Like every large bureaucracy, the Postal service has serious problems with waste and inefficiency. Instead of addressing those problems, and coming up with workable solutions, Wall St. and the Ayn Rand zombies who lick Wall St's bunger are  using this "crisis" as a pretense to privatize the Postal Service.  In other words, the Wall St. vultures want to strip the meat off its bones and then dump the worthless carcass back on the taxpayer.

Here is an article that explains what's currently happening with the Postal Service:

http://www.opednews.com/articl...

well said singletaxonland but don't forget that the usps workers are among only a few that now get pensions and health insurance when they retire all the others in private sector except for upper mgt don't get it anymore and those same rightwingers are trying to do the same to usps workers its now part time jobs and no benifits.wake up america and half of the people that leave stupid comments don't have a clue whats going on with the usps.and of course all of the media and bulk mail mailers don't want the usps to go under they might have to pay more anyone realize a nonprofit can mail a letter for 15.5 cents and cheaper with a bar code how the hell can the usps even come close to breaking even on those kind of prices.Also the no layoff clause is for workers with more than six years of service.which has been in the contract for years. there was at any one time thousands of workers who had less than  6years who could be laid off the usps always agreed to that because it was costless to them they always adjusted the hiring for the year thousands of usps workers retire and die each year check it out. it more than compensated if they needed to downsize now the only reason usps wants to delete that clause is to lay off higher paid workers which they can do regardless of senority depending which office you work at.then they will hire back parttimers with less pay and no benifits ask the Postmaster General what their plans are

Just to clarify:

1) The USPS is not allowed by law to make a profit.

2) The reason the USPS is in a hole is because Bush and the Republican Congress passed a law  in 2006 mandating the USPS pre-fund retiree health benefits for the next 75 years by 2016. Over night a crises appeared. No other business or government agency on this planet is required to essentially kill itself.

3) The USPS picks up Dept. of Defense portion of military pensions for any prior military working for the USPS.  This relieves the Defense budget via accounting gimmicks for additional billions. They just raise the stamp price to compensate. In effect the USPS taxes you for defense and you do not know it.

4) This Postal budget crises is contrived by right-wingers appointed to run the Post Office along with their allies in Congress. You are being duped by the media. Their goal is to go after the remaining unions in the public sector because there are very few in the private sector to go after.

5) In the past 30 years total union membership declined, mostly in the private sector, to about half. You would think we would be in some kind of economic improvement, a GDP utopia, but the reverse happened, we are in a depression. Now the same bunch want to get rid of the remaining unions.

6) These right-wingers intend on implementing a plantation economy. A race to the bottom. They will not be satisfied until there is one union remaining in some Juneau Alaska fishery. Of course they will blame the bad economy on them.

So, what are you saying, Stewart? The Post Office needs to be delivering more on-demand glowing dildos via bicycle? I agree. 

The post is so big....they should just start their own health care. Like veterans hospitals for government employees.

When organizations like the Postal Service and General Motors spend more money on health benefits and pensions than they do in the regular expenses (including salaries) of their business operations, they have stopped being a business and have become extensions of Medicare and Social Security. It would be nice if that could last forever but it won't.

Do you know why the Postal Service spends so much on pensions?

Same as with GM, California, NJ. NY, etc..  Union contracts negotiated when the economy was booming and people actually thought that the pension funds would grow ahead of the actual business income.  Crazy, right?

Some commenters here would tell you that postal employees deserve all that and more. They deserve an average of $59k per year without ever having taken any college classes. They deserve to be paid lifetime pensions after they retire. They deserve lots of other benefits like weeks upon weeks of vacation and sick time. Why? Because they're in a union, and that entitles them to everything. Forget that the postal service should be run like a business, meaning that if demand for their services drops, they should lay off employees like any other company would.

Or if the Postal Service had not been mandated by Congress to pre-fund retirement benefits, something no private company is required to do, and the money from which would take care of this bill. Or if the Postal Service was not regulated by Congress to maintain postal offices and branches that are unprofitable, something no private company is required to do. No, it's all because of the unions.

"Or if the Postal Service was not regulated by Congress to maintain postal offices and branches that are unprofitable,"

Strange. I could have sworn that they just closed a huge number of post offices a couple of months ago. And some more a couple of years ago.

Nice, link back to two other Gothamist articles about planned closures. Any info as to how many of those were actually closed? What about the difficulties that the USPS has when they actually do try and close a branch? How many of those proposed closed branches were actually just "suspended"? And how many of those branches that are "suspended" actually end up closing? How about looking at the closure of rural branches as opposed to just NYC? 

They can propose closing branches all they want, but Congress has the authority to regulate whether it actually happens, with complete disregard for budgetary issues.

EVERYBODY deserves a middle class life.

Then you wouldn't mind if you had to pay $10 for every BK Whopper because the people behind the counters all deserve to be middle class. Basic economics: there has to be a range of incomes simply because all jobs are not equal. If you force the low end up into what's currently considered middle class, then everyone else needs to earn more to pay for the goods and services those workers provide. This vicious circle is the cause of inflation.

just pull numbers out of your butt, why don't you?

If you want the basics of life to be considered 'lower class', thats fine. As long as you pay for what you ask of people. As long as you pay for that whopper. My taxes shouldn't pay for your patronage, like they do now. 

Let's see about these numbers I "pull out of my butt." The average wage of a BK worker is about $7. Assuming they work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that's less than $15,000. The average for a postal worker is $54-59,000, depending on who you believe. That's 3-4x the salary. A Whopper currently goes for more than $3. Somehow, you think you can at least triple the salary plus add union benefits without tripling the price of the product?

I pay ten dollars a burger all the time, if I go out to eat a burger. We might tonight. It SHOULD cost more to have people serve you what SHOULD be making for yourself, and it SHOULD be higher quality than a whopper.

Do I care if the fast food business is less profitable for the people not getting grease burns? No. I'd rather small businesses florish instead. I'd rather BK get a model which doesn't depend on employee turn over and subsidized "beef product". 

Your fat ass with no culinary taste isn't worth somebodies kid skipping meals. Besides which, on the road, a value meal isn't that far off from $10 a pop anyway - and your taxes make up the difference. 

"Fat ass?" Interesting. I thought felix was the only loon around here who threw around those kinds of insults without any inkling of what the other person looks like.

Frankly, if you can't afford to support a child, you should have sprung for a condom instead.

I wasn't talking about you, specifically. Just other Burger King consumers. 

I'm surprised somebody who has no problem with kids growing up poor has such thin skin...don't take it out on birthers. You need those exploited condomless people to make your lard-patties, remember?

Damn. I let you throw numbers at me without looking into what the labor costs of the company actually are relational to profit, in a world that absolutely shouldn't have such a shitty model of lard-slingling be able to afford to increase locations and edge out other resturants.

you got me.

even the ones who don't even try to earn one?