3 ms·

> USPS benefited from national mail logistics only being available to government level endeavors. What Kool-Aid are you drinking? The Post Office didn't benef

> USPS benefited from national mail logistics only being available to government level endeavors. What Kool-Aid are you drinking? The Post Office didn't benefit from anything, it was mandated because no such service yet existed. Prior to the Office of the Postmaster General being established, postal service was disjointed and limited at best in the colonies. In the 1600s you had 2 routes in the colonies, Boston to England and Boston to New York City. It was prohibitively expensive and limited largely to business and government communications. In the 1700s the Imperial Postal Service was extended to the colonies with fixed rates and taxes included, and it was incredibly unreliable. The Post Office was born out of frustration, one of the founding fathers ran a news paper and the Imperial Post couldn't even deliver papers reliably. The Post Office was mandated by the founding fathers under the principle that everyone has the right to secure, efficient, reliable, and affordable mail service. With the advent of the Interstate Highway System and many other technological advances over the prevailing 200 years, the Post Office was actually able to reduce costs and turn a profit. During the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s, the postal workers began protesting and striking because work conditions and compensation. They eventually won the right to unionized. In response to unionization the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) of 1970 abolished the Post Office Department and turned the Post Office into an independent agency that was excluded from the US Budget. One could argue that the PRA was the start of union busting tactics employed by the conservative government in power to bankrupt the post office. It doesn't help that every conservative government since then has enacted some sort of constraint upon the USPS that isn't mandated on private services. The most recent being the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 which required the USPS to switch from a Pay-As-You-Go to a Pre-Funded model for it's retirement plans. That's akin to your mortgage company calling you up and saying you'll need to pay off 100% of your principal next year.

Avshalom 9y ago
Actually the most recent is when congress lowered the price of stamps juuust as USPS had finally built up the pre-fund. Which of course points to one of the many problems the USPS has which is that they're expected to be self sustaining but have almost no control over their business model (and yet miraculously they manage to make it work for the most part).
marcoperaza 9y ago
>The Post Office was mandated by the founding fathers under the principle that everyone has the right to secure, efficient, reliable, and affordable mail service. The founders would not have talked about postal service as a "right". A good idea? Yes. Stupid to not have one? Yes. A right? No. >The most recent being the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 which required the USPS to switch from a Pay-As-You-Go to a Pre-Funded model for it's retirement plans. Congress saw the writing on the wall—that the Postal Service was probably going to suffer permanently declining revenue in the long run. They took steps to make sure that the financial burden of paying for unfunded pension liabilities did not fall on the taxpayers.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > They took steps Sure, but not the steps you'd take if you wanted a functioning public postal system. They set an extremely short timeframe to fund the pension account, then cut postage prices right as it neared full funding. A lot of Congress very openly wants to end the public postal system. Pre-funding the pension system was a reasonable move in principle, but like most changes to the USPS it's structured in a way designed to create a failing system to privatize.

Avshalom 9y ago

Actually the most recent is when congress lowered the price of stamps juuust as USPS had finally built up the pre-fund. Which of course points to one of the many problems the USPS has which is that they're expected to be self sustaining but have almost no control over their business model (and yet miraculously they manage to make it work for the most part).

marcoperaza 9y ago

>The Post Office was mandated by the founding fathers under the principle that everyone has the right to secure, efficient, reliable, and affordable mail service. The founders would not have talked about postal service as a "right". A good idea? Yes. Stupid to not have one? Yes. A right? No. >The most recent being the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 which required the USPS to switch from a Pay-As-You-Go to a Pre-Funded model for it's retirement plans. Congress saw the writing on the wall—that the Postal Service was probably going to suffer permanently declining revenue in the long run. They took steps to make sure that the financial burden of paying for unfunded pension liabilities did not fall on the taxpayers.

Bartweiss 9y ago
> They took steps Sure, but not the steps you'd take if you wanted a functioning public postal system. They set an extremely short timeframe to fund the pension account, then cut postage prices right as it neared full funding. A lot of Congress very openly wants to end the public postal system. Pre-funding the pension system was a reasonable move in principle, but like most changes to the USPS it's structured in a way designed to create a failing system to privatize.