Raising price of stamps won’t solve problem

The right stance on college assaults

Boosting the cost of a stamp from 49 cents to 60 cents would affect the economy and the government itself.

Given Congress’ politically paralyzed lack of performance over the last decade, many members might view a 22 percent postage rate increase as a means to hold down the flow of angry letters.

They should, however, recognize that boosting the cost of a stamp from 49 cents to 60 cents negatively would affect the economy and the government itself in many ways. Despite decreased mail volume, many Americans still heavily use conventional mail. And governments still use it as the primary means of official correspondence. Three states use it exclusively to conduct elections.

All of that should prompt legislators to attack the U.S. Postal Service’s deep financial problems from the other side of the ledger.

A 60-cent stamp is possible because the USPS has asked the Postal Regulatory Commission for permission to set its own rates for the first time, and to set rates higher than the rate of inflation — the current regulatory cap.

The postal service business, of course, has been deeply wounded by communications technology eroding its firstclass mail monopoly.

Bill-paying, banking and personal correspondence all have migrated heavily to the digital realm, drying up vast amounts of revenue.

Mail volume has declined 36 percent since 2007 and, last year, the service lost $5.6 billion.

In response, the system has shrunk and the service has attempted to reshape its business.

But it also has faced an intractable problem that only Congress can address.

Under a 2006 law, Congress required the USPS to fund employee retiree health care benefits 75 years in advance.

According to the service, converting to the same payas-you-go system used by every other federal agency would free $5.5 billion a year for the bottom line.

The law expired in 2016 and is under review for renewal. Congress should eliminate the pre-funding mandate as a major step toward the service’s short-term viability and longterm health. — The Citizens’ Voice, The Associated Press

Justice, rather than expediency, should be the objective of handling sexual assault complaints on college campuses. But the Obama administration clearly settled for the latter in 2011 when it issued “guidance” advising college administrators that they risked the loss of federal funds if they did not confront the problem.

The focus was correct. Numerous cases from numerous campuses revealed a pattern in which administrations dealt with the problem by ignoring it and waiting for graduation day.

But the guidance created systems on campuses that mock the very notion of due process, swinging the process 180 degrees rather than to a system that honors rights of the accuser and the accused.

Many courts in many places have awarded compensation to accused students who were expelled after administrative proceedings that, in the context of the actual justice system, can only be described as kangaroo courts.

Proponents of the system cringed when Education Secretary Betsy DeVos indicated that she would review the DOE’s directive, fearing a rollback and a return to the bad old days.

However, DeVos announced a sensible approach that should produce a better system.

She credited the previous administration with forcing colleges to deal with the problem and said that the DOE would continue to press colleges to confront it.

But the DOE, she said, will conduct a review and receive public input on how to improve the system, which is a sound way to proceed.

It is supported by the American College of Trial Lawyers, the American Association of College Professors, an array of legal scholars at prominent law schools and many college administrators who are uncomfortable in their forced roles as judges and juries.

The current system too often swaps one injustice for another, replacing neglect of victims with an assumed guilt of the accused.

DeVos is correct to seek a better course. — The Times-Tribune, The Associated Press