Home > Uncategorized > Blog Sharing 10/01/2012 – Post Office Defense

Blog Sharing 10/01/2012 – Post Office Defense

I am sharing my response with a person on G+ who has (hopefully had) a misunderstanding of the reasons for the Post Office fiscal challenges.

The post office is a service and not a profit motivated entity much like police departments, military, and other government services. The complaint about the government requiring the Post Office to come up with the pensions for their current and future employees for the next 75 years is a burden that is fiscally laughable. I would dare you to name a company or government entity that has this kind of onerous requirement. We are talking about funding the pensions for employees that are not even born yet much less working for the Post Office. It is unheard of and a political/fiscal poison pill that was foisted on them by the Republicons, see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407#.

You need to understand that not one dime of federal money goes to Post Office, see http://tinyw.in/aaGL  and under paragraph (d) of Title 39, Section 101.1, “Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis.”. They are dependent on the revenue that they generate in the sale of its services. If you look at the fact that they do not receive government or tax payer money you should ask then why are they at the management mercy of Congress? To answer that question you will have to read about the history of the Post Office, In order to restructure their fiscal structure in any way, the Post Office must get the approval from Congress. I am talking about raising the price of services, what services they are allowed to offer, what routes they or times that they are allowed to run, and any and all fiscal adjustments that they could make in order to meet the ridiculous 75 funding of pensions.

I would point out that the Post Office only receive funds from the government that cover the cost of government services that it performs such as postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies.

Can you now see how ridiculous and unfair such a restriction is on the Post Office? I am not sure what you are referring to about the county worker, but you are point out that someone gets a raise of 2k after 20 years of service. I dare to say that this is not a lot of money if you look at the hours of service over that 20 year span. If you could give more detail on that subject I would be happy to give my reflection on it.

Finally, If you are complaining about some worker making an additional 2k a month then you should really be upset at the salaries of all members of Congress (who continue to get salary after they leave office given they have done 5 years of service)? You should be pulling your hair out when you look at the salary of United Healthcare Group’s CEO Sherman Hemsley, who made a $101 million salary last year, part of a $4.5 billion compensation package (which are all the direct result of not spending our healthcare payments on healthcare). How efficient does it sound to pay such a salary for one person? One of the great things that ObamaCare does is require that 80% of what is paid to insurance companies for healthcare is actually spent on healthcare, starting in 2012 (see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57483867/health-law-requires-insurers-to-spend-premiums-on-patients-or-pay-rebates/).

Government healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.) operate at a 1 to 3 percent administrative cost while your average the average insurance company is operating at a 25 to 40 percent administrative cost. Now you tell me who needs to learn from who about spending efficiency?

I suggest that you stop caring the water for those who do not have your or 95% of Americans best interest at mind. Thank you for a great civil response; this is what political/government conversations should look like. Sorry for the long-winded response, but your points could not be addressed by a quick non-fact response. I hope to continue to converse with you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: