Postal profits

 

A committee led by Rep. Darrell Issa proposed that the U.S. Postal Service discontinue door-to-door delivery in cities and instead use communal mailboxes such as those used in rural areas. The alleged goal is to make the USPS profitable.

The problem is that not all government-run services should be viewed as having to be for-profit. They should be viewed as a service to taxpayers. If they are losing money, it’s because they are providing a service by offering the service below cost. If the USPS were profitable, it would be at an additional expense to the taxes we pay.

While I agree that waste and inefficiency should be curbed, it is also wrong to consider government services as being for-profit organizations, rather than services to the public. People complain about the USPS losing money, and then they complain about a 2-cent rate increase. The USPS is defined by its name — service — and is by definition not a for-profit organization. FedEx, UPS and others do that and charge higher rates. Isn’t it nice to have someone providing the same services for less?

Joseph Bilstein,

Surfside

Read more Letters to the Editor stories from the Miami Herald

  • Respect is missing

    I remember, 32 years ago, as a new wife and stepmother, saying to my new family: "You don't have to love me, but you are going to respect me in this house." Anything worthwhile takes time, patience and respect for others and their personal frame of reference. That is sorely absent in our world today, especially from those for whom they are of the utmost importance.

  • The readers’ forum

    The Americans with Disabilities Act opened doors

    July 26 marked the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a landmark law passed in 1990 that for the first time in our history created nationwide standards for combating discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, telecommunications relay services and government activities.

  • Lure of free money

    If Joy-Ann Reid were honest, she would tell folks that the ACA was written by Democrats specifically to prevent people who enroll in the federal exchange from receiving subsidies, as subsidies would be available only in the state run exchanges. The Democrats thought the lure of free money would encourage the states to set up their own exchanges. This was no drafting error, as plainly seen by the wording of the act, which in several sections clearly stated that subsidies would be for state exchanges only. Democrats wrote and passed this bill, apparently without reading it.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category