I had the idea of ECOM years ago and wondered why the post office hadn't implemented it. It was so obvious. Now I know why. Republicans! None of us have any right to criticize the Post Office. Our Congress does everything they can to keep them from succeeding, and we put those people in office! And Republicans are more to blame here than democrats. Remember reading reports of the Postal workers pension fund being in dire straights. Yes, still another Republican attempt to get rid of the post office!, and turn all mail delivery over entirely to the for profit, private sector. I had a friend who was a retired postmaster. He went on and on about how the government was doing everything they could to make the post office dysfunctional. I thought he was surely exaggerating. Turns out he wasn't. But it is not the government. It is the people we've elected to run our government. And sad to say it's mostly Republicans that are at fault, but not entirely. Until we get big money out of politics this kind of stuff will never end. Read first http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-usps-email/ Then read: this is from: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-unlikely-to-make-health-and-pension-payments "...Back in 2006, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed, requiring the USPS to make regular payments into a retiree benefit fund. That fund, in essence, collects money from the USPS now to dole out in the future in the form of retirement and pension benefits. Abbas says the system protects the USPS "by not saddling it with bills later after employees have retired." Theoretically, the fund's existence helps protect the postal service in the event of a future downturn by ensuring it has at least some cash set aside for benefits in the event of an emergency. But in practice, the system hasn't done much for a service whose finances are already stretched thin. "We must pay today for benefits that will not be paid out until some future date," the USPS says on its website, noting that a traditional "pay-as-you-go" system would add $5.65 billion to its cash flows. Critics of the legislation say the current pre-funding system, which essentially demands preemptive payments in excess of what's currently being demanded by USPS retirees, has actually exacerbated the service's financial situation. The National Association of Letter Carriers said in a release last year that the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act requirements are "the primary cause of red ink" and have "drained the postal service's cash reserves and caused it to reach its $15 billion borrowing limit with the U.S. Treasury." "No other public agency or private enterprise in America is required to take on such a financially crippling burden as the pre-funding of future retiree health benefits," the statement said. "Because Congress has failed, as yet, to reform the pre-funding mandate (or to reduce its burden), the Postal Service has turned to a doomed cost- and service-cutting strategy that has the potential to drive business away." Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., has introduced a bill aimed at patching up what the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act failed to achieve. Carper, who also spoke Thursday before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said the new legislation will, among other things, "address health care costs at the postal service" that could help ease its retiree health burdens..." https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407 Now ask yourself, what are the chances Carpers Bill will pass both Houses as long as Republicans control both.?
Now i've heard everything. Now they're saying it's bad to put away money for future pension obligations. Wouldn't it make all of you in private industry feel so much better if the company you work for was putting nothing into the retirement fund you hope to receive payments from when you retire? Just one more example, if we needed one, of how this country has no future whatsoever. Because these kind of people are a majority. * btw, the piece is so deviously deceptive that it really can't be called anything other than a bald faced lie. Private companies are not required to offer defined benefit pension plans. (which is the type of pension plan we're talking about here with the USPS) But if they do offer one, they most certainly are required to fund it in advance of the payment obligations. iow, to keep it actuarily funded.) " What is a 'Pension Benefit Obligation - PBO' A pension benefit obligation (PBO) is an accounting term used to describe the amount of money a company must pay into a defined-benefit pension plan to satisfy all pension entitlements that have been earned by employees up to that date. The pension benefit obligation (PBO) is calculated by an actuary, who determines the benefits needed through a present value calculation. * it wasn't but about a decade or so ago that when a takeover artist took over a company in a hostile takeover, it was standard practice for them to raid the pension fund and replace it with insurance annuities to pay what was obligated. (notice that I said replace with annuities that met obligation, very important) Even this caused all of liberaldom to scream bloody murder that it was sooo unfair. Because what it really amounted to was the corp raider taking out the Excess of what the pension fund was obligated to pay it's employees. The leftists claimed that those excesses were there to as sort of an insurance policy in case the mkt went down and the pension plan was no longer over funded or some such thing) I believe there was legislation passed to stop raiders from doing this, if i'm not mistaken. So iow, they were screaming about the exact opposite thing they're screaming about now. * the part i quoted from pie says health benefits, but the part from above the quote says 'retirement and pension' benefits'.
I have to agree with Piezoe on this one. Congress has, with malice and intent, done everything it can to take down the Post Office. That private sector lobby, it is a bitch. Lots of money to throw around and a criminally corrupt congress ready to cash in.
I looked at some other articles and it appears they are talking about it being strictly health care benefits that are in question. Not 'retirement and pension' obligations that the op article states. I don't know if any other entities are required to pre fund these obligations, but if they are not, they should be. The USPS has an approximate 100 billion dollar future health care obligation and putting off paying into it and letting the taxpayer get dinged later is absolutely horrible in my opinion.
thank you. It was never a matter of funding the pension plan . it was how to reasonably do it. That Bill was clearly designed to cripple the Postal Service.
Currently, unfunded future gov't retiree health care benefits are just listed in the footnotes of gov't financial statements. The GSAB, (gov't standards accounting board) has been working to make them a part of the liability side of financial statements, which will show the massive amount gov't entities owe in the future, in large part to place great pressure on them to start presently funding their future obligations for retiree health care costs. We're talking about very big numbers that will become due later. Unfunded Retiree Healthcare Benefits Are the Elephant In the Room http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...fits_are_the_elephant_in_the_room_101200.html
I believe the notion that 'you darn well better have future pension obligations funded' but 'who cares if 100 billion dollars of future health care obligation are funded' got some splained to do. Because that is not sound finance.
I have seen no convincing arguments put forth that we should not fund future health care obligations and just put them off till whenever. The notion that other people aren't doing it is not a convincing argument.