U.S. Postal Workers Were on the Front Lines Before. They Were Ignored

But what does "break even" even mean in the context of public infrastructure? If you're okay with calling that income a "tax" why doesn't public subsidy through... taxes count as breaking even? Nobody complains that highways don't "break even" but it's not like toll roads pay 100% of road upkeep...

In an ideal world, healthy profits are just taxpayer money saved that can be re-invested or returned to the budget. In reality this never happens because there's an incentive to spend, spend and overspend.

The administration absolutely wants to privatize the USPS, see page 68: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Govern...

Part of the plan includes a transition to a model "that delivers mail fewer days per week and to more central locations (not door delivery) [which] would operate at substantially lower costs."

The plan notes "USPS already has over $100 billion in unfunded liabilities, a substantial capital investment backlog, has posted losses for over a decade, and has no clear path to profitability without reform."

Except the primary reason the USPS has posted losses for over a decade is that, in 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the USPS to pre-fund retiree health benefits (supported by both sides of the aisle I should add) unlike any other Government agency or private industry competitor.

It really isn't hard to understand, the USPS is not playing by a fair set of rules and is losing as a result.

This doesn't seem to be a common opinion, but I generally don't understand why USPS is critical infrastructure. Vote by mail is just about the only essential service they provide that I can think of, and that could potentially still be supported in other ways without USPS the other 364 days of the year.

Many of the justifications I've come across of why mail is essential seem to center around transmission of information being essential, and I 100% agree with that. But these days important information does not need to be transmitted by mail. The fact that many important services are still tied to hard-copies of paper - like mailing checks, mailing bills, mailing a warning when a bill has been missed, etc. causes some completely unnecessary problems. It's easier to keep a phone number or email address active for many years, but an address for a large percentage of the population is temporary. I've seen the argument made that not everybody has internet access, and that this is an equality issue that physical mail is still necessary for less privileged people. But many poor people are more likely to have a cell phone than have stable housing with a stable mailing address. And public libraries provide internet access for those who don't have it otherwise.

Also, and this part is arguably a first world problem but it's still a big annoyance, the junk mail that props up USPS is completely out of control. How is an essential government service entirely ad-supported like USPS is? That seems crazy. Imagine if the fire department made you watch some ads after they put out your fire.

I'm not arguing for getting rid of the USPS now, we do seem to need vote by mail at least for a while longer until we have a better, sufficiently secure alternative. I just think all these arguments about how essential it is to the fabric of modern society are bit outdated.

Edit: anyone who is downvoting me care to comment on what I'm wrong about?

> Its "delivery confirmation" is outright fraud.

elaborate?