Why are the Republicans trying to kill the post office?

**bsnub** · 03-01-2015, 04:50 PM

Republican leaders in Congress are talking about dismembering the US Postal Service by cutting the number of delivery days, shuttering processing centers so that it will take longer for letters to arrive, closing thousands of rural and inner-city post offices and taking additional steps that would dramatically downsize one of the few national programs ordained by the original draft of the US Constitution. At the same time, supposedly “centrist” US Senators Tom Carper (D-DE), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Scott Brown (R-MA) are trying to build a “bipartisan consensus” for a death by slower cuts.

Their “21st Century Postal Service Act,” a supposed compromise now being weighed by the Senate, would still force the postal service to close hundreds of mail processing centers, shut thousands of post offices, cause massive delays in mail delivery and push consumers toward most expensive private-sector services. It is, says National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric Rolando, “a classic case of ‘killing the Post-Office in order to save it.’ ”

Their rationale for making the bloodletting, much discussed in the media, holds that radical surgery is necessary because the postal service is in financial crisis.

The postal service, we are told, is broke.

There’s only one problem with this diagnosis.

It’s wrong.

The postal service is not broke.

At the behest of the Republican-controlled Congress of the Bush-Cheney era, the USPS has been forced since 2006 to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. As the American Postal Workers Union notes, “This mandate is the primary cause of the agency’s financial crisis. No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which costs the USPS approximately $5.5 billion annually.”

Now, however, we learn that the pre-funding requirements have taken so much money from the USPS that—according to the postal service’s own inspector general—it has “significantly exceeded” the level of reserved money that the federal government or private corporations divert to meet future pension and retiree healthcare demands. “Using ratepayer funds, it has built a war chest of over $326 billion to address its future liabilities,” acknowledges Postal Service Inspector General David C. Williams.

That, argues US Senator Bernie Sanders, puts “the rationale for postal cuts in doubt.”

Sanders, who has taken the lead in challenging cuts to the USPS and who requested the assessment by Williams, says that on the basis of information contained in the assessment, the Postal Service should be released from the “onerous and unprecedented burden” of being forced to put $5.5 billion every year into its future retiree health benefits fund. Sanders’s office explains that “even if there are no further contributions from the post office, and if the fund simply collects 3.5 to 4 percent interest every year, that account will be fully funded in twenty-one years.” At the same time, the senator suggests, the postal service should be allowed to recover more than $13 billion in overpayments it has made to a federal retirement systems.

That’s not the end of the debate about the future of the postal service. Along with Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Sanders is working with key Senate Democrats—and, the group hopes, some Republicans who represent rural states—to develop amendments, and potential alternatives, to the “21st Century Postal Service Act.” Not only would they get the accounting right, they would remove barriers to the USPS so that it can compete and grow.

“I believe the Postal Service will find more and more senators and representatives standing up here in Congress to prevent rash and irreversible decisions, until USPS can present a cogent strategy for growing in a new era of mail,” says Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “A scorched-earth strategy, focused only on the short-term horizon, is a strategy for failure. It is a race to the bottom. The Postal Service needs a plan not only to survive, but to thrive. To do that the Postal Service must listen to its customers, understand its market, and play to its strengths, not trade its strengths away.”

The Post Office Is Not Broke | The Nation

Some additional links;

Post office makes a profit Congress won?t let it keep |

How the Postal Service Is Being Gutted

It is the way that the right is in the US they do not care about the country only furthering their own twisted agenda.

**pseudolus** · 03-01-2015, 04:56 PM

Could be worse mate, they could sell it to their friends for them to make a vast profit from whilst destroying the service and the lives of the employees that manage to retain their jobs after the "necessary job realignment strategy". Its what happened in the UK.

Originally Posted by bsnub

“This mandate is the primary cause of the agency’s financial crisis. No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which costs the USPS approximately $5.5 billion annually.”

Just a way to push money into the owners of the US hands.

**bsnub** · 03-01-2015, 05:02 PM

The bottom line is that the USPS is a success and it goes against all the Republican talking points about lesser government so they have made every effort to make sure it fails. Once again proving the do not care about the country as a whole.

**Bettyboo** · 03-01-2015, 05:14 PM

I think there's more to it than that... In the UK, the post offices were valuable local community centres where the old, especially, got together to chat, etc. When they were closed down for being 'not profitable', a lot of old people suffered, they lost one of (if not the only) link they had with other folk and the community in general - especially so in rural towns and quiet suburban areas, etc. Tragic really...

I don't know the set up in the US; if you have lines of old folk at the post offices chattering away to each other for hours, meeting up every week or so, same day, same time, for their weekly chat with others?

Post Offices in the UK were valuable social centres, is what I'm saying. They, like many other community centres, have now gone and the services have become automated or changed to online services - dehumanizing; this a a horrible legacy of Thatcher era politics...

**bsnub** · 03-01-2015, 05:22 PM

^ Sorry but your are way off base here. Did you even read the post?

**slackula** · 03-01-2015, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Could be worse mate, they could sell it to their friends for them to make a vast profit from whilst destroying the service and the lives of the employees that manage to retain their jobs after the "necessary job realignment strategy". Its what happened in the UK.

That's always been the plan. The GOP has always hated the postal service but the problem was that the mantra of 'gub'mint can't do anything' didn't really work for USPS because it's OK and people like it.

The solution they came up with (as bsnub's article points out) was to saddle it with such a ludicrous pension funding requirement that it would inevitably collapse. Then they could point to it as an example of government failure and sell it off piecemeal to their chums for a tidy profit.

Unfortunately for them things didn't quite go according to plan so now they are trying Wreck the USPS II: Funding Boogaloo.

Funny how all their supposed devotion to the hallowed Constitution goes out the window when they smell a buck to be made.

**pseudolus** · 03-01-2015, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

sell it off piecemeal to their chums for a tidy profit

Ahhh well same ole same ole then

**thaimeme** · 03-01-2015, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

The bottom line is that the USPS is a success and it goes against all the Republican talking points about lesser government so they have made every effort to make sure it fails. Once again proving the do not care about the country as a whole.

All the ridiculous partisan politics aside, I believe the USPS might prove a better success if it wasn't a private for profit business, instead organized and operated as a public trust for the commons, just as many public services are today - fire, police, education, utilities, medical, etc.

One will find worldwide that most postal services are of a governmental agency domain - and they function largely without being a political tool.

**Bettyboo** · 03-01-2015, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Sorry but your are way off base here. Did you even read the post?

Yes. Particularly these highlights:

Originally Posted by bsnub

closing thousands of rural and inner-city post offices

Originally Posted by bsnub

Their rationale for making the bloodletting, much discussed in the media, holds that radical surgery is necessary because the postal service is in financial crisis.

This is exactly what happened, with the same 'reasoning' in the UK. The result was:

1) A massive loss of important social support (the post office is an under-rated social support mechanism).

2) Movement from government owned (i.e. social support mechanisms) into the business sector, via changes of structure, handing out private contracts, etc.

It happened in the UK, a web of lies that is repeating itself every few years - welcome to Thatcher's and Reagan's vision of moving governance (particularly public money; tax money) into private sector profits whenever and however possible.

Here are some highlights from the UK (the obvious link...):
Post Office Ltd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post Office branches, along with the Royal Mail delivery service, were formerly part of the General Post Office. Post Office Counters Ltd was created as a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Mail in 1986, becoming Post Office Ltd in 2001.

Movement from a part of government into a company (at this time owned by the government).

Post Office Ltd has in recent years announced losses; a reported £102 million in 2006. This has raised many concerns in the media regarding Post Office Ltd's ability as a company to operate efficiently.[4] Plans to cut the £150m-a-year subsidy for rural post offices led to the announcement that 2,500 local Post Offices were to be closed. This announcement resulted in a backlash from local communities that relied on the service.

The promises that the new business ownership modal would produce a more 'efficient' and 'better quality' service have proven to be untrue. More losses...

In 2007, the government gave a £1.7 billion subsidy to Royal Mail Group so that it could turn a profit by 2011. This was to be used to invest across the whole network of Royal Mail, Post Office Ltd and Parcelforce. 85 Crown Post Offices were closed, 70 of which were sold to W H Smith.

More job losses, and services sold off to the private sector (for profits...). These sales occur after taxes have been injected to make the 'business' profitable...

As part of the Postal Services Act 2011, Post Office Ltd became independent of Royal Mail Group on 1 April 2012.[7] A 10-year inter-business agreement was signed between the two companies to allow Post Offices to continue issuing stamps and handling letters and parcels for Royal Mail.[8] The Act also contained the option for Post Office Ltd to become a mutual organisation in the future.

More privatization, thus more profits for the private sector that our governments support with our tax money...

On 8 February 2013, Post Office Ltd announced it was planning to move around 70 of its Crown Post Offices into shops. This would reduce the Crown network, which it stated was losing £40 million a year, to around 300.[10]

On 27 November 2013, the government committed an additional £640 million of funding for 2015 to 2018 to allow Post Office Ltd to complete its network modernisation.

Yet more privatization, more job cuts, and, AND more public money (tax money) pumped into this now very privatized 'government' body.

Thus, the public no longer owns the Post Office, massive job cuts, but still massive tax injections to fund private profits...

This is exactly what has happened to other public sectors, such as the Rail Service, and parallels the situation in failed private sector business, i.e. the banks. So, tax payers get sacked, get fuked, get lied to, and profits are funneled in an every increasing manner to private business.

The UK has done it already, Snubby, you can see the results, and now that the US postal service is doing well, funded by tax payer money, it'll be passed over to the private sector while still being funded by the tax payers. There's also a long history in the UK of public pension money being 'stolen' by the private sector (supported fully by the government; Thatcher had her SERPS schemes as well as mortgage endowment schemes which made the banks billions while raping the people who paid into them...), and it looks like the US is gonna be getting some of that too...

**bsnub** · 03-01-2015, 07:18 PM

^ The damage is real..

**thaimeme** · 03-01-2015, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ The damage is real..

Making it a political hobbyhorse will just worsen the damage.

**sabang** · 03-01-2015, 08:07 PM

They just wanna gut it, and transfer the major cash flows to private enterprise- which following the example of all other profit motivated privatisations, will just mean the public pays more money for inferior service. Fail. Bankers, of course, would make a fortune. Oh dear- a public service utility with adequately funded pension benefits. We just know greedy businessman are drooling to get their mitts on that- almost free credit!

**Bettyboo** · 03-01-2015, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

the public pays more money for inferior service

True.

But, it's worse than that because: 1) jobs are cut; 2) social resources are lost/damaged beyond repair; 3) ownership of the entities (buildings, land, equipment, collateral, pension funds, etc) is given over to private businesses; 4) tax money is still paid in to 'subsidize' the entity. All for the sake of business profits; i.e. profit for an elite crony capitalist minority...

The taxpayer, the citizen, loses out in various ways while the MPs who are on executive boards and move into the very same businesses when their political careers are over, make millions. It's full on criminal activity; the MPs and business people (often using 'revolving door' mechanisms or actually being employed, again with taxpayer money, to write legislation that gives public property and monies to corporations) are raping society on a massive scale...

**bsnub** · 04-01-2015, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

will just mean the public pays more money for inferior service.

It is sad really the Republicans do not care about the country if it is outside of their narrative. The fact that they are willing to destroy a successful government agency because of politics is just disgusting.

I receive and send lots of packages. I use Fed Ex, UPS, DHL and the USPS. I consistently find that the post office is the best value with timely delivery. The other are just more expensive. Not to mention that the history of this country is intertwined with the post office in so many ways.

**thaimeme** · 04-01-2015, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by sabang

will just mean the public pays more money for inferior service.

It is sad really the Republicans do not care about the country if it is outside of their narrative. The fact that they are willing to destroy a successful government agency because of politics is just disgusting.

I receive and send lots of packages. I use Fed Ex, UPS, DHL and the USPS. I consistently find that the post office is the best value with timely delivery. The other are just more expensive. Not to mention that the history of this country is intertwined with the post office in so many ways.

The USPS isn't a government agency, even though being somewhat subsidized by the government, like many corporations.

**bsnub** · 04-01-2015, 09:41 AM

^ Au contraire

"It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution. The USPS traces its roots to 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, where Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first postmaster general."

Did you read the OP at all? It is not subsidized it is being strangled to death by the Republicans.

You would think the Republicans who claim that they put the constitution and the founding fathers above all else would have more respect for the post office.

Ben Franklin would not be pleased.

**RPETER65** · 04-01-2015, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

sell it off piecemeal to their chums for a tidy profit

Ahhh well same ole same ole then

A tidy profit for who?

**RPETER65** · 04-01-2015, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by sabang

the public pays more money for inferior service

True.

But, it's worse than that because: 1) jobs are cut; 2) social resources are lost/damaged beyond repair; 3) ownership of the entities (buildings, land, equipment, collateral, pension funds, etc) is given over to private businesses; 4) tax money is still paid in to 'subsidize' the entity. All for the sake of business profits; i.e. profit for an elite crony capitalist minority...

The taxpayer, the citizen, loses out in various ways while the MPs who are on executive boards and move into the very same businesses when their political careers are over, make millions. It's full on criminal activity; the MPs and business people (often using 'revolving door' mechanisms or actually being employed, again with taxpayer money, to write legislation that gives public property and monies to corporations) are raping society on a massive scale...

If the USPS is such a cash cow why would tax payer money be needed to subsidize it.

**Bettyboo** · 04-01-2015, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If the USPS is such a cash cow why would tax payer money be needed to subsidize it.

It's a social service, part of the government. Words like 'subsidize' are used by corrupt folks to confuse the electorate into thinking its a separate entity, outside of the government; pre-privatization discourse if you will. Forcing capitalist discourse onto government is much loved by republicans and conservatives (& new labour) here in the UK, but it does not apply because the marketplace and government bodies are not the same; in fact they are very different, so you should challenge anybody who uses market economy discourse for governmental departments - especially if they are the ones who will financially benefit from a form of privatization...

Now, all the information is there for you to read. I'm not gonna start a discussion with a fukwit who only believes what they have already decided to believe and is not willing to engage their critical thinking skills. Such folk would enjoy watching Fox, going to church and being a member of the local gun club... Of course, the crony capitalists rely on the ignorance of such folk which is why you will always be welcome and loved at Walmart. No offence...

**bsnub** · 04-01-2015, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If the USPS is such a cash cow why would tax payer money be needed to subsidize it.

You nitwit did you even read the original post? It makes money.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

the crony capitalists rely on the ignorance of such folk which is why you will always be welcome and loved at Walmart. No offence...

I would green you but I am out of ammo.

**RPETER65** · 04-01-2015, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If the USPS is such a cash cow why would tax payer money be needed to subsidize it.

You nitwit did you even read the original post? It makes money.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

the crony capitalists rely on the ignorance of such folk which is why you will always be welcome and loved at Walmart. No offence...

I would green you but I am out of ammo.

That is exactly my point, if it makes money why would it need more tax payer money.

**RPETER65** · 04-01-2015, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If the USPS is such a cash cow why would tax payer money be needed to subsidize it.

It's a social service, part of the government. Words like 'subsidize' are used by corrupt folks to confuse the electorate into thinking its a separate entity, outside of the government; pre-privatization discourse if you will. Forcing capitalist discourse onto government is much loved by republicans and conservatives (& new labour) here in the UK, but it does not apply because the marketplace and government bodies are not the same; in fact they are very different, so you should challenge anybody who uses market economy discourse for governmental departments - especially if they are the ones who will financially benefit from a form of privatization...

Now, all the information is there for you to read. I'm not gonna start a discussion with a fukwit who only believes what they have already decided to believe and is not willing to engage their critical thinking skills. Such folk would enjoy watching Fox, going to church and being a member of the local gun club... Of course, the crony capitalists rely on the ignorance of such folk which is why you will always be welcome and loved at Walmart. No offence...

I am well aware the post office is a social service, the problem I have with the post is where you say the tax payer money will continue to infused into the postal service, the same time it is claimed to be a money maker.

If you refuse to engage in a discussion with me why did you reply?

**slackula** · 04-01-2015, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

That is exactly my point, if it makes money why would it need more tax payer money.

Because Republicans saddled it with a ridiculous pension funding requirement: it is essentially required to fully fund pensions for future employees who have yet to be born!

The law that does that was passed by Republicans with the sole intention of making the USPS look hopelessly unprofitable so that they could then point to it as a loss making venture and try to get rid of it.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If the USPS is such a cash cow why would tax payer money be needed to subsidize it.

Ask yourself your question the other way around: if it is such a financial disaster area then why are the money-men salivating at the thought of getting their talons into it? They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts...

It is a classic example of conservative financial thinking, they are going to privatise the profits and socialise the losses - if you don't believe me look to the precedent of the banks.

**bsnub** · 05-01-2015, 05:59 AM

^Jeezus. Well you have spelled it out pretty clearly for him. The article in the OP was to complex for him to understand apparently. I am sure he will report back to his handlers for the appropriate talking point to regurgitate.

**RPETER65** · 05-01-2015, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If the USPS is such a cash cow why would tax payer money be needed to subsidize it.

You nitwit did you even read the original post? It makes money.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

the crony capitalists rely on the ignorance of such folk which is why you will always be welcome and loved at Walmart. No offence...

I would green you but I am out of ammo.

Nitwit? I was referring to post #9 where Betty says now that it is doing well subsidized by the govt., my question was if it is doing well why is it being subsidized I was not questioning the fact that it is making money. I have read the articles and understand what the republicans are are doing to the USPS moron.

Thread: Why are the Republicans trying to kill the post office?

Thread Tools

Display

Why are the Republicans trying to kill the post office?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions