|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Postal Reform - Sample Letter #2
Dear ____________,
I am pleased to present the following comments regarding postal reform on behalf of the members of the Printing Industries of America, Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on a matter that is critical to the economic health of our industry.
The Printing Industries of America is the nation’s largest association in the printing and graphic communications industry with over 12,000 members. These members are part of an industry that employs more than one million people and produce $155 billion in annual sales. We estimate that approximately 45 percent of printed products are sent through the mail. We also are aware that a much larger volume is designed for the mail.
We are part of a much larger communication industry that uses a variety of channels. However, for printing, the Postal Service is the primary distributor. If they fail or are forced to increase rates to an unacceptable level, our industry will also face significant problems. Our goal in postal reform is to assure that failure is avoided through sound public policy and good management.
We want to express our appreciation to President Bush for establishing the Commission on the U.S. Postal Service. We also want to acknowledge the outstanding service these men and women provided by serving on the Commission. They produced a remarkable document in a very compressed time period giving substance to the concerns that have been raised about the future of the Postal Service.
While we endorse the Commission’s recommendations in general and would hope many if not all could be implemented, it is clear that not every recommendation requires congressional action. Our comments are divided into those items that we believe should be considered by Congress and those which can be done by the Postal Service.
Clearly, the most significant near-term issue for the Postal Service is to resolve the financial pressures created by the combination of the imbalance in the payments to the federal Civil Service Retirement System, the legislation passed earlier this year requiring that future adjustments in this overpayment should be made to an escrow account, and the requirement that the rate payers be responsible for military retirement payments.
Unless these issues, highlighted in the Commission report, can be addressed by the middle of 2004, the USPS likely cannot continue its present level of service. Likewise ratepayers will not be willing to accommodate the increases that will be necessary to offset these financial burdens.
While we understand the concerns of Congress that they do not wish for the Postal Service to take advantage of a “windfall” this issue needs to be resolved in a manner that does not overly burden the mailers.
Specifically with regard to the military retiree issue, it seems completely inappropriate to require ratepayers to be responsible fore these payments. Retirement credits earned under the Department of Defense should be the responsibility of that agency. In this regard, it is not a matter of moving appropriations from one fund to another within the federal government. In fact, it is moving a responsibility of the federal government to a select group of companies and citizens who must use the mail.
These retirement burdens are significant and may require a longer-term solution; however, a shift of these burdens to users of the mail will cripple that portion of the economy and further erode postal volume.
An additional area of legislative attention is in the management of postal facilities. It is easy to understand the public service nature of postal facilities. Likewise, it is easy to understand why local communities would appeal to their elected officials to open and maintain facilities even when they are loosing money. However, Congress needs to develop a process that will allow the USPS to manage its facilities to maximize service and minimize costs.
One of the most important issues addressed by the Commission was the lengthy time required to consider new rates. It is important that the process be changed in a manner that would significantly reduce that time. Again, it would likely be better to enable the Postal Service to be able to adjust rates within guidelines than have to enter into a protracted process for rate changes.
We certainly welcome the positive comments from the Commission about the value of Negotiated Service Agreements and other work sharing options. These cost-savings opportunities are critical to the future of the Postal Service. Once again it would be better if the Postal Service could pursue such options without legislation. We would hope that if Congress chooses to act on these options, it would give its support.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and would welcome the chance for further dialog.