Postal Service Asks Congress ... Mother, May I?

The U.S. Postal service is in dire straits and wants to eliminate Saturday mail deliveries, among other cost savings initiatives.

And even if does all the wonderful things its leader says he would like to do, the U.S. Postal Service still will be losing billions of taxpayer dollars each year.

So does Congress say just go ahead and cut costs while we decide how to shut down the entire loss making operation in the future? And recognize that unless urgent and dramatic action is taken NOW, the Postal Service may be a potential debtor of some $45 billion by 2017?

No, Congress says nothing except 'not yet' and 'maybe never.' Oh well, it's only taxpayer money they're wasting -- er spending -- er investing. Aren't we taxpayers lucky to have such civic minded and fiscally responsible public servants?

Debt Mounting, Postal Service Asks to Alter Business Model has the updated story from the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress:

"Saying that its debt could reach $45 billion by 2017 if Congress does not act, the Postal Service on Wednesday called on lawmakers to give it the flexibility to change its business model to keep itself solvent.

During a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Patrick R. Donahoe, the postmaster general, asked Congress to give the Postal Service permission to run its own health plan for employees and retirees, modify a Congressional mandate that requires the agency to pay $5.5 billion a year into its fund for future employee health benefits, and end Saturday mail delivery. Mr. Donahoe said the changes would allow the agency to save $20 billion by 2016.

Ending Saturday mail delivery would save the Postal Service about $2 billion annually. The agency lost $15.9 billion in the last fiscal year and $1.3 billion in the first quarter of the current one.

But despite the outcry from some lawmakers after the announcement last week that the Postal Service would seek to end Saturday letter delivery, few senators questioned Mr. Donohoe on Wednesday about the agency’s proposal. Most of the questions came from rural lawmakers like Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, who said he was worried about the impact on rural communities of some other Postal Service changes, like the closing of mail-processing plants.

But Senators Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Carl Levin of Michigan, both Democrats, did question whether the agency had the legal authority to make the Saturday change. And both senators said they were not satisfied with the legal justification given by Mr. Donahoe, who said that the agency could end Saturday delivery without Congressional approval.

Several postal union representatives who testified also questioned the legal authority for the Postal Service to end six-day letter delivery, calling it an act of desperation.

“We can ill afford to eliminate Saturday delivery, which remains a critical strength and competitive strong point for the U.S.P.S,” said Jeanette Dwyer, the president of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association. . . . 

“To preserve our mission to provide secure, reliable and affordable universal delivery service – and do so without burdening the American taxpayer – the Postal Service needs urgent reform to its business model,” Mr. Donahoe said in his testimony.

Lawmakers did not say when they would begin work on postal legislation. The Senate passed a bill last year to overhaul the Postal Service, but a House bill never made it out of committee."

Summing Up

I must have been sleeping when President Obama talked about this postal service fiasco during his State of the Union Address last evening.

Or did he somehow forget to mention the post office as a sterling example of how well government works on behalf of citizen taxpayers while strengthening the middle class? And how well his allies, the public sector unions, are representing the best interests of the American citizen taxpayers as well? Or what a great job the Congress is doing to make sure not to waste taxpayer money?

And finally, who says we don't have a bipartisan Congress working closely on these important issues with the White House? They all seem to be joined at the hip on this one.

Oh well, it's only our money. Or at least it used to be. And it's money we don't have at that.

But as somebody important in politics recently said, "What difference does it make?"

Thanks. Bob.