6 ms·

>I have no idea why people think the USPS is this giant wasteful pit of money in the federal budget A concentrated disinformation campaign funded by people who

>I have no idea why people think the USPS is this giant wasteful pit of money in the federal budget A concentrated disinformation campaign funded by people who stand to benefit from privatizing mail delivery. It started with the mandate to pre-fund pension and healthcare benefits for the next 75 years, funding pensions for retired employees who aren't even born yet. That means by federal mandate, the USPS is sitting on $400 billion that they can't touch [1]. That's not all bad in and of itself, but they're also limited by law on what they can charge for stamps, and the federal review board doesn't always let them increase prices to keep up with costs [2]. The same group of people who forced the USPS into an precedented fiscal nightmare are the same people going on TV and telling you that the USPS is fiscally irresponsible and a waste of money and should be privatized. Not a big surprise that Rep Tom Davis III was the author of the bill passed in 2006 but in 2004 FedEx was one of his biggest campaign contributors. [1] https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume [2] https://www.cnbc.com/id/39439918 https://www.cnbc.com/id/39439918 [3] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407 [4] https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00002045&cycle=2004&type=I https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors...

fjp 7y ago
This is happening everywhere with all kinds of government services. "Slash budgets" and by firing full time employees and cutting investment, piecemeal it out to the lowest-bid contractor, the quality of service deteriorates, not much money is actually saved, but someone gets rich(er)!
- freehunter 7y ago
  And when the service fails, you can point to it as the reason government solutions don't work and how regulation is bad, which provides convenient reasoning to strip more regulations and privatize more government services.
  - the-dude 7y ago
    And it has a name as well : Starve the beast.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - mindslight 7y ago
      Like every political push, the intent was noble. But it only gains legs when some entrenched interest can profit.
      - freehunter 7y ago
        Noble? Maybe... I'd say it's dishonest at best. If the USPS failed on its own, there might be a point to the argument that the government is inefficient. But when lawmakers destroy something and then claim that it destroyed itself and therefore we must destroy everything else, it doesn't quite seem right. It's like smashing a window with a baseball bat to prove glass is easily breakable. Yes the glass broke, that's why you don't hit it with a baseball bat. Rather than replacing the windows with brick, how about just not hitting it with a baseball bat? If you want to prove how easily breakable the glass is, let is break (or not) on its own.
        mindslight 7y ago
        You're responding on a completely different level than what I actually said. > If the USPS failed on its own, there might be a point to the argument that the government is inefficient. But when lawmakers destroy something and then claim that it destroyed itself and therefore we must destroy everything else, it doesn't quite seem right. To be clear, I agree with this. I like the USPS, and think they do a great job. The point is that grassroots support for "starve the beast" didn't start out focused on the USPS. The USPS was just one of the more vulnerable targets, plus some business stood to gain, so politicians directed the ire there. It's similar dynamic to how in these "government shutdowns", national parks close but the TSA keeps right on going. Or locally, how trying to keep real estate taxes down ends putting the screws on teachers and firefighters, rather than shrinking the town bureaucracy. The larger point is to avoid simplistically ascribing the worst intent to the "other team". It's an easy answer, but prevents understanding that they actually have legitimate points. And it drives adherence to the agenda of your familiar team, which is also busy manufacturing consent for corporate agendas in a similar manner.
- wnevets 7y ago
  >the quality of service deteriorates, not much money is actually saved, not only does the service get worse but cost actually goes up.
johnnyb9 7y ago
Is a pay-as-you-go pension really a smart option if your #1 product/mandate (first class mail) is at total risk of becoming irrelevant in the near-term?
- freehunter 7y ago
  Those aren't the only options. It's hard to argue that the goal isn't the complete destruction of the USPS when you mandate they pre-pay pensions 75 years in advance and then forbid them from raising prices to fulfill that mandate. If the USPS is going to become irrelevant in the near-term, does stockpiling 75 years worth of pensions really make sense?
treis 7y ago
>It started with the mandate to pre-fund pension and healthcare benefits for the next 75 years, funding pensions for retired employees who aren't even born yet. This is wholly inaccurate. All that the USPS is being required to do is set aside money to pay for pension liabilities that they have incurred. Nothing close to funding pensions for employees that have yet to be born. Besides, this is all hypothetical as the USPS has not actually made the payments they were supposed to.
- freehunter 7y ago
  >the USPS has not actually made the payments they were supposed to That's so 100% disprovable, so easily disprovable, disproven by the first link in the comment you directly replied to, that I'm have a hard time assuming good faith in your argument as the HN guidelines tell me to do.
  - treis 7y ago
    >I'm have a hard time assuming good faith in your argument as the HN guidelines tell me to do. Seriously? You should Google before becoming quite so self righteous: >It is not the first time the Postal Service has missed its required payments to prefund retirees’ health benefits. From 2012 through 2016, the agency failed to deliver nearly $34 billion toward its pool for retirees’ health care. https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-billions-mandatory-payments-despite-scheduled-relief/141404/ https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-bil...
    - freehunter 7y ago
      Please explain your use of the word "hypothetical". That might be where I am getting confused. Because the only way I'm interpreting that statement is "the USPS can't blame this law for their money problems because they haven't even made any payments" At best, I might be able to twist the words to say "the USPS's money problems aren't real because they can't afford to pay their debt", which makes no sense. The reality of the situation is the $5.7b they're required to pay every year is more than they can afford to pay, so they paid it until they reached $8b in debt and then stopped paying. None of that is hypothetical in any way.
the_reformation 7y ago
We agree that the pension obligations are the reason why the USPS (once one of the most innovative logistics organizations in the world) has degraded so throughly. But pointing to shadowy private interests is backfilling personal politics into the narrative. The obvious culprit of USPS' debilitating pension obligations the pensioners themselves.
- dd36 7y ago
  The pensioners create the pension system of their employer?

fjp 7y ago

This is happening everywhere with all kinds of government services. "Slash budgets" and by firing full time employees and cutting investment, piecemeal it out to the lowest-bid contractor, the quality of service deteriorates, not much money is actually saved, but someone gets rich(er)!

freehunter 7y ago
And when the service fails, you can point to it as the reason government solutions don't work and how regulation is bad, which provides convenient reasoning to strip more regulations and privatize more government services.
- the-dude 7y ago
  And it has a name as well : Starve the beast.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mindslight 7y ago
    Like every political push, the intent was noble. But it only gains legs when some entrenched interest can profit.
    - freehunter 7y ago
      Noble? Maybe... I'd say it's dishonest at best. If the USPS failed on its own, there might be a point to the argument that the government is inefficient. But when lawmakers destroy something and then claim that it destroyed itself and therefore we must destroy everything else, it doesn't quite seem right. It's like smashing a window with a baseball bat to prove glass is easily breakable. Yes the glass broke, that's why you don't hit it with a baseball bat. Rather than replacing the windows with brick, how about just not hitting it with a baseball bat? If you want to prove how easily breakable the glass is, let is break (or not) on its own.
      - mindslight 7y ago
        You're responding on a completely different level than what I actually said. > If the USPS failed on its own, there might be a point to the argument that the government is inefficient. But when lawmakers destroy something and then claim that it destroyed itself and therefore we must destroy everything else, it doesn't quite seem right. To be clear, I agree with this. I like the USPS, and think they do a great job. The point is that grassroots support for "starve the beast" didn't start out focused on the USPS. The USPS was just one of the more vulnerable targets, plus some business stood to gain, so politicians directed the ire there. It's similar dynamic to how in these "government shutdowns", national parks close but the TSA keeps right on going. Or locally, how trying to keep real estate taxes down ends putting the screws on teachers and firefighters, rather than shrinking the town bureaucracy. The larger point is to avoid simplistically ascribing the worst intent to the "other team". It's an easy answer, but prevents understanding that they actually have legitimate points. And it drives adherence to the agenda of your familiar team, which is also busy manufacturing consent for corporate agendas in a similar manner.
wnevets 7y ago
>the quality of service deteriorates, not much money is actually saved, not only does the service get worse but cost actually goes up.

johnnyb9 7y ago

Is a pay-as-you-go pension really a smart option if your #1 product/mandate (first class mail) is at total risk of becoming irrelevant in the near-term?

freehunter 7y ago
Those aren't the only options. It's hard to argue that the goal isn't the complete destruction of the USPS when you mandate they pre-pay pensions 75 years in advance and then forbid them from raising prices to fulfill that mandate. If the USPS is going to become irrelevant in the near-term, does stockpiling 75 years worth of pensions really make sense?

treis 7y ago

>It started with the mandate to pre-fund pension and healthcare benefits for the next 75 years, funding pensions for retired employees who aren't even born yet. This is wholly inaccurate. All that the USPS is being required to do is set aside money to pay for pension liabilities that they have incurred. Nothing close to funding pensions for employees that have yet to be born. Besides, this is all hypothetical as the USPS has not actually made the payments they were supposed to.

freehunter 7y ago
>the USPS has not actually made the payments they were supposed to That's so 100% disprovable, so easily disprovable, disproven by the first link in the comment you directly replied to, that I'm have a hard time assuming good faith in your argument as the HN guidelines tell me to do.
- treis 7y ago
  >I'm have a hard time assuming good faith in your argument as the HN guidelines tell me to do. Seriously? You should Google before becoming quite so self righteous: >It is not the first time the Postal Service has missed its required payments to prefund retirees’ health benefits. From 2012 through 2016, the agency failed to deliver nearly $34 billion toward its pool for retirees’ health care. https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-billions-mandatory-payments-despite-scheduled-relief/141404/ https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-bil...
  - freehunter 7y ago
    Please explain your use of the word "hypothetical". That might be where I am getting confused. Because the only way I'm interpreting that statement is "the USPS can't blame this law for their money problems because they haven't even made any payments" At best, I might be able to twist the words to say "the USPS's money problems aren't real because they can't afford to pay their debt", which makes no sense. The reality of the situation is the $5.7b they're required to pay every year is more than they can afford to pay, so they paid it until they reached $8b in debt and then stopped paying. None of that is hypothetical in any way.

the_reformation 7y ago

We agree that the pension obligations are the reason why the USPS (once one of the most innovative logistics organizations in the world) has degraded so throughly. But pointing to shadowy private interests is backfilling personal politics into the narrative. The obvious culprit of USPS' debilitating pension obligations the pensioners themselves.

dd36 7y ago
The pensioners create the pension system of their employer?