Bernie Sanders Scores A Win As The Postal Service Backs Off Plan To Close Plants

[Jefferson23]

By: Jason Easley
Saturday, May, 30th, 2015

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won another victory in the battle against privatizing mail delivery as the Postal Service has quietly backed off of a plan to close 82 mail processing plants.

In a statement, Sen. Sanders said:

I am pleased that the Postal Service has decided not to shut down virtually all of the 82 mail-processing plants this year, but much more needs to be done to ensure that Americans throughout the country receive their mail in a timely manner.

….

The Postal Service should be speeding up the delivery of mail, not slowing it down. We should be working to strengthen the Postal Service, not sending it into a death spiral.


The Postal Service had planned to close eighty-two more mail processing plants as part of a cost-cutting move. The USPS is being forced to cut costs because a Republican imposed mandate that the Service pre-fund 75 years of retirement benefits within a decade. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) plunged the profitable USPS into debt and forced four out of every five dollars taken in to be spent on funding this mandate.

remainder:http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/30/bernie-sanders-scores-win-postal-service-backs-plan-close-plants.html

[procon]

1. I must be missing something...

Sanders, like most Dems, has opposed this Republican scheme to privatise the post office, but he isn't taking credit for this. While he has expressed approval, at no point does he imply that he's responsible for the sudden change in the the post office decision.

The writer is Jason Easley, owner of the website, PoliticusUSA, is editorializing by implying that. Sanders doesn't need anyone to glamorize his position, his positive record stands on its own. He omits mentioning what specific actions Sanders, any other Senator for that matter, none of whom have any direct control over the USPS, did to stop the closures.

This writer didn't do Sanders any favor by writing this specious puff piece. It backfired and only makes the Senator look grasping and desperate enough for attention that he must stoop to stealing credit for someone else's work. Just tell the truth and Sanders will still shine without the misleading embellishments.

[Jefferson23]

2. You are missing something, and if you had read the embedded link you would be

aware of Sanders role, which was significant. Your added commentary is way out of line and
inappropriate.

Reid added his signature to those of 50 other senators who signed a letter calling for a ban on Postal Service cuts as part of must-pass legislation to keep the government running into the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) organized the effort to block the cuts proposed by Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe.

[TheNutcracker]

3. Right on!

Kick

[procon]

5. Yes, thank you, I read the cited link and several others as well.

However, the open letter you mention dates from Aug, 2014, and while it was signed by a majority of the Senate. It was directed to the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the post office, and where Sanders was chairman at the time. This letter only called for a one-year moratorium of post office closures, but the subcommittee did nothing to act on it in the current fiscal year.

There was a separate letter in Dec, 2014 signed by only 30 senators that was addressed to the Postmaster, but it also merely asked that the closures be delayed, but Donahoe promised nothing, only said they would respond at some point in the future.

Curiously, neither letter even suggests that the closures should not happen at all, only that they should be delayed. In that light, the USPS statement appears somewhat different than what has been implied here:


“The Postal Service has extended the timeline for most of the mail processing consolidating activities originally planned for this summer,” the U.S. Postal Service said in an email statement. “Planned consolidation activities will resume in 2016.”

http://www.postal-reporter.com/blog/usps-planned-network-consolidation-phase-2-activities-will-resume-in-2016/

[Jefferson23]

7. That's because, and again I will direct you to the original OP where Sanders states:

I am pleased that the Postal Service has decided not to shut down virtually all of the 82 mail-processing plants this year, but much more needs to be done to ensure that Americans throughout the country receive their mail in a timely manner.

This is clearly acknowledged by Sanders as a limited victory, but a victory nonetheless. I think you would agree.

[procon]

8. My comment was addressed to the writer of the article,

not to Sanders. Please don't try to conflate it into a disagreeable argument over anything other than criticism of the writer's deceptive literary licence. The misleading article was disingenuous and unnecessary, and whilst I understand why these puff pieces are fun to read as fan-fiction, they ill serve someone like Sanders, a man who is notable for his honesty and integrity.

[Jefferson23]

9. Nonsense, the author did not write a misleading story. Your difficulty was in not reading the

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

links which he placed in his OP.

[procon]

10. Yes, thank you, I did follow the links,

but that still does not address my complaint that the writer, began with a falsehood by claiming, " Bernie Sanders Scores A Win As The Postal Service Backs Off Plan To Close Plants".

Sanders was honest in his remarks, saying he was "pleased", but at no point did he ever stoop to lying or make any claim that he was responsible, or that he "won another victory", as this duplicitous writer interjected. Raise the bar. Sanders does not need this, he has an enviable record and his character is unblemished. These mendacious articles only make him out to be petty and self serving, and detract from all his genuine and authentic efforts. Of course, it's your call, but I won't prop up disingenuous writers who degrade Sander's forthright honesty.

[Jefferson23]

12. Oh for crying out loud. The author put the links in the OP, there was nothing he did that was

dishonest. Your condemnation is wide and all encompassing and at this point, disingenuous.

You wrote all that because of the title of the OP? Do you not understand what Backs OFF means?
That is what occurred, they backed off..details at links.

[procon]

19. Actually, I was quite specific in my charge.

Hopefully, Sanders message can be heard without the unwarranted hyperbole, meanwhile I'm going watch Sanders interview on MTP, so I'll leave you to defend the loquacious writer.

[Jefferson23]

20. Yea, except your charge was baseless. Have a nice day. n/t

[sabrina 1]

21. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I guess it's hard to trash a candidate

with as good a record as he has, so we are seeing some of the most picayune nonsense I have ever seen directed at a politician in my life.

I think that's a good sign.

[Jefferson23]

23. I will listen to a gripe, sure. This was a baseless complaint, charging the author of the OP

of egregious misrepresentation. Huh? If the guy includes the added support/clarity
in his own OP, how in the hell is that misrepresenting what occurred? lol

Sometimes you just have to laugh this stuff off, but it needed some attention, I felt.

It will get more heated, I agree and that was a mere lightweight compared to what's coming down the pike.

[Enthusiast]

6. +1 a whole bunch!

[sabrina 1]

11. Thank you for correcting the first post. I really wish people would bother to click links before

posting their own opinions on the 'facts'.

[Jefferson23]

13. You're welcome, he/she is not convinced. The links are there, nonetheless. n/t

[daleanime]

4. K&R.....

[retrowire]

14. What are the Republicans hoping to gain by getting rid of the USPS?

Are they hoping that we'll pay monthly subcription fees to UPS and FedEx for our monthly mail?

Probably. D:

[Jefferson23]

15. Yep, and welcome to DU.

[retrowire]

16. Thank you!

Everyone is pretty welcoming here, I'm glad.

I understand that political forums can be a hotbed of high tensions so this welcoming atmosphere is nice to behold. Thanks again, I'll be making a more formal introduction in the welcome threads when I've obtained the ability to make a topic.

[Jefferson23]

17. Great to have you and yea, it can get pretty nasty on occassion, if you don't let that get to you

you'll be fine. In case you did not get your can at the door...it works to protect people on the
internet too.

[sabrina 1]

22. They want to profit from it. They don't care about PEOPLE,

or this country, they care about money.

[L0oniX]

18. K & R