Which would give you better mail service a private company the U.S. Postal Service?

Myself | Myself

[notpoliticallycorewrecked]

Okay enquiring minds want to know :

Which would you prefer a private company delivering your mail or the U.S.P.S.?

[Gordongekko909]

So, the Constitution presently gives Congress the exclusive right to establish post offices.

And the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the right to delegate that authority if a private agency can do it more efficiently. Smart guys, those drafters.

[muawiyah]

Look, anything that anybody does concerning a building USPS operates in ends up costing money somewhere. First of all, there's lawyers involved; then managers; then architects; then various kinds of bureaucrats. The more nonsense going on the higher this kind of overhead.

Believe me, it frequently makes sense for USPS to anticipate bad landlords and take action to eliminate cause for conflict.

[adamsjas]

Can the USPS do all that without tax subsidies? If not, you're *still* paying more for their services.


Yes, and they have. Last year (2005) was the first in three years they has a special appropriation from the Treasury, mostly for disaster preparedness.

in 2005 they got 503 million in appropriation (haven't spent it all yet), and earned 3,681 million from operations (delivering mail).


http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/fstatements_005.htm

They have been steadily paying down the debt to the Treasury since being converted to a quasi autonomous government corporation.

http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/fstatements_004.htm

.

page 44 of 66

,

Statements of changes in net capital

(Dollars in millions)

Year ended September 30, 2005, 2004 and 2003

blank	Capital Contributions of U.S. Government	Retained Earnings (Deficit) Since Reorganization	Total Net Capital (Deficiency)
Balance, September 30, 2002	$3,034	$(6,036)	$(3,002)
Net Income	-	3,868	3,868
Balance, September 30, 2003	3,034	(2,168)	(866)
Net Income	-	3,065	3,065
Balance, September 30, 2004	3,034	897	3,931
Net Income	-	1,445	1,445
Balance, September 30, 2005	$3,034	$2,342	$5,376
See accompanying notes to financial statements.

[babyface00]

It is an exclusive authority

I don't have time to look up the USSC rulings, but the private express statutes simply make it a statutory exclusive authority. That doesn't make it a Constitutionally exclusive authority.

[toddlintown]

"Where do they get their authorization to operate as corporations?

The answer is THE STATE WHERE THEY ARE INCORPORATED."

And now we have 50 states, 50 different regs, 50 different service costs structures, and 50 different corporations trying to move our mail.

No thanks.

[muawiyah]

Waiting on bidders.

[Gordongekko909]

The history of the USPS, and the Post Office Department before it, has been that first line supervisors are usually paid LESS THAN the top 25% of the bargaining unit.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why anyone would bother working for the USPS if the private sector will pay so much more for comparable skills.

[adamsjas]

So no, a flat rate is neither reasonable nor fair,

Yes it is.

It is their mission, as spelled out by Congress and the Constitution.

[Gordongekko909]

Look, anything that anybody does concerning a building USPS operates in ends up costing money somewhere. First of all, there's lawyers involved; then managers; then architects; then various kinds of bureaucrats. The more nonsense going on the higher this kind of overhead.

Arguments agogo in favor of privatization.

[Mr. Lucky]

You are aware that it's illeagal for private companies to deliver 1st Class Mail aren't you? You probably think the government has outlawed competing with the Post Office to protect consumers, right?

[Gordongekko909]

"Yes it is. It is their mission, as spelled out by Congress and the Constitution."

Flat postal rates are definitely not spelled out in the Constitution. And claiming that it's fair because the statutes that govern it say so is very dangerous logic. That's like saying that welfare, or the NEA, or Roe v. Wade is fair because the law says it is. "Fair" and "legal" aren't the same thing. If they were, it would be "unfair" to change any law, ever.

"Fair" in this context is "most efficient allocation of resources." Resources are most efficiently allocated by private enterprise, except in the case of a natural monopoly, which, as several astute FReepers have pointed out to me, postal delivery is NOT, because the USPS does not require tax subsidies to do its job. Therefore, privatize = fair.

[Gordongekko909]

Not that I disagree with you, but I'd like to see some authority for that.

[LegendHasIt]

A few years ago I would have said privatize. Last couple of years, I've been VERY pleased with the USPS. This rate increase is the first one that I don't mind paying.

I do a lot of mail order, coming and going. For small to medium sized packages the USPS has been, for me, faster, cheaper, more convenient and more error free than UPS or Airborne /DHL.

FedEx is still pretty fast and accurate, and their newer lower rate classes have made them more competitive than they used to be.

Never thought I'd say this, but the way things are now: USPS RULES!!!!!

And this from a guy who in general believes that private business will always do better than something the government runs

[Mr. Lucky]

Google on the term: "private express statutes".

Yet another example of the government fleecing the taxpayers to feather the beds of those with political muscle.

[Gordongekko909]

USPS has economy of scale on their side. You might find that if private agencies didn't have to compete with the USPS, they would be able to do the same quality work that the USPS does for even less.

[Gordongekko909]

Found the Daily Sentinel Star article. Interesting stuff.

[LegendHasIt]

Well, that has ALWAYS been the case hasn't it...?????

But why is it that in the last couple of years the USPS has gone from barely adequate at best, to my preferred shipper? UPS (for me) has had their speed and quality of service go down as their rates have gone WAY up, AND their economies of scale increase significantly.

Look, I'm not saying that private postal delivery can't compete, I'm just saying that I am happy with the USPS for the first time in the 25 years I have been shipping and receiving a lot of stuff, so they seem to be doing SOMETHING right. And as long as I remain convinced that they do the best job for me at the best price, I'm going to support them.

[Gordongekko909]

So... we have to wait for a downturn in the USPS's quality of service for you to support privatization?

[BlazingArizona]

The device you were using was designed to accommodate the needs of the incidental mailer ~ not the pro bringing in major volume.

25 identical small packages is hardly "major volume". Since the APC is capable of printing stamps in an denomination, there's no excuse for omitting such an obvious function as "print N more like this one". Knowing the USPS, there's probably some silly regulation involved.

Yes, there is another "payment practice" I could have used: taking time off to stand in line during office hours at Christmas.

[LegendHasIt]

As my old Pappy used to say: "If it works properly, don't 'fix' it.".

So, yeah, as long as the USPS continues to do what I want at a price I'm willing to pay, I will continue to use them.