3 ms·

And when it all goes to shit, they can just use that as evidence that mail-in voting shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place. It is the same tired but s

by stouset 24d ago

And when it all goes to shit, they can just use that as evidence that mail-in voting shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place. It is the same tired but sadly effective Republican playbook: take a mostly functioning if imperfect system, break it beyond repair under the guise of fixing or reforming it, use the ongoing disaster to argue that it should be dismantled, rinse and repeat until it’s unsalvageable.

kulahan 24d ago
It’s worth mentioning that destroying the USPS has been a largely bipartisan effort, for reasons I cannot understand. Edit: when the PAEA passed in 2006, it had 410 “yes” votes. Not a single democrat, and only 20 republicans voted no. This was, and still is, the primary reason the USPS is no longer able to function.
- ycombinete 24d ago
  That's a global thing. Postal services are very expensive public services. Low hanging fruit for cost savings.
  - kulahan 24d ago
    That's the crazy thing about the US. Our postal service is, for some reason, not funded by taxpayer dollars, but also not allowed to run a profit, they are not allowed to change prices without congressional approval, and they must fund their pension for 75 years - well beyond any requirement anyone else in the US faces, to include both federal agencies and private orgs. If they didn't have that last requirement, they'd be solvent.
    - tancop 24d ago
      No tax funding, no profit and price controls are normal for a state owned company. In other countries the postal service is not expected to pay for itself all the way but subsidies are limited by law. The prices are supposed to be lower than market as a public service.
      - kulahan 23d ago
        These aren’t state-owned companies, they’re federal services. It’s also, as stated, not how it works for any other org or business in the US. Maybe everyone else in the world has some kind of problem similar to this, but it appears to at least be a somewhat unique situation in the US.
    - deleted 24d ago
      [deleted]
  - jjav 24d ago
    > Low hanging fruit for cost savings. None, since the USPS is not government-funded.

by stouset 24d ago

kulahan 24d ago

It’s worth mentioning that destroying the USPS has been a largely bipartisan effort, for reasons I cannot understand. Edit: when the PAEA passed in 2006, it had 410 “yes” votes. Not a single democrat, and only 20 republicans voted no. This was, and still is, the primary reason the USPS is no longer able to function.

ycombinete 24d ago
That's a global thing. Postal services are very expensive public services. Low hanging fruit for cost savings.
- kulahan 24d ago
  That's the crazy thing about the US. Our postal service is, for some reason, not funded by taxpayer dollars, but also not allowed to run a profit, they are not allowed to change prices without congressional approval, and they must fund their pension for 75 years - well beyond any requirement anyone else in the US faces, to include both federal agencies and private orgs. If they didn't have that last requirement, they'd be solvent.
  - tancop 24d ago
    No tax funding, no profit and price controls are normal for a state owned company. In other countries the postal service is not expected to pay for itself all the way but subsidies are limited by law. The prices are supposed to be lower than market as a public service.
    - kulahan 23d ago
      These aren’t state-owned companies, they’re federal services. It’s also, as stated, not how it works for any other org or business in the US. Maybe everyone else in the world has some kind of problem similar to this, but it appears to at least be a somewhat unique situation in the US.
  - deleted 24d ago
    [deleted]
- jjav 24d ago
  > Low hanging fruit for cost savings. None, since the USPS is not government-funded.