The USPS is not government funded. It's completely self-funded with postage. I agree with you that they do a good job but I actually disagree with you that cutting Saturday delivery is good . . . the economy doesn't need more American workers see their hours cut.

Dear Ray,
My comments are my own, not Patch's. I am not a Patch employee. You'll notice that this story doesn't mention the PAEA, so I (and others) brought it up. Now, how is the Postal Service a liberal or a conservative issue? It's the Post Office. We all have a mailbox. Why is that? It's one of few government agencies discussed in the Constitution (not in an addendum, not in a revision, but the original Constitution). The founding fathers, who weren't big on federal taxes, felt that having a way to keep all Americans connected was important enough to include in the Constitution as a service paid for by tax dollars. (The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 might be viewed by some as unconstitutional as it removed all taxpayer support from the USPS. Since then, it has run entirely on postage and other sales. The USPS still requires Congress approval for all decisions, including what services it can provide and if it can raise rates.)

I, and most reasonable people, certainly have no problem with requiring the USPS and every other government agency to secure a means to pay its benefits, but not 75 years' worth within 10 years. No other agency has such a burden. Democrats and Republicans made this mess and now they need to clean it up for the good of all Americans, Democrat, Republican, Independent, or ambivalent.

<<Without this ridiculous requirement NOT demanded of any other agency, the USPS would have an enormous surplus of $1.5 billion --not bad for a government agency.>>
Of course they can make money --They have a government protected monopoly -- ever try to mail a first-class letter via FedEx or UPS? You're not allowed to....Yes the requirements for pension funding are quite onerous, but that is mostly because the pensions themselves are too. . Efficiency? FedEx Express has an infrastructure that allows it to deliver letters and packages on an express basis around virtually the entire world (while also carrying much of the USPS load) with half the employees and half the budget of the US-only USPS , all while UPS and DHL compete with it fiercely. True not exactly apples and apples, but still....

Another liberal, with the Patch logo next to her name BTW, praising the Post Office as a well run entity! Imagine that. The nerve of Congress in 2006, demand that the Post Office, which was granting VERY hefty benefit packages to its unions, actually be able to pay those benefits they grant, so those debts do not fall to to taxpayers.
I know Denise, that's crazy! We're else have we seen completely over generous showering of unsustainable benefits? Oh yeah, the State of Illinois. Look how well that turned out. BTW Denise, which party has completely controlled Illinois government for a decade? I know, I know, it's Bush's fault

Interestingly, Canada has more area but less population than the United States.

Actually, the USPS is very profitable. It would have a $1.5 billion surplus--while collecting NO taxpayer money since 1970, by the way-- if Congress wasn't involved. The USPS is required, unlike any other federal agency, to fund 75 years' worth of healthcare & retirement costs for its employees, many of whom don't even work for the USPS yet because they have not been born. Congress also bans the post office from raising prices without its permission. Congress places these ridiculous constraints on the USPS despite the fact that, as I said, not a penny of taxpayer money goes to run the USPS. (Why would Congress do that? Why pass the PAEA?) So any assumption that USPS is at all unsuccessful is fallacious.

I think the POTUS SHOULD use DRONES on traitor flag waving fat arss TPARTY SCUM for being anti VET and American

Actually, Bob, many of the numbers you seek are right on the USPS's website:
http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm

The USPS is not a source of "government waste." The USPS has not been taxpayer supported since 1970 when the Postal Reorganization Act was passed.

Two of three co-sponsors were Democrats Danny Davis and Henry Waxman (real TParty conservative there). The PAEA bill passed with unanimous consent from both Republicans and Democrats.

Not taxpayer supported? Well then who covers those billions of dollars in annual recent losses? Is the post office just stiffing creditors or what?

Juvenal, the USPS is not taxpayer supported.

If you look at the USPS's website, you'll find this:
"A self-supporting government enterprise, the U.S. Postal Service is the only delivery service that reaches every address in the nation, 151 million residences, businesses and Post Office Boxes. The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses, and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations."

So Denise, who is paying for the 12 billion dollar loss in 2012? The Pony Express went by the wayside because they became inefficient and archaic, just like the USPS has become.

Who in your family works there?

Stones,
Let me look that up for you. Hold on, I'll open a new tab.
1. According to their website, the USPS had to default on last year's payment to the retirement fund. They "prioritize payments to our employees and suppliers ahead of those to the Federal Government to ensure that we maintain high-quality customer service." If things continue without action by Congress, they project only a few days' worth of "cash reserves" at the end of fiscal 2013, so the short answer to your question is "no one."

2. The Pony Express existed for 18 months in 1860-61, so it can hardly be compared to the USPS. I don't think it was ever intended to be long-term. But you're right, it was an unsustainable model (it cost $5.00 for half an ounce letter), but it served a purpose of keeping California in the loop with the rest of the country until the telegraph and the USPS could develop an infrastructure.
Now, to address your comment: How is the USPS "inefficient and archaic"? They deliver stuff in a couple days, they accept debit cards, you can print mailing labels at home, they use airplanes and even some hybrid electric mail trucks instead of buggies, you don't have to lick stamps anymore (I miss that) . . . "inefficient and archaic"? I don't see it. Explain, please.

3. I do not have any family who work for the USPS. I have a friend who is a rural carrier and another who works at a processing center. Why do you ask?

And where do u get yer lying figures from? Where and what is your business model for the creation of the other Dept's our forefathers created when changing the articles of Confederartion and adopting a constitution? The post and blame is right out of the lying GOP TPARTY looters manual,, u either share or are employed in a Fed Ex or UPS franchise with or for the drunken pedophile Blimp ARBUCKLE?

They have not received any taxpayer funding in over 40 years. They were entirely self-sufficient until Congress gave itself "oversight" at the the behest of for-profit delivery services like UPS and FedEx.

Dinkum, the USPS has not been taxpayer supported since 1970 when the Postal Reorganization Act was passed. However, as a government agency, it is not allowed to make changes to its business model without Congress's consent, so its inability to innovate is the fault of Congress.

Hey Butch, sober up will you. The numbers came from USPS. Do you EVER do any research?

It's a prefunding issue (something they should have been doing all along). It has stayed afloat by borrowing from the US Treasury. Who do you think funds the US Treasury?

Dinkum, the USPS's website most certainly does not say that it "cost the taxpayers" anything. Look again, please.

Denise, I find CNN Money's article more informative as it relates to taxpayer support:

" The Postal Service has been borrowing billions of dollars from TAXPAYERS in recent years to make up shortfalls caused by declining mail volumes and a 2006 congressional mandate to prefund retirement health care benefits. The agency doesn't normally use tax dollars for operations, except for its loan from Treasury. "

tmarc75,
I don't like junkmail either, but I hardly think it's fair to blame the messenger. What I do is this: I contact the companies that send me catalogs and ask them to stop sending them. I also write letters to friends and family, and then they write me back. See, that way, I have something to look forward to in the mailbox. Win, win, win!

You make good points, Mustang. The future pension obligations must be brought down. Without the Postal Service, the cost of sending letters and packages will most definitely go up. I don't understand being against the Postal Service--it's something that absolutely every American benefits from and we pay ridiculously reasonable postage.

Sara, they're having a hard time because they're incredibly dense and refuse to believe facts; i.e, Tea Baggers, Republicans, and the Faux News crowd.

Enough said.

Sarah, it's because half-wits like BW and the crowd can't understand simple facts (or know where to go looking for them).

Quote from CNN Money " The Postal Service has been borrowing billions of dollars from taxpayers in recent years to make up shortfalls caused by declining mail volumes and a 2006 congressional mandate to prefund retirement health care benefits. The agency doesn't normally use tax dollars for operations, except for its loan from Treasury. "

Let's try this one again for Butt-Wa and DD. And I'll take it slow. If it's a loan from the US Treasury (with me so far?), and the Treasury is funded by taxpayers dollars (did I lose you yet?), it's supported by taxpayers (even if it wasn't in the past or is supposed to support itself).

I send and receive packages and letters through the USPS all the time. The USPS is my carrier of choice. The USPS is friendly, reasonably priced, and reliable. Many months ago, my mom spent hundreds of dollars to have artwork shipped from her old house to her new house via UPS. Not only did they destroy the painting, but they are still refusing to reimburse her, even though she paid for the extra insurance on it. Last year, UPS delivered our TV to our neighbors' house instead of ours, propping the box against their garbage can. In winter. Even though someone was supposed to sign for the box. If this is how UPS acts WITH competition, imagine how they'll behave when there's no more USPS!

One of my very good friends is a rural mail carrier, and I know how her family stands to be affected, so yeah, I don't want her to suffer financially. I also think that we should be working on improving employment in this country instead of the opposite.

Actually, the USPS's business model is excellent, despite Congress's best efforts to hold it back. In sheer numbers of pieces of mail handed by the USPS, the numbers have gone down in the past decades because of email, but online shopping has increased the number and size of parcels. Also, I know a lot of people on this thread have complained about junk mail, but remember that the USPS isn't sending you that mail--companies that are paying for postage are sending you that mail. The rules of capitalism suggest that sending advertisements, special offers, etc. through the old-fashioned mail must still be effective.

And sorry, Genvieve, your hypothesis is off. The problems with the USPS lie completely with pension costs. Without the PAEA of 2006, the USPS would be enjoying more than a $1.5 billion surplus right now. How many "outdated" or "failing" businesses can you name have a $1.5 billion surplus?

You are by far the biggest idiot on this site.

So, Butch, are you doing what I'm doing (in addition to complaining on the internet)? Call your Representative. Call our Senators. Tell them that the USPS is an important, Constitutional part of our infrastructure and affects how we live and do business, and they need to act now to repeal or revise the PAEA.

Maybe instead of calling your representatives and senators, you could mail them a letter.
Wouldn't that be the way to show them how important the USPS is?

:)

Please tell the staff in your ward that I said thank you for editing your real reply. I'm glad they are keeping an eye on you.

Um, Bob, I was not the one who suggested a raise in postage to $1.00. I did, however, say plenty of other stuff you might comment on, like the PAEA.

Your lack of recognizing the existence of the PAEA shows a lack of knowledge of the PAEA and its effects. Without the PAEA, the USPS would have a $1.5 billion surplus, so they seem to be doing everything (besides that whole being controlled by Congress thing) pretty well, some might even say correctly.

My apologies, Denise, it was Sara he proposed that nonsense in a post above yours.

I agree that there needs to be fundamental reform of the postal service adn its mission. In an electronic age, is it really vital that we have VERY expensive snail mail delivery throughout the nation? I think not.

Perhaps it's time to REALLY privatize the USPS, and have citizens make arrangements for transmittal of vital documents through standard private delivery.

It should also be noted that the current system results in a subsidy from urban/suburban areas to rural routes, where the cost per piece of delivery is HUGE. Perhaps it's time our rural citizens only received a PO box in town as opposed to home delivery.

I agree that PAEA is a TERRIBLE idea, as are ALL public defined benefit pensions. It's time to assess the values of everything earned to date and roll it over into 401Ks, 403Bs or IRAs and make the employer contribution contingent on available employer resources.

Can we agree on that?

Bob, besides the ways that individuals and small businesses stand to suffer (see other parts of this thread and my opinion article), the main problem with the ideas of limiting postal reach or privatization is the pesky Constitution--you know, the one that mandated the postal service. That document seeks to ensure the good of all Americans, and keeping the postal service in the public domain is part of that. Privatization isn't appropriate or Constitutional in this case; not everyone would be kept in the loop and on the information grid if the postal service were to be limited or privatized. Infrastructure for country folk is always more expensive. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Gotta respect the Constitution, my friend. And the Constitution calls for a postal service.

Oh, and I have a First Amendment right to send you junk mail, Bob. Don't you try to silence me.

Denise:
One could argue that setting up an e-mail system meets that constitutional requirement. Remember the postal system does not, nor should it, be obligated to home deliver every piece of mail addressed to you. If you chose to live at the top of Mt Ranier away from public roads, there is NO obligation for the USPS to bring it to your door.

As fr as your "junk mail", you have a right to send it, but I have no obligation to read it or accept it.

That system works particularly well with "unsuscribing" from e-mail. Also remember that there is no consitutional protection for "bulk mailing" privileges. Charging first class mail rates for that should save a lot of time, expense, and TREES!

Oh, Juvenal, you opened up a slimy can o' worms. You're just cherrypicking which parts of the Constitution we take seriously? Okay, by that logic, I could say that the First and Second Amendment gives us rights, but they don't specify that we can every day, so I'm limiting our comment thread rights to Wednesdays only. And if the Constitution doesn't protect the daily delivery of Val-paks, it certainly doesn't protect any weapon faster or swifter than a musket. So, you say no mail delivery for people who live in the sticks and I say you have to stay off the Internet, but you can carry a bow and a small quiver, but on Saturdays only.