Letter to the Editor: Congress holds fate of USPS centers

Dear Editor,

Consistent with U.S. Postal Service public meetings in communities where it’s considering to strip postal services, the Jan. 4 meeting in Springfield was planned in a venue predictably too small to hold the anticipated crowd. More than 100 interested citizens were excluded.

The discussion is part of the USPS Area Mail Processing Program, in which it further centralizes mail-processing operations. In the Springfield AMP proposal, USPS would move all mail processing and distribution to Kansas City. This would eliminate next-day delivery for mail originating and delivered in Springfield and also eliminate much of what has been expected as second-day delivery. USPS explains that it is changing its “service standards.” In other words, its commitment to service is being deliberately diminished.

As the USPS presents contraction proposals around the country, much is made of loss of mail volume and claims of a need to revise the USPS business model. Unfortunately, the USPS consistently fails to emphasize the real culprit – Congress – in its present financial straits. Congress mandated that the USPS make larger contributions into federal retirement funds and, in the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, mandated that the USPS prefund the next 75 years of retiree health insurance premiums. The first mandate has resulted in overpayments to federal retirement funds in the amount of $75 billion. The second mandate has required the USPS to pay $5.5 billion annually for 10 years. Apart from the $75 billion of USPS revenue (read postage sales) in the U.S. Treasury that should be reimbursed, the $5.5 billion annual payments are the direct cause of the USPS deficit. Without those payments, the USPS would have operated in the black the past five years.

There was considerable focus in the public meeting on what the Springfield community could do to persuade USPS to keep operating the processing and distribution center. Unfortunately, the USPS did absolutely nothing to dispel this false notion that the community could somehow dissuade the USPS. History of AMP proposals in other parts of the country clearly show that, once identified for closure, virtually no facility survives. Also, analyses of its operations presented to the Postal Regulatory Commission or to the Office of Inspector General has been criticized by those agencies as ill-founded, lacking complete or accurate data, and bereft of critical analysis. Community input to the USPS decision process is perfunctory, at best.

The real answer to questions by the community is that only Congress can alter the course set by the USPS. And the best chance for changing that course without further damaging the USPS is Senate Bill 1853. It would be a terrible mistake for Congress to take on further micromanagement of the USPS, as some proposed legislation would. It would also be a mistake for Congress not to cause the USPS to halt its self-destruction. If the Springfield community wants to save its threatened postal facility, it must convince Congress – not the USPS.

—Donald L. Foley, retired national business agent for the American Postal Workers Union[[In-content Ad]]