What perks?
Dear editor:
Judy Ladd must have read, or interpreted, a recent letter I had written incorrectly. Judy is under the false impression I wanted to privatize the postal service. The attempt to make the postal service compete with public companies was started back in the ’70s. The postal service was in direct competition for package volume which, at the time, was delivered more efficiently by United Parcel Service. The same was true of FedEx in the ’80s. Since the postal service has a monopoly over stamps and mailboxes, government, justifiably, felt they must compete in the area where they overlap private companies. For years, government perks allowed them to move their monopoly revenues into their competitive parcel business to cover losses so they could continue to compete and reduce volume to the competition.
I found this little tidbit on the Internet: “The Post Office can borrow up to $15 billion dollars from the government at low interest rates. The postal service is exempt from state and local sales, income, and property taxes. They are exempt from parking tickets and vehicle fees. It pays federal corporate income taxes on its earnings from competitive products, but those taxes are circulated back to the U.S.P.S. It is immune from a range of civil actions and has the power of imminent domain. It has government regulatory power which it can use to impede competition.” This is not competition! Why not make them provide for their employees’ pensions with all they are saving from these government perks not afforded to their competition? Can you imagine how well FedEx and UPS could return profits to their shareowners if they were exempt from all of these added costs?
Is it any wonder that competitors are a little dismayed anytime the government steps in and bails out a business where they cannot compete? “We the People” deserve competition in order to control costs. If that is a political idea only, I know I am on the right side. It seems when honesty, truth, life, competition, justice, religion, individual rights, and equality are in question, the Republicans are on the right side. They have been throughout history. Ex: Abraham Lincoln. If recent events and history showing “change” needs to come through racism, anarchy, theft, destruction and lies, I would have made my point as a Democrat. Ex: Nancy Pelosi. If by disagreeing with the means by which your party achieves change is being political, call me guilty. Remember, “good” will only be pushed so far before the real change erupts.
Edward K. Cherry Hot Springs