Politics & Policy

To Save the USPS, We Must Privatize It

Postal workers in Carlsbad, Calif., in 2013 (Mike Blake/Reuters)
The Postal Service is in dire financial straits. It needs a makeover for the digital age, and Europe’s privatization efforts have shown it the way forward.

The U.S. Postal Service has been losing money for more than a decade. Its financial outlook is bleak, with $110 billion in unfunded retirement costs and more liabilities accruing every year. Congress is in denial about the crisis, and there is a growing chance that taxpayers will be put on the hook for a bailout.

The USPS is a huge enterprise with more than 600,000 employees and $71 billion in annual revenues. Revenues are supposed to cover its costs, but it has lost $69 billion since 2007. There are a couple of culprits. The volume of first-class mail — the USPS’s most profitable product — has plunged 45 percent since 2001. And while the company has expanded into package delivery, it faces heavy competition from UPS and FedEx, and will likely be challenged by Amazon and other upstarts down the road.

A Trump-administration task force last year found that the USPS’s business model “is unsustainable and must be fundamentally changed if the USPS is to avoid a financial collapse and a taxpayer-funded bailout.”

There are lots of cost-cutting measures that could temporarily stave off such a collapse. But in the long run, the USPS needs to diversify its business to survive and grow, and that is a trickier problem than it seems.

As a government entity that pays no taxes, the USPS would enjoy an unfair advantage over potential private competitors in the markets outside its legal monopoly on mail delivery — the markets into which it needs to expand to survive. FedEx pays $2 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes, while the USPS pays none.

How can we let the USPS diversify and grow without creating unfair competition? The answer is privatization, and the opening up of the postal market that would come with it.

Europe has already demonstrated how, practically speaking, privatization could be a success. Since the European Union mandated that member nations open their postal markets to competition, numerous countries have privatized their mail carriers, including Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. A 2018 report for the European Commission found that the continent’s postal firms were diversifying revenues, reducing labor costs, adopting new technologies, cutting delivery frequency, using cluster boxes for delivery, and closing post offices — all the steps the USPS needs to take.

Privatization would give the USPS the flexibility to save itself, allowing access to debt and equity markets for capital investment — a lifeline for a company that has long been short of cash and deferring the purchase of vital new vehicles and technologies. It would also improve the state of affairs on the company’s board of governors, which has not been fully staffed for years and today has only two of nine appointed members because of Washington dysfunction.

“Well, what about the USPS’s mandate to serve all addresses in the nation?” you might ask. As the EU did, the U.S. government could impose a universal-service obligation on a privatized USPS and, if needed, pay the firm a small subsidy to cover the extra costs.

The important thing is to restructure the USPS before its financial hole gets even deeper. Advertising mail — 62 percent of mail volume — is declining as ads move online. Transactions mail — 19 percent of mail volume — is declining as bank statements, bill paying, and similar activities move online. The volume of periodicals, personal letters, and other types of mail is also falling. Any way you slice it, “snail mail” is being left in the dust as 290 billion emails a day zoom around the planet.

In short, the USPS needs a makeover for the digital age, and Europe has shown it the way: privatization, diversification, and competition.

Most Popular

Film & TV

The Manly Appeal of Ford v Ferrari

There used to be a lot of overlap between what we think of as a Hollywood studio picture (designed to earn money) and an awards movie (designed to fill the trophy case, usually with an accompanying loss of money). Ford v Ferrari is a glorious throwback to the era when big stars did quality movies about actual ... Read More
Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More
Books

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More