The USPS just reported that it lost 8.5 billion dollars last year. People don't use the Post Office as much as the used to. There's no doubt that E-mail, Electronic Bill Pay and many services on the Internet have decreased the Post Office's market share. I feel bad for those that in management at the Post Office. They're in a tough spot. From what I've read they have come up with strategies for making the Post Office viable. The problem is that the Post Office is beholden to Congress. Can you think of anything more inefficient? In an article from Yahoo News:
"For the Postal Service to improve its financial situation, the government must let the USPS manage its financial affairs in the most effective manner possible, like any other business," he said. "Essential to that process would be for Congress to fix an onerous congressional mandate from 2006, which obligates the Postal Service to make annual payments of $5.5 billion to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. No other institution in America, public or private, has to do this."
There are dozens of Post Office locations all across the country that serve small communities. These locations are major money losers, because they don't generate enough revenue to cover the overhead. But every time someone recommends that they roll these smaller offices into larger ones that may be farther away, but still close enough to provide service, some calls their Congressman and begs and pleads to keep their Post Office open. The Congressman then fights for his constituent's dinky little, money losing Post Office, because he wants these people to vote for him in 2 years.
For those who like to criticize us "small government" proponents, it's inefficiencies like these that we oppose. Is that really so unreasonable? The current administration seems to think that inserting the government into a myriad of services will make everything better. If the Post Office, Medicare, and a host of existing government programs that are as equally inefficient haven't convinced you that Big Government is not the solution, then I don't know what will.
The software company I work for recently landed the FDA as a customer. I'm involved is some other accounts and haven't really been involved with the FDA. My next door cubicle colleague works with them extensively, however, and from what he tells me, it's worse that you can imagine. Even those who work for the FDA realize that most of their processes are inefficient, but they are powerless to make any changes, since that takes an act of Congress.
The Post Office won't ever be profitable until Congress allows the people in charge to run it like any other business.
Prior to the software product you work on, the FDA used an Access database to track most of their information.... Yes, it's that bad.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that "the Post Office should be profitable" is necessarily a worthwhile goal. I mean the Post Office is specifically authorized by Congress. It could be that the good done by having a Post Office in every po-dunk corner of a land is greater than the good that could be done by the Post Office not losing money.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that the Post Office needs to be a profit machine. But it would be nice if it could be self sustaining. The national deficit is now somewhere north of 1.5 Trillion dollars, and granted, the Post Office budget is a drop in the bucket, but don't a whole bunch of drops eventually turn into something substantial?
ReplyDeleteI'm interested to hear what you think the "good done by having a Post Office in every po-dunk corner of the land" is? Sure 4 people have a job, but outside of that, what's the benefit?