• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Post Office: a case study of left and right issues in their current crisis

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
wetech said:
The bill funding the pensions was H.R.6407.

Sponsor: Tom Davis (R)

Co sponsors:
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] (D)
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] (R)
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] (D)

Passed the House by voice vote.
Passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

Obviously a very one sided, contentious bill that Democrats were opposed to.

It also requires 100% funding of pension liabilities for 50 years, not 75. The S&P's average funding is 80% according to the USPS Inspector General

http://www.uspsoig.gov/foia_files/FT-MA-10-002.pdf
Click to expand...
Thank you...maybe Autism will shut up now.
 
Genx87 said:
The act is rather long and covers all pension plans. I glanced over it and didnt find anything specific to the USPS. Are we sure they were targetted? Or is this a rule that hits other corporations and they are feeling the pain the most due to reduced mail flow?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ280.pdf

If you can find the provision in there targetting the USPS I would be interested in reading it. I searched for 75, USPS, Postal, couldnt find anything.
Click to expand...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6407enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr6407enr.pdf

In 2006, Congress gave the Postal Service 10 years to fund 75 years in advance of future health benefits, amounting to $5.5 billion per year.

http://www.somdnews.com/article/201...port-postal-service&template=southernMaryland

It requires the Postal Service to fully fund health benefits of retirees for the next 75 years. As a result, the agency must contribute $103 billion to that fund by 2016.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...erves_to_get_a_return_to_sende.html?r=topnews

http://www.news-press.com/article/2...ion-plans?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews|text|Home

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ng-nationwide/2011/09/27/gIQAny4U2K_blog.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...o-reform-postal-service-without-cutting-jobs/

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...-postal-service-american-postal-workers-union

http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/c...Postal-workers-plan-local-rally.html?nav=5002

http://gazettextra.com/news/2011/sep/28/postal-workers-rally-send-message/
 
Last edited:
I blame fail234 for wasting my time by not giving the "bill" a name. His case study like his logic fails. In the same year congress passed a pension protection act which goolge presented when searching.
 
Ausm said:
If you can't handle the truth ignore me bitch.
Click to expand...
I can handle the truth...it's just the horseshit lies of a partisan hack that don't set well with me.

"I classify it as satisfying the right wing because it was jammed through Congress in a Republican controlled lame duck session..." - Autism
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I can handle the truth...it's just the horseshit lies of a partisan hack that don't set well with me.

"I classify it as satisfying the right wing because it was jammed through Congress in a Republican controlled lame duck session..." - Autism
Click to expand...

LOL Well sorry that's what went down I just call it as I see it...BYE.
 
Ausm said:
LOL Well sorry that's what went down I just call it as I see it...BYE.
Click to expand...

Sponsor: Tom Davis (R)

Co sponsors:
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] (D)
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] (R)
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] (D)

Passed the House by voice vote.
Passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

The D's were so against it 2 of them co-sponsored it and not 1 objected to its passing in the Senate.
 
wetech said:
Sponsor: Tom Davis (R)

Co sponsors:
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] (D)
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] (R)
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] (D)

Passed the House by voice vote.
Passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

The D's were so against it 2 of them co-sponsored it and not 1 objected to its passing in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Link on unanimous consent please.

Oh here is a bill to fix the fuckup that they did in 2006 by passing H.R.6407 and guess what the same assholes that sponsored that bill are sponsoring this one.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01351:@@@L&summ2=m&

This bill is languishing in the do nothing Congress we are graced with now.
 
Last edited:
Ausm said:
Link on unanimous consent please.

Oh here is a bill to fix the fuckup that they did in 2006 by passing H.R.6407 and guess what the same assholes that sponsored that bill are sponsoring this one.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01351:@@@L&summ2=m&

This bill is languishing in the do nothing Congress we are graced with now.
Click to expand...

Here's a summary at the time it was passed - note the pension funding is several items into the description and doesn't even mention the very long time frame.

This was a big overhaul bill with a lot of things, the first one passed since the Post Office was changed from a cabinet under the President under Nixon.

Among the features of H.R. 6407 are a rate-increase cap that ties future postage increases to the rate of inflation and strict criteria regarding conditions for emergency rate increases. As a result, mailers will be free from the double-digit postal hikes, such as the 25% average increase introduced in 1988, the 42% increase of 1991, and the 14% hike of 1995. Rates can be raised only once a year.

What's more, under the new system, the USPS will be able to set new rates more quickly than they can under the current process, which takes at least nine months. The rate case process will be overseen by the Postal Regulatory Commission, currently the Postal Rate Commission (PRC). The commission will have the power to revise rate caps and systems, will hear complaints, and will deal with new postal classifications and negotiated service agreements (NSAs). Under the current system, the PRC had the power to file rate cases, but its recommendations could be overruled by the USPS's nine-member Board of Governors.

The ability of the Postal Service to offer discounts through NSAs is another change introduced by H.R. 6407. Proponents argue that by being able to craft customized, mutually beneficial agreements with individual customers, as private carriers such as United Parcel Service and FedEx do, the USPS will be better equipped to compete in the marketplace.

In addition, H.R. 6407 shifts liability for military service time of postal employees' retirement payments from the USPS to the U.S. Treasury. The cost of these retirement payments is estimated to be as much as $27 billion.

Then there's the escrow account that the USPS was required to prefund annually for retiree heathcare benefits. The Postal Service couldn't spend the accumulated dollars without congressional approval. Last year alone the USPS was required to put $3.3 billion in the postal retiree account. In fact, “it's the sole reason why the USPS filed the current rate case to increase stamp prices,” says Bob McLean, executive director of the nonprofit Mailers Council. “Without the escrow, the next increase would likely have been delayed another year.” H.R. 6407 relieves the USPS of this expense, enabling it to save $78 billion over 60 years.

Given the savings that the Postal Service will enjoy upon approval of H.R. 6407, some may wonder if the USPS will cancel, delay, or modify its pending rate case, which was introduced in May 2006 and was expected to be implemented in May 2007. Industry observers highly doubt that the reform legislation will affect the current rate case, however. Once the bill is enacted, the Postal Regulatory Commission has 18 months to establish the regulations, and no one expects it to rush to do so. (For more on the pending rate case, see “Cleaning up” on page 19 and “A new dimension in packaging” on page 42.)
Click to expand...
 
Ausm said:
Link on unanimous consent please.

Oh here is a bill to fix the fuckup that they did in 2006 by passing the Bill you like to refer to and guess what the same assholes that sponsored that bill are sponsoring this one.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01351:@@@L&summ2=m&

This bill is languishing in the do nothing Congress we are graced with now.
Click to expand...

look it up yourself, the bill's actions are on thomas, just like the one you found. The "bill like to refer to" is the actual bill that you're bitching about, claimed the right wing rammed through Congress, and are now backpeddling on because it's obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.
 
wetech said:
look it up yourself, the bill's actions are on thomas, just like the one you found. The "bill like to refer to" is the actual bill that you're bitching about, claimed the right wing rammed through Congress, and are now backpeddling on because it's obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.
Click to expand...


Not back peddling and if you want to shit on my post have the balls to post the proof thank you.
 
You forgot one part: both Republicans and Democrats are part of the right, with the Republicans being far-right. There's currently no Left-leaning major party in the US.
 
The USPS is a mess for one reason and that is the Government has its hands it it way to much. Congress must approve any rate changes, cutting delivery days, etc.

Congress also controls the purse strings more or less. The Federal Government owes the USPS $55billion in pension overpayments. If Congress gave the USPS the $55billion and approved the money to go toward the pre-funding of pension, the USPS would be okay. But Congress doesn't really want to give USPS the money without hundreds of strings attached. Nor do they want the money to go to pre-funding of pensions.

Left or Right isn't an issue. Both sides are chalk full of fail when it comes to this issue. Democrats are trying to keep unnessceary infastruture open and prevent shrinking of the USPS employee base. Which is ridiculous because the USPS has WAY to much in extra capacity and has way to many employees. On the other hand the GOP wants to gut the Postal employee union.

The GOP needs to stop trying to gut the union, and the Dems need to let business happen. When a market shrinks, the businesses in that market shrink. The Post Office should be allowed to shutter its facilities it no longer needs and shed those employees associated with them.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately the post office is too good. Those bills come in every month like clockwork draining my bank account. I hate them too😛 Seriously the right is so brainwashed into anything that helps people is bad and anything punitive is good. More military more prisons. Nothing you can do about it since it was years of indoctrination a forum post wont undo.
 
I completely disagree with private businesses taking over post office duties. However the post office does need to slim down like they've done in other countries. No more Saturday mail. It's over. Also, I think some places pick up the mail more than once at boxes. They can save a ton of money by simply having people go to the post office.

As far as the 75 year thing, I didn't know that and it sounds completely absurd.

Vote all incumbents out of office. If that fails we riot. Craig, you, me, lets riot!
 
I have no problem with the govt running the post office. If they had done a good job running the post office that would have been great. But, the fact remains that they completely screwed it up despite having a near complete monopoly on shipping at one point. Gross incompetence.
 
spittledip said:
I have no problem with the govt running the post office. If they had done a good job running the post office that would have been great. But, the fact remains that they completely screwed it up despite having a near complete monopoly on shipping at one point. Gross incompetence.
Click to expand...

Screwed up what? I still get mail 6 days a week, and could send postcards to everyone from Hawaii for 44 cents each. If there was no USPS, there would be no regular mail like this. You'd have to spend $$ to ship an envelope with FedEx or UPS. That would be priced into the cost of doing business. Postal service is public infrastructure, not a profit making enterprise.
 
senseamp said:
Screwed up what? I still get mail 6 days a week, and could send postcards to everyone from Hawaii for 44 cents each. If there was no USPS, there would be no regular mail like this. You'd have to spend $$ to ship an envelope with FedEx or UPS. That would be priced into the cost of doing business. Postal service is public infrastructure, not a profit making enterprise.
Click to expand...

USPS is close to going bankrupt. There are lots of not-for-profits that avoid bankruptcy b/c they are managed properly. The govt mismanaged USPS. If it hadn't been mismanaged, why then is it close to going bankrupt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top