Branstad's post office v. workforce office argument doesn't add up

I tuned into Gov. Terry Branstad's weekly news confab this morning. Somewhere in the middle he was asked to explain the difference between his decision to close workforce services offices in 37 Iowa locations and his beef with the U.S. Postal Service proposal to close 178 rural post offices in the state.

From the Associated Press:

The governor says he wants to see a comprehensive plan from the Postal Service about how it plans to deal with its budget troubles, and he says closing a handful of rural offices won't make a significant difference.

Critics have cited as similar Branstad's order to close about 37 Iowa Workforce Development offices around the state because of budget woes, saying it was done without regard to the impact that would have on job training and placement programs.

He rejected those comparisons, saying the Workforce Development services were still being offered. He argued the Postal Service needs to develop a realistic plan for how it would deal with its budget problems, something he hasn't seen.

“The difference is we have 178 offices, many of them in very small rural communities that don't have those services available,” said Branstad. “I think we have with Workforce development a plan that's going to increase access.”

Branstad began his criticism of the Postal Service last week, and officials from that agency have declined to comment.

“Their problems are much deeper than a few rural post offices,” the governor said. “They can close all these post offices and it won't make even a little dent in their situation.”

For the record, I don't have strong feelings about keeping any of these offices open. I've read much in the papers and internets lately about government being too gosh darned big and all. So I guess these are the clear-eyed, tough-minded attempts we the voters have  demanded to make it smaller. Bully.

But Branstad's arguments that the Postal Service has no plan and that the savings from closure would be insignificant are dubious.

Maybe Branstad hasn't seen a "plan," likely because state governors aren't often consulted on postal service management, but it sure seems like the Postal Service is taking multiple public steps to close it's $8 billion budget gap:

Facing an $8.3 billion budget deficit this year, closing post offices is one of several proposals the Postal Service has put forth recently to cut costs. Last week for example, Postmaster General Pat Donahoe announced plans to stop mail delivery on Saturdays, a move he says could save $3 billion annually.

...

Dean Granholm, the vice president for delivery and post office operations, said the first wave of closings would begin this fall. He estimated that about 3,000 postmasters, 500 station managers and between 500 and 1,000 postal clerks could lose their jobs.

Of the nearly 3,700 proposed post office closures, slightly more than 3,000 of them have annual revenue of less than $27,500, and a workload of less than two hours per day. Compared with the $100,000 or so it takes to run a post office, many of them are not even breaking even, Granholm said.

Closing those 3,700 post offices saves $200 million. That's about 2 percent of the $8.3 billion deficit. Not a huge slice, admittedly.

However, the $15 million Branstad saves closing the workforce offices is about 0.25 percent of the state's $6 billion annual budget. Thankfully, Iowa isn't running a deficit.

Is $15 million insignificant? Branstad and Democrats assailing his closure decision sure don't think so.

Is $200 million insignificant? I guess it sounds like it, in a world of billions and trillions.

But Branstad repeatedly trumpeted the fact that his budget provided just more than $200 million to Iowa's K-12 public schools to make up for across-the-board budget cuts. He also proposed a corporate tax cut that would have reduced revenues by about $200 million, arguing it would help create thousands of jobs.

I don't recall the governor using the term "little dent" to describe either of those plans.

Both Iowa Workforce Development and the USPS contend that services lost through closures can be accessed online. IWD is adding computer access points at libraries, armories etc. USPS is planing to add "village" post offices that provide services in groceries or other local businesses. Both agencies say customers will have multiple ways to get the service they need, at less cost.

And although Branstad can explain at length why we can survive without 37 workforce offices, he didn't explain today why the postal service should keep any offices open that cost more to operate than they take in. Where is that OK within a fiscally conservative governing philosophy? I know what the governor would do with a state agency that operated like that.

Basically, either we're trying to shrink outrageously spendy government or we're trying to score political points defending outdated functions to look heroic in the hustings. Trying to do both at the same time looks silly. I don't think the governor's family ownership of a bunch of small town post office buildings fully explains it. (Only one Branstad property is on the closure list). He simply wants to have it both ways, like lots of politicians now and in the future.

These are painful decisions, to be sure. Communities and lives are affected. It's fun to spout campaign trail declarations about our big bad, always useless, government that needs to be cut off at the knees. Then comes the cutting, and the blood, and maybe a longer wait for stamps. It's no time to get squeamish or sentimental, governor.