There’s little doubt about it. The U.S. Postal Service is in trouble. Numbers tell the tale. The number of items handled by the post office declined from 213 billion in 2006 to 177 billion last year. That’s not the worst of it. Volume is predicted to shrink to 150 billion by 2020. No wonder the post office is losing money – a projected $7 billion this year and a cumulative shortfall of about $238 billion by 2020. Given that history and those numbers, it is easy to understand why postal officials say drastic action is necessary to keep the agency afloat.
The suggested cuts are draconian. An end to Saturday delivery is one possibility. Rate increases are almost a certainty. So is the closure of some post offices. A slowdown in delivery times is possible, too. For the moment, those proposals and others are talking points, but serious discussions about the future of the Postal Service are inescapable. A compelling need for the Postal Service to cut costs makes that so.
The reasons for the post office’s red ink are societal as well as economic. More and more Americans, particularly the younger demographic, correspond electronically rather than via the Postal Service. They write letters, pay bills, send greeting cards and do a host of other things that once required a stamp via a computer or other device. Couple that with the fact that the number of addresses where the law requires mail to be delivered is growing both numerically and geographically and you’ve got a prescription for fiscal disaster.
A normal business would address such a problem in a straightforward manner. It would cut expenses, reduce personnel, enhance efficiency and tailor services to meet customer demand. But the post office can’t do that very easily; it is not a normal business. It serves a constituency like no other.
Most Americans no doubt accept the need for the post office to be fiscally prudent, but they reject any changes that will affect them directly. Thus, any plan to shut post offices, raise rates, slow delivery times or reduce days of service faces an uphill battle. There are political issues, as well.
Though the post office no longer receives funds or subsidies from the federal government, it still must get permission from Congress to make changes in the way it operates. And lawmakers are reluctant to reduce or eliminate services that likely will produce howls from constituents.
They are equally loath to cross the powerful lobbyists in the employ of bulk mailers who demand low-cost rates, i.e. subsidies, for junk and bulk mail that are far less lucrative to the post office than first-class mail.
Just about everyone agrees that cuts and changes at the Postal Service should be implemented, but no one is willing to make the sacrifices – reduced services, higher costs, etc. – necessary to accomplish the task. Resolving the undeniable budget crisis will be difficult, but it must be done in a way that puts public need and common sense above the self-serving political interference that has long been the bane of the post office.