4 ms·

I've been reading articles about Republicans sabotaging the postal service by making it pre-fund its retiree health fund since well before Trump. In fact, the l

I've been reading articles about Republicans sabotaging the postal service by making it pre-fund its retiree health fund since well before Trump. In fact, the law was passed 15 years ago, just as you started shipping stuff. It's always been absurd to expect a government service to make a profit, and we've been talking about that for a long time, I don't think most people say it's Trump's fault.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Any employer that promises its employees benefits in the future should have to set aside money to pay for them. Including the government, even though it has exempted itself from this common sense requirement that it imposes on non government entities. If anything, the rest of the government should have to do what USPS was legislated to do. Note that the law you are referring to required the USPS to set aside money for accrued benefits, just like any private company has to. Otherwise you end up with the situation that IL/CT/NJ and many other governments are subjecting their taxpayers to, which is raising taxes now to pay for labor performed decades ago. It’s nice for the taxpayers of decades ago, not so nice for the taxpayers of today.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- burkaman 6y ago
  I don't believe we have to choose between "act like a corporation" and "run up impossible debts for future generations". You are right that pre-funding benefits is good, but the sabotage I'm referring to is pretending the postal service is a business, changing its financial obligations without changing its service obligations, and then complaining that it's "losing money". A government service does not need to make a profit, and talking about "profits" at all is nonsensical. How many billions do public libraries lose every year? How many trillions does the military? If it makes a profit, it's probably not doing its job.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > but the sabotage I'm referring to is pretending the postal service is a business, changing its financial obligations without changing its service obligations, and then complaining that it's "losing money". I agree with that, the USPS should be allowed to set prices (and service levels) if it’s supposed to break even.
AuryGlenz 6y ago
That law passed with near unanimous bipartisan support and the only people that voted against it in the house were Republicans.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Technically I just said the articles blamed Republicans, which is true, but yes the articles were wrong and so am I. I should have just said Congress.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Any employer that promises its employees benefits in the future should have to set aside money to pay for them. Including the government, even though it has exempted itself from this common sense requirement that it imposes on non government entities. If anything, the rest of the government should have to do what USPS was legislated to do. Note that the law you are referring to required the USPS to set aside money for accrued benefits, just like any private company has to. Otherwise you end up with the situation that IL/CT/NJ and many other governments are subjecting their taxpayers to, which is raising taxes now to pay for labor performed decades ago. It’s nice for the taxpayers of decades ago, not so nice for the taxpayers of today.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
burkaman 6y ago
I don't believe we have to choose between "act like a corporation" and "run up impossible debts for future generations". You are right that pre-funding benefits is good, but the sabotage I'm referring to is pretending the postal service is a business, changing its financial obligations without changing its service obligations, and then complaining that it's "losing money". A government service does not need to make a profit, and talking about "profits" at all is nonsensical. How many billions do public libraries lose every year? How many trillions does the military? If it makes a profit, it's probably not doing its job.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > but the sabotage I'm referring to is pretending the postal service is a business, changing its financial obligations without changing its service obligations, and then complaining that it's "losing money". I agree with that, the USPS should be allowed to set prices (and service levels) if it’s supposed to break even.

AuryGlenz 6y ago

That law passed with near unanimous bipartisan support and the only people that voted against it in the house were Republicans.

burkaman 6y ago
Technically I just said the articles blamed Republicans, which is true, but yes the articles were wrong and so am I. I should have just said Congress.