Stamp-price hike is pure politics, critics charge

[struggle4progress]

By LANCE GAY
Scripps Howard News Service
January 04, 2006

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Postal Service reported just last week that it had a bumper year in 2005 and rolled up a $1.6 billion profit.

So why are taxpayers getting out their sheets of 2-cent stamps in preparation for Sunday, when the cost of first-class mail increases from 37 cents to 39 cents? <snip>

The House last year passed "reform" legislation on an overwhelming 410-20 vote that would give the postal service broader authority to negotiate lower rates with high-volume mailers and hitch future increases in first-class rates to inflation.

But the White House threatened a veto of the measure because it also would allow the postal service to reduce its $3 billion annual payments for its unfunded liabilities, and the legislation is currently languishing in the Senate. The service argues that its unfunded liabilities are $27 billion higher than they should be because the agency is carrying the costs of military retirement benefits paid to its employees who formerly worked for the Pentagon.

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=STAMPS-01-04-06&cat=WW

[ananda]

1. Does anyone really use stamps...

... much any more?

What with: online banking and bill paying; emailing; ordering online with free shipping....

Sue, who uses a stamp maybe once a month

[enlightenment]

3. Yep.

And I don't have a business. I like sending mail the old-fashioned way . . .

[bemildred]

4. I do. I like the Postal Service. It works great.

Congress hates government programs that work great, unfortunately.

[yorkiemommie1]

5. we do

for billpaying, greeting cards...

[wakeme2008]

2. And the problem with

Dick Merritt, executive director of PostalWatch.org, a Virginia-based agency watchdog, says the reason for the rate increase is pure politics. He contends the postal service is trying to force Congress to let the agency stop accumulating funds to offset its $75 billion in unfunded health and pension liabilities, mainly in promises to future retirees.

If they have unfunded retirement plans they need to fund them. I have no problem with that.