« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

And Now for a Postal Bailout

It’s another week in Washington, and it’s yet another bailout.  This time, taxpayers will be tapped for another $41 billion to subsidize the healthcare retirement benefits of postal workers – benefits that are quite scarce in the private sector.

Democrats have a serious problem with creative destruction and advancements in technology.  For self-described progressives, they are quite regressive when it comes to efficiency in markets and use of technology.  They exhibit nostalgia for 14th century energy technology and 20th century banking technology.  Hence, they don’t care too much for market progression.  In concerted drives to hold back the tide of technology, they are quick to offer a helping hand to a dying industry.  One such industry is the mail delivery.

It’s no secret that the United States Postal Service is on its way out.  The transition to electronic communication, in conjunction with the success of private mail carriers, has dramatically reduced the demand for their service.  Consequently, they no longer generate enough revenue to function as a self-sufficient entity, particularly when it comes to paying employee retirement benefits.  In recent years, the USPS has patched the annual losses with borrowed money from the Treasury.  However, it is now in such dire straits that it’s expected to hit the $15 billion borrowing cap later this year.  It needs extra taxpayer cash to fill in the gaps.

If the USPS were a private entity, it would trim its workforce and operations to the amount of revenue they can produce until they are eventually forced to go out of business.  That’s how creative destruction and supply and demand work in the real world.  That is not how it works in Washington.

In order to continue operating at a limited capacity, which is what the free-market would dictate in this circumstance, there is a plan to end Saturday delivery, cut the workforce by about 220,000 employees, and close 3,700 local post offices and 252 processing centers. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe even asked Congress for the flexibility to act more like a business and use innovation to restructure and cut costs.  But Democrat nostalgia for the past is too potent to overcome.  They are completely averse to gradually winding down the Postal Service.  Claire McCaskill has even suggested that people write more letters so that the USPS will have more work.

Once again, a bipartisan group of senators plan to bail out a failing government entity with taxpayer dollars, allowing them to operate, more or less, at current capacity for much longer.  S. 1789, which has 2 Republican cosponsors, will grant a $41 billion bailout to the postal service for the purpose of managing the payments of healthcare benefits for its retirees.  Harry Reid is planning a cloture vote late Monday afternoon, following a vote to raise taxes on oil companies and hand the proceeds to green energy companies.

As part of the proposal, sponsored by Joe Lieberman, the USPS would be entitled to recoup $11 billion in so-called overpayments that it gave to the Treasury for employees’ retirement benefits held in the Civil Service Retirement System.  The problem is that there are no overpayments.  Last year, the GAO ruled that the Postal Service was wrong in their assertion that they paid too much money to the Treasury to fund employee retirement benefits.  As such, any money recouped from the Treasury would engender more taxpayer funding.   Don’t let them fool you with language pertaining to “transfers” and “overpayments.”  This is a pure bailout.

It’s time to let the wheels of economic progress spin.  Let’s do to the Postal Service what should have been done with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It’s time to attempt to privatize it or wind it down.  Either way, taxpayers should not be exposed to more bailouts.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • mostlyrightcom

    The United States government has had a virtual monopoly on all things postal since our existence. They have never successfully operated with any margin. To understand the current state in Washington is to understand that those in power actually think government “can” successfully involve themselves in business and be successful. Of course there are several fail programs out their to show them otherwise but alas they fail to see. I write about several failed programs on my site www.mostly-right.com. Check it out.

    Jeff

    • greyeagle

      My brother was a post master,and extremely hardworking. The Postal Service used to run in the black, but Congress on several occasions raided their money and spent it on social programs. The Postal Service was then forced to borrow to operate. The Postal Service provides mail service to rural areas in the US and there are a lot. There are still many places where there is no internet available. The UPS and Fedex does NOT go to these areas. A law was passed in 2006 that requires the Postal Service to pay a larger amount of retiree benefits than the other federal agencies. That is a fact.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    nt

  • kelp

    1) No mention of the fact that the Post Office’s problems stem largely (but not entirely) by a mandate from Congress to pre-fund 75 years of retirement benefits in 10 years (2006-2016). Most of the USPS’s unprofitable quarters would have been profitable without this unrealistic requirement.

    2) The story states that the bill relies on refunding CSRS money, which is not true. The relevant overpayments are to the FERS fund, not CERS, and are not in dispute. The same GAO report you mentioned even stipulates that surplus (Appendix II).

  • patman2108

    Since establishment of postal offices appears in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, defunding is not a “constitutional” approach to solving the problem. As much as we reject Obamacare b/c it has no basis in the Constitution, when an entity has such a basis (i.e. postal service), we can’t jump to ending its existence unless by amendment.

    • http://www.helpawhiteguy.com livefreenh

      The wording there is “To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;” and says nothing about Saturday delivery or even paper-only letters and packages or how many lanes these roads have. Reading the opening sentence as well, it says “The Congress shall have Power To [...]” but just like their power to declare war against another nation, they have not fully actualized this power since WWII. The Congress has failed to do what they were made to do, and have done MANY things that are outside their well-defined roles. The Post Office is simply another example of a “government project”. Probably a good idea to start, but poorly designed, badly managed, feature-creeped into oblivion and parasite feeders on the waste and surplus abounding.

      • greyeagle

        Actually some of your comments are not correct. The Postal Service moves millions of pieces of mail daily. They deliver to areas of the country where there is no internet and where Fedex and UPS do not go. Many elderly live in these rural areas and depend on the Postal Service.

        • gsatt

          Thats also why they have a P.O. box. I work at a motor sports warehouse and we ship to these areas such as the bush in Alaska…. using the brown truck mainly. When someone lives way off the map they use a P.O. box in the nearest settlement. Internet is now accessible through satellite the same as your TV. You would need a generator to provide power to this though…… so your comment may have its validity. bottom line though, people are not mailing envelopes anymore, its dwindling. The only reason I mail some of my bills is to get rid of the checks I ordered 6 years ago The people who still are not using the internet are nearing their expiration date.

          I beleive that scary thought of no mail service on Saturday is child’s play. I say mon/wed./fri. If you have to get your envelope in the system on Tuesday go drop it off at the post office. And this idea of retiring on a pension for delivering mail is BULL At least not on a taxpayers dollar. Go work for fedex or ups if you need a retirement package, and become something more valuable than a driver.

          Gov. cant run a damn thing to save its life. This only ads to the stack of proof.

    • travis690

      While it may be true that the establishment of the Postal Service is in the Constitution, it doesn’t specify that it needs to be continuously operated as a government monopoly. There are many things that government does that should be left to private industry to do, but the current regime in Washington is so adamantly opposed to such ideas even being discussed. Witness the way Obama talks about budget cuts: Every time he brings it up, he always talks about the cutting of programs that are not in the budget cut proposal, as a way of ginning up his supporters to oppose all budget cuts. He wants a government that mandates everything, and partners with businesses that will benefit from his mandates.

  • drfredc

    The solution to this sort of fiasco is to require the Pension Guarantee Trust board to say to all government pensioners that after X date, they will no longer guarantee defined pension benefit plans and offer a plan for prorated evolvution of all current and future defined benefit plans (retirement and health care) into defined contribution plans.

    The political reality is defined benefit plans for politicians, unions and bureaucrats allows them to live in this privileged fantasyland where they can do pretty much anything they want to the private sector and not face the effects for the failures of these fantasies.

    If these folks had to rely upon market sensitive defined contribution benefits, they’d quickly turn the corner to support lowering corporate taxes, abandon highly progressive tax schemes, and stop producing costly overbearing regulations, as high taxes and regulations reduce their future retirement benefits.

    • Dave_A

      If your government job places you at risk of life/limb on a daily basis – eg, fire, law-enforcement & military… A pension fits…

      That said, there’s no reason for someone who’s job is no more dangerous than a clerk at CitiBank to have a pension…

  • Dave_A

    The question is, what do we need a Post Office for?

    Do we need them as an official/legal method of delivering letters, bills & legal correspondence – and to provide mail & package services for overseas military…

    Or do we need them to primarily operate as a private business & parcel-delivery service, in competition with UPS, FedEx, and various local firms….

    If it’s the first, then keep them as a federal agency & adjust their size & scope – and the price of their service – to make them efficient at that purpose…. But get rid of the domestic parcel business & the advertising (paper-spam) service – make them for official mail only…

    If it’s the second, then privatize & divest – there’s no reason for the government to operate a parcel-delivery company staffed with federal employees.

    • greyeagle

      I am looking at the many comments on this board. The Postal Service goes to the many rural areas of this country, where a large amount of elderly live. They depend on the Postal Service. There is no internet in many rural areas. Fedex and UPS does NOT go into these rural areas and they sure don’t want letters, bills, catalogues ets. The Postal Service is far more efficient at parcel post and mail delivery than the others.

  • gmhunt

    Why weren’t the two Republicans named in this articile???????? They are RINO’s that need to be voted out of office. Why can’t both parties get it through thier heads, America is BROKE, STOP spending………………

  • chumchingee

    On one hand you have an almost bankrupt service.
    On the other hand you have a congress making direct deposit of all social security checks manditory.
    How do all those checks effect the financial stability of the Post Office? Well that is a lot of mail . . . in Social Security checks.
    How do you change the direct deposit when a bank goes under? How much trouble is it?
    The issue is freedom to do what you feel most comfortable with. The side issue is the financial upgrading of the postal service so it makes a profit.
    Appearance is that someone doesn’t want the postal service solvent. Could it be our Congress?