4 ms·

> I guess what confuses me is that, even assuming good intentions by the new Postmaster General, why and why now? Because Congress hasn’t approved postage incr

> I guess what confuses me is that, even assuming good intentions by the new Postmaster General, why and why now? Because Congress hasn’t approved postage increases, so the post office doesn’t have the money it would take to provide the service Congress wants it to. At the same time, Congress hasn’t approved closing offices, so the post office can’t scale back to provide the service it can actually afford. > I believe the main stated reason has been that the USPS loses money and they want to make it break even or profitable. Assuming that's the reason (and not election interference), why should such an infrastructure be breakeven or profitable? It’s not the postmaster general’s decision. Congress set up the requirement that the post office be self funded when it limited how much it will subsidize the post office. I can imagine a world where the post office is self funded, and I can imagine a world where the post office is heavily subsidized. I don’t think the world we live in — where the post office has to be self funded while literally requiring an act of Congress to raise prices or close offices — can actually work.

jimkleiber 6y ago
Fair points, I'm operating mostly blind on this so I'm grateful for you and others who are bringing more references to laws and the functions of it. The question still gets me is "why now?" Why privatize or change the USPS now, when it could very well jeopardize, or at the minimum, give people the impression that it will jeopardize the election? In other words, is the <$10B in annual loss more important than the integrity of the election?
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  > Why privatize or change the USPS now, when it could very well jeopardize, or at the minimum, give people the impression that it will jeopardize the election? The post office turned into the USPS (and the postmaster general removed from the line of presidential succession) in 1970 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act ). Ever since that time, people have been arguing whether it should be privatized or return to what it was before 1970. The postmaster general just took office in June. > In other words, is the <$10B in annual loss more important than the integrity of the election? That’s a question for Congress. If the post office’s bank account is empty, I don’t believe it can get a loan, sell bonds, or borrow money in any other way. It’s not truly independent. Right now, Congress isn’t ready to allow a postage increase, allow offices to close, or to give the $10B or so to the post office to continue operating as usual. I suspect that could change pretty quickly if voters complain loud enough.
  - jimkleiber 6y ago
    I had no idea it had been part of the cabinet! Wow, thank you for posting that and the link. > If the post office’s bank account is empty, I don’t believe it can get a loan, sell bonds, or borrow money in any other way. Is it close to being empty? I guess I just assumed there was at least a few year runway, enough to get through the pandemic and election, but maybe there's not. When so many other things are being bailed out by stimulus packages, I just find it odd that the USPS wouldn't be. Again, the urgency confuses me.
    - maxlybbert 6y ago
      I don’t know what the post office’s account looks like. They claim they haven’t made a profit in years (e.g., “The agency has lost nearly $70 billion over the previous 11 years, including nearly $9 billion last year alone. The agency’s total debt and unfunded liabilities are now twice the size of its annual revenue” https://kuster.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/calling-president-trump-s-demand-that-postage-rates-be-quadrupled https://kuster.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/calling... ).
      - jimkleiber 6y ago
        Ah ha. Seems it could be struggling more than I had thought. Still, doesn't seem to me like it's in such an urgent, dire state that it needs to be addressed before the election. Thanks for the back and forth :-)
        maxlybbert 6y ago
        While looking for the post office’s financial information I discovered that Congress doesn’t literally have to approve rate increases. Apparently, that’s now handled by the Postal Regulatory Commission ( https://www.prc.gov/about https://www.prc.gov/about ). So I learned something from the back and forth.
        jimkleiber 6y ago

jimkleiber 6y ago

Fair points, I'm operating mostly blind on this so I'm grateful for you and others who are bringing more references to laws and the functions of it. The question still gets me is "why now?" Why privatize or change the USPS now, when it could very well jeopardize, or at the minimum, give people the impression that it will jeopardize the election? In other words, is the <$10B in annual loss more important than the integrity of the election?

maxlybbert 6y ago
> Why privatize or change the USPS now, when it could very well jeopardize, or at the minimum, give people the impression that it will jeopardize the election? The post office turned into the USPS (and the postmaster general removed from the line of presidential succession) in 1970 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act ). Ever since that time, people have been arguing whether it should be privatized or return to what it was before 1970. The postmaster general just took office in June. > In other words, is the <$10B in annual loss more important than the integrity of the election? That’s a question for Congress. If the post office’s bank account is empty, I don’t believe it can get a loan, sell bonds, or borrow money in any other way. It’s not truly independent. Right now, Congress isn’t ready to allow a postage increase, allow offices to close, or to give the $10B or so to the post office to continue operating as usual. I suspect that could change pretty quickly if voters complain loud enough.
- jimkleiber 6y ago
  I had no idea it had been part of the cabinet! Wow, thank you for posting that and the link. > If the post office’s bank account is empty, I don’t believe it can get a loan, sell bonds, or borrow money in any other way. Is it close to being empty? I guess I just assumed there was at least a few year runway, enough to get through the pandemic and election, but maybe there's not. When so many other things are being bailed out by stimulus packages, I just find it odd that the USPS wouldn't be. Again, the urgency confuses me.
  - maxlybbert 6y ago
    I don’t know what the post office’s account looks like. They claim they haven’t made a profit in years (e.g., “The agency has lost nearly $70 billion over the previous 11 years, including nearly $9 billion last year alone. The agency’s total debt and unfunded liabilities are now twice the size of its annual revenue” https://kuster.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/calling-president-trump-s-demand-that-postage-rates-be-quadrupled https://kuster.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/calling... ).
    - jimkleiber 6y ago
      Ah ha. Seems it could be struggling more than I had thought. Still, doesn't seem to me like it's in such an urgent, dire state that it needs to be addressed before the election. Thanks for the back and forth :-)
      - maxlybbert 6y ago
        While looking for the post office’s financial information I discovered that Congress doesn’t literally have to approve rate increases. Apparently, that’s now handled by the Postal Regulatory Commission ( https://www.prc.gov/about https://www.prc.gov/about ). So I learned something from the back and forth.
        jimkleiber 6y ago