Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Return to Sender: US Post Office actually has an operating PROFIT [View all]brentspeak
(18,290 posts)62. Already explained to you numerous times
-
"So show me where Waxman was not a cosponsor...Then show me how the House vote was not even close."
Waxman was the cosponsor of the House bill, but it wasn't the House bill which included the prefunding requirement, it was the Senate bill which did, and that portion of the Senate bill was introduced by Susan Collins (R-ME). And the House bill was passed by a GOP majority voice vote, no recorded individual votes (as already explained to you about 312 times: the GOP held the majority in both House and Senate in 2005/2006.)
- The Senate version was passed by unanimous consent, with no individual votes recorded.
- It hardly matters, because the pre-funding portion was going to be passed anyway by the Republican majorities in both chambers. The Democrats, as the minority party, were fortunate to get postal union collective bargaining rights preserved. The pre-funding mandate was a Republican-authored switch-and-bait in exchange for a) eliminating what would have been a permanent $3 annual payment into an escrow account, and b) transferring USPS responsibility for military retiree benefits to the Treasury. The Democrats were also promised that accumulated overpayments already made (totalling over $75 billion) would be made available to the USPS in the future, thus alleviating any red ink caused by the pre-funding. That turned out to be a total lie, as the GOP has since stymied every Democratic effort to allow USPS to tap into the overpayments.
- Hence, the Democrats (and Republican John McHugh, original co-sponsor of the 2006 House bill) have since tried to have the pre-funding mandate rescinded, but have been prevented by the Republicans:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h22/show
http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2011/11-041-hr1351-hr1262-110411.htm
http://www.nalc.org/news/latest/misguided_sept2010.html
Q.E.D.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
80 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"The $5 aspirin is to pay for all of the aspirins they give to uninsured deadbeats...
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2013
#43
This whole "privatization" crap re: the post office REALLY makes me mad as hell.
loudsue
Mar 2013
#4
Don't throw 'em away. "no postage necessary..."gets mailed back to sender if it's from a hated corp.
canoeist52
Mar 2013
#14
I'd like to again point out that you can get removed from their mailing lists
They_Live
Mar 2013
#21
The Democrats thought they were helping the union. The Republicans knew they were stangling govt. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Mar 2013
#27
Just a ploy to have a Private Equity Firm seize the USPS and plunder the pension fund. nt
TheBlackAdder
Mar 2013
#30
Even thought that's contrary to your Birther mentality, it's not surprising.
TheBlackAdder
Mar 2013
#34
Not to 'plunder', no sane person would telegraph that. But a PE privatization, definitely.
TheBlackAdder
Mar 2013
#38
they may be stupid (though i think that's doubtful). the people who fund them are not. and
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#45
Here is the appropriate section from the House Bill as it was introduced on 7 Dec 2006
hack89
Mar 2013
#63
K&R Just another scheme to enhance corporate welfare at taxpayer expense. USPS gets no taxpayer
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#28
What HiPointDem said. I am consistently amazed at how many far right-wing distortions and
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#46
Just as I suspected, there is no point. You don't understand and don't want to understand.
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#50
the link shows how the 'loss' was created by congress. but you'd have to read the article to
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#49
There are no gov't agencies or private co's which prepay for unhired future retiree health benefits
brentspeak
Mar 2013
#75
There was an accounting rule change in 1990 which caused companies to pre fund retiree benefits.
former9thward
Mar 2013
#76
The pre-funded payments maybe the bulk, but according to Donohoe they still would have lost $3B
tammywammy
Mar 2013
#66