Guest
07-23-2011, 08:26 PM
With all the press coverage of the ongoing "negotiations" regarding increasing the debt ceiling, an otherwise very important news piece was relegated to about the fifth page of the New York Times business section. The article describes Congressional testimony by the Postmaster General of the U.S. saying that unless Congress grants the U.S.P.S. substantial funding each year going forward, mail delivery will have to be cut to three days a week within the next twenty years.
This news sets up what might be a very real decision which will be required of the members of Congress. Assume you are a member of Congress. I'll set up some conditions which very probably would precede a vote on a question of increased and ongoing funding of the U.S.P.S. At the end, I'll ask how you might vote.
Background:
The major financial problem of the U.S.P.S. is the generous retirement and healthcare benefits granted to its employees over the years. Their retirement plans were the result of negotiations with the postal workers union. The number of employees who are projected to retire from the postal service in the next decade or so will result in crushing increases in costs to U.S.P.S.
The U.S.P.S. is a government-owned corporation and as such cannot declare bankruptcy in an attempt to seek bankruptcy court protection in re-negotiating debts, including pension obligations. The debts of the U.S.P.S. are essentially obligations of the U.S. government.
The U.S.P.S. lost over $8 billion in 2011. Those losses are expected to increase exponentially in future years as an increasing number of employees reach retirement age.
Situation Preceding A Vote For "Special Funding" For The U.S.P.S.
The U.S.P.S. has asked for annual special funding by the Congress amounting to $100 billion for the 2013-2023 period.
In 2012 the Congress passed "cut, cap and balance" legislation. Consequently, the only way the U.S.P.S. request can be funded is by immediate and concurrent cuts in the budgets of other government departments or programs.
In the news coverage preceding the scheduled vote, economists and the media have noted that if mail delivery was reduced to only three days a week, the U.S. would be the only developed country in the world not to have daily mail delivery. There were a variety of analyses on how detrimental three-day per week mail delivery would be on our economy.
In hearings held with the Postmaster General he has testified that if special funding is not approved, postal rates for first class mail would have to be doubled and the rates for business and advertising mail increased even further. These increases would be necessary to fund the pension and retiree healthcare benefits of U.S.P.S. workers.
On The Day Before The Vote:
A lobbyist from the Direct Mail Marketing Association visits your office. He presents you with a well-researched report that projects that if the special funding bill is not passed, that over 200,000 workers will be laid off by companies relying on affordable direct mail to advertise and sell their products. His report projects that the loss in tax revenue from these companies and income taxes from the laid-off employees will be more than the $100 billion requested by the U.S.P.S. The lobbyist then offers a substantial campaign contribution in exchange for your favorable vote on the bill.
On the afternoon preceding the vote, another lobbyist from the National Assocaition of Manufacturers visits your office. He presents you with another analysis of what might happen if the proposed bill is not passed. His report also projects that seversal hundred thousand Americans will lose their jobs if the bill is not passed. He offers an even more generous campaign contribution in exchange for your favorable vote on the bill.
On The Morning Of The Vote:
Staffers from your party leadership report that finding "funding" from reductions in other government departments or programs will be very difficult. The only ones that seem to be available for cuts involve cuts to education programs, the funding for national infrastructure improvement projects, funds for controlling illegal immigration, and the funding for military retirees.
Your party Whip e-mails you with instructions on how to vote, including the thinly-veiled threat that your failure to cooperate will be considered in the distribution of party-provided campaign funds and future committee assignments.
The Vote:
OK, given all of the above information, how do you vote on the question of providing $100 billion in additional funding for the U.S.P.S....
Yea or Nay??
The request for additional funding for the U.S.P.S. is absolutely certain to happen. The rest of my scenario is based on how we all know Washington really operates. I doubt that anyone would argue that not to be the case. So the question remains...how would you vote?
This news sets up what might be a very real decision which will be required of the members of Congress. Assume you are a member of Congress. I'll set up some conditions which very probably would precede a vote on a question of increased and ongoing funding of the U.S.P.S. At the end, I'll ask how you might vote.
Background:
The major financial problem of the U.S.P.S. is the generous retirement and healthcare benefits granted to its employees over the years. Their retirement plans were the result of negotiations with the postal workers union. The number of employees who are projected to retire from the postal service in the next decade or so will result in crushing increases in costs to U.S.P.S.
The U.S.P.S. is a government-owned corporation and as such cannot declare bankruptcy in an attempt to seek bankruptcy court protection in re-negotiating debts, including pension obligations. The debts of the U.S.P.S. are essentially obligations of the U.S. government.
The U.S.P.S. lost over $8 billion in 2011. Those losses are expected to increase exponentially in future years as an increasing number of employees reach retirement age.
Situation Preceding A Vote For "Special Funding" For The U.S.P.S.
The U.S.P.S. has asked for annual special funding by the Congress amounting to $100 billion for the 2013-2023 period.
In 2012 the Congress passed "cut, cap and balance" legislation. Consequently, the only way the U.S.P.S. request can be funded is by immediate and concurrent cuts in the budgets of other government departments or programs.
In the news coverage preceding the scheduled vote, economists and the media have noted that if mail delivery was reduced to only three days a week, the U.S. would be the only developed country in the world not to have daily mail delivery. There were a variety of analyses on how detrimental three-day per week mail delivery would be on our economy.
In hearings held with the Postmaster General he has testified that if special funding is not approved, postal rates for first class mail would have to be doubled and the rates for business and advertising mail increased even further. These increases would be necessary to fund the pension and retiree healthcare benefits of U.S.P.S. workers.
On The Day Before The Vote:
A lobbyist from the Direct Mail Marketing Association visits your office. He presents you with a well-researched report that projects that if the special funding bill is not passed, that over 200,000 workers will be laid off by companies relying on affordable direct mail to advertise and sell their products. His report projects that the loss in tax revenue from these companies and income taxes from the laid-off employees will be more than the $100 billion requested by the U.S.P.S. The lobbyist then offers a substantial campaign contribution in exchange for your favorable vote on the bill.
On the afternoon preceding the vote, another lobbyist from the National Assocaition of Manufacturers visits your office. He presents you with another analysis of what might happen if the proposed bill is not passed. His report also projects that seversal hundred thousand Americans will lose their jobs if the bill is not passed. He offers an even more generous campaign contribution in exchange for your favorable vote on the bill.
On The Morning Of The Vote:
Staffers from your party leadership report that finding "funding" from reductions in other government departments or programs will be very difficult. The only ones that seem to be available for cuts involve cuts to education programs, the funding for national infrastructure improvement projects, funds for controlling illegal immigration, and the funding for military retirees.
Your party Whip e-mails you with instructions on how to vote, including the thinly-veiled threat that your failure to cooperate will be considered in the distribution of party-provided campaign funds and future committee assignments.
The Vote:
OK, given all of the above information, how do you vote on the question of providing $100 billion in additional funding for the U.S.P.S....
Yea or Nay??
The request for additional funding for the U.S.P.S. is absolutely certain to happen. The rest of my scenario is based on how we all know Washington really operates. I doubt that anyone would argue that not to be the case. So the question remains...how would you vote?