Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,962 posts)
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 11:39 PM Mar 2013

Saturday mail delivery should stay -U.S.

Source: CNN/Money

The U.S. Postal Service must deliver the mail six days a week, said Congress' watchdog arm in a Thursday legal opinion.

The legal opinion from the nonpartisan agency throws new questions on the Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe's plans to stop delivering first-class mail, but keep delivering packages and express mail on Saturdays.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office stopped short of saying the U.S. Postal Service's August plan to end most Saturday mail service violates current law.

The U.S. Postal Service says it's not ending six-day delivery, only changing it, since it'll still deliver packages on Saturdays.

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/21/news/economy/postal-service-saturday/



Report: http://www.gao.gov/products/B-324481
57 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Saturday mail delivery should stay -U.S. (Original Post) alp227 Mar 2013 OP
Why? I was looking forward to only having my mailbox stuffed with junk 5 days per week (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #1
Speak for yourself. Many people rely on daily mail delivery. PSPS Mar 2013 #2
If someone's birthday is a Saturday I will simply mail the card a day earlier, Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #3
I live in a rural area. kimmylavin Mar 2013 #4
So everyone needs make due with less service? They_Live Mar 2013 #21
Hold on... naaman fletcher Mar 2013 #53
Why? Bay Boy Mar 2013 #28
Rely on it for what? Please explain... snooper2 Mar 2013 #31
You can get most of that stopped They_Live Mar 2013 #20
Good. Getting rid of Saturday delivery just plays into Republicans' plans to kill the USPS. SunSeeker Mar 2013 #5
+1 n/t area51 Mar 2013 #6
Actually, both of these companies have the USPS deliver fasttense Mar 2013 #15
Thanks. I was not aware of the packages scam. nt SunSeeker Mar 2013 #23
Agree n/t Strelnikov_ Mar 2013 #18
Seems like it would be pretty easy to fix. Just raise the cost of a stamp to match the cost of truthisfreedom Mar 2013 #7
AND end the 75-year retirement pre-funding law too!!!! n/t alp227 Mar 2013 #8
Amen mpcamb Mar 2013 #16
63 cents in Canada. And it hasn't tanked their economy. tclambert Mar 2013 #11
Canada stopped Saturday mail delivery in 1969. (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #12
Hear, hear! +1 I'd go with .75 including bulk spam mail. eom Purveyor Mar 2013 #51
Eliminating Saturday delivery will save $17 per household per year progree Mar 2013 #9
Good. I'll take that $17 (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #13
er...you don't really think that $17 is going in your pocket? bread_and_roses Mar 2013 #14
Don't Panic! CanSocDem Mar 2013 #56
Tell it to the Seniors, Disabled, poor, and rural residents bread_and_roses Mar 2013 #57
So, if the $17 figure is correct, it'd be even less mpcamb Mar 2013 #17
The U.S. Postal Service is funded entirely by revenues from postage. They_Live Mar 2013 #19
Its just the reduction in their costs if they deliver the same volume of mail 5 days a week progree Mar 2013 #29
It doesn't save any households anything - USPS is not taxpayer funded n/t magellan Mar 2013 #22
Except it is funded by taxpayers. former9thward Mar 2013 #24
Talk to Congress about it magellan Mar 2013 #25
They have not make the pre-funding payment for two years now. former9thward Mar 2013 #26
It's carried on their books magellan Mar 2013 #27
What does "it is carried on their books" mean? progree Mar 2013 #30
The missed RHBF prefund payments are carried on the books magellan Mar 2013 #34
See #35 and read the links rather than making stuff up. progree Mar 2013 #37
You're misunderstanding what you're reading magellan Mar 2013 #38
This message was self-deleted by its author progree Mar 2013 #45
Huh? A $16 Billion loss in one year's operations cannot be explained by a missed (or made) progree Mar 2013 #46
Here ya go magellan Mar 2013 #47
"LARGELY CAUSED" key words. NOT entirely caused progree Mar 2013 #48
Look, we got here because you questioned my saying magellan Mar 2013 #49
That wasn't all that I was questioning. I was questioning that the taxpayers aren't on the hook progree Mar 2013 #50
Oy, I'm going to let this go magellan Mar 2013 #52
Yeah my mortgage is "carried on my books" also. former9thward Mar 2013 #32
Comparing private property ownership to prefunding future retiree health benefits is apples/oranges magellan Mar 2013 #33
You wish to defy facts because you don't like them. former9thward Mar 2013 #35
Please provide evidence that the treasury lent the USPS the prefund payments magellan Mar 2013 #39
The Treasury lent money to the P.O. for whatever it chooses to use the money for. former9thward Mar 2013 #40
I never said they weren't losing money magellan Mar 2013 #41
Great first step. no_hypocrisy Mar 2013 #10
How are they making them do it? former9thward Mar 2013 #36
168,000 jobs cut since 2006, POs being closed, and ending Saturday delivery is "nothing"? n/t magellan Mar 2013 #42
The poster (not you) said Congress was making them pay the prefund payment. former9thward Mar 2013 #43
No, they can't raise the price of a 1st class stamp to $1 if they want magellan Mar 2013 #44
You are correct. former9thward Mar 2013 #55
i think they'll still do packages, that's enough for me markiv Mar 2013 #54

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
3. If someone's birthday is a Saturday I will simply mail the card a day earlier,
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:48 AM
Mar 2013

so they will get it by the Friday.

kimmylavin

(2,284 posts)
4. I live in a rural area.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 02:29 AM
Mar 2013

Haven't had Saturday delivery (or a PO that's open on Saturday) for the almost eight years I've lived here, and I work from home.
It's not the end of the world.

I'm sure there are plenty of arguments for Saturday delivery, but if it's that or lose the USPS, people can get used to one less day.

 

naaman fletcher

(7,362 posts)
53. Hold on...
Sun Mar 24, 2013, 08:46 AM
Mar 2013

At SOME point in time, Saturday delivery will go away. Every year, less and less people use the post office. I basically don't use it at all for the most part. Now, I am in the extreme, but the post office is mostly irrelevant to most people under 30. the get older every year. There is a certain point at which the very small number of people who care about getting junk mail 6 days a week will have to give way.

You can argue that time isn't now, but it WILL come.

Bay Boy

(1,689 posts)
28. Why?
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:29 PM
Mar 2013

And who? Serious who really needs Saturday delivery, Canadians have managed for over 40 years without it, why can't we?

They_Live

(3,222 posts)
20. You can get most of that stopped
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 10:09 AM
Mar 2013

but you have to contact the senders. It is possible to do it, though.

SunSeeker

(51,378 posts)
5. Good. Getting rid of Saturday delivery just plays into Republicans' plans to kill the USPS.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 02:36 AM
Mar 2013

Taking away Saturday delivery is just a first step by the Repukes to get rid of the Post Office as we know it and give the business to private entities like UPS and FedEx. Getting rid of Saturday delivery will be a boost for UPS and FedEx business. Need that letter delivered on a Saturday? You'll have to pay $12.50 to FedEx it on Friday, whereas before you could just put it in the U.S. mail on a Friday and it would be delivered locally the next day for only 42 cents.

The Constitution actually provides for a USPS. It must be preserved. And the best way to do that is get rid of the ridiculous poison pill the Republicans attached to the Post Office (and no other entity) some years back that now requires it to fund pensions 70 years into the future, i.e. for workers who aren't even born yet. It has been needlessly costing the USPS billions each year.

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
15. Actually, both of these companies have the USPS deliver
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 08:56 AM
Mar 2013

about 30% of their packages. That is why the USPS is only cutting out the mail service and still delivering packages on Saturday.

What I find most interesting is that these companies have NON Disclose agreements with the USPS so that the public can not know the massive breaks they get from the USPS for doing their jobs for them. They charge outrageous prices and then hand it off to the Post Office to deliver at reduced rates while they pocket the difference. Not surprising, Just another corporation on welfare.

truthisfreedom

(23,113 posts)
7. Seems like it would be pretty easy to fix. Just raise the cost of a stamp to match the cost of
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 03:14 AM
Mar 2013

providing the service. It's still less than 50 cents to get a letter from NYC to LA. Why? Why isn't it 60 cents? That's still way cheaper than any other service costs.

mpcamb

(2,855 posts)
16. Amen
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 09:06 AM
Mar 2013

Another snarl Congress produced in a workable system.

Private enterprise wants to get their hands on the easy part of the deliveries and leave the rest to the postal system (which is provided for in the U.S. Constitution). Those very imaginative elected clowns were able to find a way to cripple this branch of government with the 75 year proviso.

Those same bastards want to un-fund Health Care. God, they do love those gun laws, tho.

tclambert

(11,080 posts)
11. 63 cents in Canada. And it hasn't tanked their economy.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 06:38 AM
Mar 2013

Even more in Germany, Japan, England, pretty much anywhere you look. And businesses still manage to afford it. But here in the richest nation on earth? Oh, it's too much of a burden for our delicate corporations to bear.

progree

(10,864 posts)
9. Eliminating Saturday delivery will save $17 per household per year
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 05:40 AM
Mar 2013

According to an AP story from about Feb 6 (sorry no link, not even the title of the article, just some notes I made about the article), they say eliminating Saturday delivery will save $2 billion / year. I looked it up, there are about 115 million households in the U.S., so that comes to $2000 M / 115 M = $17/household per year. To me, Saturday pickup and delivery is worth it. That comes to $1.42 / month.

bread_and_roses

(6,335 posts)
14. er...you don't really think that $17 is going in your pocket?
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 08:41 AM
Mar 2013

I mean, what? Your yearly tax bill will go down by $17? I don't think so.

This is all about crushing the public sector - starving the government - crushing unions .... all of a piece with the Oligarch's drive to privatize and profit-ize EVERYTHING. That's why they enacted the ridiculous "pay ahead 70 years" ... tell me how many private sector companies pay ahead 70 years? Or rather, tell it to the workers who lost pensions when the vultures closed up their workplaces.

Many, many people still rely on the USPS as their primary and often only means of getting checks (seniors, disabled), paying bills, getting medications .... I could go on. Not everyone has internet service. Not everyone has credit. They can't buy and pay online. Not to mention that the USPS is still a bargain for the user.

In many small towns and even neighborhoods in cities the local PO is a sort of anchor. People know the workers, run into each other at the windows - it's part of "community."

Can't have that. Can't have a cheap public service either. Doesn't suit the Shock Doctrine Corporatist, the Randian troglodytes, the Vampire 1%ers.

 

CanSocDem

(3,286 posts)
56. Don't Panic!
Mon Mar 25, 2013, 12:21 PM
Mar 2013


This isn't the end of 'the public sector' or even the USPO. It's one day of home delivery.

"In many small towns and even neighborhoods in cities the local PO is a sort of anchor. People know the workers, run into each other at the windows - it's part of "community."

This is true but not relevant to this issue. There is no "community" involved in "home delivery" just angry dogs, unsafe mailbox access and lonely seniors. A good first step to integrate "public" values and to stop the hysteria of 'losing one day of delivery', would be to build Lock Boxes, strategically placed to promote community "anchors". A side benefit would be the health advantages of getting off the sofa and going for a walk.

The house-bound could develop community values by enlisting a neighbor to retrieve their mail. Of course, they'd have to exercise an uncommon degree of trust....

Trust me. Having lived through the small town post office of which you reference to hauling a trailer load of bulk mail across the country, the little dip in personal service you are lamenting, isn't the end of the world.

.

bread_and_roses

(6,335 posts)
57. Tell it to the Seniors, Disabled, poor, and rural residents
Mon Mar 25, 2013, 02:10 PM
Mar 2013

People DO depend on Saturday delivery. Believe it or not. And just exactly why should anyone be willing to give it up? The only "crisis" in the PO is the manufactured crisis deliberately created with the "pay-ahead 70 years" provision Congress saddled it with.

I could manage without Sat delivery myself, np. But then, I am lucky enough not to be in a position (at least for today) when a late check means I don't eat. Some are.

It's all about union busting and starving the government provided services that people depend on.

mpcamb

(2,855 posts)
17. So, if the $17 figure is correct, it'd be even less
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 09:11 AM
Mar 2013

if junk mail cost more for those who are stuffing my mailbox, trying to sell their crap to me.

They_Live

(3,222 posts)
19. The U.S. Postal Service is funded entirely by revenues from postage.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 10:06 AM
Mar 2013

So where does that figure come from?

progree

(10,864 posts)
29. Its just the reduction in their costs if they deliver the same volume of mail 5 days a week
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:49 PM
Mar 2013

instead of 6 days a week. Also, my understanding is that they are running a deficit even without the retirement pre-funding requirement, and drawing down a Treasury line of credit -- see #24 and #26 below, and particularly the http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/06/news/economy/postal-service-cuts/index.html link in #24.
It has a $15 billion line of credit with the Treasury Department which it has completely used up. That money is owed to the taxpayers.

The above link also has the $2 billion cost-savings figure.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
24. Except it is funded by taxpayers.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 11:55 AM
Mar 2013

It has a $15 billion line of credit with the Treasury Department which it has completely used up. That money is owed to the taxpayers.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/06/news/economy/postal-service-cuts/index.html

magellan

(13,257 posts)
25. Talk to Congress about it
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:10 PM
Mar 2013

They're the ones who created the retirement pre-fund requirement that's causing the debt.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
26. They have not make the pre-funding payment for two years now.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:15 PM
Mar 2013

That can't be used as an excuse for debt when it is not even being paid. The P.O. lost $16 billion last year. The prefunding payment is $5.5 billion a year. Even when you take that out they still lost a lot of money. Ending Saturday delivery will help reduce that.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
27. It's carried on their books
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:23 PM
Mar 2013

It's not being paid for by taxpayers. Your information is wrong.

Further, ending Saturday deliveries won't cover half of the annual prefunding cost, and will harm the USPS more than it helps.

progree

(10,864 posts)
30. What does "it is carried on their books" mean?
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:33 PM
Mar 2013

Like the deficit and national debt? The taxpayers aren't on the hook for what the Treasury spends?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/06/news/economy/postal-service-cuts/index.html says:

The USPS has been borrowing billions of dollars from taxpayers to make up for the shortfalls (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/24/news/economy/postal-service-stamp/index.html?iid=EL ). the agency twice defaulted on payments totaling $11 billion, and it exhausted a $15 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.

... The U.S. Postal Service is, by law, an "independent establishment" of the executive branch. The agency doesn't normally use tax dollars for operations, except for its $15 billion loan from Treasury.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
34. The missed RHBF prefund payments are carried on the books
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 03:47 AM
Mar 2013

The Treasury has not lent that money to the USPS.

As for the money the USPS is borrowing from the Treasury, you left off an important piece of the sentence:

The USPS has been borrowing billions of dollars from taxpayers to make up for the shortfalls caused by a 2006 congressional mandate, under which it has to pre-fund healthcare benefits for future retirees.


If the USPS hadn't already made some of those huge prefund payments, it would have a surplus.

progree

(10,864 posts)
37. See #35 and read the links rather than making stuff up.
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 12:43 PM
Mar 2013

[] From a previous posting: It has a $15 billion line of credit with the Treasury Department which it has completely used up. That money is owed to the taxpayers. http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/06/news/economy/postal-service-cuts/index.html They have not make the pre-funding payment for two years now. That can't be used as an excuse for debt when it is not even being paid. [font color = blue]The P.O. lost $16 billion last year. The prefunding payment is $5.5 billion a year. Even when you take that out they still lost a lot of money.[/font] Ending Sat. delivery will help reduce that. (The money.cnn article also has the $2 billion savings figure for ending Sat. delivery and "It's a drop in the bucket, compared to the $16 billion loss the organization reported for 2012&quot

[] From the above cnn.money.cnn.com/2013/02/06 link: The USPS has been borrowing billions of dollars from taxpayers to make up for the shortfalls (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/24/news/economy/postal-service-stamp/index.html?iid=EL ). the agency twice defaulted on payments totaling $11 billion, and it exhausted a $15 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury. <####> The U.S. Postal Service is, by law, an "independent establishment" of the executive branch. The agency doesn't normally use tax dollars for operations, except for its $15 billion loan from Treasury.

[] From the above money.cnn.com/2013/01/24 link - The postage hikes come as the Postal Service continues to be plagued with insolvency (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/11/news/economy/postal-service-fiscal-cliff/?iid=EL and is in desperate need of help from Congress. The Postal Service has been borrowing billions of dollars from taxpayers to make up for shortfalls caused by a 2006 congressional mandate, under which it has to pre-fund healthcare benefits for future retirees.) ... The agency doesn't normally use tax dollars for operations, except for its $15 billion loan from Treasury.

=======================================

ON EDIT: If you are going to make the same assertion over and over again, please provide some documentation

magellan

(13,257 posts)
38. You're misunderstanding what you're reading
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 04:20 PM
Mar 2013

Please provide evidence of the treasury loaning the prefund payments to the USPS or STFU.

Response to magellan (Reply #38)

progree

(10,864 posts)
46. Huh? A $16 Billion loss in one year's operations cannot be explained by a missed (or made)
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 10:09 PM
Mar 2013

$5.5 Billion payment.

[font color = blue]magellan>>"Please provide evidence of the treasury loaning the prefund payments to the USPS or STFU."[/font]<<

Like Former9thWard says below, they used the $15 Billion borrowed from the Treasury to do with whatever they needed to do with it. If it didn't go to making up for deficits caused by prefunding the retirement in earlier years, than it must have gone to operations.

The article says they lost $16 Billion last year, i.e. ONE year alone. Nothing in the article indicates that the $16 Billion is their cumulative net worth. Profit/loss statements are for a year, not a cumulative thing. It doesn't include the results of past years' operations. Unless their accounting is way way different than anything I've ever heard of. [font color = red](On edit - see update below)[/font]

You've made assertion after assertion after assertion with not a single link to anything to back up anything you say.

Also on the article's statement: [font color=brown]"The Postal Service has been borrowing billions of dollars from taxpayers to make up for shortfalls caused by a 2006 congressional mandate, under which it has to pre-fund healthcare benefits for future retirees"[/font]

Yes, ONE way that can be read is that the prefunding is the cause of ALL of the shortfall, but, well, a $16 B loss in ONE year, 2012 -- of which the $5.5 B payment missed in 2012 would be a part, but not the 2011 missed payment -- that was part of LAST year's loss -- doesn't add up to what you are saying -- that the $16 B loss in ONE YEAR -- 2012, is SOLELY caused by the prefunding. [font color = red](On edit - see update below)[/font]

[font color=red]ON EDIT[/font] - From the New York Times:

Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion {{15.9 B per first sentence below}}, November 15, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Postal Service on Thursday reported a record $15.9 billion net loss for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, bringing the financially troubled agency another step closer to insolvency.
Related

The widely expected loss, more than triple the service’s loss last year, included accounting expenses of $11.1 billion related to two payments that the agency was supposed to make into its future retiree health benefits fund. But because of revenue losses, the post office was for the first time forced to default on these payments, which were due in August and October. Nearly $5 billion in other losses were because of a decline in revenue from mailing operations. The agency also reached its $15 billion borrowing limit from the Treasury.

MORE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us/politics/postal-service-reports-a-nearly-16-billion-loss.html


Hmmm. OK, so the 2011 retirement payment was due in FY 2012??, so it's counted in the FY 2012 profit/loss, along with the 2012 retirement payment due in 2012. Strange. (Also, August 2012 is FY 2012 while October 2012 is FY 2013... another puzzler) Anyway, that leaves 15.9 - 11.1 = 4.8 B$ loss due to factors other than the two retirement payments. And this in a presidential election year with gobs of campaigning.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
47. Here ya go
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 10:22 PM
Mar 2013
USPS’s fiscal 2012 losses were largely driven by two separate defaults, in which the agency failed to pay a combined $11.1 billion in required prepayments for retiree healthcare.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/268193-usps-loses-record-159-billion-in-fiscal-2012#ixzz2OQ5ztnJz

progree

(10,864 posts)
48. "LARGELY CAUSED" key words. NOT entirely caused
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 10:53 PM
Mar 2013

Please see also my #46 above again (I edited it after you posted to include the New York Times story -- that the $15.9 B loss was caused by $11.1 B in healthcare prepayment defaults, and $4.8 B due to other causes)

As for your link: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/268193-usps-loses-record-159-billion-in-fiscal-2012

You sure left a LOT out of your excerpt --

USPS lost $5.1 billion in fiscal 2011, but that figure did not include any losses from the healthcare prepayments, ...The service’s scheduled payment for 2011 was pushed back into the 2012 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.

Without the prepayment losses, which accounted for around 70 percent of USPS’s total red ink, the agency would have lost $4.8 billion in fiscal 2012.

OK, so they lost $5.1 B in FY 2011, none of which due to healthcare prepayments, and lost $15.9 B in FY 2012, of which $4.8 B was from causes other than the prepayment defaults. So, no, the cause of the USPS's problems are not just the healthcare prepayment mandate.

Its Saturday Night, why are we doing this????

magellan

(13,257 posts)
49. Look, we got here because you questioned my saying
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 11:10 PM
Mar 2013

...the prefund payments are carried on the books. I've made that case, AND provided a link to back it up as requested. If you want to talk about other loss drivers, that's a different subject.

Bottom line is the USPS wouldn't be in terrible shape if it weren't for the PAEA. Yes, the USPS needs restructuring, but not the kind being forced on it. The PAEA has only added to its problems. Unnecessarily so.

But yeah, I'm for enjoying the evening too.

progree

(10,864 posts)
50. That wasn't all that I was questioning. I was questioning that the taxpayers aren't on the hook
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 11:30 PM
Mar 2013

for what they borrowed from the Treasury. And for any future losses for that matter.

And in #34: "The Treasury has not lent that money to the USPS. "



former9thward

(31,805 posts)
32. Yeah my mortgage is "carried on my books" also.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:58 PM
Mar 2013

I guess that means I don't have to pay the bank and they didn't really lend me anything.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
33. Comparing private property ownership to prefunding future retiree health benefits is apples/oranges
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 03:23 AM
Mar 2013

The Treasury hasn't lent anything to the USPS. The government created a requirement for the USPS to 100% prefund retiree health benefits for employees it doesn't even have yet, something even the Pentagon doesn't do. Current obligations are being met by the USPS. Any potential taxpayer liability for future retirees is decades off...and completely avoidable if Congress would get its head out of its butt and stop using retirement funds to make the federal budget look better.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
35. You wish to defy facts because you don't like them.
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 11:42 AM
Mar 2013

I have provided links which show the Treasury Dept lent the P.O. $15 billion. You simply want to ignore that. The P.O. is ignoring the "requirement" to prefund health benefits. They are not paying it. So it is not an excuse for losses which far exceed the payment even if they were doing it.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
40. The Treasury lent money to the P.O. for whatever it chooses to use the money for.
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 08:05 PM
Mar 2013

Just like any bank line of credit. They can pay wages, suppliers, prefund payments, utility costs -- that is up to them. Don't try and change the goalposts. As I said they haven't been paying the payments even though they have received $15 billion from the taxpayers. Nothing has happened to them. You are using payments they are not making to pretend they are not losing money.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/06/news/economy/postal-service-cuts/index.html

magellan

(13,257 posts)
41. I never said they weren't losing money
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 08:18 PM
Mar 2013

They clearly are. But they wouldn't be losing anywhere near as much if it weren't for the PAEA payments Congress imposed on them. They've made four of those payments as of January 2012:

2007: $5.4 billion
2008: $5.6 billion
2009: $1.4 billion (Congress reduced the amount)
2010: $5.5 billion

Gee, do you think that $17.9 billion they've managed to pay might have something to do with why they've had to max their credit limit with the Treasury?

no_hypocrisy

(45,781 posts)
10. Great first step.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 06:27 AM
Mar 2013

Now Congress has to stop making the Post Office pre-finance its retirement funds for people who haven't been born yet.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
36. How are they making them do it?
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 11:43 AM
Mar 2013

The P.O. has skipped the payment for the last two years. Nothing has happened to them.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
43. The poster (not you) said Congress was making them pay the prefund payment.
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 08:42 PM
Mar 2013

I asked how since they have skipped the payment two times and nothing has happened to them. In the 2006 law Congress gave the P.O. freedom to act like a business. They gave them the ability to set rates without approval from congress -- something the P.O. had always wanted. They could set the rate of a stamp to $1 if they wanted.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
44. No, they can't raise the price of a 1st class stamp to $1 if they want
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 08:55 PM
Mar 2013

According to USPS CFO and EVP Joseph Corbett, they're not permitted to raise rates beyond the nominal annual increase in inflation, about 2%.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
55. You are correct.
Sun Mar 24, 2013, 11:44 AM
Mar 2013

I misstated their power to raise rates. The 2006 law gave them the ability to raise rates without congressional approval but it limited it to the inflation rates. I believe they should be able to raise the rates to whatever level they want. I also think they should be able to prefund retirees at the rate other business' do. However I reject the idea that the prefunding is main problem with the P.O. finances. They lose money despite that. I think they should be able to eliminate Sat delivery. The P.O. used to deliver twice a day. That was ended without any problems and I think 5 days is not a problem either.

 

markiv

(1,489 posts)
54. i think they'll still do packages, that's enough for me
Sun Mar 24, 2013, 10:05 AM
Mar 2013

the rest is mostly bills and junk, and can wait

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Saturday mail delivery sh...