Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Senate Votes to Slow Closing of Post Offices
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 6:46PM #11
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:33AM, teilhard wrote:


The Real-Life Problem here of course, re: "un-needed Facilities," is -- "un-needed" by WHOM ... ???


Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:23AM, Girlchristian wrote:

news.yahoo.com/senate-votes-slow-closing...

The Senate offered a lifeline to the nearly bankrupt U.S. Postal Service on Wednesday, voting to give the struggling agency an $11 billion cash infusion while delaying controversial decisions on closing post officesand ending Saturday delivery.


By a 62-37 vote, senators approved a measure which had divided mostly along rural-urban lines. Over the past several weeks, the bill was modified more than a dozen times, adding new restrictions on closings and cuts to service that rural-state senators said would hurt their communities the most.


The mail agency, however, criticized the measure, saying it fell far short in stemming financial losses. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said if the bill became law, he would have to return to Congress in a few years to get emergency help.


"It is totally inappropriate in these economic times to keep unneeded facilities open. There is simply not enough mail in our system today," the Postal Service's board of governors said in a statement. "It is also inappropriate to delay the implementation of five-day delivery."

IMO this is another case of our Congress kicking the can down the road rather than dealing with the real issues. The post office recommends closing unneeded facilities and moving to a 5-day delivery and our senate ignores the recommendation and, instead, just feeds money into the problem that is only a temporary fix.

The Post Office isn't as relevant as it used to be and it will just continue to become less and less relevant. It's not even just due to competition from private organizations, but more related to the simple fact that fewer of us are actually receiving mail and many of us are switching as much to electronic as we can (bill paying, card sending, etc...).








As defined by the business that is the PO, and not the wholly political Congressional mission.  This is the proverbial band aid for the loss of an arm.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 6:48PM #12
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:30PM, teilhard wrote:


I go to our Local Post Office (about two Miles away) a couple Times each Month ... But, see, I am NOT the ONLY Person who goes there ... Could I afford to go to some OTHER Location, say, TEN Miles from my House ... ???  Sure ... But, see, I am NOT the ONLY Person who goes there ... 


Consider this ... I don't fly anywhere very often, either ... The last Time I took an Airplane Trip was last September, but before THAT ... it was several YEARS ago ... (I prefer to DRIVE, you see, if possible ... Personal Choice of mine ...) So do I personally NEED the (several !!!) Airports located conveniently in my Metro Area ... ???  No ... So ... CLOSE  'EM  DOWN, I say ... !!!


Apr 26, 2012 -- 1:06PM, nnsecu wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:33AM, teilhard wrote:


The Real-Life Problem here of course, re: "un-needed Facilities," is -- "un-needed" by WHOM ... ???






By most everyone.  Personally i have not been to the post office in well over 3 years.  If it was not for junk mail and the bill or two that does not offer online service my mail box would maybe only have 1 or 2 items placed in it a month.   As technology advances unfortunately some service become outdated and no longer are needed in the capacity they once preformed.  Trains killed the pony express, Cars killed the wagon business, telephones killed the wire (mores code) service, and now electronic communications are killing the post offices. 








The major difference of course, is that Congress tells the PO what to do, they don't tell an airport you not only can't close down, but you have to have this many flights to this many locations, and if you can't make money doing that, too bad, do it anyway.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 7:48PM #13
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

The PO has been a great place to work for a lot of people who couldn't get jobs elsewhere, not because they were lazy or poor workers, but because they were hippies, or weirdos, or just non-conformists of one sort or another.


My friends used to tell me it was hard work, but nobody messes with you. You just suit up, show up, work hard for four or five hours, then stop and have a sandwich, burn half a joint, and then go back out and finish the route.


There's got to be someplace for people the bank won't hire because they believe in UFO's but not Jesus.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 7:55PM #14
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,147

A simpler solution that would  put the Post office back to profitability would be removing the requirement of prepaying retirement benefits.:


The fault lies with Congress, which created the financial disaster. In September 2010, the postal service ended the fiscal year with retirment benefits comoetly


an $8.5 billion net loss. It faces continual losses in the current year, along with serious questions over its liquidity, including whether it will have enough cash to meet current obligations by the end of this fiscal year.


Chief among those obligations is the mandate imposed upon the postal service by Congress in 2006 with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which requires it to pre-fund its retiree health benefits with payments of about $5.6 billion each year through 2016. This is the only government agency that is required to do so.


Since 1971, after postal reorganization, the postal service has overpaid its pension obligations to the CSRS fund by as much as


$75 billion, according to the inspector general, and also to the FERS Retirement System by


$6.8 billion. Common sense would suggest taking the $75 billion overpayment and the $6.8 billion overpayment and crediting the amount to the postal service. This would be more than enough to cover the liabilities the postal service faces for its future retiree health benefits. This will provide sufficient assets to return the postal service to financial stability. It would certainly remove the need to pursue deep cuts in services, including elimination of six-day delivery.




 napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/mail...

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 8:38PM #15
TENAC
Posts: 25,559

I find the entire USPS system amusing.


FERS.  Federal Employment Retirement Sytem.  Theres a cover for a black hole if ever I saw one.



I was trying to make some sense of the numbers.  The USPS lost 8.6 Billion last year.  They made a 5.6 Billion pre payment to its retirement?  So its still operating at a 3 billion dollar loss?


And the $75 billion dollar overpayement since 1971?  Where does this accounting come from?


That money is a line item in the federal budget, which tells me our deficit is worse than we thought by some $75 billion.  But whats a few billion when our shortfall is trillions anyway.  Thank you mr obama.



This is no different than Soc Sec.


IOUs.


Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 8:08AM #16
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,093

Apr 26, 2012 -- 7:55PM, Fodaoson wrote:


A simpler solution that would  put the Post office back to profitability would be removing the requirement of prepaying retirement benefits.:


The fault lies with Congress, which created the financial disaster. In September 2010, the postal service ended the fiscal year with retirment benefits comoetly


an $8.5 billion net loss. It faces continual losses in the current year, along with serious questions over its liquidity, including whether it will have enough cash to meet current obligations by the end of this fiscal year.


Chief among those obligations is the mandate imposed upon the postal service by Congress in 2006 with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which requires it to pre-fund its retiree health benefits with payments of about $5.6 billion each year through 2016. This is the only government agency that is required to do so.


Since 1971, after postal reorganization, the postal service has overpaid its pension obligations to the CSRS fund by as much as


$75 billion, according to the inspector general, and also to the FERS Retirement System by


$6.8 billion. Common sense would suggest taking the $75 billion overpayment and the $6.8 billion overpayment and crediting the amount to the postal service. This would be more than enough to cover the liabilities the postal service faces for its future retiree health benefits. This will provide sufficient assets to return the postal service to financial stability. It would certainly remove the need to pursue deep cuts in services, including elimination of six-day delivery.




 napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/mail...





Well, except according to your article, they had a net loss of 8.5 billion and the pre-payment to retirement funds was only 5.6 billion, so they're still going to be operating with a 3 billion plus net loss. Obviously, getting rid of that restriction doesn't fix the problem. They would still have to shut down mailing centers.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook