Return to Sender: US Post Office actually has an operating PROFIT

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/return-sender-1363527234

Rooted in the Constitution and older than the country itself, the U.S. Postal Service supports 7.5 million private-sector jobs in the mailing industry. The Postal Service is essential to the fast-growing Internet sales industry. And the USPS is navigating this struggling economy relatively well, even making an operating profit in the most recent quarter.

Yes, making a profit. When you count how much money the Postal Service earned on postage, and subtract how much it spent delivering the mail and paying related bills, the Postal Service earned a $100 million profit in the last three months of 2012. And remember, the USPS uses no taxpayer money.

So why all this talk about the Postal Service losing money? And why is Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe planning to end Saturday mail delivery?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Ben Franklin is smiling

The first Postmaster General.

Although I bet there's a bunch of Republicans and Republocrats he'd like to open a can of whoop-ass on.

[madokie]

2. Navy postal clerk here

I try to use the USPS as often as I can

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Me too!

When I'm yammering about socialized medicine, people tend to ask me "do you want your health care run like the Post Office"? "Yes, I do! They can deliver a letter clear across the country for less than half a buck, hospitals can't deliver an aspirin a few feet for less than ten times that".

[RC]

8. Excellent comeback!

[mac56]

25. Awesome.

Stealing.

[11 Bravo]

39. Damned if that's not an epic smackdown!

I would pay to watch the face of the wingnut on the receiving end of that shot!

[MannyGoldstein]

43. "The $5 aspirin is to pay for all of the aspirins they give to uninsured deadbeats...

who won't pay for them" is the usual response.

To which I say "Hmmm... I can buy a bottle of 100 aspirin for $5.00. So that means that for every 1 aspirin the hospital gives out to an insured person, they give out 99 to people who'll never pay? 99% of patients don't pay? Really?"

That's usually when faces turn red and invective spews.

[HiPointDem]

40. +1

[sendero]

79. Manny..

... you are a treasure!

[loudsue]

4. This whole "privatization" crap re: the post office REALLY makes me mad as hell.

The corporatists are so hell bent on making that $100 million profit FOR THEMSELVES that they can't stand it.

And, furthermore, if the post office would start charging higher rates for the JUNK mail that is sent out, so many things would be accomplished:

1. They would make even more money.
2. It might reduce the number of trees we have to cut down to supply all the paper for the JUNK that we throw away every day.
3. The post office could fully fund their gerrymandered future retirement benefits.
4. The PO would be able to open back up some of the POs they've had to close, thereby providing more jobs & more service.
5. The PO might be able to reduce the rates on shipping packages, so more internet sales could be shipped, thereby allowing more sales to take place and open the market to more people.

[wyldwolf]

6. Amazing

In all the conversations I've had about the post office, I've never once considered the absolute bargain corporations get, the incredible price break, when sending out junk mail. They can afford to pay more and never miss it.

[loudsue]

9. Thanks for considering that.

It pisses me off every time I mail a package or a card to a real person that I have to pay more; and every time I throw away another pile of wasted paper (three or four EACH citibank/capital one/american express/discover/chase credit card invitations per week, life insurance, car insurance...solicitations out the yazoo) that THEY get a break on their postage to cause that kind of waste.

You're right: They would never miss the extra cost, ... OR it might cut back on how much solicitation we are burdening the environment with (trees cut down, and landfills being filled up) .

[wyldwolf]

12. What's more...

...these very corporations are likely contributing to the GOP forces who want to shut the post office down. Just one more example of how Republicans shoot themselves in the foot economically.

[loudsue]

15. True that. And, see, I hadn't thought of that!

And, should they be successful, they will likely raise rates on real people, and cut them further for the junk mail. Bassackwards from what is ethical and ecologically sound.

[canoeist52]

14. Don't throw 'em away. "no postage necessary..."gets mailed back to sender if it's from a hated corp.

...to the benefit of the postal service. Every little bit counts.

[loudsue]

16. I do that on a regular basis.

AND, in the packets I mail back, I point out that I already have an account (where that is, indeed, the case, because those stupid companies NEVER check before they mail crap out), and that I resent having them cut down all those trees to keep sending me crap.

[They_Live]

21. I'd like to again point out that you can get removed from their mailing lists

Credit card companies, that is (and also the large bundles of useless coupons). It takes a small amount of effort, but it is worth it. I no longer receive daily credit card offers in the mail, and I even got the big bundle of coupons stopped. Take control of your mail, people, contact the senders on how to do it (not the post office, they just deliver it).

[loudsue]

23. No, you cannot. I have called, written, emailed,

and sent back postage paid envelopes FULL of their own multiple advertisements with letters & notes written inside. They keep coming. Even the ones where I am ALREADY a customer.

[They_Live]

80. What? Credit card offers?

Sometimes with those it takes an extra step with the credit rating companies (3 of them, I think). But it can be done. I did it. And I don't receive offers for new cards all the time now. If I'm already a CUSTOMER, I still receive the occasional special offer.

[melm00se]

60. not defending junk mail

having said that, one of the reasons that junk mail is given a better rate (usually bulk rate) is because they deliver their mailings to the post office presorted and bundled. this allows the post office to bypass their normal sorting process and ship those bundles directly to the post offices covering that ZIP code. When received there, they are already sorted in such a way that they can be given to the carriers for a fast final sort and delivery.

if you can cut out 1/2 to 3/4 of the processing, the Post Office gives the mailer a break in postage.

[loudsue]

61. I am aware of that. And while that part makes sense economically, it does not

make sense on the other two fronts economically and ecologically. I still say they should charge more for the junk mail than they charge for it now, because of the overall economic picture. More revenue for the PO, less junk, fewer trees cut, less mess in the landfill.

[Occulus]

78. Less work to do in the plants, fewer machines needed,

too many full timers, more excessing outside of the facility, oops a work spike, more temps hired at half pay, less properly sorted mail, poorer delivery quality, more mistakes in delivery, fewer satisfied customers,

rinse,

repeat.

That's why I quit after eighteen years, two weeks ago, without notice, and not a single backward glance. The USPS is being killed off, first and foremost, by the well-intentioned but completely misguided not-employees who will in the end kill it to save it.


And the list I gave above? That's exactly, event for event, what drove me out. I won't work for someone who intends failure.

[mtasselin]

5. MONEY

It is all about money, these repukicans have friends that want some of the business from the post office. Privatizing is not the answer, and people need to realize that these people that want this additional business are in it to make money, so things are going to cost more.

[RC]

11. The Post Office DOES have competition from UPS and FedEx.

How much do they charge for shipping the same thing, compared to the USPS? So, correct, Privatizing is not the answer.
And not only that, both FedEx and UPS use the USPS to deliver to the customer - and still charge more.
I live in a metro area of 2 million people and have received items shiped by both FedEx and UPS, so it is not just those way out in the sticks they use the USPS to deliver to the end customer.

[tecelote]

7. The Post Office is truly something for us to be proud of.

They deliver mail to everybody everywhere for the same price whether you live in a city or a hundred miles out in the country.

They are an example of government the way it should be.

I understand that the republicans just want to privatize everything so they can shift more wealth to the top 1%. But I don't understand the media and the Dems that are acting like this is an issue.

[loudsue]

10. Kickin' this thread for more exposure.

One of my beefs these days.

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. Without Congress forcing pre-funding of retiree benefits,

the USPS would actually be doing okay, all things considered:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/20/how-congress-is-killing-the-post-office/
http://spotlightondemocracy.com/category/usps-75-pension-funding-requirement/
The USPS isn't broken. Congress is.

[They_Live]

18. + 1000

That's right. Let's keep reminding everyone.

[daleanime]

19. +1

nt

[hay rick]

17. Motley Fool recently did an evaluation of USPS as a business.

My post on the article (with a link) here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022472070

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. It's the Republican discriminatory pension mandate:

[hack89]

26. While it was a bad law, it was also completely bipartisan

Henry Waxman was the cosponsor for the legislation, it received a majority of Dem votes in the House and passed unanimously in the Senate.

That is why it is so hard to change - they all supported it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. The Democrats thought they were helping the union. The Republicans knew they were stangling govt. nt

[hack89]

29. So were the Dems fools, idiots or naive? nt

[TheBlackAdder]

30. Just a ploy to have a Private Equity Firm seize the USPS and plunder the pension fund. nt

[hack89]

31. So the Dems were criminally complicit. I see. nt

[TheBlackAdder]

32. As usual, putting words in other people's mouths.

I didn't say that.

The true motivation to get this bill passed might have been two reasons.

I don't know what Waxman or the other Dems reasons were to answer that.

However, just look at which group wants to privatize the USPS... their motivation seems to be driven by private equity interests. Once a PE firm obtains the USPS, whatever billions in the pension fund will be plundered as the spoils of the takeover. It seems rather convenient to front load the pension system, even when employees are being reduced, only to later press for privatization. They are priming that pump for a complete seizure of assets in another 2-3 years -- when the fund is fully funded.

The folks who want to privatize the USPS are the ones whose motives are to plunder.

[hack89]

33. Or perhaps you are completely wrong

I know which option I would vote for.

[TheBlackAdder]

34. Even thought that's contrary to your Birther mentality, it's not surprising.

Denial of facts and trends is a key aspect of birtherism and conspiracy type people.

Conspiracy Types: 1) Define the objective; 2) Accept only information that reinforces that objective; 3) Refute anything else.

[hack89]

35. I am the one rejecting a conspiracy

I am saying there is no organized plot to privatize and plunder the post office. Unlike you.

[TheBlackAdder]

38. Not to 'plunder', no sane person would telegraph that. But a PE privatization, definitely.

What does a PE company do to make money?

Go ahead, I want you to write what you know about them without kicking it back to me.

Here's a hint:


1) Sell off all REAL ESTATE assets, valued in the tens of billions.

2) Sell off all tangible assets, machinery, vehicles, materials.

3) Reduce pension benefits.

4) Borrow against remaining assets (pension fund) until the firm folds or another buyer is found.


===

The GOP Party Platform talks about USPS Privatization along with the Constitution (though the USPS is in it):

http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

Restructuring the U.S. Postal Service
for the Twenty-First Century
The dire financial circumstances of the Postal
Service require dramatic restructuring. In a world of
rapidly advancing telecommunications, mail delivery
from the era of the Pony Express cannot long survive.
We call on Congress to restructure the Service to ensure
the continuance of its essential function of delivering
mail while preparing for the downsizing
made inevitable by the advance of internet communication.
In light of the Postal Service’s seriously underfunded
pension system, Congress should explore
a greater role for private enterprise in appropriate aspects
of the mail-processing system.

===

Your next reply will just be that of an Internet Troll as you watch the news.

[HiPointDem]

41. you're naive.

[hack89]

42. No - am not naive

I have been around for a long time - enough to know that not every stupid thing that comes out of congress is due to deliberate maliciousness. Sometimes they are just fucking stupid.

[HiPointDem]

45. they may be stupid (though i think that's doubtful). the people who fund them are not. and

i don't mean the voters.

[brentspeak]

56. Well, if it isn't hack89 -- lying about this issue yet again

Like a bad penny, you always pop up on these USPS threads to lie about the Postal Reform Act being "completely bipartisan".

For those who want some background concerning hack89's misuse of DU to push his right-wing crusade against the USPS -- and his lying concerning the 2006 Postal Reform Act -- here's a useful general link.

[hack89]

59. So show me where Waxman was not a cosponsor

Last edited Tue Mar 19, 2013, 07:29 AM - Edit history (1)

then show me where it was not a unanimous vote in the Senate. Then show me how the House vote was not even close.

I will wait.

On edit: I do not support the pre-funding requirement. It is clearly doing harm to the Post Office. I am just tired of the meme that it was Republicans jamming an ill intentioned bill through Congress over the valiant but futile resistance of Democrats. It was no such thing.

[brentspeak]

62. Already explained to you numerous times

-

"So show me where Waxman was not a cosponsor...Then show me how the House vote was not even close."

Waxman was the cosponsor of the House bill, but it wasn't the House bill which included the prefunding requirement, it was the Senate bill which did, and that portion of the Senate bill was introduced by Susan Collins (R-ME). And the House bill was passed by a GOP majority voice vote, no recorded individual votes (as already explained to you about 312 times: the GOP held the majority in both House and Senate in 2005/2006.)

- The Senate version was passed by unanimous consent, with no individual votes recorded.

- It hardly matters, because the pre-funding portion was going to be passed anyway by the Republican majorities in both chambers. The Democrats, as the minority party, were fortunate to get postal union collective bargaining rights preserved. The pre-funding mandate was a Republican-authored switch-and-bait in exchange for a) eliminating what would have been a permanent $3 annual payment into an escrow account, and b) transferring USPS responsibility for military retiree benefits to the Treasury. The Democrats were also promised that accumulated overpayments already made (totalling over $75 billion) would be made available to the USPS in the future, thus alleviating any red ink caused by the pre-funding. That turned out to be a total lie, as the GOP has since stymied every Democratic effort to allow USPS to tap into the overpayments.

- Hence, the Democrats (and Republican John McHugh, original co-sponsor of the 2006 House bill) have since tried to have the pre-funding mandate rescinded, but have been prevented by the Republicans:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h22/show

http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2011/11-041-hr1351-hr1262-110411.htm

http://www.nalc.org/news/latest/misguided_sept2010.html

Q.E.D.

[hack89]

63. Here is the appropriate section from the House Bill as it was introduced on 7 Dec 2006

Last edited Tue Mar 19, 2013, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Sec. 8909a. Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund

`(a) There is in the Treasury of the United States a Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund which is administered by the Office of Personnel Management.

`(b) The Fund is available without fiscal year limitation for payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A).

`(c) The Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately invest, in interest-bearing securities of the United States such currently available portions of the Fund as are not immediately required for payments from the Fund. Such investments shall be made in the same manner as investments for the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund under section 8348.

`(d)(1) Not later than June 30, 2007, and by June 30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall compute the net present value of the future payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A) and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year.

`(2)(A) Not later than June 30, 2007, the Office shall compute, and by June 30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall recompute the difference between--

`(i) the net present value of the excess of future payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A) for current and future United States Postal Service annuitants as of the end of the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that year; and

`(ii)(I) the value of the assets of the Postal Retiree Health Benefits Fund as of the end of the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that year; and

`(II) the net present value computed under paragraph (1).

`(B) Not later than June 30, 2017, the Office shall compute, and by June 30 of each succeeding year shall recompute, a schedule including a series of annual installments which provide for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by September 30, 2056, or within 15 years, whichever is later, of the net present value determined under subparagraph (A), including interest at the rate used in that computation.

`(3)(A) The United States Postal Service shall pay into such Fund--

`(i) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2007;

`(ii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2008;

`(iii) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2009;

`(iv) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2010;

`(v) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2011;

`(vi) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2012;

`(vii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2013;

`(viii) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2014;

`(ix) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2015; and

`(x) $5,800,000,000, not later than September 30, 2016.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407/text/ih

[bemildred]

22. Yep, and that is why they want to destroy it. nt

[Buffalo Bull]

24. do any rightwingers use private postal services exclusively

I have a right winged uncle who carps about USPS constantly.
Everything he sends us is delivered by USPS....
I asked him why not some for profit service...

[Egalitarian Thug]

28. K&R Just another scheme to enhance corporate welfare at taxpayer expense. USPS gets no taxpayer

money, but rest assured that if they succeed in killing this model of efficient large systems, there will will huge tax subsidies for the parasites that will take its place.

[former9thward]

37. They do get taxpayer money. See next post.

[Egalitarian Thug]

46. What HiPointDem said. I am consistently amazed at how many far right-wing distortions and

lies are repeated here ad nauseum. Is it even worth the time to explain the difference between a credit line and government funding, or the reason for the necessity of that line in the first place?

There's a big difference between the proverbial Big Tent and reich-wing propaganda.

[former9thward]

47. You said they do not take taxpayer money. They do.

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. Just as I suspected, there is no point. You don't understand and don't want to understand.

My Grandmother had a saying for this, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts."

Have a grand day.

[former9thward]

53. Your grandmother had good reason to tell this to you.

You have a good day too!

[former9thward]

36. The Post Office DOES use taxpayer money.

They have a $15 billion line of credit with the Treasury Department which they completely tapped out on in 2012 when they lost $16 billion. Without this credit line they would have folded long ago.

The situation turned particularly dire last year -- the agency twice defaulted on payments totaling $11 billion, and it exhausted a $15 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/06/news/economy/postal-service-cuts/index.html

[HiPointDem]

44. bullshit. the 'loss' was created deliberately by congress.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/26-1

you're a font of slanted misinformation.

[former9thward]

48. Your link does not show any misinformation on my part.

If it did you would have quoted it. The P.O. has used $15 billion in tax money for its operations. The pension payment which everyone blames for its troubles has NOT contributed to its losses over the last two years because it HAS NOT been paid. They had massive losses despite not paying the pension payment. Where is the misinformation? Or is it you that is spreading misinformation?

[HiPointDem]

49. the link shows how the 'loss' was created by congress. but you'd have to read the article to

get it.

[former9thward]

51. The pension payment has not been paid.

You can't blame a pension payment for your losses when you are NOT paying it. The losses occurred outside of the pension payment.

[hay rick]

52. Postal Service pensions are OVERFUNDED.

The payments that the Postal Service missed were for FUTURE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. Not pensions. Not current health care benefits. The lame duck Republican congress created the health care pre-funding mandate with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. It requires the Postal Service to pay for 75 years worth of future health care benefits within 10 years.

Motley Fool published an article on the Postal Service as a business: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/04/how-the-postal-service-is-being-gutted.aspx

From the article:

And the USPS has been a model for prudent squirreling. As of Feb. 2012, it had more than $326 billion in assets in its retirement fund, good for covering 91% of future pension and health-care liabilities. In fact, on its pensions, the USPS is more than 100% funded, compared to 42% at the government and 80% at the average Fortune 1000 company. In health-care pre-funding, the USPS stands at 49%, which sounds not so good until you understand that the government doesn't pre-fund at all and that just 38% of Fortune 1000 companies do, at just a median 37% rate. The USPS does better than almost everyone.

My post on the article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022472070

[former9thward]

54. That has NOTHING to do with it.

People are claiming the P.O. is losing money because of these pension payments. That is NOT the reason because they are NOT making the payments. The money they are losing is completely outside the pension problem.

[hay rick]

55. You might want to stop letting your dog use the computer.

Your dog can't read.

[brentspeak]

58. His dog probably reads better than he does. n/t

[former9thward]

65. The loss was created by everyone on DU.

Everyone who sends and receives emails, pays bills and does other communication on the internet, does business with companies that use FedEx and UPS for packages, etc. But keep sticking your head in the sand. That will really solve the problem.

[HiPointDem]

67. as i said, you're a font of disinformation. and not only on this topic.

[brentspeak]

57. Looks like I'm going to have to pull up old links on former9thward

Just like hack89, former9thward has been using DU as a conduit to push right-wing talking points concerning the USPS. Here's some general background on former9thward's propaganda crusade against the USPS here on DU.

As for former9thward's latest bull$hit:

former9thward: "The pension payment which everyone blames for its troubles has NOT contributed to its losses over the last two years because it HAS NOT been paid."

Of course no "pension payment" has been paid. How could it -- especially when the prefunding mandate is not a "pension payment", at all -- but a future retiree health care benefit payment?

In the past couple of years of posting anti-USPS right-wing disinformation, you haven't yet found the time to research even the basic facts of the situation?

former9thward: "They had massive losses despite not paying the pension payment. Where is the misinformation?"

The misinformation can be found directly in your own posts. Postmaster Donohoe testified that it is indeed the defaulted pre-funding payments which comprise the bulk of USPS' operating costs. That is because the payments, even though missed, still get registered on USPS' ledger sheets as a "loss". Got that? For you, probably not.

[former9thward]

64. The funding payment is $5.5 billion a year.

The P.O. lost $16 billion last year. Math is not your friend.

[brentspeak]

69. Reading and reading comprehension are not your friends

From the link:

He said the two missed payments totaling $11.1 billion for future retiree health benefits — payments ordered by Congress in 2006 that no other government agency or business is required to make — along with similar expenses make up the bulk of the annual loss. The remainder is nearly $3 billion in losses, he said, which would have been offset by savings if the service had been allowed to move to five-day mail delivery.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0930/US-Postal-Service-defaults.-Fate-lies-with-Congress.

The $5.6 billion defaulted payment from the previous year + $5.5 billion from last year = $11.1 billion recorded as a "loss" on USPS' ledger sheet for last year.

[former9thward]

72. Not only is math not your friend, it is your enemy.

You are just making my point. They lost 16 billion. Subtract out the 5.5 billion and it is still a loss of 11.5 billion.

[brentspeak]

73. There are elementary school children with more brain power than you

And I'm giving you too much credit for saying even that.

The government is carrying over the previous year's (two years ago) pre-funding defaulted payment ($5.6 billion) and adding it to last year's (one year ago) defaulted payment ($5.5 billion), totaling both numbers, and calling it a "loss" of $11.1 billion for last year's books (one year ago).

[former9thward]

74. No they are not.

All you can do is name call because you have lost the argument. The OP gave the silly theory that the P.O. made a profit last year. They did not no matter how much you play with the numbers. Even if your accounting tricks theory was correct, and it isn't, 16 billion minus 11.1 billion is still a 4.9 billion loss. There was no operating profit.

BTW despite what you say ALL government agencies and private companies that offer retiree health care must account for future health care costs. So even if the 10 year requirement did not exist they would be paying some amount. Maybe not 11.1 billion but it would not be zero.

Now go ahead and do some more name calling. It is all that you have.

[brentspeak]

75. There are no gov't agencies or private co's which prepay for unhired future retiree health benefits

...with the exception of the USPS.

And unlike the USPS, there is also no private corporation in the United States which is prevented by law (same 2006 Postal Reform Act) to expand its own services in order to become more profitable (UPS and FedEx successfully rewrote portions of the Postal Reform Act to make USPS less competitive.)

Your ignorance on this whole thing is pretty breathtaking.

[former9thward]

76. There was an accounting rule change in 1990 which caused companies to pre fund retiree benefits.

You slipped in the word "unhired". This is a very small part of the 5.5 billion. The P.O. office has been reducing employees not hiring them. When they do hire it is often part time contractors. Their assumptions for prefunding the 'unhired' are very small. But keep with the name calling and now you are changing the goalposts. You were insisting they were making a profit. Now you are complaining they are not allowed to compete. UPS and FedX are prevented by law from expanding their operations as long as you brought it up. The law says they are not allowed to compete with the P.O. in the delivery of first class mail.

[brentspeak]

77. Hey, Brainstem - I wasn't the OP

I didn't claim USPS was making a profit. Someone else did.

"Now you are complaining they are not allowed to compete. UPS and FedX are prevented by law from expanding their operations as long as you brought it up. The law says they are not allowed to compete with the P.O. in the delivery of first class mail."

You are the subgenius who has spammed DU with right wing talking points that USPS "must change to meet today's realities". But when confronted with the simple fact that USPS is legally prevented by right-wing members of Congress from "changing to meet today's realities", you Play Dumb. BTW, USPS delivers many FedEx and UPS parcels, and neither service cares much for getting into the first class mail business.

"You slipped in the word "unhired". Very small part of the 5.5 billion"?

What the hell does that mean? What's the "major" part of the $5.5 billion? I picture someone taking drugs and then hitting 'enter' on their keyboard, hoping unsuspecting readers are stupid enough to buy what they're selling.

[tammywammy]

66. The pre-funded payments maybe the bulk, but according to Donohoe they still would have lost $3B

From your link:

He said the two missed payments totaling $11.1 billion for future retiree health benefits — payments ordered by Congress in 2006 that no other government agency or business is required to make — along with similar expenses make up the bulk of the annual loss. The remainder is nearly $3 billion in losses, he said, which would have been offset by savings if the service had been allowed to move to five-day mail delivery.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0930/US-Postal-Service-defaults.-Fate-lies-with-Congress.

So even if they revoked the pre-fund payments (which they should), Donohoe would still push for eliminating Saturday delivery in order to cover the other losses of $3B.

[hay rick]

68. The pre-funding mandate is the largest, but not the only problem facing the Postal Service.

Another problem is that they can not set their own rates. The cost of a first class letter here: $0.46. Great Britain: about $0.90 (currencies fluctuate in relative value, so postage in other countries should always be described as "about&quot ; Germany: $.075; France: $0.75.

If you walk into a post office lobby you will find no public copying machines, no fax machines, and very limited mailing supplies. The Postal Service is prevented from providing these obvious related auxiliary services.

In addition to the burden of having to pre-fund health care, the Postal Service also faces the additional burden of being restricted to investing those funds in government bonds. This restriction also applies to pension contributions. Thanks to this restriction, the Postal Service is forced to set aside much more to fund those benefits than an organization that doesn't face similar restrictions would.

Lifting any of these restrictions would be far more constructive in assuring the viability of the Postal Service than cancelling Saturday delivery. Saturday delivery is one of the few competitive advantages that congress has not taken away from the Postal Service. Removing that advantage would almost surely lead to reduced revenues in the long term.

More on the Postal Service as a business here:http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/04/how-the-postal-service-is-being-gutted.aspx

[senseandsensibility]

70. K and R

Ed used to cover the post office often, and that's another reason I'll miss him on weeknights. I wish Rachel or someone would cover this.

[senseandsensibility]

71. Morning kick

for those who didn't see this yesterday.