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
Editorials & Other Articles
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]hack89
(39,181 posts)63. Here is the appropriate section from the House Bill as it was introduced on 7 Dec 2006
Last edited Tue Mar 19, 2013, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Sec. 8909a. Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund
`(a) There is in the Treasury of the United States a Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund which is administered by the Office of Personnel Management.
`(b) The Fund is available without fiscal year limitation for payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A).
`(c) The Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately invest, in interest-bearing securities of the United States such currently available portions of the Fund as are not immediately required for payments from the Fund. Such investments shall be made in the same manner as investments for the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund under section 8348.
`(d)(1) Not later than June 30, 2007, and by June 30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall compute the net present value of the future payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A) and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year.
`(2)(A) Not later than June 30, 2007, the Office shall compute, and by June 30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall recompute the difference between--
`(i) the net present value of the excess of future payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A) for current and future United States Postal Service annuitants as of the end of the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that year; and
`(ii)(I) the value of the assets of the Postal Retiree Health Benefits Fund as of the end of the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that year; and
`(II) the net present value computed under paragraph (1).
`(B) Not later than June 30, 2017, the Office shall compute, and by June 30 of each succeeding year shall recompute, a schedule including a series of annual installments which provide for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by September 30, 2056, or within 15 years, whichever is later, of the net present value determined under subparagraph (A), including interest at the rate used in that computation.
`(3)(A) The United States Postal Service shall pay into such Fund--
`(i) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2007;
`(ii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2008;
`(iii) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2009;
`(iv) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2010;
`(v) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2011;
`(vi) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2012;
`(vii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2013;
`(viii) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2014;
`(ix) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2015; and
`(x) $5,800,000,000, not later than September 30, 2016.
`(a) There is in the Treasury of the United States a Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund which is administered by the Office of Personnel Management.
`(b) The Fund is available without fiscal year limitation for payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A).
`(c) The Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately invest, in interest-bearing securities of the United States such currently available portions of the Fund as are not immediately required for payments from the Fund. Such investments shall be made in the same manner as investments for the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund under section 8348.
`(d)(1) Not later than June 30, 2007, and by June 30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall compute the net present value of the future payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A) and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year.
`(2)(A) Not later than June 30, 2007, the Office shall compute, and by June 30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall recompute the difference between--
`(i) the net present value of the excess of future payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A) for current and future United States Postal Service annuitants as of the end of the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that year; and
`(ii)(I) the value of the assets of the Postal Retiree Health Benefits Fund as of the end of the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that year; and
`(II) the net present value computed under paragraph (1).
`(B) Not later than June 30, 2017, the Office shall compute, and by June 30 of each succeeding year shall recompute, a schedule including a series of annual installments which provide for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by September 30, 2056, or within 15 years, whichever is later, of the net present value determined under subparagraph (A), including interest at the rate used in that computation.
`(3)(A) The United States Postal Service shall pay into such Fund--
`(i) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2007;
`(ii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2008;
`(iii) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2009;
`(iv) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2010;
`(v) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2011;
`(vi) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2012;
`(vii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2013;
`(viii) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2014;
`(ix) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2015; and
`(x) $5,800,000,000, not later than September 30, 2016.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407/text/ih
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
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