Post Office Finances Now Officially High Risk — No Kidding
GAO is adding the US Postal Service's (USPS) financial condition to the list of high-risk areas needing attention by Congress and the executive branch to achieve broad-based transformation.
I'm sure our bureaucratic wizards are in the lab cooking up the next round of public finance models, with complications rivaling those of String Theory. However, I'm also sure that there will be nothing new in terms of results, aside from increased stamp prices – and perhaps a spike in short-term disability by way of calculator calluses.
Within the GAO report, one will find the crowning achievement of government detective work. The United States Postal Service's incompetence has finally shrieked loud enough for our masters to take notice. Here are some of the report's most keenly embarrassing lines.
This year, USPS expects to increase its year-end debt to $10.2 billion, and incur a cash shortfall of about $1 billion.
Another key risk factor is the accelerated decline in mail volume. Mail volume declined by 9.5 billion pieces in fiscal year 2008 to about 203 billion pieces. As of the end of May 2009, mail volume had decreased another 18.5 billion pieces, and USPS expects to end fiscal year 2009 with mail volume of 175 billion pieces – about 28 billion pieces fewer than in fiscal year 2008.
|YEAR||NET LOSS *||YEAR-END DEBT|
Even handicapped economists of the likes of Paul Krugman will attest that when falling demand is coupled with increased costs, we have a problem. Does the decrease in mail volume indicate that the public has finally come to terms with reality? The GAO doesn't think so. They believe it is simply a matter of economics:
To achieve financial viability, USPS must align its costs with revenues, generate sufficient earnings to finance capital investment, and manage its debt.
My fellow free marketers, there's no need to worry. With a motto like "Accountability, Integrity, and Reliability," the Government Accountability Office will certainly correct such inefficiency. Just look at their success in reforming programs in the last two decades.
|PROGRAM AREA||YEAR FIRST
|DOD Supply Chain Management||1990|
|DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition||1990|
|DOE Contract Management for the National Nuclear Security Administration and Office of Environmental Management||1990|
|NASA Acquisition Management||1990|
|Enforcement of Tax Laws||1990|
|DOD Contract Management||1992|
|DOD Financial Management||1995|
|DOD Business Systems Modernization||1995|
|IRS Business Systems Modernization||1995|
|Protecting the Federal Government's Information Systems and the Nation's Critical Infrastructures||1997|
|DOD Support Infrastructure Management||1997|
|Strategic Human Capital Management||2001|
|Managing Federal Real Property||2003|
|Improving and Modernizing Federal Disability Programs||2003|
|Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland Security||2003|
|Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Insurance Programs||2003|
|Establishing Effective Mechanisms for Sharing Terrorism-Related Information to Protect the Homeland||2005|
|DOD Approach to Business Transformation||2005|
|DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program||2005|
|Management of Interagency Contracting||2005|
|National Flood Insurance Program||2006|
|Funding the Nation's Surface Transportation System||2007|
|Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to US National Security Interests||2007|
|Revamping Federal Oversight of Food Safety||2007|
|Modernizing the Outdated US Financial Regulatory System||2009|
|Protecting Public Health through Enhanced Oversight of Medical Products||2009|
|Transforming EPA's Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals||2009|
Alas, despite the comical notion of "government accountability," we can still imagine a room full of latté-drinking mental midgets listening attentively to what they believe to be breaking news; we can imagine their fingers scribbling away at newly devised plans for reformation; we can imagine them preparing for infinite inevitable boardroom meetings; we can imagine countless proposals for interventionist solutions, inspired by the broken window fallacy. And yet there is one thing we cannot imagine: the GAO bureaucrats accepting the solution of laissez-faire.