Arguing for it like that makes it nothing but a welfare program and makes me even less inclined to care for its existence.
LOL...
So pay increases that don't amount to any more than anyone else gets, shouldn't be considered?
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.
It seems that by that logic, FedEx, UPS and DHL are also "useless" because one can send things via USPS.
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.
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.
Do you believe everything the GAO says?
I most certainly don't. Look at how wrong they are at times.
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.
Even if they are, the constitution specifically addresses a "post office." It is one of the few things we should spend tax dollars on if necessary.I appreciate your view of the GAO. However, what if this is one of those times they are right?
I'm no expert on the matter, but it seems to me, as the USPS began the long predicted slide into relative oblivion, forcing reality onto management and workers was not necessarily a bad decision. Painful? No doubt.
Even if they are, the constitution specifically addresses a "post office." It is one of the few things we should spend tax dollars on if necessary.
However...
I do not believe political bodies of people, any farther than I can throw them.
Yep.
One of my friends is a automation repair technician at a mail processing center. In the last 5 years, they have relocated equipment in the building and added more from 3 surrounding facilities that have closed. They now have more than 1.5 million BTU's of heat to shed when they are running the equipment, and the building AC wasn't meant for that much.
I think we would both be trying to outdo each other for distance.
As I see it, the problem with the post office is that is it like any other monolithic government operation. It operates by momentum rather than mission. Based on conversations I've had recently with someone in a position to know, it would appear that type of thinking has been radically changed.
The post office could have been part of the technological revolution in secure and important communication, but their girth has caused them to demand people purchase buggy whips to rally their cars forward. Worst of all, they want to be able to demand we pay for them to do that.
That's unfortunate.
The waterfall effect for all to suffer through. The USPS has annouced the closing of a main facility in my neck of the woods. It's a massive facility that serves a large part of the south western part of Los Angeles County. It's amazing to me to think that facility is redundant? Many people will be forced out of a job. Not good.
There is no question mailing a letter is one of the best deals on the planet. A remarkable feat. But something has got to give.
Well, it isn't redundant. It's just becoming less localized. I don't understand how this becomes a cost savings. They gain a little efficiency in processing, but now more of the mail has to be driven farther distances to the carriers. They save the rent of one building, move people and equipment, pay more in fuel, and pay the same in power costs anyway.
I'm told one possibility is they may go to 24/7 route processing and reduce equipment, and delay the mail another day.
Considering the calculations are basically made on the assumption that anyone working for the POD as of the switch in 1971 would get $0.00 pay increases in the years ahead, yes, I think it's unreasonable.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?
Actually, on doing a little research, it only looks like 50 years - but still.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.
They do, every day. I just got some books from Amazon shipped FedEx - except the last leg of the trip from downtown to here, was USPS. :lol:Usually government services have to prove their worth, not the other way around.
There are no taxpayers dollars involved, just taxpayer oversight. Get a clue.Arguing for it like that makes it nothing but a welfare program and makes me even less inclined to care for its existence.
There are no taxpayers dollars involved, just taxpayer oversight. Get a clue.
What do you care about poor people getting something cheaper? Don't buy stamps and you won't be funding them.His argument was shaped around how it makes the life of poor people easier. That basically means I have to deal with endless junk mail just so poor people get something cheaper.
Considering the calculations are basically made on the assumption that anyone working for the POD as of the switch in 1971 would get $0.00 pay increases in the years ahead, yes, I think it's unreasonable.
But more to the point, why did the 2006 Act insist on the USPS paying out ~$5.5 billion per year to the health fund over ten years, which won't be balanced out until 2056? Paying out "future benefits" for 50 years in a 10 year span would put strain on any business, especially one that is non-profit. These payments are not part of the question of the government's liability for USPS employees and I think it was irresponsible of Congress to expect the USPS to meet requirements no other business or government entity is required to meet.
Considering the calculations are basically made on the assumption that anyone working for the POD as of the switch in 1971 would get $0.00 pay increases in the years ahead, yes, I think it's unreasonable.
But more to the point, why did the 2006 Act insist on the USPS paying out ~$5.5 billion per year to the health fund over ten years, which won't be balanced out until 2056? Paying out "future benefits" for 50 years in a 10 year span would put strain on any business, especially one that is non-profit. These payments are not part of the question of the government's liability for USPS employees and I think it was irresponsible of Congress to expect the USPS to meet requirements no other business or government entity is required to meet.
If it's so reasonable then why isn't any other system in the country doing it or being required to do it? Nobody, public or private, loads up tens of billions of dollars like that.I'm certainly not privy to the thinking that took place at the time, but considering the employment pool that would be contributing to long term obligations would be getting smaller and smaller, a front loaded plan would seem to make sense.
Think Social Security.
It seems reasonable to fund the program while larger numbers of employees were in place, than to wait until the pool is smaller, and and expect taxpayers to foot the difference.
I have no clue to what you're referring, here. You must have me confused with someone else.I find the talk about the effort was nothing but an attempt to destroy a union nothing but the talk of the simple minded. That makes no sense.
They do, every day. I just got some books from Amazon shipped FedEx - except the last leg of the trip from downtown to here, was USPS. :lol:
If it's so reasonable then why isn't any other system in the country doing it or being required to do it? Nobody, public or private, loads up tens of billions of dollars like that.
This has zero to do with taxpayers footing some future bill, as I noted in my last post.
I have no clue to what you're referring, here. You must have me confused with someone else.
If the taxpayer has zero to do with this action, as you have suggested, then what was the reason for requiring the Pension Plan to be front loaded?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?