First, Congress passed legislation in 2009 that alleviated the post office of $4 billion in payments to the pre-retirement fund and they are still bleeding money.
As I've stated over and over, the post office's economic picture is tied to the economy so strongly that it is considered a bellwether. Yes, the post office is in economic straits right now, but one or two people have claimed that the economy as a whole is not doing so hot right now, either.
And, yes, while that payment was reduced this last fiscal year, the payments for each of the three years prior to that actually
exceeded the losses the USPS suffered in each of those years. Meaning my previous statement still holds:
THE MAJORITY- IF NOT ALL- OF THEIR DEBT IS DUE TO THOSE PAYMENTS. Theoretically, they could have carried a large enough surplus to avoid the need to borrow in the face of current legitimate losses had those requirements not been put into effect.
2. The post office itself expects continued losses even when the pre-fund issue has been corrected.
THE REAL PROBLEM:
The GAO and the USPS have both agreed they have a defunct business model.
The GAO is basing its numbers on projections provided by the post office and I think it's evident that the post office is maximizing the travails burdening them. And that's not something I fault them for. It might motivate congress and possibly give them leverage when dealing with unions. However, when it comes to the possibility of the post office not rebounding significantly along with the economy...? That not only defies what pretty much anyone with even the basest knowledge of economics believes, but it also defies common sense. I believe the post office had a record breaking year in terms of volume in either 2005 or 2006(I'm sure you can correct me and let me know which
)... that was welllll into the internet age. To me, that's an obvious sign that the economy had more to do with the drop off than technology.
Now, I don't think it's the end of the post office. As I noted before, what matters is whether or not taxpayers will have to bail them out. Right now, we are bailing them out. Whether or not taxpayers will ever get their money back remains to be seen.
Which was the topic of this conversation. Even with the correction you made to the inaccurate numbers I posted, I don't see that as an impossibility, or even an unlikelihood.
Just one more made-up claim. That's only one reason.
"Largely stems" means "the most prominent of more than one reason". The fact that I didn't say "completely stems" means I acknowledge that there was more than one reason.
Other reasons are significant declines in mail volume, significant declines in projected mail volume, and a poor business model.
Those same problems existed three years ago and were addressed in that report. The fact of the matter is that their re-inclusion on the list LARGELY STEMS from the debt they have incurred since 2006.
At the end of the day, when the pre-fund issue goes away, the post office is still in some significant shit.
I've posted this very thing numerous times.
To their credit, they are busting their asses trying to change things some things
Something else I've been trying to drive home.
I'll remain extremely skeptical.
And you are within your rights in doing so... however, with all the facts on the table, I don't see any reason to share that pessimism.
