24 votes

US Postal Service memos detail ‘difficult’ changes, including slower mail delivery

42 comments

  1. [14]
    dubteedub
    Link
    I think it is important to understand that the reason the Post Office is in the dire position today is due to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 signed into law by George W....

    I think it is important to understand that the reason the Post Office is in the dire position today is due to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 signed into law by George W. Bush.

    Passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush, the PAEA gave the Postal Service new accounting and funding rules for its retiree pension and health benefits. Up until 2006, the USPS funded those obligations on a pay-as-you-go-basis, pulling out of its pension fund and adding to it as retirees' costs came in. But the PAEA required the Postal Service to calculate all of its likely pension costs over the next 75 years, and then sock away enough money between 2007 and 2016 to cover most of them.

    Consider your average 30-year mortgage. What if you had to set aside a few hundred thousand dollars right now, enough to pay the whole thing, even if you were still going to make payments over 30 years? No one would ever take out a mortgage. That's the whole point: the costs only come in over time, and the income you use to pay them comes in over time as well. It works exactly the same for retiree pensions and benefit funds. Which is why, as economist Dean Baker pointed out to Congress, pretty much no one else does what the PAEA demanded of the Postal Service.

    Basically Congress forced for the USPS to pay for all of its pension and retirement programs up front over the next 75 years, forcing the organization to add several billion dollars of expenses a year. The USPS eventually defaulted on these ridiculous payments as of 2012.

    These astronomical payments accrued huge amounts of debt for the Postal Service and are why the organization has been running a deficit for well over the last decade when it otherwise would have been posting a profit.

    Sources:

    For those wanting a more in-depth look, John Oliver covered this just a couple of months ago on his show Last Week Tonight.

    25 votes
    1. [13]
      Flashynuff
      Link Parent
      Why on earth did the Democrats not repeal that in 2009 when they had control of the House, Senate, and presidency?? There's so much shit like this that they could have done something about but...

      Why on earth did the Democrats not repeal that in 2009 when they had control of the House, Senate, and presidency?? There's so much shit like this that they could have done something about but just didn't

      10 votes
      1. [5]
        dubteedub
        Link Parent
        Back in February of this year the House did pass a bill to end the bogus accounting system for the USPS, though of course with a GOP Senate and Trump in office still it's not going to go anywhere....

        Back in February of this year the House did pass a bill to end the bogus accounting system for the USPS, though of course with a GOP Senate and Trump in office still it's not going to go anywhere.

        As far as I can tell, I think in 2009/2010 it was not clear exactly how bad the legislation was and how disastrous it would be on the USPS.

        I have found a couple of articles that started raising alarms on this issue over the years, but the earliest one I found was from 2011 from Thinkprogress, and obviously by that point the House had turned red.

        12 votes
        1. [4]
          Flashynuff
          Link Parent
          It certainly wasn't clear to me considering I was in middle school, but these people are career politicians! The only way they miss this is if they are incompetent or if they don't actually want...

          As far as I can tell, I think in 2009/2010 it was not clear exactly how bad the legislation was and how disastrous it would be on the USPS

          It certainly wasn't clear to me considering I was in middle school, but these people are career politicians! The only way they miss this is if they are incompetent or if they don't actually want to do anything about it...

          1 vote
          1. [3]
            dubteedub
            Link Parent
            Well the bill was passed in December 2006 and did not go into effect until 2007. So it had only been two years once the Democrats took control in 2009 after the 2008 elections. Looking at...

            Well the bill was passed in December 2006 and did not go into effect until 2007. So it had only been two years once the Democrats took control in 2009 after the 2008 elections.

            Looking at Wikipedia, it does look like the Senate kicked off their session in January 2009 with a hearing with the Postmaster General on the issue of payments on retirement benefits.

            On January 28, 2009, Postmaster General John E. Potter testified before the Senate that, if the Postal Service could not readjust its payment toward the contractually funding earned employee retiree health benefits, as mandated by the Postal Accountability & Enhancement Act of 2006, the USPS would be forced to consider cutting delivery to five days per week during June, July, and August.

            As one of the first bills of the 2009 session, the House did introduce and pass HR 22, the United States Postal Service Financial Relief Act of 2009, which would have reduced the amount that the USPS had to pay towards its health benefits fund, but the bill died in Committee in the Senate.

            https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr22

            https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/22?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr+22%22%5D%7D&s=8&r=1

            The House also held a hearing in April 2010 on the topic as well.

            On Thursday, April 15, 2010, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing to examine the status of the Postal Service and recent reports on short and long-term strategies for the financial viability and stability of the USPS entitled "Continuing to Deliver: An Examination of the Postal Service's Current Financial Crisis and its Future Viability". At which, PMG Potter testified that by the year 2020, the USPS cumulative losses could exceed $238 billion, and that mail volume could drop 15 percent from 2009.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service

            After that point, the Democrats lost the House in the 2010 midterms and that's all she wrote.

            12 votes
            1. [2]
              Flashynuff
              Link Parent
              Thanks for digging all that up. It seems to me like they tried once and when that failed they didn't try again?

              Thanks for digging all that up. It seems to me like they tried once and when that failed they didn't try again?

              1 vote
              1. dubteedub
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                I think it's important to view this in context of the times of 2009 / 2010. The country was in economic freefall dealing with the Great Recession of 2008 caused by the Bush regime and GOP...

                I think it's important to view this in context of the times of 2009 / 2010. The country was in economic freefall dealing with the Great Recession of 2008 caused by the Bush regime and GOP congress. Any legislative attention beyond that was zeroed in on passing the first major healthcare package in decades.

                The Senate Democratic coalition was pretty weak as it largely relied on Joe Lieberman for any major deciding votes. Just to point out, Liberman was an independent who had lost the Democratic primary because he was too far right and out of step with the party. He ran as a third party candidate and won over both the D and R candidates that year. The Obama administration's top priority was healthcare and though they had pushed for a public option, that was basically shut down by Lieberman and the death of Joe Kennedy.

                At the same time, the House coalition was also extremely weak as there was a significant voting block of a 50+ so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" that were fiscally conservative centrists and conservatives. These folks were largely in vulnerable moderate/GOP-lean districts, with a lot of them throughout the South and other rural areas. The Blue Dogs were wary of any major progressive actions and held up the Democratic agenda at almost every turn. While a lot of the Blue Dogs thought that a more moderate (or conservative) voting record would help their re-election chances, they were largely wiped out in the 2010 midterms as the Tea Party train rolled in.

                IN 2008, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seemed to rewrite all the rules in electoral politics and herald a new progressive era in America. Democrats assembled a huge Congressional majority and, in the euphoria that followed the historic election, were poised to enact sweeping change. However, despite some notable successes — the stimulus package, health care reform, tighter rules for the financial industry — things have not gone according to plan. Just two years later, Democrats face a bad economy, a skeptical public, a re-energized Republican Party and a coming avalanche of losses in the midterm elections.

                Republicans have become obsessed with ideological purity, and as a consequence they will likely squander a few winnable races in places like Delaware. But Democrats aren’t ideological enough. Their conservative contingent has so blurred what it means to be a Democrat that the party itself can barely find its way. Polls show that, despite their best efforts to distance themselves from Speaker Pelosi and President Obama, a number of Blue Dog Democrats are likely to be defeated this November. Their conservative voting records have deflated Democratic activists but have done nothing to win Republican support.

                So basically, the federal government was focused on doing everything it could to recover from the disastrous economic policies of the Bush era, was doing its best to pass healthcare reform despite facing tremendous pushback both from the GOP and the conservative wing of its own party, and there is only so much that can be done in a legislative session.

                12 votes
      2. Rocket_Man
        Link Parent
        Because despite the narrative, Democrats largely voted for this as well as Republicans.

        Because despite the narrative, Democrats largely voted for this as well as Republicans.

        3 votes
      3. [6]
        Kuromantis
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        I think the problem is people like Joe Manchin, Lieberman and Doug Jones were (still are? Manchin and Jones are still in the Senate right now) too prominent in the party and don't belong in the...

        Why on earth did the Democrats not repeal that in 2009 when they had control of the House, Senate, and presidency?? There's so much shit like this that they could have done something about but just didn't

        I think the problem is people like Joe Manchin, Lieberman and Doug Jones were (still are? Manchin and Jones are still in the Senate right now) too prominent in the party and don't belong in the moderate/progressive Democratic coalition since these people are either blue-dogs or neoliberals, and they don't really belong in the GOP since the Reps have been too religious since at least Reagan. This is one of my worries if we get a 50-seat VP tie or a 51 seat bare majority, because a lot of what we (even Biden supporting moderates) want to do will be neutered by these people.

        2 votes
        1. [2]
          TheRtRevKaiser
          Link Parent
          Doug Jones was elected in Alabama in 2017. Alabama hadn't elected a Democrat to any statewide office since 2008, and even that was a Public Service Commision seat (PSC regulates state utilities...

          Doug Jones was elected in Alabama in 2017. Alabama hadn't elected a Democrat to any statewide office since 2008, and even that was a Public Service Commision seat (PSC regulates state utilities such as Alabama Power). A Democrat hadn't represented Alabama in the Senate since 1997, and Alabama has only gotten redder since (AL went to Trump by +27.7 points in 2016). Expecting an Alabama elected Democrat to be as progressive as one elected in NY or CA is pretty ridiculous, and even considering that, 538 has Jones' Trump Score (how often a congressperson votes in line with Trump) at lower than eight other Senate Democrats, including Senators from Maine and Virginia, both of which went to Clinton in 2016.

          Additionally, no Senate Democrat has a "Trump Score" higher than even the most "moderate" Senate Republican (Susan Collins - 67.2% Trump Score), and without those Senators in states that lean Republican, the Democratic minority would be even smaller. It isn't really useful to beat up on these guys, and Manchin and Jones have both voted with the Democratic Caucus when it mattered most, such as the impeachment trial.

          2 votes
          1. Kuromantis
            Link Parent
            I agree, which is why I ultimately don't really blame them for being 'moderates' but ultimately that's not what the rest of the Democratic party is about and with the Senate being a federal...

            I agree, which is why I ultimately don't really blame them for being 'moderates' but ultimately that's not what the rest of the Democratic party is about and with the Senate being a federal office, they can't really remove themselves from the rest of the party. They can pass pro-voting bills and DC statehood, but that's about it and then they need to be booted off.

            Also this is one of the more glaring flaws in the 2-party system, where moderates compete in all the important swing districts while the progressives can only compete in very safe districts.

        2. [3]
          joplin
          Link Parent
          Lol, wut? The GOP's entire platform for the last 40 years has been, "You have to vote for us because Democrats are baby-killing, God-hating, bleeding-heart criminal lovers." (I'm paraphrasing of...

          they don't really belong in the GOP since they're too religious.

          Lol, wut? The GOP's entire platform for the last 40 years has been, "You have to vote for us because Democrats are baby-killing, God-hating, bleeding-heart criminal lovers." (I'm paraphrasing of course.) We're talking about people like Michele Bachman who, although she worked on Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign in the 70s, became a Republican and won seats running on various Christian moral stances. The GOP are known as the religious party in a lot of ways here in the US. They won votes for years by promising to repeal abortion laws on religious grounds and have pushed for laws allowing or requiring prayer in schools in various states for years.

          1. [2]
            Kuromantis
            Link Parent
            Oh wait, 'They' was the GOP, fixed the comment.

            Oh wait, 'They' was the GOP, fixed the comment.

            2 votes
            1. joplin
              Link Parent
              Ah, OK, that makes much more sense! Thanks!

              Ah, OK, that makes much more sense! Thanks!

              1 vote
  2. [20]
    Flashynuff
    Link
    They're really going to try to starve the post office and then scrap it for parts so private companies can swoop in. classic capitalism -- fucking up a public resource so that market can be...

    They're really going to try to starve the post office and then scrap it for parts so private companies can swoop in. classic capitalism -- fucking up a public resource so that market can be introduced where there was none before

    20 votes
    1. [5]
      arghdos
      Link Parent
      Meanwhile the post office is still the cheapest and fastest way to send stuff across the country (at least in my experience). Even if it was 2x slower it would still be better than FedEx and...

      Meanwhile the post office is still the cheapest and fastest way to send stuff across the country (at least in my experience). Even if it was 2x slower it would still be better than FedEx and cheaper than UPS.

      20 votes
      1. Flashynuff
        Link Parent
        almost like things are cheaper for the end user when there's not a CEO trying make a profit out of every single transaction

        almost like things are cheaper for the end user when there's not a CEO trying make a profit out of every single transaction

        16 votes
      2. [3]
        Keegan
        Link Parent
        FedEx is awful. When I ordered my laptop it was supposed to require a signature for delivery. I was away from home for a day when it was delivered. I got an email from HP saying "hope you enjoy...

        FedEx is awful. When I ordered my laptop it was supposed to require a signature for delivery. I was away from home for a day when it was delivered. I got an email from HP saying "hope you enjoy your new product" so I checked the delivery status and it said delivered. The problem with this is that it was raining and I was not home to take the box in to avoid rain damage. I had to make a friend go pick it up and open the box to make sure my $1000 purchase wasn't ruined.

        Luckily it was fine, but FedEx's site mysteriously did not have a signature image on file, even though it said it was signed for (by who????). I'd pay premiums to not use FedEx and use USPS.

        2 votes
        1. [2]
          arghdos
          Link Parent
          Yeah shipping with FedEx is seemingly a complete crapshoot on your package: a) getting there b) being undamaged c) being on time Seemingly they have gotten worse in the last few years. I wonder...

          Yeah shipping with FedEx is seemingly a complete crapshoot on your package:

          a) getting there
          b) being undamaged
          c) being on time

          Seemingly they have gotten worse in the last few years. I wonder who's even shipping w/ them at this point. Maybe the process is better for corporate customers?

          4 votes
          1. Keegan
            Link Parent
            It is almost certainly better for corporate customers since they actually have choices involved and have the big bucks to do something about it if their stuff is broken. A friend of mine shipped...

            It is almost certainly better for corporate customers since they actually have choices involved and have the big bucks to do something about it if their stuff is broken.

            A friend of mine shipped parts for the keyboard he built through FedEx. It went from China to Japan, back to China, then back to Japan, then to the US. By the time it was supposed to have arrived it was still in China (the first time, not the second time in China).

            4 votes
    2. [14]
      Loire
      Link Parent
      This isn't capitalism. This is American-Capitalism, or crony-capitalism. The US Postal Service was a profitable, revenue generating success story before Congress murdered it. I'm not trying to get...

      classic capitalism

      This isn't capitalism. This is American-Capitalism, or crony-capitalism.

      The US Postal Service was a profitable, revenue generating success story before Congress murdered it.

      I'm not trying to get into a capitalism-socialism fight here but it irks me when people use the American model as some bastion of capitalism (or democracy for that matter). The United States is a corrupt failing state in self-imposed decline.

      14 votes
      1. Flashynuff
        Link Parent
        How exactly is this not an example of capitalists privatizing what was once public in order to create a new market and extract more profit? Capitalism has done this with land and natural resources...

        How exactly is this not an example of capitalists privatizing what was once public in order to create a new market and extract more profit? Capitalism has done this with land and natural resources the world over. It's a hallmark of the system.

        16 votes
      2. [11]
        mxuribe
        Link Parent
        I used to be one of those people who would use a term like "classic capitalism"...but then learned how other countries employ "capitalism", as well as a little more general info for myself about...

        I used to be one of those people who would use a term like "classic capitalism"...but then learned how other countries employ "capitalism", as well as a little more general info for myself about capitalism...and arrived at a similar conclusion, and have also started using "American capitalism" to differentiate it from general capitalism. Similarly, when i started travelling to other countries for work (e.g. Netherlands, etc.), i have seen a similar thing for democracy (not just capitalism): there's the American way; and then there is the general way.

        5 votes
        1. [10]
          Flashynuff
          Link Parent
          The primary places I have seen terms like "American Capitalism" or "Crony Capitalism" used is by capitalists who would like to deny the natural conclusions & contradictions inherent to capitalism....

          The primary places I have seen terms like "American Capitalism" or "Crony Capitalism" used is by capitalists who would like to deny the natural conclusions & contradictions inherent to capitalism. In your view, what is the difference between American Capitalism and "general" capitalism?

          12 votes
          1. [8]
            Kuromantis
            Link Parent
            Tl;dr The government engages in favoritism towards big corporations, thus making the 'free' in 'free market' a lie. If you want a more detailed explanation, see regulatory capture.

            Tl;dr The government engages in favoritism towards big corporations, thus making the 'free' in 'free market' a lie.

            If you want a more detailed explanation, see regulatory capture.

            3 votes
            1. [7]
              Flashynuff
              Link Parent
              My point is that things like regulatory capture and corporate favoritism are a natural conclusion to capitalism, and in no way are unique to the United States.

              My point is that things like regulatory capture and corporate favoritism are a natural conclusion to capitalism, and in no way are unique to the United States.

              12 votes
              1. [6]
                mxuribe
                Link Parent
                Yeah, i should clarify that of course no other nation that i've experienced is perfect either...and logical next steps for capitalism can/would occur in other nations too...but it is merely that...

                Yeah, i should clarify that of course no other nation that i've experienced is perfect either...and logical next steps for capitalism can/would occur in other nations too...but it is merely that aspects of capitalism seem to have been so exaggerated and/or abused within U.S. that it manifests as a great detriment to the greater population blocking/dampening opportunities for even mediocre prosperity, even though "on paper" it seems like America is this great bastion of opportunity. In my view it is as if adopting capitalism is like raising a shark from its youth...at some point, some other (successful?) nations saw how crazy this growing shark is/can be, so they reined the shark in a tad, and only released it very minimally...whereas, the U.S - to continue my cheesy analogy - has left the shark grow rampant, and only intervened in less-than-ideal scenarios...leaving too many people in the swimming tank to get eaten by this growing shark.

                3 votes
                1. [3]
                  Flashynuff
                  Link Parent
                  This analogy is great. Why are we raising sharks (capitalism) in swimming tanks (nations) in the first place?

                  leaving too many people in the swimming tank to get eaten by this growing shark.

                  This analogy is great. Why are we raising sharks (capitalism) in swimming tanks (nations) in the first place?

                  2 votes
                  1. [2]
                    mxuribe
                    Link Parent
                    The only reason i can think of is that the founding fathers of the U.S, might have thought that incentivising the population - via capitalistic approaches (through legislation or laissez faire) -...

                    The only reason i can think of is that the founding fathers of the U.S, might have thought that incentivising the population - via capitalistic approaches (through legislation or laissez faire) - could help develop a new (at the time struggling) nation?? And, maybe they thought that capitalism might be the ticket out of their lack of economy (after the American Revolution)?? I'm sure there is some connection to the Scottish writers of the time too. (I truly lack enough background such that i have to resort to cheesy shark analogies). That being said, i wonder if there is any literature from the founding fathers (or whomever helped push capitalism within U.S.) as to whether they actually expected capitalism to a long-term force in their future...or did they think, "this can not possibly be the thing to employ in the future, but it will do in the short-term..."? Which is all to state, i don't know why we/nations raise sharks in these "tanks"...maybe it is something as crass as that line, "Greed is good...", from that wall street movie? (Which i very much disagree with that premise.)

                    By the way, this has been really a great convo! Thanks!

                    1 vote
                    1. spctrvl
                      Link Parent
                      I don't think the founding fathers really thought much about capitalism at all, at least not in the way we think of it today. At the time of the American revolution, capitalism was a relatively...

                      I don't think the founding fathers really thought much about capitalism at all, at least not in the way we think of it today. At the time of the American revolution, capitalism was a relatively new phenomenon that hadn't really been fully ideologically articulated yet, at best it was probably seen in a vaguely progressive anti-aristocratic light. They certainly weren't thinking about it in terms of the modem socialist-capitalist spectrum, even if there is a reading of Jefferson's ideal of the yeoman farmers' republic as agrarian socialism.

                      2 votes
                2. [2]
                  N45H
                  Link Parent
                  I would like to thank Flashynuff and you (mxuribe for other readers) for your short but understandable and (for me) personal conversation about classic capitalism or American capitalism vs general...

                  I would like to thank Flashynuff and you (mxuribe for other readers) for your short but understandable and (for me) personal conversation about classic capitalism or American capitalism vs general capitalism. Kudos!

                  1 vote
                  1. mxuribe
                    Link Parent
                    Likewise really good discussion; I know i learned some stuff!!

                    Likewise really good discussion; I know i learned some stuff!!

                    1 vote
          2. mxuribe
            Link Parent
            As i was beginning to draft a response...i would state that the term "regulatory capture" that @Kuromantis referenced best captures what i was going to respond with.

            As i was beginning to draft a response...i would state that the term "regulatory capture" that @Kuromantis referenced best captures what i was going to respond with.

            2 votes
      3. skybrian
        Link Parent
        It's weirder than that because the federal government's accounting is somewhat unreal. Whether the Post Office is profitable or not depends on your perspective when it comes to future government...

        It's weirder than that because the federal government's accounting is somewhat unreal. Whether the Post Office is profitable or not depends on your perspective when it comes to future government benefits for retired post office workers. Cash flow is real, how to account for future government obligations is debatable.

        But it's true that there is no problem here that wasn't created by Congress. They could change their minds and the Post Office would be okay again.

        3 votes
  3. skybrian
    Link
    From the article:

    From the article:

    Postmaster General Louis DeJoy told employees to leave mail behind at distribution centers if it delayed letter carriers from their routes, according to internal USPS documents obtained by The Washington Post and verified by the American Postal Workers Union and three people with knowledge of their contents, but who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution.

    “If the plants run late, they will keep the mail for the next day,” according to a document titled, “New PMG’s [Postmaster General’s] expectations and plan.” Traditionally, postal workers are trained not to leave letters behind and to make multiple delivery trips to ensure timely distribution of letters and parcels.

    8 votes
  4. [3]
    mxuribe
    Link
    An acquaintance once remarked to me, "why doesn't the USPS compete with AWS to create their own verson?"...And while this could be debated, that would be a tough fight to go against Amazon in this...

    An acquaintance once remarked to me, "why doesn't the USPS compete with AWS to create their own verson?"...And while this could be debated, that would be a tough fight to go against Amazon in this space. But this got me thinking, why doesn't the USPS get into the internet service provider (ISP) market; perhaps like a municipal/local ISP? As i recall other nations have their telco and postal services under the same umbrella...couldn't we try that here in the U.S.? This could be one approach to expand internet access for many rural regions too. And/Or, even for regions (maybe urban ones?) that have access to 1 or a few providers, the USPS could be an additional option; driving competition among the for-profit ISPs. I know this foray would not be cheap nor fast nor easy to do...but it feels right to me in several ways. At the very least, there should be some prototype attempted in a limited fashion or region.

    6 votes
    1. [2]
      Flashynuff
      Link Parent
      I suppose the largest issue with that is that existing telcos would attempt to strongarm the USPS out of the market. There would need to be significant legislation to ensure fair competition.. at...

      I suppose the largest issue with that is that existing telcos would attempt to strongarm the USPS out of the market. There would need to be significant legislation to ensure fair competition.. at which point, why not just nationalize/municipalize Amazon and the telcos?

      7 votes
      1. mxuribe
        Link Parent

        ...would need to be significant legislation to ensure fair competition...
        Agreed! Though i hadn't thought about nationalizing/municipalizing the telcos...i honestly don't know if that would be a good or bad thing. I sort of assumed USPS would be the "municipal" option with still room for competition from private telcos...but certainly a dicey area. One thing i know, the current state of affairs does not nearly work for enough people around the country...as opposed to other nations who at least have far more access to high speed internet (often at lower prices). I felt like USPS could be something that could help...but definitely plenty of sticky wicket issues would need to be addressed first.

        2 votes
  5. [2]
    Kuromantis
    Link
    I assume this is related to mail-in ballots being a threat to the GOP, right? I'm surprised I'm the first person to mention this. But then again, even Trump has said what we're saying so at this...

    I assume this is related to mail-in ballots being a threat to the GOP, right? I'm surprised I'm the first person to mention this.

    But then again, even Trump has said what we're saying so at this point it might not even be worth discussing...

    1 vote
    1. skybrian
      Link Parent
      Maybe it does now, but this fight started long before the pandemic and has more to do with political philosophy about economics. Republicans have been trying to privatize things since the 80's.

      Maybe it does now, but this fight started long before the pandemic and has more to do with political philosophy about economics. Republicans have been trying to privatize things since the 80's.

      5 votes
  6. [2]
    Eabryt
    Link
    Well that explains why I feel like I haven't been getting any mail recently.

    Well that explains why I feel like I haven't been getting any mail recently.

    2 votes
    1. Qis
      Link Parent
      You might not have anyone sending you mail! Do you need something sent to you, to be sure? Pm me if so, I got an unused deck of postcards around here somewhere..

      You might not have anyone sending you mail! Do you need something sent to you, to be sure? Pm me if so, I got an unused deck of postcards around here somewhere..

      7 votes