Conservatives still waiting for response to concerns on postal overhaul

By Alyson Klein CongressDaily June 14, 2005

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, are still waiting for a response from House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, on a letter they sent three weeks ago that lambasted postal overhaul legislation sponsored by House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., for worsening the deficit.

The letter, which urged leaders to delay a floor vote until those issues are resolved, echoed two of the administration's top concerns with the measure: shifting payment for the agency's military pensions to the Treasury and giving the Postal Service access to money slated for an escrow account.

A spokeswoman for Hastert said she was not sure when the bill would be slated for floor action, but leaders have indicated to the bill's sponsors that it could be this month or next.

A spokesman for Davis, who has stood firm on both issues through months of negotiating with the White House, said the postal bill "is a Republican bill, and represents our best chance at solving the structural, legal and financial constraints that have combined to bring the Postal Service to the brink of catastrophe. What we're trying to prevent is a government bailout of the Postal Service."

In their letter, Pence and Hensarling wrote that CBO estimated the measure will cost at least $5.9 billion over the next five years and might call for an additional $1.6 billion in funds -- money which they noted is not provided for in the budget resolution.

"Taxpayers have paid their fair share, and any needed reforms to the system ought to be enacted in either a deficit-neutral manner or one where costs are borne by those who currently utilize USPS' services," Pence and Henserling wrote.

They said the legislation does not do enough to cut down on the agency's expenses.

Although they acknowledged that "taxpayers typically pick up the costs" of military pensions for federal agencies, they argued that "USPS is supposed to operate as a self-financed government corporation" and having the Treasury cover pension costs would "amount to taxpayer subsidy" of the Postal Service.

But a spokesman for Davis noted that if those provisions are not kept in the bill, the Postal Service will have to raise its rates.

"Failing to pass the legislation essentially imposes a 5.4 percent tax on every transaction with the Postal Service," he said. "Letting this tax go into effect would be fiscally irresponsible."

VIEW ALL COMMENTS POST COMMENT

COMMENTS

  • Are you aware the Postal Service is the only govt agency that pays the military retirement portion of its employees who have served their country? In other words these fine men and women that have served our country and have gone to work at the Postal Service following their Honorable Discharge will not have their military time paid for in retirement by the taxpayers but by the ratepayers. The military retirement portion becomes an defacto tax borne by the Postal Service customer rather than the taxpayer. This may be well and good in your eyes, but most of us are glad to bear this obligation as taxpayers, because we all receive the same benefit of the military. The shell game to hide these obligations is wrong! Additionally, the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 mandates the Postal Service NOT make a profit. Under your proposal many of the small Post Offices in your district will need to be closed. Is that OK with you? How about your constituents? The Postal Reform Legislation that you oppose will deal with these problems fairly and equitably. J M. Sims Posted June 20, 2005 10:57 PM
  • Why is the postal service covering military pensions? Could it be that government does not want the public to really see the cost of DoD? Costs for all types of government actions are placed in departments that really have nothing to do with those costs. This typically is a trick Congress uses to get what they want. For example, why is there an appropriation for the special olympics in the DoD budget? Could it be that Kennedy tacked it on to the defense appropriation because he knew it was so small that no other Congressman would stop the defense budget approval for such a relatively small amount($3 million)? taxpayer Posted June 15, 2005 7:43 AM
VIEW ALL COMMENTS

GovExec Live!
Join Marcia Marsh, vice president for agency partnerships at the Partnership for Public Service, from noon to 1 p.m. on Wed., June 15, when she will discuss agency recruitment and retention tools and the Extreme Hiring Makeover project. Submit your questions early or during the chat.