Reference May 9, 2012, column “USPS needs more than a stamp price increase”
The above mentioned news story may have set a new record for inaccurate reporting this week in a story about the Postal Service.
The story frantically warns readers that because of a bill approved by the Senate, “it will cost taxpayers $34 billion to bailout the USPS.”
There’s just one problem: taxpayers don’t pay a dime to support the Postal Service. And nothing in the Senate bill would require them to start.
This piece is clearly designed to drum up support for a discredited House bill (H.R. 2309) sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Denis Ross (R-FL), and to undermine support for a bill approved by the Senate on April 25.
Facts: The Senate approved S. 1789, which would return to the Postal Service approximately $11 billion that postal customers, postal employees and the USPS itself overpaid to the federal government. No taxpayer money is involved. What about the rest of the $23 billion? It’s not clear where the writer of the column got the $34 billion figure, but the bill doesn’t appropriate any money from the federal government — or taxpayers — to the Postal Service.
There is no retirement subsidy. Only Postal Service and postal employees fund postal retirements. Furthermore, postal retirement funds are over funded by billions of dollars.
The bill wouldn’t prohibit the Postal Service from closing mail processing centers or post offices. It would provide for greater community input into decisions about closings and would allow the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) to reverse improper USPS decisions on these matters.
The column neglected to mention the primary cause of the USPS financial crises: The provision of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act that requires the USPS to pre-fund healthcare benefits for future retirees — a burden no other government agency or private company bears. (The USPS must pre-fund retirements for people not even born yet!) The mandate, which forces the Postal Service to pay a 75-year liability in just 10 years, costs the USPS approximately $5.5 billion per year, and is responsible for most of the Postal Service’s deficits. Without the pre-funding requirement, the USPS would have accumulated a modest surplus in the four years from 2006-2010 during the worst recession in 80 years.
Congress caused this problem and Congress can fix it.
James Johnson is president of APWU Local 798, Brainerd Post Office.
Comments (16)
Add commentThis letter is full of inaccuracies...
The mandate the writer is talking about does not require the USPS to pay for 75 years of liabilities in 10 years. It requires them to report these unfunded liabilities on their balance sheet to provide a more accurate reflection of their economic standing. It only requires the USPS to fund the liabilities for their retirement health care for current and past employees. If they didn't prefund them there is a good chance given the heavy losses they are experiencing they will not be able to cover them in the future and the taxpayers would have to cover them.
The crazy democratically authored Senate bill that this writer seems so enamored with would prevent the USPS from making needed changes to the way they currently do business. They are losing billions every year and they have been since fiscal year 2006. And yes, they are taking loans from the US treasury to cover these losses. They are losing money because their capacity vastly exceeds their volume. They need to make cuts, and the Post Master general has been more than willing to do this, but insanity reigns in the Senate and ultimately, if they force the USPS to continue working under an unsustainable business model, we will be on the hook for billions.
Author, author...
Since Keith Hansen wrote the original article in the Dispatch, perhaps he should reply to Mr. Johnson's comments.
muehlbau,
Are you really surprised? You have a union leader trying to discredit Republicans. Why would you believe someone whose sole purpose is to squeeze the people dry?
And mission, why would Mr. Hanson lower himself to a rebuttal?
Well muehlbau...
What we know is that Keith Hansen wrote the article in question and that some of the "facts" in his article have been challenged by Mr. Johnson in several respects.
Whether you chose to believe Mr. Johnson or not, what we DO know is that his position gives him ready access to the facts -- and he's claimed that Mr. Hansen's news story "may have set a new record for inaccurate reporting. "
Presumably Mr. Hansen has sources for the claims he made in his article, so he ought to be able to back up what he wrote.
What we know about Mr. Johnson is...
...that he's the president of the Brainerd Local and he cut and pasted his response from the USPS union website. Ergo, he is not going to be favorable to cuts to personnel that need to be made to allow the USPS to become profitable (and given they are a monopoly, it really is inexcusable that they aren't profitable).
Personnel costs are 80% of the USPS business expenses, they are closer to 50% to private delivery services. One of the very costly things found in many union contracts are no lay-off clauses. This is the kind of unreasonable union benefit that destroyed the auto industry.
The USPS is going to continue to lose revenue due to loss of volume and raising postage rates is is going to lower the mail volume further as businesses increasing turn to electronic delivery. Unfortunately, most of our elected officials are unqualified to run a taco stand, let alone a business that would be in the top 50 of the Fortune 500 if it were a private business.
WOW!
I think that was knock out!
Five stars for muehlbau
I wish I had said that!
cut the waste
until the waste is cut and a true business model implemented the usps will loose money.they have not adjusted to the new media and have no clue how to improve service.
Keith's editorial
They were his words responding to what he read of an inaccurate article.
This is a good example of what I have been talking about. Grabbing something not from a growing concern in the community or a local event, but off a right wing news wire--and repeating it. With all of it's inaccuracies.
The old paper--if they would have even tackled this issue period (as there is no local controversy that I know of)--would have tried to look at and presented some of the other side in it's editorial.
The USPS has changed dramatically in recent decades, in many ways getting much more efficient and self-sufficient. They still must serve a low profit market that other for-profit carriers can and do avoid--something that is going to be a drag on their profit. They can't be compared to for profit businesses because of this.
I don't know of any other
I don't know of any other busines that is forced by law to offer service to the bottom of the Grand Canyon for a 44 cent job.
If you believe your paying for the USPS ,Then you believe this
All you local residents in the Brainerd Lakes area are paying for the new Vikings Stadium ,like our local conservative voter thinks. If you dont want to support the Vikings dont go to games or play electronic pull tabs.
Darrell Isa R CA is very much like Don Quixote ,always looking for something ,however does NOT even recognize what he actually finds.
If you believe your paying for the USPS ,Then you believe this
All you local residents in the Brainerd Lakes area are paying for the new Vikings Stadium ,like our local conservative voter thinks. If you dont want to support the Vikings dont go to games or play electronic pull tabs.
Darrell Isa R CA is very much like Don Quixote ,always looking for something ,however does NOT even recognize what he actually finds.
"forced by law to offer service...
for a 44 cent job." Holy smokes, I thought we were talking about the Secret Service again!!
that is funny, though I hear
that is funny, though I hear they recipient was willing to only offer 10 cents
Okay, RINO, let's compare...
You say Mr. Johnson wrote his rebuttal in his own words, let's compare the union response to his...
Source: http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2012/12-056-foxnews-wrong_again-120509.htm
Union response:
“There’s just one problem: As Fox admits, taxpayers don’t pay a dime to support the Postal Service. And nothing in the Senate bill would require them to start”
Mr. Johnson's response:
"There’s just one problem: taxpayers don’t pay a dime to support the Postal Service. And nothing in the Senate bill would require them to start."
Union response:
"The Senate approved S. 1789, which would return to the Postal Service approximately $11 billion that postal customers, postal employees and the USPS itself overpaid to the federal government."
Mr. Johnson's response:
"The Senate approved S. 1789, which would return to the Postal Service approximately $11 billion that postal customers, postal employees and the USPS itself overpaid to the federal government. No taxpayer money is involved."
Union response:
"There is no subsidy. Only the Postal Service and postal employees fund postal retirements. Furthermore, postal retirement funds are overfunded by billions of dollars."
Mr. Johnson's response:
"There is no retirement subsidy. Only Postal Service and postal employees fund postal retirements. Furthermore, postal retirement funds are over funded by billions of dollars."
Union response:
"The bill wouldn’t prohibit the Postal Service from closing mail processing centers or post offices. It would provide for greater community input into decisions about closings and would allow the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) to reverse improper USPS decisions on these matters."
Mr. Johnson response:
"The bill wouldn’t prohibit the Postal Service from closing mail processing centers or post offices. It would provide for greater community input into decisions about closings and would allow the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) to reverse improper USPS decisions on these matters."
I report, and let readers decide...
Postal employee on workers’ comp
caught running Boston Marathon!
Want to bet that her union will spend a ton of other folk's dues to keep this woman from being permanently discharged.