I just had a great exchange with my letter carrier (as I sometimes do)
while at my mailbox today, and I wonder how many times a day my carrier is
interrupted in her work, as I interrupted her, to politely chit-chat. Of
course, I brought up the likelihood of five-day delivery come August, to which
she gave a candid response, "Well, we've been losing money."
Most Americans—and maybe even some carriers—don't know the full story—or any
story—about how the United States Postal Service endures pre-funding retirement
benefit mandates from Congress, as well as other cost-drivers that have nothing
to do with the digital age, electronic bill payments and multichannel
communication trends. Nor do they know that both The White House and Congress
spend these mandated monies on their own programs, even as the federal deficit
spirals.
That's why it's easy to be indignant when some members of Congress, perhaps
predictably, jumped onto the current appropriations bill (a continuing
resolution to fund the government beyond March 27) with mandates for six-day
delivery. Yet, one has to ask, where are the means for real relief from
some of the costliest demands of the 2006 postal reform law? Making the Postal
Service stick with Saturday delivery isn't the action we need Congress to take.
Is it really enough, or correct, to just counter USPS management efforts to
cut costs and right-size the network? Why not delve deeper into the ills that
Congress and the Administration—both parties involved here—have heaped onto the
Postal Service's bottom line? Why not revisit real postal reform? How many more
years must the Postal Service get squeezed, and default on payments, before
Congress and the President take seriously its cause, its future, its
sustainability?
No comments:
Post a Comment