Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service

"The United States Postal Service (USPS), also known as the Post Office and U.S. Mail, is an independent agency of the United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution."

If the US constitution is how you're created, you're given a monopoly on delivering mail in the US, and you're governed by Congress, you're part of the US government.

View on HN

You're being pedantic. Since the 1970s, the USPS is supposed to be revenue-neutral, by law. This is a direct rebuttal to the simplistic "I already done paid for it with meh tax dollers!" argument that appears to be carrying the day in this discussion. The past history and current management structure of the postal service is completely irrelevant to the debate.

The only tax subsidy the USPS receives is to fund things like free mail for the blind, election mail, and other "public good" services. They charge for the zip code database because it's a product that can make them revenue (which they desperately need), and it is, in fact, a proprietary invention of the USPS.

You're being disingenous. Congress maintains not only their monopoly on first-class mail delivery, but also control over key financial decisions. I don't see a lot of private companies that provide Congress with authority over themselves

So, what's the problem with that, exactly?

It's not a problem. The argument is that if they're part of the US government, they're required to release the information requested under the Freedom Of Information Act. USPS is trying to make the case that they're a private business not connected to the US government (and hence, aren't required to comply with the FOIA), which clearly is not true.

It doesn't seem that clear to me. Especially considering the tax part. I'm thinking there's probably stuff the USPS knows that really shouldn't be public information.

It's a US government institution, sure. Arguing about that (or focusing on it) misses the real point about how they're different from a lot of government agencies, which has everything to do with why they're acting grabby about IP like a business.

As the Wikipedia article notes, since 1971 it's been a corporation-like independent agency that's essentially unsupported by taxes. Since then it was supposed to operate in the black and it did for a long time, until it got hit by increased competition in traditional delivery services, digital communications... and the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (which both keeps it from offering new "non-postal" services and gives it new obligations like prefunding healthcare obligations 75 years into the future).

I don't think treating zip or other geoinfo they've got as proprietary is a great idea, because it could be used to create a lot of value if it was let out on its own. But the value it has makes it a potential revenue source, and given the obligations and limited options they have, I can understand why they feel like they'd have to capture some of the value they've created.

Author of the blog post here. I completely agree with you; this is my best estimate of the situation as well.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, whatever that even means, but I've always wondered why the authority "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads" is interpreted as the authority to forcefully implement a monopoly on postal service (now, just a near-monopoly on first-class mail).

> I've always wondered why the authority "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads" is interpreted as the authority to forcefully implement a monopoly on postal service

Generally, all the powers in Art. I, Section 8 ("To raise armies", "To provide and maintain a navy", "To borrow money on the credit of the United States") are read that way, though the only one that has express exclusion language is the power to legislate over the national capital district.

Can no one else raise an army or navy? I suppose it depends on your definition of "army" and "navy." Borrowing money on the credit of the US seems like a pretty obvious intrinsic monopoly.

Would you define the Federal Reserve as part of the government?

Yes.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The better question is, are the employees of the Fed under the employ of the US government.

Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of their region; this entitles them to elect some of the members of the board of the regional Federal Reserve Bank. Thus the Federal Reserve system has both public and private aspects.[18][19][20][21] The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained.

Yes, they are part of the fourth branch [0].

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government

Reply on news.ycombinator.com