Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Because there is no incentive to come in under budget.  All it means for a government program to do that is that the budget for next year gets cut.
Why is the U.S. Postal Service a money pit while Fedex and UPS are profitable?  Why can't Amtrak operate at a profit even while having a near-monopoly on RR passenger travel? And even while selling soft drinks for $5 and reheated grocery-store frozen hamburgers for $10?

Nobody in the world would pay $100 for a hammer or $300 for a toilet seat, but the U.S. Air Force does, or did for a long time.

Let me tell you a story.  Sit back and enjoy yourself, I will try and keep the politics to a minimum.  The year is 2006, and the USPS is efficient and adapting to a changing world.  Both the Senate and House have procured republican majorities with the rise of the tea party.  It is self funded and efficient, despite the fact that email was becoming more and more mainstream every day.  It was held high in regards by much of the public and often listed as the perfect success story for a government run program.  USPS employees were well compensated and had full benefits, including a very nice pension plan.  Sure, it wasn't perfect, but by and large they had done an admirable job for 231 years.

FedEx, UPS, and other companies had joined the package distribution industry over the years, and yet the USPS was continuing to be successful.  This didn't sit will with the ideologues of the republican party.  Something must be wrong.  Why was the USPS thriving, despite the introduction of competitive private companies? 

The answer was simple.  USPS did not prefund their employee pensions.  They paid pensions based upon the money they made in their day to day operations.  Private companies, on the other hand, have to pay their pension fund up front.  This is because a company may not exist in the future, so paying a pension out of future earnings is in no way guaranteed.  (See Bethlehem Steel, for example)

Deeming this an unfair advantage, the republican congress passed a new law ordering the USPS to prefund their pensions.  As USPS employees were government workers, this presented a fairly large financial risk to the US Government.  With email gaining in popularity, the possibility of private package transport taking USPS market share, and internet ordering its infancy, there was justified concern.  If the USPS folded, the government could be on the hook to pay pensions totaling in the billions.  The republican legislature took aim to protect themselves from this eventuality.  Not unreasonable. 

Here's where things take a crazy political turn.

The republican legislature does not act in a way to make the USPS pension fun comparable to private plans.  It does not act in a way to protect the government from potential future unfunded pensions.  The measures required by congress direct the USPS to prefund all pension costs for the next 75 years, and it requires them to do so in just 10 years.  Furthermore, they direct the USPS to prefund all of their future medical expenses in the same period.  Without going into details, the USPS is forced to fund future medical and pension cost at a level far exceeding the requirements put upon private employers that offer pensions. 

This was a massive change for an organization that had been doing business for 231+ years, and there was no way to raise that kind of funding in just 10 years.  So, the USPS set upon a goal to fully fund these requirements in 50 years (2056).  However, on the books, they will carry over hefty losses until the fund is fully paid for.

I'll take a break from the politics free stuff for a bit.  I absolutely believe that the republican congress went too far.  Certainly the motivation was there to prove that even a well-running government organization was bad, and to force the USPS to raise prices, making private companies more affordable.  Many of those same congressmen had received generous donations from FedEx and UPS as well.  Most importantly, people can now point to the USPS as a failure.

Back to politics free.  A few other random things to note:

FedEx and UPS do not service rural customers, as it is not profitable for them.  They contract USPS to do so.  USPS bears the burden of unprofitable, rural areas.  FedEx and UPS are nowhere near ready to replace the USPS.

The employees of the USPS are better paid, and have better benefits than their private counterparts.  This actually puts them at a competitive disadvantage, and yet their pricing is usually better than the private carriers.

The USPS was not designed to be profitable.  It was designed to deliver mail across America. 

One story I read long ago about a military hammer is that they didn't want an off the shelf hammer.  They had someone specify a hammer with unique features (that were not relevant to its being a hammer).  So, rather than just selling hammers from stock, the hammer company had to make a new run of specific hammers, AND they had to run the testing to prove the hammers met the military specs.

It turned out in this specific case than the soldiers et al. using these hammers hated them and bought their own.  I forget why now.

I once was involved in getting some materials tested for "explosivity" and the standard test was called the "JANAF test", which stood for Joint Army Navy Air Force.  The company experts told me the tests were mostly useless but they had to run them as part of their protocol.  (I was checking to see if we could ship this stuff legally, in fact, to get the materials to the testing labs I carried them in my brief case on a plane, which was legal, but I couldn't mail them.)  

These guys were formerly NASA engineers who worked on the lunar ascent rocket engine, which used some interesting chemicals.  Their facility still had the concrete rocket test stands on site.  They told me one of my test materials pegged their measuring equipment for the first time in decades.  It was dicey.  Those were the days.

One story I read long ago about a military hammer is that they didn't want an off the shelf hammer.  They had someone specify a hammer with unique features (that were not relevant to its being a hammer).  So, rather than just selling hammers from stock, the hammer company had to make a new run of specific hammers, AND they had to run the testing to prove the hammers met the military specs.

Yeah, we had a joke that the defense contractors didn't actually read all the test reports that were generated to prove that you met all their specifications; they just weighed them. If the reports were too light, you clearly didn't run all the tests right 

In other news, April 2020 was the 2nd hottest on record and we now have a 75% chance that 2020 will be the hottest year on record.

Let me tell you a story.  Sit back and enjoy yourself, I will try and keep the politics to a minimum.  The year is 2006, and the USPS is efficient and adapting to a changing world.  Both the Senate and House have procured republican majorities with the rise of the tea party.  It is self funded and efficient, despite the fact that email was becoming more and more mainstream every day.  It was held high in regards by much of the public and often listed as the perfect success story for a government run program.  USPS employees were well compensated and had full benefits, including a very nice pension plan.  Sure, it wasn't perfect, but by and large they had done an admirable job for 231 years.

FedEx, UPS, and other companies had joined the package distribution industry over the years, and yet the USPS was continuing to be successful.  This didn't sit will with the ideologues of the republican party.  Something must be wrong.  Why was the USPS thriving, despite the introduction of competitive private companies? 

The answer was simple.  USPS did not prefund their employee pensions.  They paid pensions based upon the money they made in their day to day operations.  Private companies, on the other hand, have to pay their pension fund up front.  This is because a company may not exist in the future, so paying a pension out of future earnings is in no way guaranteed.  (See Bethlehem Steel, for example)

Deeming this an unfair advantage, the republican congress passed a new law ordering the USPS to prefund their pensions.  As USPS employees were government workers, this presented a fairly large financial risk to the US Government.  With email gaining in popularity, the possibility of private package transport taking USPS market share, and internet ordering its infancy, there was justified concern.  If the USPS folded, the government could be on the hook to pay pensions totaling in the billions.  The republican legislature took aim to protect themselves from this eventuality.  Not unreasonable. 

Here's where things take a crazy political turn.

The republican legislature does not act in a way to make the USPS pension fun comparable to private plans.  It does not act in a way to protect the government from potential future unfunded pensions.  The measures required by congress direct the USPS to prefund all pension costs for the next 75 years, and it requires them to do so in just 10 years.  Furthermore, they direct the USPS to prefund all of their future medical expenses in the same period.  Without going into details, the USPS is forced to fund future medical and pension cost at a level far exceeding the requirements put upon private employers that offer pensions. 

This was a massive change for an organization that had been doing business for 231+ years, and there was no way to raise that kind of funding in just 10 years.  So, the USPS set upon a goal to fully fund these requirements in 50 years (2056).  However, on the books, they will carry over hefty losses until the fund is fully paid for.

I'll take a break from the politics free stuff for a bit.  I absolutely believe that the republican congress went too far.  Certainly the motivation was there to prove that even a well-running government organization was bad, and to force the USPS to raise prices, making private companies more affordable.  Many of those same congressmen had received generous donations from FedEx and UPS as well.  Most importantly, people can now point to the USPS as a failure.

Back to politics free.  A few other random things to note:

FedEx and UPS do not service rural customers, as it is not profitable for them.  They contract USPS to do so.  USPS bears the burden of unprofitable, rural areas.  FedEx and UPS are nowhere near ready to replace the USPS.

The employees of the USPS are better paid, and have better benefits than their private counterparts.  This actually puts them at a competitive disadvantage, and yet their pricing is usually better than the private carriers.

The USPS was not designed to be profitable.  It was designed to deliver mail across America.

Without disputing the essentials of your story, I must point out that the Tea Party arose in 2009 in response to the introduction of ObamaCare legislation.  So the Republicans of 2006, whatever they were or weren't, weren't being influenced by the Tea Party.
I know that comparing the USPS with UPS and FedEx is an apples-oranges comparison.  To me, what it best illustrates is that a government operation is not the same thing as a for-profit business.  And often, it seems to me, trying to mix the two results in a camel with the worst features of both.
I'll also point out that Democrats have had control of Congress at times since 2006.  In fact, they took over both houses in the 2006 mid-terms, and Barack Obama had a Congress with both houses controlled by Democrats during his 1st two years and had control of the Senate for all 8 years.  I note this because Democrats have had opportunities to "fix" what the Republicans "broke" in 2006.
We've gotten somewhat down in the weeds here.  My point was and is that government operations have less incentive than private business to cut unnecessary costs, to the point that sometimes the incentives for government operations go the other way, and that therefore the government doing a particular task is going to cost more than a private business doing the same thing.  I recognize that there are some things that governments are obligated to either by written constitutional law (e.g., deliver the mail, defend the country) or by common consent of the governed, and oftentimes those aren't going to be profitable in an economic sense.  But those essential functions are still going to be skewed to ensure the greatest benefit to the most powerful politicians, who feel compelled to "bring home the bacon" to their home districts and states in order to keep being re-elected, which is the overriding concern in life for most of them.  So the process of building an M1 tank or an F-35 or a new truck or a new rifle is going to be spread through as many congressional districts as possible.  If General Dynamics Land Systems (I think it's still called that) was merely being told to build the best tank for the best price, it would produce better tanks more cheaply than it does now because it could source its suppliers and sub-contractors based on cost and performance rather than on what congressional districts they occupy.
I'm critical of politics and politicians, but as far as I can tell, they come with the territory of self-government.  To the extent that we want free stuff, even at the cost of a corrupt, self-serving government, we will get a corrupt, self-serving government even if we may not get the free stuff.
I'm not advocating that we replace expensive, corrupt self-government with efficient, honest tyranny.  I am advocating that we grow up and pay attention, and stop thinking that we can get something for nothing.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  IMO, we've become addicted to what we think are free lunches.  I am highly skeptical of the idea that the guys running the "get yer free lunches here if you vote for me" sort of government can do anything better and/or cheaper than the free market can in the case of things that can be provided by the free market.

Without disputing the essentials of your story, I must point out that the Tea Party arose in 2009 in response to the introduction of ObamaCare legislation.  So the Republicans of 2006, whatever they were or weren't, weren't being influenced by the Tea Party.
I know that comparing the USPS with UPS and FedEx is an apples-oranges comparison.  To me, what it best illustrates is that a government operation is not the same thing as a for-profit business.  And often, it seems to me, trying to mix the two results in a camel with the worst features of both.
I'll also point out that Democrats have had control of Congress at times since 2006.  In fact, they took over both houses in the 2006 mid-terms, and Barack Obama had a Congress with both houses controlled by Democrats during his 1st two years and had control of the Senate for all 8 years.  I note this because Democrats have had opportunities to "fix" what the Republicans "broke" in 2006.
We've gotten somewhat down in the weeds here.  My point was and is that government operations have less incentive than private business to cut unnecessary costs, to the point that sometimes the incentives for government operations go the other way, and that therefore the government doing a particular task is going to cost more than a private business doing the same thing.  I recognize that there are some things that governments are obligated to either by written constitutional law (e.g., deliver the mail, defend the country) or by common consent of the governed, and oftentimes those aren't going to be profitable in an economic sense.  But those essential functions are still going to be skewed to ensure the greatest benefit to the most powerful politicians, who feel compelled to "bring home the bacon" to their home districts and states in order to keep being re-elected, which is the overriding concern in life for most of them.  So the process of building an M1 tank or an F-35 or a new truck or a new rifle is going to be spread through as many congressional districts as possible.  If General Dynamics Land Systems (I think it's still called that) was merely being told to build the best tank for the best price, it would produce better tanks more cheaply than it does now because it could source its suppliers and sub-contractors based on cost and performance rather than on what congressional districts they occupy.
I'm critical of politics and politicians, but as far as I can tell, they come with the territory of self-government.  To the extent that we want free stuff, even at the cost of a corrupt, self-serving government, we will get a corrupt, self-serving government even if we may not get the free stuff.
I'm not advocating that we replace expensive, corrupt self-government with efficient, honest tyranny.  I am advocating that we grow up and pay attention, and stop thinking that we can get something for nothing.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  IMO, we've become addicted to what we think are free lunches.  I am highly skeptical of the idea that the guys running the "get yer free lunches here if you vote for me" sort of government can do anything better and/or cheaper than the free market can in the case of things that can be provided by the free market.

I was only trying to clarify the situation the USPS is in.  It isn't in nearly the dire financial straits it may appear on first glance.

To respond to your stuff in bold, that's not always true.  Sometimes government run or government regulated is just better.  That's not wishful thinking, that can be proven with real data.  Ideologically, libertarians believe the government can do almost nothing right.  Communists believe that the market can do almost nothing right.  People typically draw their lines somewhere between those two extremes.  

For me?  I don't take an ideological side.  I recognize the fact the most of the time the free market is the right solution.  I also recognize the fact that sometimes the government needs to get involved in some capacity for the good of its people. Where do I draw my line?  Show me the data. 

Which brings me full circle.  I do think that the government needs to step up and actively try and reduce carbon emissions.  Something needs to happen now, and I believe that the evidence is clear.  Government involvement appears to be the best option for real change in the shortest amount of time.

Yes, I recognize we are only the 2nd largest CO2 producer in the world.  I think our government is in the best position to positively influence China and everyone else.  It has happened before.  Remember acid rain?

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  IMO, we've become addicted to what we think are free lunches.  I am highly skeptical of the idea that the guys running the "get yer free lunches here if you vote for me" sort of government can do anything better and/or cheaper than the free market can in the case of things that can be provided by the free market.

Reading this part, it strikes me that a quasi-free lunch situation (the GI bill) set the stage for our college bubble. Weird.

(Free lunch in that it was a weird perk that insulated a generation from those costs and made it commonplace)