10 ms·

Its not a point about government effectiveness or efficiency. They kneecapped the USPS when they forced prefunding of pension liabilities (https://www.cnbc.com/

Its not a point about government effectiveness or efficiency. They kneecapped the USPS when they forced prefunding of pension liabilities (https://www.cnbc.com/2011/10/24/the-truth-about-the-post-offices-financial-mess.html https://www.cnbc.com/2011/10/24/the-truth-about-the-post-off...). They had more legislative leverage prior to 2018, so they could have done all this much earlier. It is not possible to honestly discuss this in a meaningful way without acknowledging it's 3 months out from a presidential election. It the closest thing they can legally do to suppress voting turnout, and it's a deliberate strategy to win the election by reducing the franchise. This isn't in a vacuum either, it's a coordinated part of a national legislative strategy (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/exposing-alec-how-conservative-backed-state-laws-are-all-connected/255869/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/exposin...). It is coordinated across at the state and federal levels, and across branches. You can see here with the intentional degrading of the USPS immediately prior to a national election, at a state level with polling place closures (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/southern-us-states-have-closed-1200-polling-places-in-recent-years-rights-group-idUSKCN1VV09J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/so...) and photo id laws (https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...), and constellation of Republican judicial appointments coordinated with specially prepared and crafted legal challenges by Republican AGs and private parties at state and circuit levels. This is how it's being done: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/...

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Retirement benefits should be funded as they are accrued. That is not the problem. The problem is the USPS doesn’t have the power to price their products appropriately in order to pay for their expenses (including payroll which includes retirement benefits). If anything, all entities promising retirement benefits should be forced to do it the way USPS does. In fact, non government entities were forced to via the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which is why non government employers stopped offering defined benefit pensions and other post employment benefits (OPEB) as they are simply not affordable. Too bad it didn’t apply to governments, because if it did, then my kids and I wouldn’t be stuck paying for labor performed 30+ years ago because all the city and state governments decided they can just promise to pay people with future taxpayers’ money by underfunding defined benefit pension plans and retiree healthcare benefits.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- casefields 6y ago
  If they want to set prices themselves then let them, but remove their monopoly on letters. Repeal the private express statutes. That seems quite fair.
- qserasera 6y ago
  > If anything, all entities promising retirement benefits should be forced to do it the way USPS does That would be nice but [insert financing excuse here] others cant do it too. > Too bad it didn’t apply to governments, because if it did, then my kids and I wouldn’t be stuck paying for labor performed 30+ years ago because all the city and state governments decided they can just promise to pay people with future taxpayers’ money by underfunding defined benefit pension plans and retiree healthcare benefits. Yes but forcing just USPS to do it was an attack on USPS because it has to compete with private companies. State and local run organizations have no such competition thus 'locally too big to fail'. I've heard of some interesting talk about making a working USPS federal credit union/bank for a variety of services to the public that might prove lucrative and something that would potentially ease USPSs cash troubles. I'm not an expert into the economics about that and it might prove disruptive to a lot of businesses.
  - conception 6y ago
    Banking from the post office is a pretty common thing and makes a lot of sense as it gives people a public, non-profit banking avenue for the poor and under served.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - athms 6y ago
      I would agree if there were more post offices, but the USPS has been closing them over the last twenty years to cut costs. They serve wide geographic areas and it is easier to find a local credit union than a post office these days. The poor would be better served with Internet banking.
seibelj 6y ago
I can’t believe arguing that ACTUALLY FUNDING pension liabilities is a horrible thing - this is how every government pension should be funded! You should be screaming about how nearly every state and federal government pension is ridiculously underfunded!
- casefields 6y ago
  It's literally the only fiscally responsible government pension. It's weird how political it's become, yet it should be the example to follow.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Fascinating to me too. People would be outraged if an insurance company wasn’t appropriately saving for annuities it sold. But it’s perfectly fine if a government sells defined benefit pensions and retiree health benefits, saves a fraction of the promised benefits, and then raises taxes in the future to pay for it.
throwgeorge 6y ago
your last link is 404; this is it https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/...
BoiledCabbage 6y ago
Note, it looks like that final link is 404'ing. The correct link appears to be: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/...
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  Thank you.
arp242 6y ago
> It the closest thing they can legally do to suppress voting turnout, and it's a deliberate strategy to win the election by reducing the franchise. I haven't followed any of this story and this is the first time I'm reading up on it, but why would this increase the chances of Trump winning? Wouldn't restricting mail-in voting affect both sides roughly equally? That's what I would expect, anyway, but perhaps I'm missing something?
mike00632 6y ago
There is also controversy over the pick of USPS leader. It seems this appointment was mostly political. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/politics/postmaster-general-louis-dejoy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/politics/postmaster-ge...

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Retirement benefits should be funded as they are accrued. That is not the problem. The problem is the USPS doesn’t have the power to price their products appropriately in order to pay for their expenses (including payroll which includes retirement benefits). If anything, all entities promising retirement benefits should be forced to do it the way USPS does. In fact, non government entities were forced to via the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which is why non government employers stopped offering defined benefit pensions and other post employment benefits (OPEB) as they are simply not affordable. Too bad it didn’t apply to governments, because if it did, then my kids and I wouldn’t be stuck paying for labor performed 30+ years ago because all the city and state governments decided they can just promise to pay people with future taxpayers’ money by underfunding defined benefit pension plans and retiree healthcare benefits.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
casefields 6y ago
If they want to set prices themselves then let them, but remove their monopoly on letters. Repeal the private express statutes. That seems quite fair.
qserasera 6y ago
> If anything, all entities promising retirement benefits should be forced to do it the way USPS does That would be nice but [insert financing excuse here] others cant do it too. > Too bad it didn’t apply to governments, because if it did, then my kids and I wouldn’t be stuck paying for labor performed 30+ years ago because all the city and state governments decided they can just promise to pay people with future taxpayers’ money by underfunding defined benefit pension plans and retiree healthcare benefits. Yes but forcing just USPS to do it was an attack on USPS because it has to compete with private companies. State and local run organizations have no such competition thus 'locally too big to fail'. I've heard of some interesting talk about making a working USPS federal credit union/bank for a variety of services to the public that might prove lucrative and something that would potentially ease USPSs cash troubles. I'm not an expert into the economics about that and it might prove disruptive to a lot of businesses.
- conception 6y ago
  Banking from the post office is a pretty common thing and makes a lot of sense as it gives people a public, non-profit banking avenue for the poor and under served.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - athms 6y ago
    I would agree if there were more post offices, but the USPS has been closing them over the last twenty years to cut costs. They serve wide geographic areas and it is easier to find a local credit union than a post office these days. The poor would be better served with Internet banking.

seibelj 6y ago

I can’t believe arguing that ACTUALLY FUNDING pension liabilities is a horrible thing - this is how every government pension should be funded! You should be screaming about how nearly every state and federal government pension is ridiculously underfunded!

casefields 6y ago
It's literally the only fiscally responsible government pension. It's weird how political it's become, yet it should be the example to follow.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Fascinating to me too. People would be outraged if an insurance company wasn’t appropriately saving for annuities it sold. But it’s perfectly fine if a government sells defined benefit pensions and retiree health benefits, saves a fraction of the promised benefits, and then raises taxes in the future to pay for it.

throwgeorge 6y ago

your last link is 404; this is it https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/...

BoiledCabbage 6y ago

Note, it looks like that final link is 404'ing. The correct link appears to be: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/...

throwaway5752 6y ago
Thank you.

arp242 6y ago

> It the closest thing they can legally do to suppress voting turnout, and it's a deliberate strategy to win the election by reducing the franchise. I haven't followed any of this story and this is the first time I'm reading up on it, but why would this increase the chances of Trump winning? Wouldn't restricting mail-in voting affect both sides roughly equally? That's what I would expect, anyway, but perhaps I'm missing something?

mike00632 6y ago

There is also controversy over the pick of USPS leader. It seems this appointment was mostly political. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/politics/postmaster-general-louis-dejoy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/politics/postmaster-ge...