Postal Service anticipates $6 billion year-end loss

[sonomak]

Source: Washington Post

The U.S. Postal Service is anticipating a $6 billion loss for the fiscal year that ended Thursday, as mail volume continued its precipitous decline.

Letter carriers delivered about 170 billion pieces of mail in fiscal 2010, down by 7 billion pieces from 2009, Postmaster General John E. Potter said Thursday. The losses add to $3.8 billion in losses in 2009. But preliminary figures show that the Postal Service earned about $68 billion in revenues in fiscal 2010, on par with last year...

The bad numbers cap a difficult week for the Postal Service, which failed to earn regulator approval to raise stamp prices in January by 2 cents. Lawmakers also declined to grant a reprieve from a $5.5 billion payment to prefund USPS retiree health benefits.

Despite the tough news, Potter said USPS remains committed to seeking Congressional approval to cut Saturday mail delivery and close unprofitable post offices.

Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/postal_service_forecasts_6_bil.html

[onehandle]

1. Just raise the rate by 25 cents and get ahead of this.

Under a buck to send a physical letter from coast to coast and beyond?

Bargain.

[Orrex]

4. Damn straight.

UPS and FedEx are touted as viable alternatives, but in practice I don't see how they could be. If they were swamped with the volume of conventional mail that the USPS processes every day of the year, I'm confident that those two companies would raise their shipping rates considerably.

Your subject line says it all.

:thumbsup:

[Dover]

6. Perhaps the private mail companies are lobbying hard to elimate this competition

USPS surely forces them to keep their own rates down/competitive.

[onehandle]

8. It's the junk mail industry that lobbies to prevent rate hikes.

I have worked in the direct mail industry. Every time there was even a threat of a rate hike, the huge companies that handle bulk mail for them would get in Washington's face instantly.

[Dover]

12. Yes, I'm sure you're right. But I also think that the private mail co.'s want to control the rates.

And to do that they need to eliminate their government competitor. And I'm sure they're happy whenever USPS raises its rates.

[MrsCorleone]

58. Ditto. Eliminating or privatizing the USPS would mean a profit bonanza at the public's expense.

Also, the USPS is forced to fully fund their pension obligations, so that the money is there when theIr employees retire. This is unlike those corporations that can skip out on their pensioners when they go belly up. Unfortunately, the USPS overpaid their pension obligations by billions in '09 or '10, which is a factor in their current fiscal shortfall. I hope that the peeps are smart enough to see through this and not allow the general sentiment to turn in favor of privatizing the Peoples' Postal Service.

[melm00se]

73. zero chance in eliminating

the USPS short of a Constitutional amendment.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To...establish post offices and post roads;

as to the pension issue: is it so bad that they fully fund their pension fund?

[MrsCorleone]

83. I love that theIr pensions are fully funded every year. It's the recent overfunding, however,

that has given the media, and those who want to hurt the USPS "image", the false talking point that the USPS is not a viable institution.

Thanks for pointing out Article I/Sec8. I will go take a closer look. :hi:

[rrneck]

52. Bingo. nt

[Imajika]

16. Totally agree...

The USPS is actually an amazingly good deal. Maybe raise the cost to .99 cents and do whatever restructuring is necessary to get ahead of the e-commerce future.

[Hoyt]

Exactly. In fact a 5 cent per piece increase would make them "profitable".

Right wingers always point to the fact that the PO loses money. It's a deal, and the loss is artificial. Let folks pay $10 to UPS or FedEx to mail a letter across country and see how they like that.

Nowadays, the PO's package delivery is very good too.

[Cronus Protagonist]

28. That will speed the loss of customers

Competition is from online. Why pay 44 cents to pay a bill when you can do it for free? Increasing the rates will speed the exodus of the premium customers. I send cards at Christmas. Increase the costs and I'll never send a card ever again.

[onehandle]

35. The mail a person personally sends is a fraction of all mail.

Business rates are tied to the first class rate. That's where the traffic and the money is. The postal service wouldn't miss you, and in fact would probably do better overall if the individuals were out of the equation all together.

And 44 cents... 69 cents as I proposed is still a bargain.

Myself, outside Christmas card season, I maybe use 2 or 3 stamps a year at the most. If I can do it online, I do it online.

[cheneyschernobyl]

45. Back when stamps were 14 cents...

(doesn't seem that long ago to me)...I thought they should just change the price to 25 or 50 cents. It makes the math a lot easier, and we don't have to deal with the nonsense of price increases every 1-2 years. Of course, in order to agree to such a large price increase, we get something out of the deal as well...like a guarantee that there will be no price increases for any post office related services for a set number of years (at least 10 years).

Just my 2 cents

[marlakay]

94. I agree who sends out hardly any mail anymore?

I do all my bills except a rare few online. And a few snail mail cards per year. Maybe they could charge less for business but the rest of us 25 cents more.

[Dover]

2. Many in government (particularly, but not exclusively, on the right) want to privatize the USPS.

Or eliminate it in favor of private mail companies in search of a
"for profit" model that has little to do with the public good.
USPS forces the private mail companies to keep their own rates very low/competitive.

And if they are successful in elimating USPS then you can count on rates REALLY jumping.

But, as always, there's plenty of OUR money available for illegal invasions of other countries or to bail out private banks, Wall St. etc.

[MrsCorleone]

59. Yep. It's all about profit for a few at the expense of the People.

I love the USPS for my biz. Not only is the postal service so damned affordable, but my business insurer will only fully insure packages that are sent through USPS. After all, they run a pretty tight ship in terms of reliability and security. I have a $5000 deductible if an item is lost through one of those "private" shippers. My insurer has done the the math and they've determined that the USPS has so few losses, making them a good risk. The USPS rocks, IMO. The corporate shippers? Not so much.

I wish the greedy privatizers would just go away already. The looting is really starting to tick me off.

[hlthe2b]

3. Sadly, the post office may have lost their chance to get ahead of this

I don't think they have had any leadership that was especially forward thinking in more than a decade. I don't want to see the PO fail and hope that they bring in someone to help them plan for the future, given all the technological changes and competition from FEDX and UPS.

[Dover]

5. Were they ever intended to be a 'for profit' business? ...n/t

[hlthe2b]

25. No, but since the 70s at least expected to "break even"

I agree with tax dollar subsidizing of the PO. It should be a full governmental function and not this quasi private/governmental function. That said, I do think they need to look at ways to adapt to a changing environment.

[Occulus]

32. If we did that, Republicans would want to restrict what print matter could be sent.

You and I both know that if even a single tax dollar went into the USPS, the Republicans would want to ban all sorts of "inappropriate" materials from the mailstream.

That simply cannot be allowed to happen.

[defendandprotect]

75. Postal Service and employees have been under attack by right wing for decades ....

granted -- e-mail is replacing hand delivered mail --

However, junk mail continues to expand -- how many catalogues from businesses do

each of us get every day? PO should be freed from this junk!

And business should be forced to pay full rates for this crap their mailing.

Meanwhile, PO isn't competing with private delivery services on overnight mail,

packages -- large and small --

PO has been weakened, not strengthened for the sake of private interests.

[txlibdem]

7. Too bad they were too dumb to switch to electric vehicles

They would save a bundle on fuel and maintenance.

I guess short-sightedness and waste isn't just a hallmark of corporate America.

[Dover]

9. There's probably no incentive because I believe they see the USPS as a 'dead man walking'..n/t

[txlibdem]

27. Who are the 'they' you were talking about

I was referring to the USPS, who keep spending a huge amount on fossil fuels and maintenance costs on a fleet of vehicles that never drive over 30 or 40 miles a day.

I read a statistic that something like 80% of USPS vehicles could be electric. Electric vehicles cost only 1/5th as much to fuel as internal combustion vehicles. They require far less maintenance as well, just tires and wiper blades/fluid. Brakes even last far longer on EVs because they have regenerative braking (which doubles or triples brake life).

Added on edit:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
"An average LLV travels less than 5,000
miles per year; most are driven less than
25 miles per day."
(source: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/usps_cs.pdf)

The LLV is the ugly boxy vehicle that most mail carriers drive around to distribute the mail. Per the above link, the USPS owns 208,000 vehicles and 143,000 are those LLVs.

What would be more perfect for electric vehicles than that?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here is a link to a story on Autoblog Green regarding the USPS switching to electric vehicles:
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/25/usps-congress-moving-forward-with-electric-vehicle-plan/2#comments

[Scruffy1]

37. Actually the USPS is under a 15% green mandate

[mbperrin]

47. Actually, they have a long history of using electric vehicles.

http://www.usps.com/postalhistory/_pdf/ElectricVehicles.pdf

[placton]

10. we need to subsidize the Postal Service, fka - Post Office

[Turbineguy]

11. They should quit trying to run it like

a corporation and instead run it like a government entity.

[doc03]

13. Go to 5 days a week delivery, that would save an enormous

amount of money. They could close thousands of small offices. The rural township that I live in is covered by 6 post offices (5 rural routes and our own post office). I don't go to our post office more than a couple times a year for stamps that I could get from my route driver, pick up at the grocery store or another post office a few miles away.

[Dover]

14. I think ebay sellers might be very unhappy with that arrangement...lol

But seriously, there are a growing number of online businesses and catalog sales (as mentioned by another poster) who are dependent on low mail prices and flexible hours/service to keep them competitive and viable.

[Occulus]

33. So would people who get their prescriptions by mail. n/t

[emilyg]

18. Isn't their union

against this.?

[doc03]

20. I suppose it is. I worked in union shop and we sure gave up

plenty over the years to keep or plant running.

[emilyg]

23. My post lady told

me the union is really pressuring them. A five day delivery would help.

[w4rma]

15. Let it run a deficit. It was never intended to pay for itself. It was always intended to serve the

common good.

[Dover]

17. I think if people were actually asked to make a choice

of whether they are happy to subsidize USPS through taxes which everyone pays for or would rather pay a higher price for service only to a private company, most would choose to subsidize, to have across the board lower rates which includes government oversight/laws and fairness.

But surveys and other means of opinion collection/discussion on this or any topic is never fully explained or discussed with the public so they can make informed choices. We need numbers and comparisons and knowledge of repurcussions, etc. to make an informed choice. And that is a discussion that I don't think appeals to the competitive, corporate free market, for profit, heirarchical model.

[cbdo2007]

19. They would run a $50 Billion loss if it were up to me and everyone coudl cancel their junk mail.

Really that's the only thing keeping the USPS in business at all is junk mail that goes straight from my mailbox to the recycle container 2 feet away.

[doc03]

21. Ain't that the truth. So far this week I got an interest statement

from my bank, a couple credit card applications, a sale flyer from Cabela's, a couple insurance ads from AARP and about 10 political ads.

[Dover]

22. I'm surprised that online shopping hasn't seemed to have made a dent in the proliferation

of mail catalogs and 'junk'.

But otoh, a lot of online businesses depend on USPS and I'm sure that's increased their business too. It would be interesting to see a breakdown
of the USPS accounting to see where there is growth and what's keeping them in the hole. Someone above mentioned transportaion costs and moving to electric vehicles, for instance.

[cbdo2007]

26. I don't know understand all of that either. Even when I do get a catalog now

I just toss it without opening because it seems easier to just browse Eddie Bauer online while I'm at work or somethign that to sit with a catalog, that rarely even has good sale/clearance items, whereas they're easy to find online.

Also, with online shopping, I use to always go with USPS a few years ago for Ebay purchases and stuff, but then they raised their Priority Mail prices so they aren't much less than Flat Rate shipping, but the Flat Rate shipping are strange sizes - so now it's cheaper in a lot of cases to just use UPS.

Then again also, I buy a lot of rocks on Ebay (to tumble polish or just look at) so there's nothing like buying 20 pounds of rocks for $15 shipped. Really, that is amazing. From anywhere in the country in a Flat Rate Box. Amazing....so, you're right. It's complicated. :)

[westerebus]

29. What's keeping them in the hole is Congress.

The USPS is the only Federal Service that pre funds their employee retirement costs as far as I know. All that cash coming in lowers the deficit. Sure, it's only tens of billions, but over time it all adds up.

As to going to an all electric fleet for delivery, the cost is huge. The USPS has the largest civilian vehicle fleet on the planet. As they have to self fund, it would raise more problems for their cost structure.

It would be a great way to go green if the Congress wanted to fund it. American vehicles, American technology, American infrastructure, American jobs, so Congress what's the problem?

All the gas the USPS buys? Ya think!

[cbdo2007]

31. I'm sure the US Govt has negotiated a rate for gas at just 10% over retail :)

That would be interesting actually - who does the USPS buy gas from and what is the cost?

[westerebus]

39. From local vendors.

Who ever wants the business and gets the contract on a bid basis. Retail chains, co-op's, mom and pop, whom ever. Price? I have no idea.

[Scruffy1]

38. That "junk" is revenue

If you look at the real picture the USPS the operating loss was only 1.5 billion. No one else pre funds retirement like they do. First class mail peaked in 2006, but very little of the volume is
person to person first class mail.
The real problems the USPS faces is that USPS hasn't been allowed to compete aggressively with the
competition of UPS and FedEX because of the extreme lobbying efforts of the shipping lobby, and that they have given excessive discounts to large mailers for presorting and packaging mail. These discount are way above the costs of these services and allow for huge profits to be taken out of the system by low wage sweat shops.

[mwooldri]

24. I think the Post Office needs to diversify.

The Post Offices can do other things than just handle mail and packages. Surely some governmental functions can be done at the Post Office? How about banking? A nationwide USPS Bank, backed and guaranteed by the US Government - it makes sense to me because this national debt we have, the government can borrow from "We the People" instead of the Peoples' Republic of China. I know some offices do passports but what about drivers licenses? How about an assortment of greetings cards? A full line of stationery?

Alternatively if the real estate value of the Post Office is significant, how about asking places like Office Depot or Staples or a supermarket house the local Post Office and sell off the Post Office site? In some cases renting is cheaper than buying... so it has to be a case-by-case basis.

Food Delivery... we're in an Internet age, so instead of going to the store, you order your groceries online and sometime later, the mail carrier comes with your mail and your groceries. Including your perishables - Amazon.com can't do that (yet). Could also do this with prescriptions from a retail pharmacy (of course the US mail does the mail order pharmacy).

Rural Public Transport. The PostBus. Sure, the postal service would need to buy new vehicles for this but hey... along comes the mail, and your ride into town!

I'm sure there's lots of ways the postal service could diversify itself. It doesn't have to just think about carrying the mail and packages. It could do so much more.

Mark.

[DCBob]

30. Reduce the delivery days to 3 days a week... M-W-F..

problem solved.

[Kringle]

67. my suggestion, every other day home delivery

not much worse,
sometimes better,
than what we got now

[Abq_Sarah]

86. And a lot of jobs lost

[naaman fletcher]

34. It's a dying service.

People use email and fax now. Cut the junk mail, and deliver regular mail 3 days per week. the full service just isn't needed anymore.

[westerebus]

40. Fax a legal document to your local courthouse.

Like your deed of trust to prove you own a property and see how that goes for you?

Have you ever notarized an email?

How about proof of service?

Proof of delivery?

Do you really want your county to email you that you have jury duty?

You can't fax a bearer bond. Or email a Rolex in for repair.

But you can mail one if its registered and insured.

[naaman fletcher]

41. notice please,

I did not say kill the service altogether. You have listed the few things it is still needed for, which is probably at most 5% of the traffic.

[westerebus]

51. I know you didn't say kill it.

You may not be in need of the services provided by the USPS.

Cutting back delivery to five days a week is doable. Parcel post, priority mail, first class volumes can't be compressed into three days.

Fed-X and UPS deliver 15% to 20% of the volume from E-bay and AMZ. That figure is on the high side.

Less than 5% comes by freight.

That does not included person to person, business to person, on line purchases from business.

No USPS, no network for delivery at a reasonable cost.

Just like inter state highways.

The difference being your tax dollars don't pay for the USPS.

If you don't need their services, it cost you nothing.

:hi:

[Chulanowa]

36. What? A public service that operates at a loss?!?!

What a scoop!

Quick, let's not tell anyone that this "loss" actually goes straight back into the pockets of the public via employment!

[WestSeattle2]

42. I don't receive anything of importance from the US postal service -

all of my bills are received electronically, paid electronically, and all correspondence is done electronically. Contractual agreements are either digitally signed, or printed, signed, and PDF'd back to senders. Sad to say, I think the PO will be falling by the wayside in a few more years. It's a 20th century enterprise that a growing percentage of American's simply have no use for. The death knell will be when a critical mass of taxpayers realize that what we're doing is subsidizing private companies to inundate us with junk mail.

[DCBob]

44. About 90% of my mail is junk.. I worry sometimes my good mail gets mixed up with all the junk..

and I might accidently throw it away.

[MrsCorleone]

60. As a business owner, I rely heavily on the Postal Service. The private shippers would put me out of

business, both with their high package losses and high shipping costs. Every package lost by these private shippers is a negative reflection on my company, however unfair. My insurer has done the math. The USPS runs a tight ship. They are a good risk and worthy of 100% loss coverage. I have a high deductible on packages shipped by any other shipper. Needless to say, I love the USPS. They are good for business and good for the people.

I also love the DMV. Yes, that's right, I admit it. But, that's a whole 'nother topic for another day. :hi:

[DCBob]

69. The shipping part of the USPS makes sense.. the daily delivery of tons of junk mail does not.

imo.

[defendandprotect]

76. Right ... by my daily count, we receive about 5 pieces of legtimate mail every week ....

and about a pound or more of junk mail every day!

[MrsCorleone]

84. My insurer and I absolutely require that only USPS employees handle shipments for security purposes.

Using a second party to deliver is out of the question, and doing so would greatly affect my insurance costs.

If bulk mail annoys you so much that you are willIng to undermine an institution that was set up for the benefit of the people, here's a guy with a solution:

http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/bulkmailer/

I don't know the legalities of his methods, but this scallywag certainly has a sense of humor. :hi:

[DCBob]

85. Its not so much a personal gripe.. rather its a tremendous waste of money and resources..

especially for something that irritates the vast majority of people who "benefit" from this "service".

[westerebus]

49. Care to explain the subsidizing private companies?

[WestSeattle2]

53. Private companies could not afford to inundate us with junk mail

were it not for taxpayer subsidies supporting the PO. If they had to pay full freight for the crap they send, junk mail would be reduced dramatically.

There simply is not enough first-class mail to support the PO, so they rely on taxpayer bailouts and revenue from third-class postage - junk mail. Eliminate the taxpayer subsidies, and all of a sudden the cost of third-class postage would skyrocket.

[westerebus]

54. What tax payer subsidies?

The USPS is self funded. Go ahead and look. Find a bail out while you at it.

I'll wait.

[WestSeattle2]

55. It receives $100 million per year from Congress that goes into

the "Postal Service Fund" - where does Congress get the money to gift to the USPS? Santa Claus?

[Francesca9]

56. We no longer need the postal service

[westerebus]

65. You're from the UK?

How the Queen doing these days? And the Royal Mail?

[westerebus]

62. Which pays for Congress's mailings.

Sorry, fee for service provided. That covers a lot of mail. So if that's a funding problem for you, call your Congressman. They also get some money to provide delivery service for the blind.

But, no tax payer funding. Did you find any bail out yet?

[WestSeattle2]

57. Read up on USPS funding.....

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/losing-money-isnt-the-u-s-postal-services-only-problem/19379758/

They're allowed to borrow $15 billion from the Treasury - they've already borrowed $10 billion, and may borrow another $3 billion this year.

They're being subsidized by taxpayers.

[westerebus]

63. What part of "borrow" don't you understand?

Like any agency or service of the United States it may take out a loan from the Treasury Department.

The USPS pays back the loans with interest.

Sorry, not a subsidy.

[westerebus]

66. Sorry, I didn't mean to come off so snarky.

It's late. I just got home from work at 330am. Have a good day.

[WestSeattle2]

71. If it's not a sweet deal, at taxpayer's expense, why doesn't the

USPS borrow the money from the private market and pay market rates?

I borrowed $5,000 from my father at 2% interest to buy my first car, rather than borrow money from a bank and pay 8%. That was a subsidy from my father.

The USPS is being subsidized by taxpayers. You can call it whatever you want. Without taxpayer largess, the USPS would cease to exist. And rightfully so- it's a dinosaur.

[westerebus]

72. Congress makes the laws.

As to how the USPS operates and where its funding comes from. It's a regulated monopoly.

If the USPS were to seek funding in the market what's to say they couldn't get the same terms that say AIG or Goldman Sacks gets? Or have similar problems?

That's why the funding is done in house. It decreases the chance of problems and limits risk.

Your example is a case in point. You found a lender with a very good interest rate. You could have rejected the offer and paid a higher rate of interest which would have increased your cost. You at least had a choice as to where you can borrow. The USPS doesn't have that choice.

Now if you want to talk about taxpayer largess, how about PELL grants? Or public education beyond middle school. If someone can't read and do math by twelve why waste the money?

If it weren't for mandatory education, we could cut taxes in half. So how much should schools charge per student? Should they give a discount for A students and charge more for D students? Cost effectiveness and open markets and end all taxpayer largess.

Some how I don't think that's in the best interest of the taxpayer.

The USPS employs half a million taxpayers. You will find more diversity within the USPS than any where else. You will find more women and minorities in leadership roles than any where else. You will find more veterans employed than any where else. You will find more military reservists/NG that any where else. More volunteer firemen too.

They paid more in taxes than the ten largest corporations in America.

[defendandprotect]

77. PO isn't a "monopoly" any more than a "people's" government is a monopoly ....

or any of our other government agencies are "monopolies" --

[westerebus]

89. It has limited competition.

It remains a regulated monopoly as declared in the US Constitution to provide mail service.

Who has access to your mail box? The USPS.

Who has responsibility for the security and delivery of mail? The USPS.

Oldest law enforcement agency in the US? US Postal Inspectors.

Engagement in mail fraud? Federal felony offense.

Destruction of mail? Federal felony offense.

Theft of mail? Federal felony offense.

Trust me on this one.

What drives the Re pukes nuts is it's mandated by the Constitution.

Even the wing nuts at the Supreme Court can't change that. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

90. Again, neither our government nor any of its agencies ... including US Post Office ...

are monopolies -- nor is our military a monopoly because it has previously shunned

privatization and taking on mercenaries!


A monopoly is a PRIVATE CORPORATION ... not a government agency.

Believe me, FDR did not find the post office to be the enemy --

nor does the Sherman-Anti-Trust Act!

We need less weakening of the USPO in order to aid and abet private corporations --

and more competition by the USPO against the private mail services!


PS: Neither is the Supreme Court a "monopoly" -- !!!


:evilgrin:




---------------------


Who has access to your mail box? The USPS.

Who has responsibility for the security and delivery of mail? The USPS.

Oldest law enforcement agency in the US? US Postal Inspectors.

Engagement in mail fraud? Federal felony offense.

Destruction of mail? Federal felony offense.

Theft of mail? Federal felony offense.

Trust me on this one.

What drives the Re pukes nuts is it's mandated by the Constitution.

Even the wing nuts at the Supreme Court can't change that.

[boppers]

61. Wrong.

http://directmag.com/news/marketing_appropriations_bill_cuts/

[westerebus]

64. Ah, no.

Did you read the article you linked to?

Congress reimburses the USPS for the services it is mandated by Congress to provide.

[defendandprotect]

78. Reading .... $ "to help it recover some of the $ lost in previous years" ....

The USPS, which had no comment on the panel's recommendation, receives the money each year to recoup some of the costs associated with handling free and reduced-rate mail, and to help it recover some of the money it lost in previous years' processing. Items falling under the free and reduced-rate category include no-cost government mailings and the mailings of nonprofit charities, which by law, pay lower than regular rates.

[Kringle]

43. USPS wants to charter aircraft on its own, Obama refuses. .nt

[defendandprotect]

79. Right ... the USPO has been weakened and limited to aid/abet PRIVATE corporations ....

otherwise those corporations would find it much more difficult to compete with

the USPO!!

Granted -- e-mail is largely replacing "letters" carried --

and junk mail and catalogues are something all of US taxpayers are subsidizing!!

In my household, I estimate about one letter a day, actual mail -- and 1# of junk mail every day!

[robcon]

46. USPS should close all Post Offices

Sell stamps at a retailer or any retail outfit that wants to sell them. USPS should only own depots or warehouses for handling the volume. There is no need for a local Post Office, IMO.

[Stryguy]

68. Agreed

agreed

[defendandprotect]

80. US PO should actually compete with private delivery systems ....

that's why they've been weakened by the right wing -- to aid and abet private

delivery of mail!

[laureloak]

48. Charge more for junk mail than reg mail. That will reduce labor

costs and make a hellofalot of us happy.

[Francesca9]

50. We don't need the Postal Service anymore

[defendandprotect]

81. We certainly do need the US Postal Service .... remember there's a plug

at the end of the computer!

And, our postal service has been weakened over decades by right wing in order

to aid and abet private delivery services!

[Abq_Sarah]

87. You might not

But there are millions of us who do.

[Vinca]

70. One of the major reasons for the post office's financial difficulties

is the cost of providing health insurance to their employees and retirees. Like every other business and wannabe business in this country, they'd be much better off with single-payer.

[defendandprotect]

82. Another great example of our need for MEDICARE FOR ALL --

[Desperadoe]

93. Original Message

The Postal Service provides the same health plans to their employees that the rest of the federal employees get, partially funded by the agency and the rest funded by the employee deductions.

Retirees pay the full load and nothing is funded by the agency.

I should know since I retired in 2001 after 36 years of service.

[defendandprotect]

74. Postal Service and employees have been weakened in order to AID private mail

delivery systems --

[mac56]

88. Sell advertising on postage stamps.

I've been pushing for this for years.

They'd be in the profit column again in a matter of weeks.

[boppers]

91. Seen this before?

http://www.usps.com/postagesolutions/customizedpostage.htm

[mac56]

92. Yeah, but not what I had in mind.

I'm thinking Campbell's Soup, Tylenol, Dodge Intrepids, that sort of thing.

[marlakay]

95. It would work but I prefer flowers on my stamps nt