them by Congress. Maybe the answer is to get Congress out of the mix.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I appreciate that you don't think anyone has adequately explained what you term the overblown actuarial methodology applied to funding the USPS Pension program.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the line about the government being held responsible for the unilateral pay and benefits action of the USPS seems to be at the base of what they have done.

Another sentence that caught my eye in the GAO's summary was this.

"The key impacts of transferring assets out of the CSRS fund to USPS based on
the current proposals would be to increase the federal government's current and
future unfunded pension liability by an estimated $56 billion to $85 billion."

Again, looking at what was written about the actions of Congress to separate the USPS from the federal government, it seems reasonable the USPS should be held liable, and not assume the US taxpayer the ultimate backer of their unilateral pay and benefit decisions.

If transfering assets back to the USPS results in the federal government being exposed to an increased liability for unfunded pensions to the tune of $56 to $85 billion, is the method overblown?

Tell me.

How much is the government's unfunded liability for federal workers?

Where is the lockbox or fund?

The USPS is a pretty small amount. This is just a money grab, and the so=called separate USPS retirement fund is still unfunded. At least the USPS used to have an actual pool of money congress confiscated and spent.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That's why USPS loses money and UPS and FedEx make money.

Do UPS and FedEx have to fund 75 years of pension payments in ten years?
Apparently, that is THE source of the USPS's losses.

Given that otherwise the USPS would have turned a profit, it seems that you should find another reason to rail against the USPS other than problems w/ it's business model.

 

[Henrin]

It seems that by that logic, FedEx, UPS and DHL are also "useless" because one can send things via USPS.

Usually government services have to prove their worth, not the other way around.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Usually government services have to prove their worth, not the other way around.

Take it up with the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.
:shrug:

 

[Henrin]

Take it up with the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.
:shrug:

Except in those days it had an actual purpose that nothing else could do, but today that just isn't so.

 

[iliveonramen]

Usually government services have to prove their worth, not the other way around.

There's a couple of problems with your state. For one...the problem is that the USPS is required to service every house and every area in the country. They can definitely be profitable if they only service areas that provide a profit.

Also...I want to point out that when folks in rural areas have to commute to pick up their mail it will be evident that maybe that durn USPS is worth subsidizing. I actually can't wait until red states see the reality of anti-Postal service stances.

 

[Henrin]

Also...I want to point out that when folks in rural areas have to commute to pick up their mail it will be evident that maybe that durn USPS is worth subsidizing. I actually can't wait until red states see the reality of anti-Postal service stances.

Arguing for it like that makes it nothing but a welfare program and makes me even less inclined to care for its existence.