> the USPS has not received any taxpayer money since its funding was cut to zero in the early 1980s.
Not quite true, its received public funding since then, but that's specifically tied to costs associated with, IIRC, overseas absentee ballots.
Not quite true, its received public funding since then, but that's specifically tied to costs associated with, IIRC, overseas absentee ballots.
They are forced to prefund their pensions unlike other government agencies but like private companies.
the truth of their problem is that mail service is declining, stats show it at 213 billion in 2006 down to 160 billion letters in 2012. That is a major decline in revenue.
Even if the Post Office did not have to fund its pensions it loses billions of dollars a year. If they did not fund their pensions and those pensions ended up negative the tax payers would step in.
Also consider.
1. the Post Office when negotiating with its unions cannot factor in the operational costs of the contract. As in, they cannot factor in the impact of it in day to day expenditures versus revenue.
2. The Post Office also has 535 overseers, as in Congress who can stop them from closing unprofitable offices, distribution centers, and the like. They even like to interfere with vehicle purchases. Anecdote, I remember my Aunt and Cousin (both ran local offices) bemoaning the left hand drive Windstars they had to take.
3. The EU even requires member nations to open their markets to competition, the US does not permit direct competition in letter delivery.
4. They have to plead to raise stamp costs.
Which private company has to fund 75 years of pension plans? Can't say I've ever heard of a company being forced to prefund pensions for future employees not even yet born before learning about PAEA.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/nader230911.html
Also I wonder if you care to comment on the sabotage provision in PAEA which stipulates the PO can't engage in non-postal forms of revenue.