Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

USPS: Onerous requirement must be lifted

Letter by Richard L Baird, Tacoma on Feb. 28, 2012 at 1:02 pm with 10 Comments »
February 28, 2012 1:02 pm

Re: “Is the next step privatizing the postal service?” (blog.thenewstribune.com/letters).

While reading the comments on the letter, it became obvious to me that some people think the U.S. Postal Service is funded by taxes. The USPS is funded solely by the sale of postage and other postal products.

The demise of the USPS would have no impact on the federal budget but would have a very unpleasant impact on those wishing to send a communication. It would be particularly unpleasant if the sender or recipient lived in a rural area.

The founders of our nation realized that communication is the glue that binds a society and had the foresight to provide for the establishment of a post office. The post office they established set rates that leveled the playing field for everyone, regardless of where they live. The postage for a letter from Key West, Fla., to Nome, Alaska, is the same as from Staten Island to Brooklyn, N.Y.

The USPS was forced by the George W. Bush administration to prepay 75 years of retiree health benefits by 2016. Money that would cover operating expenses is being diverted, needlessly, to this end. If United Parcel Service or FedEx had this same onerous requirement, they would likely be filing for bankruptcy.

If S. 1853 and H.R. 3591, currently languishing in Congress, were to be passed, this requirement would be lifted, and the USPS could continue to deliver to every address in the country and to all military personnel around the world at a reasonable price and with a level of security unmatched by UPS and FedEx.

Leave a comment Comments → 10
  1. concernedtacoma7 says:

    2 of 3 co-sponsors were democrats.

    The admin did not “force” anything.

    Votes: Dec 8, 2006: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.
    Dec 9, 2006: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

  2. The people on that ridiculous retirement plan haven’t even been born yet.

  3. CT7 – show you sources and references.

  4. concernedtacoma7 says:

    X- google the bill. Not the biggest challenge, not my requirement to do simple research on your behalf.

    Don’t be so lazy in the future if you desire gentlemanly dialogue.

  5. Hey concerned…, If that’s going to be YOUR stock answer whenever anyone calls you out for not providing any references or proofs with your so-called facts, then don’t you EVER demand or even ask anyone else on these blogs to prove their facts.

    Fair enough?

  6. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Grow up muck. I stated a fact, easily checked if someone threw a BS flag by anyone with 1/2 a brain.

    He just didn’t like the FACT. Typical lib tactic on this board to cry about links when they don’t like the FACT. Once posted, you and your ilk ignore the FACT, and shift the topic.


  7. concerned…, Adding insults to your comments to try to justify your refusal to provide proof for your facts does only proves that if there is anyone who needs to grow-up it is you. Yours is a typical immature reaction.

  8. concerned…, here is just a reminder from another thread that we have broached this issue with you before. Several times in fact.

    FEB. 28, 2012 AT 9:25 AM
    xring “To all – notice how we are suppose to accept CT7 pontifications because he made them, but the rest of us must prove our positions with suitable references?”

    I have also made that same observation and comment from time to time. It is routine for concerned to demand proof but not provide it himself.

    sccoter6139, “concerned, you should read your own links a bit more before making absurd assumptions.”

    Good catch! Kind of disappointing that the rare time he does provide a ref, it turns out to be false.

    Read more here: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2012/02/24/next-step-privatizing-the-post-office/#storylink=cpy

  9. concernedtacoma7 wrote above @ FEB. 28, 2012 AT 10:25 PM

    “X- google the bill. Not the biggest challenge, not my requirement to do simple research on your behalf.”

    “Don’t be so lazy in the future if you desire gentlemanly dialogue.”


    concerned… You are HARDLY the one to be lecturing ANYONE about “gentlemanly dialogue.” Given your rude and INSULTING comments on this thread.

    BTW, when YOU state something YOU claim is a FACT, it is YOUR responsibility to PROVE that FACT when you are called on it. Save all of us some time, and withhold the rudeness and immature commentary, by just adding the link when you originally post your alleged facts. That’s pretty easy to do, right?

    All I’m saying is: Don’t be so lazy in the future if you desire gentlemanly dialogue.

  10. RICKBAIRD says:

    To concernedtacoma7: The Bush administration DID force the inclusion of this poison pill. Bush promised to veto the much needed bill if it did not include the poison pill requiring the aggressive pre-funding of retiree health benefits.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0