[dragonwriter]

> So you're both [edit: all] saying that Congress is being paid (by who? UPS/Fedex?) to screw USPS over.

I don't see anyone saying that Congress is being paid to do that. Congress has lots of members who favor privatization of government services in general and the post office in particular, but outright privatization seemed like it would have a political cost that they weren't willing to bear. So they put in that measure, with the intent of building political support for privatization over time.

Whether the preference for privatization is honest ideology, corruption, or something else is its own issue.

> Why wasn't this mentioned in the article if it's such a well-known scheme?

The article mentions the mandate as one of the central problems facing the USPS, and the fact that it is a requirement that neither private businesses nor other public institutions face.

[roymurdock]

Ok, so putting aside whether this bill was the result of political ideology or regulatory capture, where are the citations that back up your claims?

> The article mentions the mandate as one of the central problems facing the USPS, and the fact that it is a requirement that neither private businesses nor other public institutions face.

Right, the point of my original comment was to highlight this seemingly absurd policy. The Economist provides no further explanation. People in this thread are quick to color in whatever details they like. I'm no expert on the USPS so perhaps the Economist has an agenda to push by not including the relevant information.

I was 13 in 2006, so if this really was the result of Bush and his friends in Congress, they did a fantastic job of playing the long game. But I'll wait to form an opinion until I see credible citations.

[Jtsummers]

http://www.savethepostoffice.com/how-postal-service-began-pr...

EDIT:

> I was 13 in 2006, so if this really was the result of Bush and his friends in Congress, they did a fantastic job of playing the long game. But I'll wait to form an opinion until I see credible citations.

Also, IMO your age at a particular time a decision was made is irrelevant. The facts on what happened are readily available. Just because I was 9 when the first Gulf War happened, doesn't mean I can't have formed an understanding of it from (contemporary) sources and later reports, articles, and books. It's almost a reverse ad hominem, an attempt to excuse yourself from a discussion or drawing a conclusion because you weren't present or cognizant at the time. You're capable of conducting research yourself, you're an intelligent, human being. And others have provided citations and discussion throughout this thread on the topic.