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
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)PSPS
(13,516 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)so they will get it by the Friday.
kimmylavin
(2,284 posts)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.
They_Live
(3,222 posts)because you got used to it?
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)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.
And who? Serious who really needs Saturday delivery, Canadians have managed for over 40 years without it, why can't we?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)They_Live
(3,222 posts)but you have to contact the senders. It is possible to do it, though.
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)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)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.
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)Strelnikov_
(7,772 posts)truthisfreedom
(23,113 posts)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.
alp227
(31,962 posts)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)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)progree
(10,864 posts)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)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)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)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)if junk mail cost more for those who are stuffing my mailbox, trying to sell their crap to me.
They_Live
(3,222 posts)So where does that figure come from?
progree
(10,864 posts)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.
magellan
(13,257 posts)former9thward
(31,805 posts)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)They're the ones who created the retirement pre-fund requirement that's causing the debt.
former9thward
(31,805 posts)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)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)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 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)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:
If the USPS hadn't already made some of those huge prefund payments, it would have a surplus.
progree
(10,864 posts)[] 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"
[] 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)Please provide evidence of the treasury loaning the prefund payments to the USPS or STFU.
Response to magellan (Reply #38)
progree This message was self-deleted by its author.
progree
(10,864 posts)$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:
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 services 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)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)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 --
Without the prepayment losses, which accounted for around 70 percent of USPSs 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)...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)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. "
magellan
(13,257 posts)I think we're probably talking past each other.
former9thward
(31,805 posts)I guess that means I don't have to pay the bank and they didn't really lend me anything.
magellan
(13,257 posts)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)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.
magellan
(13,257 posts)...it owes.
former9thward
(31,805 posts)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)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)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)The P.O. has skipped the payment for the last two years. Nothing has happened to them.
magellan
(13,257 posts)former9thward
(31,805 posts)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)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)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)the rest is mostly bills and junk, and can wait