US Postal Service isn't lobbying for a bailout

What the USPS needs is two resolve two issues: A burdensome requirement to prefund future retiree health benefits, and decades of overpayment into that fund.

First, the USPS is required to grossly prefund its future retiree health benefit obligations. These payments, while legally mandated, are unfair. No other organization in the nation, public, private, or Fortune 500, is required by law to prefund for future retiree health benefits. This obligation puts the Postal Service at a disadvantage compared to its competitors, who are not required by law to prefund. The Postal Service is also not looking to skirt any obligations; current retiree health benefits are already 99 percent funded, and future retiree health benefits are over 40 percent prefunded for the next 80 years, unheard of numbers in the private sector.

Mr. Garvin's point that the taxpayers would have to pick up this tab is simply false, as the retiree health obligations are more than well funded. Second, the Postal Service would gain tremendously by the return of its overpayment into the federal government's Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) fund over the last several decades. This overpayment was estimated to be between $50-75 billion according to two separate federal studies.

If this overpayment were to be returned to USPS, there would be no need for the prefunding obligations.

This money is not taxpayer money, or a confused way of allocating pensions to its employees, as Mr. Garvin suggests. This was money the Postal Service paid, that is now being held in the general CSRS fund.

Remember, the Postal Service does not receive taxpayer funding; all expenses including the overpayment to the retirement system is paid by those who purchase postage. It is ratepayer money, not taxpayer money.

Essentially, fixing these two issues would restore Postal Service finances. USPS is not looking to be sneaky, either; officials are lobbying Congress, in conjunction with the unions such as the National Association of Letter Carrirers, to put the USPS on solid financial footing.

Mr. Garvin also claims in his article that there are "sweetheart deals" for the Postal Service workforce. Labor costs are around 80 percent of the total costs of the Postal Service; however, this number has remained more or less constant for decades, including when the Postal Service was profiting in the billions. Delivering and sorting the mail to literally every household in the nation is a labor intensive practice, and as such, the majority of the costs of running the business are labor related. UPS and FedEx do not deliver to every household. In fact, they hire the Postal Service to deliver the last leg on many of their deliveries. Our competitors would not consider delivering a postcard from a friend in Barrow to Mr. Garvin's house in Miami for the postage rate of 29 cents. Garvin's assessment that USPS workers' pay is to be blame could not be further from the truth.

The solution is not a taxpayer bailout, but passing legislation in Congress to give the Postal Service the financial flexibility it needs and deserves to prevent a rate increase and protect six-day delivery service.

Chris Crutchfield is Alaska state chairman for the National Association of Letter Carriers.