By editorial board • 

There’s no excuse for attack targeting the Postal Service

My. How far we have fallen.

Our nation’s first postmaster general was founding father Benjamin Franklin, a scientist, inventor, statesman, writer and philosopher of global renown. Our latest is business mogul Louis DeJoy, whose main qualifications seem to be unswerving loyalty to the president and infusion of millions into the president’s campaign revenue.

On June 21, 2018, President Trump proposed a sweeping reorganization designed to set the stage for privatization of the U.S. Postal Service. He said it would better position the venerable agency, which actually predates American nationhood, to compete with rivals like Amazon and Federal Express in the free market, sans government subsidy.

The following May, he appointed LeJoy with a mandate to undermine vote-by-mail, which he termed a major impediment to his own re-election and that of like-minded Republicans. He has  been relentlessly branding mail balloting as an invitation to fraud. That’s led him to muse about delaying the November election or, more recently, tossing out the results and running it all over  again — something we never resorted to in the Civil War, Spanish Flu Pandemic, Great Depression, World Wars I and II or any other crisis.

The truth is:

1) There’s no reason to expect any agency performing a vital national service to be self-supporting. We don’t expect it of the Departments of Health, Housing, Transportation, Revenue and Defense. So would we expect it of the Postal Service?

Privatization is no more justified for the Postal Service than for Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare or other targets being singled out lately by political forces enamored of unfettered capitalism.

2) We have been voting safely and securely by mail since it was introduced to the Armed Forces during the Civil War. And thanks to the growing popularity of absentee balloting in recent decades, and of  the universal mail balloting pioneered by Oregon more than 20 years ago, almost one quarter of all ballots were cast by mail in the 2016 presidential election.

Whole graveyards have voted in polling place elections. So what makes them safer than mail-ballot elections, which feature so many safeguards they have proven virtually scandal-free?

We trust the mail for passports, prescriptions, tax returns, tax refunds, Social Security checks, paychecks, bill payments and all manner of other sensitive documents. Why not ballots subject to rigorous signature and registration status validation?

We do recognize the fear for Republicans. In a recent poll, 62% of Joe Biden backers said they planned to vote by mail, compared to just 24% percent of Donald Trump supporters. And the figures probably wouldn’t look much different down-ballot.

However, part of that has to be due to Trump’s undermining of mail balloting, even though he and his family have been relying on it themselves for many years. And the rest of the disparity doesn’t justify the wave of voter suppression efforts Republicans have been mounting around the country of late.

Republicans skew more white, male, rural and aged, Democrats more ethnic, female, urban and youthful. And it’s no secret which group turns out more faithfully in traditional polling-place elections.

But our nation was founded on the premise that democracy works best when everyone, everywhere, without regard to color, gender, geography, age or status, can be induced to participate. That makes it our moral duty to extend the voting franchise to everyone with a legal stake in the outcome.

What’s more, we are currently caught in the grips of a pandemic that has struck out nation with particular vehemence. Forcing voters to stand in long lines for a chance to squeeze into packed polling places is requiring them to risk their very lives. There is absolutely no reason for that when a tried and true alternative is at hand.

President Trump recently told Fox and Friends his underlying motive was simply to “make the Postal Service great again.” If so, he could best accomplish that by simply granting it better funding and getting out of the way. If he can’t carry the day with all Americans getting a fair opportunity to vote, then maybe his time has come and gone.

Comments

Don Dix

USPS is losing money each year, but not because Amazon, Fed Ex, or UPS are undercutting the service. The losses can be directly attributed to the 2006 congressional rule that the PO pay mandatory retirement health benefits through 2056 (with rolling 15-year amortization periods after 2041).

For example: In 2016, the USPS had its fifth straight annual operating loss, in the amount of $5.6 billion, of which $5.8 billion was the accrual of unpaid mandatory retiree health payments.

Notice that without the mandatory health payments, the operating loss would have become a plus. And therein lies the gremlin. To claim that the PO losses are anything but a foolish, mandatory requirement is a political based strategy, and simply ignores reality.

tagup

Thank you Don...you are absolutely correct. The other concern with “privatization” of the USPO is that more remote locations, currently served, will be deemed unprofitable and service will be discontinued. This actually happened in Alaska a number of years ago when Fed Ex pulled out and left warehouses full of undelivered parcels that were ultimately delivered by the postal service.

msantone

Yes, Good point Don. 109th Congress both chambers controlled by Republicans and Bush was President. Privatization has been on the Rs agenda for a long time. The the United States Postal Service (USPS) is a national service. It is a historic service which benefits all of us. What Congress and the President mistakes make, they can correct. USPS is necessary.

Don Dix

I just read that PolitiFact has rated 'half-true' the claim that the mandatory health retirement benefit payments cause the USPS to bleed money. Now I don't trust Politifact either.

So, part of these payments ($5B+ yearly), in some cases, are quite possibly for an employee that may not have been hired yet. That's just stupid from any angle or politcal spin! How in the hell are any of these ass-clowns still making rules and laws for the rest of us? Just another valid reason for congressional term limits, in my opinion!

Hibb

One of the major problems with understanding the postal service is to distinguish it from that of Social Security that boomers are now receiving... Many people think that USPS is an institution that must be saved at all costs, but the truth is that it is not Social Security and the government did not make promises to USPS like they did to the SSA.

Personally I think that our mail system is antiquated and needs to be phased out. Now I know that a lot heads with silver hair will be wagging about this, but we can do better for our delivery service and save the planet in the process by quitting the act of cutting down trees for paper products for newspapers, magazines, and junk mailings and go to a strictly digital platform. How much easier could that be and look at the potential savings to boot!

So please quit lamenting the potential loss of a bloated system that in the real world where competition is key, they would of been in bankruptcy court long ago. Pensions, mismanagement, and cost over-runs are the downfall of USPS and it is time that we let the pieces fall where they may and move on to something better. It is what Ben Franklin would of suggested, as he was all about saving the money!

A New Generation

I have to take issue with the two points: Remember when the same administration wanted to privitize Social Security ~ before the crash of 2008? Now THAT would have been a disaster and the bankruptcy of the nation.
#2: " save the planet in the process by quitting the act of cutting down trees for paper products for newspapers, magazines, and junk mailings". Have you ever received an Amazon smile package that was oversized in the extreme, as in a toothbrush that comes in a shoe box (or larger)? or a piece of hardware that comes in a box big enough to bury your dog? It seems to be the norm at Amazon anyway to way oversize most packaging. I wonder what that is doing to the rainforest?
Digital is decimating the first two forms of print. Let the rest take care of itself. Besides, then we wouldn't have this wonderful small town newspaper to air our opinion to, would we?

Hibb

A New Generation: The NR is way ahead of you, as they are already digital and that is what I prefer to newsprint. I grew up reading the paper, but I am not so old that I cannot also enjoy it and its content on a digital platform.

msantone

It may seem everyone everywhere has digital access when you see a homeless person tapping away on the cell phone, but there a many many Americans who do not have digital access or have the wealth to buy it. And many who live out of digital range. Just as privatizing will close down rural delivery, digitization will further disenfranchise the poor and those in remote rural areas. The Postal Service is a Service not a business.

Don Dix

msantone -- Some would have us believe the 2006 USPS bill was solely a republican effort and passed by the majority. Not true, or even close to reality.

The fact that the congress that passed the USPS bill was R controlled made not a whit of difference in it's inception or in the outcome. In the house, the bill was sponsored by 2 Rs and 2 Ds, and approved with no objection by voice vote. Sens. Susan Collins (R) and Tom Carper (D) co-authored the senate version, and was passed unanimously.

Most people likely don't realize this bill was a bi-partisan effort, completely opposite what the 'talking heads' are now spewing.

Hibb

msantone: The problem with your example is that the poor, destitute, homeless person is that they are already disenfranchised merely by their economic status and their marginalization is a factor that privatization will not correct anymore than the current system does.

As for rural routes being endangered if USPS is privatized... What ever made you think that an overhauled USPS might eliminate rural delivery and require those clients to have a PO Box? Or for that matter, why is it that the prognosticators on this subject automatically jump to the conclusion that privatization will automatically lead to no rural delivery?

The history of USPS and it's relationships with financial woes, having to call on Congress when they need money, and being answerable to the Commander and chief - whoever he or she may be. In the near future a check will be cut to USPS, just as it always is. And as long as both the House and the Senate do not agree to some sort of privatization legislation, no one - not even Trump - cannot change that.

Don


The 91st Congress was controlled by the Democrats. The Democrats passed the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. President Nixon signed the act into law. The Post Office is no longer a part of the Cabinet. Since 1970 the Post office is a self-supporting government enterprise.

"The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 was a law passed by the United States Congress that abolished the then United States Post Office Department, which was a part of the cabinet, and created the United States Postal Service, a corporation-like independent agency with an official monopoly on the delivery of mail in the United States. President Richard Nixon signed the Act in law on August 12, 1970.
The legislation was a direct outcome of the U.S. postal strike of 1970."

"The first paragraph of the Act reads:

The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people.

The Postal Reorganization Act (at 39 USC 410(c)(2)) exempts the USPS from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure of "information of a commercial nature, including trade secrets, whether or not obtained from a person outside the Postal Service, which under good business practice would not be publicly disclosed".

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/91/hr17070/summary

Hibb

Don: Thanks! That was very educational...

msantone

hibb. To receive Social Security via digital delivery you must have a bank account. Unfortunately, banks have criteria like having to have a certain amount of money, which exclude many folks from getting an account. Social Security mails a check, sometimes to a group home, a rundown shack or general delivery.

The thing about privatization is someone needs a profit. If a rural route or profit center is not selling, not carrying their weight they are eliminated. Office closed. We are seeing it play out here, JC Penny has been here in Mac for a long while. Times are tough. Thing to do close down. Go bankrupt and screw those who you own money. Making the Postal Service a profit center instead of what Don nicely pointed out "The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people." Privatization of an valuable service to the people is a mistake.

Treehouse

"The fact that the congress that passed the USPS bill was R controlled made not a whit of difference in it's inception or in the outcome."

This just isn't true at all. For better or for worse the majority in the House comes with considerable power and authority that even a unified minority cannot overcome within the rules. There's no cloture rules or super majority requirements as there are in the Senate. And perhaps most importantly for legislation like this, the majority sets the agenda, schedules all hearings and debate, including time limits and scheduling of votes. In the case of this legislation key minority amendments were not allowed or given a vote, scheduling was accelerated, and most members, including members in the majority voted on the bill with almost no idea what it contained. So the House bills authors and the committee authors of the key amendments controlled the final package and the Speaker rammed it through.

Perhaps many of the members who should have known better should have simply abstained or voted no. But sadly an awful lot of legislation is pushed through in this way. Some of it very bad. Most House members and certainly the general public never learned what was in the bill until after it had been signed into law. They never got the chance.

Don Dix

When a Senate bill is co-sponsored by both sides of the isle and every member votes for it, that would be bipartisan and unanimous. Biden, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Wyden -- all of them voted yea (and approved without objection).

When a fact is an awkward fit to the present agenda, politicians tend to deflect, change the subject, and/or claim 'out of context' (or just plain lie). Is that what is going on here?

As for - 'Most House members and certainly the general public never learned what was in the bill until after it had been signed into law. They never got the chance.'
If that's the way bills are handled in the house, we need a better and a more transparent system. Wouldn't that be like Speaker Pelosi saying, 'We have to pass this bill (ACA) to know what is in it (2010)'?

Treehouse

"If that's the way bills are handled in the house..."

It is. Four hundred and thirty five members only a couple of dozen of whom have enough staff and office space to dig through and pick apart complex legislation guiding the conduct of the government of a nation as complex and diverse as the United States. Two year terms driven by vast sums of dark money spending mean incumbents spend as little as three days each week in the capitol, returning home to campaign, raise money, and meet with an ever growing constituency numbering on average over 700,000 citizens, more than three times what it was a century ago.

Having taught ourselves to despise and mistrust our own elected Representatives we have in turn given them a job that simply can't be done thus ensuring that one way or another they will earn that mistrust.

tagup

Don’t worry tree...there are plenty of unbiased & patriotic lobbyists happy to write the text and interpret the implications for our reps....(sarcasm intended)....

Don Dix

Treehouse -- Congress is littered with attention whores whose main objective seems to get noticed and appear on some news video. How many times just this year have Pelosi, Schumer, McConnel, Cortez, Graham, Schiff, etc. been filmed spouting BS of one sort or another? And be sure there will be some lame-ass excuses for those responsible for the financial troubles at the USPS, even though it's clearly evident that the 2006 requirement is tantamount (and who is responsible).

140 days is the normal work year for Congress (56% of average American 250 day work year). Being in session for under 4 months of the year is more of a part-time job than actually working for a living (less than 3 days average per week). $200K annually, with exorbitant benefits, and a four day weekend (and lobbyists usually write the bills) -- should be plenty of time (225 days) to 'meet with all those constituents', wouldn't you say?

If one desires 'change', it's obvious Congress should be where it begins!

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable