‘It's Only a Blueprint!'

‘It’s Only a Blueprint!’
By Bob Levi
NAPS Director of Legislative & Political Affairs

Last month, NAPS members electronically, telephonically and personally communicated with their members of Congress to raise the alarm about the content and intent of the House Budget Resolution 14 (H.Con.Res. 14). This is the budget legislation that sets the stage for major reductions in postal and federal employee pay and benefits.

Notwithstanding the objection of the broad federal and postal employee coalition and its congressional allies, the House of Representatives approved the measure by a narrow and partisan 217-215 majority. The Senate passed its own resolution, without the attacks on postal and federal benefits.

As this column went to press, the House and Senate sought to resolve the differences between the two budget resolutions. Identical budget resolutions must pass both houses of Congress to proceed to the next step in which each committee assigned savings must draft the specific legislative language to achieve those savings.

The pro vision in H.Con.Res 14 that set off flares in the federal and postal community was the instruction that directs the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to cut $50 billion from programs under its jurisdiction over the next decade. In response to NAPS’ calls to oppose the cuts, the responses forwarded to me by NAPS members reflect the consistent narrative they heard that the resolution is “only a blueprint.”

Now, I’ve been in the legislative business for over 40 years and have seen such blueprints before; specifications outlined in the so-called blueprint can very well be enacted into law. This particularly is the case when the House and Senate majorities share the same party as the president of the United States.

Moreover, the only programs under the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee that can achieve at least $50 billion in savings relate to federal retirement and health insurance programs. The House Ways and Means Committee, which was tasked with offsetting trillions of dollars in tax cuts, created a menu of cuts to assign different House committees. Included in this menu:

  • Increase the FERS contribution rate to 4.4% for all postal and federal employees. This proposal would reduce take-home pay for those hired in 2013 by 1.3% and those hired before 2013 by 3.6%. (Those hired in 2014 and after already contribute 4.4%.) Savings of $44 billion.
  • Change the formula for calculating FERS retirement from based on the highest three consecutive earning years to the highest five. Savings of $4 billion.
  • Replace the federal and postal health premium contribution formula from using the annual weighted average premium with a tax-free voucher. Savings of $16-$18 billion.
  • Eliminate FERS Supplemental Retirement, which provides enhanced FERS payments to FERS annuitants before Social Security eligibility. Savings of $5-$13 billion.

Once all House committees report the legislative language that would yield H.Con.Res. 14’s budget targets, the Budget Committee aggregates the language into a “budget reconciliation bill.” The reconciliation bill must pass both the House and the Senate. Unlike the budget resolution, the new budget bill requires the president’s signature because it would change existing law.

In previous years, the federal and postal community could rely on either different partisan majorities in the house of Congress or a presidential veto to provide shelter; however, this year there is no safety net. Consequently, this year’s Legislative Training Seminar (LTS) delegates and NAPS members unable to attend the April event will be called on to urge their representatives and senators to oppose punitive cuts to postal employee and annuitant benefits.

Amid Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s announcement of his imminent departure from the Postal Service, the White House renewed its apparent support of postal privatization and promoted assimilation of the agency into the Commerce Department. Both ill-advised postal nightmares are dangerous.

NAPS has been communicating with lawmakers of both parties to underscore the threat these reckless proposals would have on a universal, affordable and accessible national postal system. In addition, NAPS has been educating non-employee postal stakeholders about the harm that such plans would have on the American economy and sanctity of our entire mail system.

In addition, NAPS President Ivan D. Butts addressed a Washington pro-postal rally, hosted by the National Associational of Letter Carriers, to highlight the collaborative, strategic approach that all postal employee groups (i.e., labor and management) must take to successfully combat assaults on our essential, governmental postal system. Our collective efforts seem to have had some impact as the White House privatization rhetoric and calls to fold the Postal Service into Commerce have diminished.

In fact, in a late Feb. 26 interview between FOX News anchor Bret Baier and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the secretary’s only comment relating to the Postal Service was the advantage of using postal employees in the next decennial U.S. Census. This was an idea promoted more than a decade ago by then House Oversight and Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and authorized by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006.

In any case, if the past is prelude, the rhetorical pause on postal privatization and assimilation into Commerce likely only is a temporary reprieve. So, please read the transcript of a recent episode of NAPS Chat on page 22, during which I discussed potential threats to an independent, government-run Postal Service with American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Dr. Kevin Kosar.

It is abundantly clear that, regarding what “blueprint” is being considered, only through aggressive engagement with our elected members of Congress—representatives and senators—can the blueprint change.