The Post Office

[HYHYBT]

After that reply, I guess I'd better clarify that I don't remember what the mail was that came free, just who sent it. I've gotten the progress update/opinion things (and an interesting response when I took up the offer to share my opinion) and I've gotten requests for money, but until about two minutes ago didn't see any substantial difference between the two. "I'm working hard to get these things you want done" and "please send me money so I can stay in office" are closely tied together, even when arriving separately, but I suppose for these purposes the distinction is important.

[Aethian]

After awhile they all look the same.

[fireheart17]

My congress critters don't abuse the mail as some other do. My US rep sends out a what's going on mailer twice a year and what his thoughts regarding those goings on. As far as I can remember he's never asked for any money for himself or anyone else, nor as he asked for a vote. He did announce that his son was running for a local office but in a proud Daddy kinda way.
Unless I'm mistaken I don't think they're allowed to use "incumbent" mailings to solicit money or votes. All such solicitations I've received has been paid for by the candidate's campaign fund.

Down here, I get a newsletter every so often from my MP's (both state and federal). This is a combo of photo ops and stuff she learns from her community. My area is fairly broad as far as federal goes, but actually not so broad at the state level!

The usual newsletter is not used to buy votes, it's just stuff that happens as well as an opinion piece by our MP's about some issue. She tends to highlight her achievements without disparaging her opponents.

The "vote-buying" crap comes out when the campaign posters go up. We chuck it in the trash as most of it is denigrating the other party and not talking about what they'll do if elected. It also plants the idea that you're voting for the Prime Minister. YOu're not. you're actually voting for your member of parliament. Just because you vote for Party A does not necessarily mean that Party A will win. -.-

(this year I suspect that there will be a lot of donkey and informal votes. A donkey vote involves a candidate simply writing 1-5 down the paper without looking to see who's on the list)

[protege]

Well based on that article, it just sees like the politicians like to do everything in their power to hamstring the Post Office and then complain loudly about how it doesn't make money and is yet another example of how the Government fails us.

It's not just the post office--politicians do the same thing to Amtrak. What gets me about that, is that Amtrak is supposed to stand on its own...yet there are *massive* subsidies thrown at the airlines. Hypocrisy, much?

Never mind that no passenger-hauling carrier on the *planet* makes a profit without heavy subsidies, they insist that the carrier has to become "self-sufficient." Yet, at the same time, Amtrak is responsible for maintaining their facilities, the few lines they actually own, as well as their equipment. Then they turn around and bitch about how service "sucks" and that the carrier should be taken over by private entities.

Yep, like that worked *so well* in the past. Years ago, railroads were being forced to run money-losing passenger service because of government regulations. Until the late 1960s, those losses were usually offset by mail contracts. Those ended, and the lines wanted to drop passenger service. They couldn't without Federal approval. Instead, the railroads retaliated, by deferring maintenance and assigning their worst equipment to those trains. Equipment that should have been retired (1920s-era commuter cars, for example), was kept in service. They figured "we're losing money, why spend more on it?"

At least now, Amtrak has been released of the self-sufficiency requirement, and gets some Federal subsidies to upgrade and maintain equipment. Now, their revenue per mile (30.7 cents in 2007) is higher than domestic airlines (13 cents in 2007) and their reliability is up 83% versus 76% in 2007.

Like Amtrak, I have a feeling that the post office will be able to do more with less. It may take some time, but it will happen.

[wolfie]

I wonder - since the post office is legally obliged to deliver the political "junk mail" (for less money, and at a higher service level, than ordinary mail), if someone writes (or stamps) on the unopened envelope "Return to sender - not accepted by addressee" and drops it in a mailbox, are they required to re-deliver it to the congresscritter/senaturd who sent it?

[Aethian]

I wonder - since the post office is legally obliged to deliver the political "junk mail" (for less money, and at a higher service level, than ordinary mail), if someone writes (or stamps) on the unopened envelope "Return to sender - not accepted by addressee" and drops it in a mailbox, are they required to re-deliver it to the congresscritter/senaturd who sent it?

Nope, because it wasn't sent at least at first class mail and since the majority of them are sent with no statement of "Return Service Requested" or "Forwarding Service Requested" or "Address Service Requested" it will just be put into the recycling bin. But when you drop it into a box you've just cost us to lose MORE money on that piece.

[bainsidhe]

What about those envelopes marked "no postage necessary"? I'm thinking of the ones that arrive with credit card apps and the like. I'll occasionally shred the application and mail it back it their postage-paid envelope. But then I heard you're tracked by the bar code on the envelope, so I usually just tear them up and discard them anymore. Still, I like the idea of credit card companies paying to have me send back their junk mail.

[Aethian]

What about those envelopes marked "no postage necessary"? I'm thinking of the ones that arrive with credit card apps and the like. I'll occasionally shred the application and mail it back it their postage-paid envelope. But then I heard you're tracked by the bar code on the envelope, so I usually just tear them up and discard them anymore. Still, I like the idea of credit card companies paying to have me send back their junk mail.

Those are different. Those they get a reduced rate but nothing like what politicians get. And the heavier you can get the envelope the more they have to pay to get it returned to them. BUT they can deny it and we get paid nothing and so again...lose money.

[bainsidhe]

How do they deny it? I understand rejecting a label attached to a box of rocks, but what about a regular envelope that's either empty or has a torn-up application? Do they reject it after they've accepted delivery and processed the mail, or do you mean reject it before trying to open it (such as in the case of rejecting a box of rocks).

And I'm not joking about the rocks. I had a coworker who used to brag about attaching a label to a box of rocks and mailing it out.

[mikoyan29]

It's not just the post office--politicians do the same thing to Amtrak. What gets me about that, is that Amtrak is supposed to stand on its own...yet there are *massive* subsidies thrown at the airlines. Hypocrisy, much?

Never mind that no passenger-hauling carrier on the *planet* makes a profit without heavy subsidies, they insist that the carrier has to become "self-sufficient." Yet, at the same time, Amtrak is responsible for maintaining their facilities, the few lines they actually own, as well as their equipment. Then they turn around and bitch about how service "sucks" and that the carrier should be taken over by private entities.

Yep, like that worked *so well* in the past. Years ago, railroads were being forced to run money-losing passenger service because of government regulations. Until the late 1960s, those losses were usually offset by mail contracts. Those ended, and the lines wanted to drop passenger service. They couldn't without Federal approval. Instead, the railroads retaliated, by deferring maintenance and assigning their worst equipment to those trains. Equipment that should have been retired (1920s-era commuter cars, for example), was kept in service. They figured "we're losing money, why spend more on it?"

At least now, Amtrak has been released of the self-sufficiency requirement, and gets some Federal subsidies to upgrade and maintain equipment. Now, their revenue per mile (30.7 cents in 2007) is higher than domestic airlines (13 cents in 2007) and their reliability is up 83% versus 76% in 2007.

Like Amtrak, I have a feeling that the post office will be able to do more with less. It may take some time, but it will happen.

Don't get me started about Amtrak. It gets fucked over by the government and the private rail companies that don't really want it around but they don't really want the passenger service. It seems like just about every year during peak travel time, Norfolk-Southern has signal trouble on the part of the Wolverine that covers Kalamazoo to Ann Arbor. Tends to add an hour or so delay.

[Aethian]

Don't get me started about Amtrak. It gets fucked over by the government and the private rail companies that don't really want it around but they don't really want the passenger service. It seems like just about every year during peak travel time, Norfolk-Southern has signal trouble on the part of the Wolverine that covers Kalamazoo to Ann Arbor. Tends to add an hour or so delay.

You should see it when we have to wait downtown for them to be able to move sometimes. I was late heading back to the office one time cause of that stupid area over by campus. The lights just wouldn't shut off and in the mail truck I can't go around! ARG Okay...mini-vent over.