Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, and the alternative is Americans going broke and not being able to save enough for retirement. If they can't pay, the state will ultimately pay. Either way, America seems to be going broke all the same. That's what happens when you're no longer the most competitive game in town, and cherish mediocrity. Unions didn't destroy the k-12 system or blow up the deficit.
WASHINGTON — The Postal Service, faced with continuing financial losses because of a drop in mail volume, expects to default for the first time on its annual payment for future retiree health benefits.
The $5.5 billion payment, which was deferred from the 2011 fiscal year, is due Aug. 1. The Postal Service is also scheduled to make a $5.6 billion payment for 2012 in September. A spokesman for the agency said that barring intervention from Congress, it would default on both payments.
While it's certainly true that the Post Office has been dealing with a decrease in mail volume for quite some time now, they would probably be doing OK, or at least much better, if it weren't for the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. That law requires the Post Office to prepay the health benefits fund for USPS retirees for the next 75 years, to the tune of approximately $5.5 billion every year.
Quote:
“This is an artificial crisis created by the Congressional mandate that the U.S.P.S., alone among all agencies or companies, pre-fund its future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years,” said Fredric Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers. “This unaffordable burden accounts for 85 percent of all the Postal Service’s red ink. If lawmakers fix the problem they created, the sharp cuts in service they want to impose on Americans and small businesses would not be necessary.”
And what has Congress done to fix this?
Quote:
The Senate approved a bill in April that would, among other things, stretch out payments that the agency has to make into its health care fund for future retirees over 40 years, lowering the annual payment to about $2.5 billion. The Senate bill would also return $11 billion that the Postal Service overpaid into one of its pension funds.
But the House has not taken up its version of the measure, and it is not likely to come up for a vote before lawmakers break for the August recess. That means that any changes in the agency could be delayed until a lame-duck session of Congress after the November elections or even until next year.
While it's certainly true that the Post Office has been dealing with a decrease in mail volume for quite some time now, they would probably be doing OK, or at least much better, if it weren't for the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. That law requires the Post Office to prepay the health benefits fund for USPS retirees for the next 75 years, to the tune of approximately $5.5 billion every year.
And what has Congress done to fix this?
Right.
The truth is this IS an artificial crisis created by congress. Why do people ignore this fact?
Yes, and the alternative is Americans going broke and not being able to save enough for retirement. If they can't pay, the state will ultimately pay. Either way, America seems to be going broke all the same. That's what happens when you're no longer the most competitive game in town, and cherish mediocrity. Unions didn't destroy the k-12 system or blow up the deficit.
The United States wasn't really "the most competitive game in town". It slowly grew fat and lazy, being accustomed to the time when everybody else's industrial plant was either in ruins or in chains. Eventually, "the chickens came home to roost".
Some sectors will, or already have, adjusted successfully; same rule applies to individuals. And there always have been, and always will be, those who are not too intensely-motivated, and thosse for whom "top dollar" isn't the ultimate goal. One way or another, most of us will get by.
Ban Unions, sure thing. We might as well just give it all to the the CEO's and exec's.
Just maybe you are overlooking something about unions. While unions were fighting for better wages and benefits for it's members the non-union and management employees were raking in the goodies too. If a company gave a decent salary and benefits to a hourly worker they had to do better for their non-union employees. The same was true of people working without unions. To compete for good employes non-union companies had to offer comparable union wages and benefits to attract workers.
Since the 1970 unions have been on the decline. Companies like Ben and Jerry's ice cream once modeled a ratio of salaries top to bottom as 7:1. Today most businesses have a 430:1 wage ratio from top to bottom. The wealth of the US has transferred to the top 1%. More importantly the US is going down with a real estate market that will never recover and growing unemployment. Many American citizens are now living as though they were in a third world country without a job, money, food, or housing. Those Americans who are working are in debt up to their eyeballs with college loans, mortgages, car payments, and let us not forget medical debt.
When you finally have no more unions how do you think the non-union and management people will do? Do you think corporations will be satisfied? Once union workers and unions are gone. You are next.
Companies like Ben and Jerry's ice cream once modeled a ratio of salaries top to bottom as 7:1. Today most businesses have a 430:1 wage ratio from top to bottom.
Ben and Jerry's can afford to do this because their clientele consiss primarily of young, upscale, generally-single (and very pseudo-liberal) people who can afford to slave their conscience by spending a little extra for an indulgence that fits their fantasies of how things ought to be, rather than how they really are.
Unions today are confined to a handful of very heavy industries (oil and chemicals, electric utilities, railroads) where the amount of capital invested per worker is very large, AND where the potential for very expensive accidents allows the employer to demand, and get, the most safety-conscious labor force available, in return for higher pay.
The rest of us have to live in the real world (seeking the lowest price; can you spell W-A-L-M-A-R-T, boys and girls) Any attempt to legislate those "wage rations" in Lefty fantasies into the law of the land will merely drive more jobs overseas. It's time to grow up!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
