HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Fairfax County General :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: Questions ()
Date: October 06, 2013 08:38PM

Went to the Post Office the other day and saw that it was open. Shouldn't it have been closed like everything else?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: Capitan Letter Man ()
Date: October 06, 2013 08:42PM

rain, sleet, snow and gov't shutdowns..

except Saturdays and Sundays!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: The Realist ()
Date: October 06, 2013 08:42PM

Like Social Security, USPS does not receive annual operating appropriations from Congress. They have continuing authority to operate from dedicated revenues that include postage and other fees.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: Govie ()
Date: October 06, 2013 09:06PM

Social Security is funded by an annual appropriation. SSA is paying benefits but they are not processing new applications.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: From USPS ()
Date: October 06, 2013 09:12PM

The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations. We are required by law to cover our costs.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: Ghost of Tip O'Neill ()
Date: October 06, 2013 09:20PM

The Postal Service is an independent agency "owned" by the Federal government, but its not really a part of the Federal government. It is self-funded, and as such, is operating normally.

It has been this way since President Richard Nixon signed the Postal Reorganization Act in 1970. Perhaps current events is not your forte.

I am curious, though. If you thought it would be closed, why did you go there?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: McCarthy ()
Date: October 07, 2013 12:47AM

"The Postal Service is an independent agency "owned" by the Federal government"

WAS before liberals did a hostile takeover and hired every foreign tech firm and ever foreigner to "help with mail".

No. They are an agency that is $$$$ in debt like the other agencies.

------------------------------
legislators just declare a post-office is open on paper and then anything needed to build it is spent.

some town's congressmen have declared SEVEN in the same town. how's that for cost control ?

------------------------------
we all know California liberals were caught closing the "improved land" (new buildings) after opening them by legislation then later closing them by legislation. then selling them to congressional insiders who needed land and buildings on the cheap. Total mob activity, total theives. Jail them.

===========================
all claims it's a "different kind of agency" ? tell it to the wind.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: GC7vn ()
Date: October 07, 2013 01:36AM

From USPS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for
> operating expenses and relies on the sale of
> postage, products and services to fund its
> operations. We are required by law to cover our
> costs.


Not really true. It doesn't cover its cost and hasn't for quite a few years.

It's losing money on every class of service other than ad mail. To the tune of a $16 billion loss in 2012.

It's also borrowed money from the US Treasury since 2009, totaling about $15 billion through 2012.

In addition, it receives about $100 million/year for subsidized services but that's relatively trivial in the scheme of things.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: Greybeard ()
Date: October 07, 2013 07:00PM

GC7vn Wrote:
> Not really true. It doesn't cover its cost and
> hasn't for quite a few years.
>
> It's losing money on every class of service other
> than ad mail. To the tune of a $16 billion loss
> in 2012.
>
> It's also borrowed money from the US Treasury
> since 2009, totaling about $15 billion through
> 2012.
>
> In addition, it receives about $100 million/year
> for subsidized services but that's relatively
> trivial in the scheme of things.

Just curious: if it lost $16B in 2012 alone, how's it only borrowed $15B total? Or is it borrowing from China? Not challenging your main point, which is well-known, just wondering about the math...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: The Realist ()
Date: October 07, 2013 08:14PM

Govie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Social Security is funded by an annual appropriation.
> SSA is paying benefits but they are not processing
> new applications.

The Social Security ADMINISTRATION receives an annual appropriation, all but trivial amounts of it associated with programs it runs that are not Social Security. Social Security itself runs off of permanent authorities, just as the Postal Service does.

By the way, Social Security field offices are open across the country, and will not only accept and process your new application for benefits, but will help you fill it out. You can also report the death of a beneficiary, update your address or direct deposit information, revise your citizenship status, and do various other things you might ordinarily do. You cannot request a replacement Social Security card though. That's out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: THe Realist ()
Date: October 07, 2013 08:41PM

Ghost of Tip O'Neill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Postal Service is an independent agency
> "owned" by the Federal government, but its not
> really a part of the Federal government.

Hmmm. Other examples of "independent agencies owned by the federal government":

CIA, EPA, FCC, the Fed, FTC, GSA, NASA, NSF, SEC, SBA, and the good old Social Security Administration.

How many of those are "not really a part of the federal gobvernment"?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: XTxXu ()
Date: October 07, 2013 08:50PM

Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GC7vn Wrote:
> > Not really true. It doesn't cover its cost and
> > hasn't for quite a few years.
> >
> > It's losing money on every class of service
> other
> > than ad mail. To the tune of a $16 billion
> loss
> > in 2012.
> >
> > It's also borrowed money from the US Treasury
> > since 2009, totaling about $15 billion through
> > 2012.
> >
> > In addition, it receives about $100
> million/year
> > for subsidized services but that's relatively
> > trivial in the scheme of things.
>
> Just curious: if it lost $16B in 2012 alone, how's
> it only borrowed $15B total? Or is it borrowing
> from China? Not challenging your main point, which
> is well-known, just wondering about the math...


Their borrowing and deficits are not directly related on a one-to-one basis. e.g, they do have operating revenues at different levels which cover some portion of costs, they've defaulted on the payments to the employee funds, they can continue to run on a money-losing basis, etc.

Their financials are available online if you're interested.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: The Realist ()
Date: October 09, 2013 08:12AM

GC7vn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From USPS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for
> > operating expenses and relies on the sale of
> > postage, products and services to fund its
> > operations. We are required by law to cover our
> > costs.
>
>
> Not really true. It doesn't cover its cost and
> hasn't for quite a few years.

It is true that USPS does not receive appropriated tax dollars for operations. It is also true that USPS is prohibited by law from charging less than its costs for any of its services. No sales or loss-leaders for USPS. Just one example of Congress having stacked the deck against USPS.

> It's losing money on every class of service other
> than ad mail. To the tune of a $16 billion loss
> in 2012.

$11.1 bilion of the $15.9 billion loss was a double-payment related to another of the ways in which Congress has hamstrung USPS. They are required to have the next 75 years worth of retiree costs on hand in cash by 2016. No other government agency an no private corporation faces such a requirement. More than $100 billion of USPS actual cash earnings have been siphoned off and frozen for that purpose.

> It's also borrowed money from the US Treasury
> since 2009, totaling about $15 billion through
> 2012.

Everyone borrows money. This particular authority was to provide capital for reacting to well-known changes in USPS markets that have resulted from digital mail. They were supposed to borrow and use the money.

> In addition, it receives about $100 million/year
> for subsidized services but that's relatively
> trivial in the scheme of things.

Not quite. USPS is required by Congress to provide a variety of mail services free of charge. Certain materials for the blind, certain military mail, franked Congressional mail, and mail related to absentee balloting are some examples. The deal is that Congress is supposed to provide each year an appropriation to make USPS whole for its costs in providing these mandated services but, it often simply does not. The services are provided alright, but USPS is stiffed on the bill. This is pretty much the opposite of a subsidy as far as USPS is concerned.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: vyyxw ()
Date: October 09, 2013 12:37PM

The Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GC7vn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > From USPS Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars
> for
> > > operating expenses and relies on the sale of
> > > postage, products and services to fund its
> > > operations. We are required by law to cover
> our
> > > costs.
> >
> >
> > Not really true. It doesn't cover its cost and
> > hasn't for quite a few years.
>
> It is true that USPS does not receive appropriated
> tax dollars for operations. It is also true that
> USPS is prohibited by law from charging less than
> its costs for any of its services. No sales or
> loss-leaders for USPS. Just one example of
> Congress having stacked the deck against USPS.


It's not true that they "cover their cost" as the claim was made. Or that they "don't receive a penny" of taxpayer funds as stated, for example, in their union's commercials currently running. That's an attempt to obscure operating losses and that taxpayers do have significant liability regardless whether they directly receive appropriated funds.


>
> > It's losing money on every class of service
> other
> > than ad mail. To the tune of a $16 billion
> loss
> > in 2012.
>
> $11.1 bilion of the $15.9 billion loss was a
> double-payment related to another of the ways in
> which Congress has hamstrung USPS. They are
> required to have the next 75 years worth of
> retiree costs on hand in cash by 2016. No other
> government agency an no private corporation faces
> such a requirement. More than $100 billion of
> USPS actual cash earnings have been siphoned off
> and frozen for that purpose.
>

Sorry, that's not true.

Prior to the 'prepayment' they were operating on a pay-as-you-go basis for their health benefit plan. The funding requirement is a 'catch-up' intended to reduce the +$70 billion in unfunded obligations that they'd already run up (which taxpayers ultimately are on the hook for). Even after 4 years of the prepayments, at the end of 2010 they still were underfunded by about $50 billion. After all of the payments which end in 2016, they'll only have paid about $16 billion toward the reduction and will have about +$30 billion in unfunded obligations remaining (higher since it continues to grow with time). The annual payment currently is ~$5.6 billion, and they didn't even pay the last three (you may recall the defaults), so you can't blame the losses on that. Even without such payments, they'd STILL be losing money.

The 75 years prepayment claim also is false. All that they've done is to put the benefit plan on a standard actuarial schedule that spans a 75 year period (as most all other similar plans must do - it is not unique to them), in order to cover current retirees, current employees who will be retiring, and future hiring to maintain its workforce on a rolling basis. That is, the plan needs to be adequately funded to cover all of its retirees and current and anticipated workforce on a revolving basis. You can't, for example, only maintain sufficient funds to cover only current retirees and have nothing left for anyone else going forward. Especially when they're losing money otherwise which would be used to fund it paying-as-you-go. As above, they do not have to have all of that money "on hand in cash;" rather, they have to fund some reasonable percentage of their total future obligations as every other similar plan does. Despite what the Postal Workers Union says, it is not at all some unique requirement only imposed on the USPS.


> > It's also borrowed money from the US Treasury
> > since 2009, totaling about $15 billion through
> > 2012.
>
> Everyone borrows money. This particular authority
> was to provide capital for reacting to well-known
> changes in USPS markets that have resulted from
> digital mail. They were supposed to borrow and
> use the money.
>

Well known changes like losing $16 billion due to such changes and little to no corresponding adjustments made to their biggest problem - 575,000 employees that they maintain on a revolving basis with some 300,000 of those expected to retire by 2020 to join 100,000s of existing retirees are out there, all with generous benefits. As well as a ton of property and associated costs that they maintain.

They cannot continue to run as they have in the face of such changes. The APWU does not want any such changes since it would affect current workers and job numbers. Which is why they push the talking points on which you've relied. They know that the benefit funds will be back-stopped by the government so that's not as much of a concern to them. If it were a private company which was using the same money to fund operations and claim 'profit' by inadequately funding benefit plans, they'd be throwing a fit in the other direction.


> > In addition, it receives about $100
> million/year
> > for subsidized services but that's relatively
> > trivial in the scheme of things.
>
> Not quite. USPS is required by Congress to
> provide a variety of mail services free of charge.
> Certain materials for the blind, certain military
> mail, franked Congressional mail, and mail related
> to absentee balloting are some examples. The deal
> is that Congress is supposed to provide each year
> an appropriation to make USPS whole for its costs
> in providing these mandated services but, it often
> simply does not. The services are provided
> alright, but USPS is stiffed on the bill. This is
> pretty much the opposite of a subsidy as far as
> USPS is concerned.

It's not the opposite of a subsidy. It is the definition of a subsidy. But again not really even worth bothering to mention given the magnitude in the scheme of billions of dollars in losses due to problems otherwise.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: Azz Whole ()
Date: October 09, 2013 03:24PM

Don't worry about it . Just mail your fucking letters, and shut the fuck up!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: The Realist ()
Date: October 09, 2013 05:03PM

vyyxw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not true that they "cover their cost" as the
> claim was made.

The claim that was made was that "We are required by law to cover our costs." The claim is absolutely true whether or not you understood the claim or the sunsequent explanation of it.

> Or that they "don't receive a penny" of taxpayer funds
> as stated, for example in their union's commercials
> currently running.

The claim under actual discussion here was that "The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses." That's the only two sentences of the original claim BOTH corrupted.

> Sorry, that's not true.

Yes, it is true. Consult an accountant instead of some propaganda sleezeball. No private corporation is required to prefund retiree accounts and fewer than 30% of them do. No other federal agency is required to do so. Only USPS.

> Well known changes like losing $16 billion due to
> such changes...

Get serious. The $15.9 billion loss is a cherry-picked number. It includes two year's worth -- $11.1 billion in all -- of retiree prepayments. Those have nothing at all to do with "such changes". They are an unrelated and unwarranted financial burden imposed by Congress.

> ...and little to no corresponding adjustments
> made to their biggest problem - 575,000 employees
> that they maintain on a revolving basis with some
> 300,000 of those expected to retire by 2020 to join
> 100,000s of existing retirees are out there, all
> with generous benefits.

USPS employs fewer than 500K people, down from about 730K a decade ago. Your credibiltiy worsens with each passing post.

> The APWU does not want any such changes since it
> would affect current workers and job numbers.
> Which is why they push the talking points on which
> you've relied.

Talking points or facts? You don't seem to be all that well connected to the latter. I don't think you've fairly characterized the positions of the postal unions either. In fact, you sound mostly like some sort of crude Scott Walker wannabe.

> It's not the opposite of a subsidy. It is the
> definition of a subsidy. But again not really
> even worth bothering to mention given the
> magnitude in the scheme of billions of dollars in
> losses due to problems otherwise.

Then you have one really screwball definition of a subsidy. Credit card fraud accomplishes the same thing as what you want to call a subsisdy. Services are provided and then nobody pays for them. Your lexicon here is simply stupid.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Why was the Post Office open?
Posted by: LWj7e ()
Date: October 10, 2013 01:26AM

The Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vyyxw Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's not true that they "cover their cost" as
> the
> > claim was made.
>
> The claim that was made was that "We are required
> by law to cover our costs." The claim is
> absolutely true whether or not you understood the
> claim or the sunsequent explanation of it.
>
> > Or that they "don't receive a penny" of taxpayer
> funds
> > as stated, for example in their union's
> commercials
> > currently running.
>
> The claim under actual discussion here was that
> "The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for
> operating expenses." That's the only two
> sentences of the original claim BOTH corrupted.
>


The unstated implication of which was that they cover their costs and do not receive any taxpayer-funded support. The point of my response being that they do not, regardless what specifically may be required by law. Public funds are provided otherwise as I detailed.


> > Sorry, that's not true.
>
> Yes, it is true. Consult an accountant instead of
> some propaganda sleezeball. No private
> corporation is required to prefund retiree
> accounts and fewer than 30% of them do. No other
> federal agency is required to do so. Only USPS.
>

Your fewer than 30% number includes most of the larger companies with substantial future obligations associated with post-retirement benefit plans. They can are required by FASB to disclose and carry such future obligations as present-valued liabilities in their financials. Unlike USPS, for a real company with stockholders, a stock price, and having to raise capital in private markets, that has the practical effect of driving funding. They also are required through terms of VEBA and similar union and other agreements, by IRS regs for tax treatment and in order to maintain approved plans, and by the fiduciary responsibilities of third-party trustees for the funds. GASB also has issued similar statements with respect to proper recognition of future benefit obligations by state and local governments which follow the same general approach.

Technically, the law does not specifically require that USPS adhere to a 75-year time frame. Only to a specified funding schedule for the RHBF which was developed to capture former, current, and future beneficiaries as above. The law requires that they amortize liabilities for current and former participants over a 40 year period. The 75-year metric comes from OMB and is used in a similar manner beyond USPS as a standard for whether similar funds will fall into default within that time period for the same reasons (e.g., by the trustees for SS, Medicare, Civil Service Retirement System, etc.).


>
> > Well known changes like losing $16 billion due
> to
> > such changes...
>
> Get serious. The $15.9 billion loss is a
> cherry-picked number. It includes two year's
> worth -- $11.1 billion in all -- of retiree
> prepayments. Those have nothing at all to do with
> "such changes". They are an unrelated and
> unwarranted financial burden imposed by Congress.

It's not a "cherry-picked" number at all. It's as they reported it:

http://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2012/pr12_131.htm

Even accounting for the $11.1 billion, they still had a $4.8 billion in losses beyond that.

Mail volume and revenues have decreased. Their expenses (not including any "pre-payments") have increased. What don't you understand about that equation?


>
>
> > ...and little to no corresponding adjustments
> > made to their biggest problem - 575,000
> employees
> > that they maintain on a revolving basis with
> some
> > 300,000 of those expected to retire by 2020 to
> join
> > 100,000s of existing retirees are out there, all
>
> > with generous benefits.
>
> USPS employs fewer than 500K people, down from
> about 730K a decade ago. Your credibiltiy worsens
> with each passing post.


The exact number is 522,144 career employees as of 2012.

http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm#H1

Plus various other temporary and associated workers which factor into its total personnel costs.

Whether it's roughly off some relatively small number one way or another isn't particularly relevant to the point that the primary driver of their cost are personnel-related. Which include a large number of the former 750K which you reference who weren't lost but moved onto their retiree benefits. As will hundreds of thousands of current employees retiring within a near-term time frame which must be funded.


>
> > The APWU does not want any such changes since it
>
> > would affect current workers and job numbers.
> > Which is why they push the talking points on
> which
> > you've relied.
>
> Talking points or facts? You don't seem to be all
> that well connected to the latter. I don't think
> you've fairly characterized the positions of the
> postal unions either. In fact, you sound mostly
> like some sort of crude Scott Walker wannabe.


By their own statements, they want the payments to the RHBF stopped because they affect current finances and, as a result, cause pressure on staffing levels and work hours. They express no similar concerns over ensuring funding levels for the plan. What's unfair in my representation?

GAO, CBO, OMB, and even USPS' own management recognize that adequately funding the plan is an issue and that it represents a significant potential risk for taxpayers. The only points of contention are around specific levels and timing. The only ones who are unconcerned are the union and those like you who bought into their PR campaign.


>
> > It's not the opposite of a subsidy. It is the
> > definition of a subsidy. But again not really
> > even worth bothering to mention given the
> > magnitude in the scheme of billions of dollars
> in
> > losses due to problems otherwise.
>
> Then you have one really screwball definition of a
> subsidy. Credit card fraud accomplishes the same
> thing as what you want to call a subsisdy.
> Services are provided and then nobody pays for
> them. Your lexicon here is simply stupid.


The funding is provided for what are referred to as "subsidized services" by any number of official sources including the USPS itself. In any case, as I said, it's a relatively trivial amount of money and any difference due to the "revenue foregone" model and actual costs is even more trivial and has diddly effect on their larger financial picture. The only reason for mentioning it was that, technically speaking, they do in fact receive some money which is directly appropriated. If you want to argue some tangential forum-masturbation semantics beyond that, go for it.

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **     **  ********   **    **  **      ** 
 ***   ***   **   **   **     **  ***   **  **  **  ** 
 **** ****    ** **    **     **  ****  **  **  **  ** 
 ** *** **     ***     **     **  ** ** **  **  **  ** 
 **     **    ** **    **     **  **  ****  **  **  ** 
 **     **   **   **   **     **  **   ***  **  **  ** 
 **     **  **     **  ********   **    **   ***  ***  
This forum powered by Phorum.