Another Government-Program That Works!

[Mr. Shaman]

Second, the FDIC plans to double it's fees.

Wanna try, again, Skippy???​

"Federal regulators are expected to raise the fees that they charge banks by more than double in an effort to replenish the government's deposit-insurance fund, said people familiar with the matter."

Ah, yes.....more o' those undisclosed-sources...compliments of The Murdoch Street Journal.

​

 

[Andy]

Wanna try, again, Skippy???



Ah, yes.....more o' those undisclosed-sources...compliments of The Murdoch Street Journal.

​

LOL! So your great retort is that I was inaccurate in saying only double? Their going to raise their fees by more than double?

Thank you for making my point for me. Tell me, do you have any points of your own to make? Oh wait, I forgot... I'm talking to Shaman.

 

[Dr.Who]

No one forces us to use the PO to deliver packages, yet it seems to be able to compete with private companies in that area.

If you want to send a first class letter you are forced to accept the USPS or to not send it. Not a very good choice.

If you are sending another kind of package then could it be that they have lowered the price to compete with fed ex and UPS knowing they will make up the profit on the first class letters?

so can it compete?

Last year it was 384 million in the hole. It is about to trim 40,000 employees. It has asked to be allowed to deliver mail only five days a week to save money. It survives mostly on junk mail revenues which none of us want to get.

And it receives regular subsidies to keep operating:

"Digging a little deeper provides the truth: the USPS is subsidized. One need only refer to the 2005 annual report to get some illustrative numbers. A line item showing as "U.S. government appropriations — received" lists an amount of $503 million. The 2003 annual report shows a similar line item with a similar heading. That line item lists an amount of $762 million. Call me a nitpicker, but those listings both sound suspiciously like, well, government appropriations, A.K.A. taxpayer investment, to me. Looking further into the 2005 annual report we find this.

"We commenced operations on July 1, 1971, in accordance with the provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act (the Act). The equity that the U.S. government held in the former Post Office Department became our initial capital. We valued the assets of the former Post Office Department at original cost less accumulated depreciation. The initial transfer of assets, including property, equipment and cash, totaled $1.7 billion. Subsequent cash contributions and transfers of assets between 1972 and 1982 totaled approximately $1.3 billion, resulting in total government contributions of approximately $3 billion."

So even without the (apparently) semi-annual infusions of "government appropriations" the USPS received something like $3 billion in "start-up" capital. That is about as far from "no taxpayer support" as one can get! Additionally, these are economic benefits that private companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL do not receive and they are still kicking the Post Office's butt in the realm where the USPS is not protected by fiat. (Have you seen the FedEx boxes placed outside the USPS recently?) Clearly the USPS benefits from government subsidy, no matter what they choose to call it. Now back to the question at hand: how might things be different with competition?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston21.html

One last question? has anyone ever waited in line at Fed Ex to have package delivered?

 

[PLC1]

If you want to send a first class letter you are forced to accept the USPS or to not send it. Not a very good choice.

If you are sending another kind of package then could it be that they have lowered the price to compete with fed ex and UPS knowing they will make up the profit on the first class letters?

so can it compete?

Last year it was 384 million in the hole. It is about to trim 40,000 employees. It has asked to be allowed to deliver mail only five days a week to save money. It survives mostly on junk mail revenues which none of us want to get.

And it receives regular subsidies to keep operating:

"Digging a little deeper provides the truth: the USPS is subsidized. One need only refer to the 2005 annual report to get some illustrative numbers. A line item showing as "U.S. government appropriations — received" lists an amount of $503 million. The 2003 annual report shows a similar line item with a similar heading. That line item lists an amount of $762 million. Call me a nitpicker, but those listings both sound suspiciously like, well, government appropriations, A.K.A. taxpayer investment, to me. Looking further into the 2005 annual report we find this.

"We commenced operations on July 1, 1971, in accordance with the provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act (the Act). The equity that the U.S. government held in the former Post Office Department became our initial capital. We valued the assets of the former Post Office Department at original cost less accumulated depreciation. The initial transfer of assets, including property, equipment and cash, totaled $1.7 billion. Subsequent cash contributions and transfers of assets between 1972 and 1982 totaled approximately $1.3 billion, resulting in total government contributions of approximately $3 billion."

So even without the (apparently) semi-annual infusions of "government appropriations" the USPS received something like $3 billion in "start-up" capital. That is about as far from "no taxpayer support" as one can get! Additionally, these are economic benefits that private companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL do not receive and they are still kicking the Post Office's butt in the realm where the USPS is not protected by fiat. (Have you seen the FedEx boxes placed outside the USPS recently?) Clearly the USPS benefits from government subsidy, no matter what they choose to call it. Now back to the question at hand: how might things be different with competition?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston21.html

One last question? has anyone ever waited in line at Fed Ex to have package delivered?

So, where does the money go that is paid for stamps? Does the Post Office get it, then still have to be subsidized from the general fund, or does it go to the general fund, to be paid out to the Post Office?

I couldn't find the answer to that one on line, but it seems to me an important distinction.

Maybe the PO is a net payer of revenues. I'm not sure.

 

[Andy]

So, where does the money go that is paid for stamps? Does the Post Office get it, then still have to be subsidized from the general fund, or does it go to the general fund, to be paid out to the Post Office?

I couldn't find the answer to that one on line, but it seems to me an important distinction.

Maybe the PO is a net payer of revenues. I'm not sure.

It's the post office that collects it for sure. The problem is it's never enough to cover governmental unions pays. Not to mention there are some areas the amount of mail volume never equals the cost of delivery. But of course, it's the US post office, so the US government will cover that.

 

[PLC1]

It's the post office that collects it for sure. The problem is it's never enough to cover governmental unions pays. Not to mention there are some areas the amount of mail volume never equals the cost of delivery. But of course, it's the US post office, so the US government will cover that.

But, does the PO keep the money, then ask Uncle Sam for more, or does the money go into the general fund, to be paid out to whoever is most successful at getting it? If it's the latter, does the PO put more in than it takes our, or does it take more out? That's the crux of the question of whether or not the PO is really self sustaining.

 

[Dr.Who]

But, does the PO keep the money, then ask Uncle Sam for more, or does the money go into the general fund, to be paid out to whoever is most successful at getting it? If it's the latter, does the PO put more in than it takes our, or does it take more out? That's the crux of the question of whether or not the PO is really self sustaining.

I am hoping that it keeps it's own stamp revenue because if that money goes into the general fund it might as well go into a black hole.

So far I have found this from the U.S. Presidents budget for the USPS:

"Financing.—The activities of the U.S. Postal Service are financed from the following sources: (1) mail and services revenue; (2) reimbursements from Federal and non-Federal sources; (3) proceeds from borrowing; (4) interest from U.S. securities and other investments; and (5) appropriations by the Congress. All receipts and deposits are made to the Postal Service Fund and are available without fiscal year limitation for payment of all expenses incurred, retirement of obligations, investment in capital assets, and investment in obligations and securities."

And this is not authoratative but the reporter says:

"Wouldn’t it be sweet if our post office poured billions into government coffers instead of sucking them out? Such an impossible dream is possible."
http://www.evesun.com/news/stories/2008-08-25/5021/The-Impossible-Dream/

This article does not answer the question either but it did have some very interesting things to say:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/BG1685.cfm

This paragraph from the U.S. budget lays out the goals for the post office:

" Postal reform must be accomplished in a responsible manner that is fair to taxpayers, ratepayers, and Postal Service employees. It must be consistent with the principles of best governance practices, transparency, flexibility, accountability, and self-finance, as expressed by the President in December 2003, and not have an adverse impact on the Federal budget. To this end, the Administration supports reforms that: allow the Postal Service pricing flexibility, but within a firm annual Consumer Price Index rate cap and with a strict limit on the circumstances when rates can exceed the cap; require compliance with all Securities and Exchange Commission financial reporting standards; and permit greater flexibility in the use of negotiated service agreements and worksharing arrangements. In addition, the 2007 Budget proposes to use the pension savings provided to the Postal Service by the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-18) that would otherwise be held in escrow in 2006 and beyond, to put the Postal Service on a path that fully funds its substantial retiree health benefits liabilities."

I still agree that we have not seen a clear statement.

 

[PLC1]

I am hoping that it keeps it's own stamp revenue because if that money goes into the general fund it might as well go into a black hole.

So far I have found this from the U.S. Presidents budget for the USPS:

"Financing.—The activities of the U.S. Postal Service are financed from the following sources: (1) mail and services revenue; (2) reimbursements from Federal and non-Federal sources; (3) proceeds from borrowing; (4) interest from U.S. securities and other investments; and (5) appropriations by the Congress. All receipts and deposits are made to the Postal Service Fund and are available without fiscal year limitation for payment of all expenses incurred, retirement of obligations, investment in capital assets, and investment in obligations and securities."

And this is not authoratative but the reporter says:

"Wouldn’t it be sweet if our post office poured billions into government coffers instead of sucking them out? Such an impossible dream is possible."
http://www.evesun.com/news/stories/2008-08-25/5021/The-Impossible-Dream/

This article does not answer the question either but it did have some very interesting things to say:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/BG1685.cfm

This paragraph from the U.S. budget lays out the goals for the post office:

" Postal reform must be accomplished in a responsible manner that is fair to taxpayers, ratepayers, and Postal Service employees. It must be consistent with the principles of best governance practices, transparency, flexibility, accountability, and self-finance, as expressed by the President in December 2003, and not have an adverse impact on the Federal budget. To this end, the Administration supports reforms that: allow the Postal Service pricing flexibility, but within a firm annual Consumer Price Index rate cap and with a strict limit on the circumstances when rates can exceed the cap; require compliance with all Securities and Exchange Commission financial reporting standards; and permit greater flexibility in the use of negotiated service agreements and worksharing arrangements. In addition, the 2007 Budget proposes to use the pension savings provided to the Postal Service by the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-18) that would otherwise be held in escrow in 2006 and beyond, to put the Postal Service on a path that fully funds its substantial retiree health benefits liabilities."

I still agree that we have not seen a clear statement.

No, nor have I been able to come up with an answer to the basic question of whether the PO is a net user or a net payer, in other words, whether it is profitable or not.

If they really mean this part:

and self-finance, as expressed by the President in December 2003, and not have an adverse impact on the Federal budget.

Then it must be at least revenue neutral.

if that money goes into the general fund it might as well go into a black hole.

Absolutely, but I'll bet if we were to dig far enough, we'd find that it does, indeed, go into that black hole. I could be wrong, though.

 

[Andy]

No, nor have I been able to come up with an answer to the basic question of whether the PO is a net user or a net payer, in other words, whether it is profitable or not.

This should clear things up:
US Post Office $2.8 Billion In The Red

Even so, the $2.8 billion loss was well short of last year's $5.1 billion postal deficit.

The Postal Service does not receive a tax subsidy for its operations

So clearly it is operating at a loss. It lost $2.8 Billion in 08, and $5.1 Billion in 07.

Nevertheless, the absolutely idiotic national press, stupidly claims the Postal Service is not subsidized by taxes.

To put this in clear terms:
The US 2009 Budget has $3.8 Billion set aside for the Post Office.
Further... I found the 2003 budget had $5.1 Billion sent to the Post office. Trying to find info for 2004 through 2006 has proven difficult.

Then it must be at least revenue neutral.

Check the reading again. That was the goals the president had for Postal reform, not for what was actually happening.

 

[Andy]

But, does the PO keep the money, then ask Uncle Sam for more, or does the money go into the general fund, to be paid out to whoever is most successful at getting it? If it's the latter, does the PO put more in than it takes our, or does it take more out? That's the crux of the question of whether or not the PO is really self sustaining.

The PO keeps the money, then gets money from the Federal government. It has a "net federal budget", meaning it's federal budget outlays are it's expenses, minus receipts, with the feds covering the deficit.

 

[PLC1]

This should clear things up:
US Post Office $2.8 Billion In The Red

​

So clearly it is operating at a loss. It lost $2.8 Billion in 08, and $5.1 Billion in 07.

Nevertheless, the absolutely idiotic national press, stupidly claims the Postal Service is not subsidized by taxes.

To put this in clear terms:
The US 2009 Budget has $3.8 Billion set aside for the Post Office.
Further... I found the 2003 budget had $5.1 Billion sent to the Post office. Trying to find info for 2004 through 2006 has proven difficult.



Check the reading again. That was the goals the president had for Postal reform, not for what was actually happening.

By cutting back on spending the post office had a net operating income of $2.7 billion in 2008, but still ended up in the red because of the requirement for a $5.6 billion payment to a health benefit fund for retirees.

Aha. So the PO, like GM, has a problem meeting the health care costs of retirees. No doubt, the health care costs of current employees are a considerable drain as well.

How much longer can we continue to pay 18% (and growing) of our GDP for health care? Reform is sorely needed, and soon.

 

[Andy]

Aha. So the PO, like GM, has a problem meeting the health care costs of retirees. No doubt, the health care costs of current employees are a considerable drain as well.

How much longer can we continue to pay 18% (and growing) of our GDP for health care? Reform is sorely needed, and soon.

That of course is limited to a Union problem. Only unionized companies with contracts mandating health care payments, have this problem.

Again, I have no problem spending as much as the public wants on Health care. If it wasn't worth it to buy health care, people wouldn't do so.

 

[PLC1]

That of course is limited to a Union problem. Only unionized companies with contracts mandating health care payments, have this problem.

Again, I have no problem spending as much as the public wants on Health care. If it wasn't worth it to buy health care, people wouldn't do so.

It's not so much a matter of how much is spent, as it is of how much is wasted.

What could be more important than good health? Who among us would choose to be wealthy and sick, over being moderately well off and healthy?

 

[Dr.Who]

It's not so much a matter of how much is spent, as it is of how much is wasted.

What could be more important than good health? Who among us would choose to be wealthy and sick, over being moderately well off and healthy?

Well just for fun I heard about a football player who cut off his thumb so he could keep playing. He chose wealthy and mildly disabled.

 

[PLC1]

Well just for fun I heard about a football player who cut off his thumb so he could keep playing. He chose wealthy and mildly disabled.

He must have been one gung ho football player.

Come to think of it, there are other players who continue to play with knee injuries that are likely to cause problems later in life.


Are they sacrificing health for money, or health for a sport they love? I wonder