The Wall Street Journal has an article about the USPS closing post offices in small towns. Ok, so people aren't using the mail as much anymore. Seems reasonable to close up some offices that aren't getting the use. I wouldn't even really call this a tough decision - it's more like common sense. If people are using the service 28% less in the last four years, isn't it stupid not to cut back on the service? Ok, wait. I must be missing something. Ruth Goldway, chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission will enlighten me as to the big downside to closing post offices. Ok, Ruth, I'm ready. Drop some knowledge on me:
Some closures might not be worth the savings, Ruth Goldway, chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, said in an interview Monday. While there are probably many post offices that are unnecessary and duplicative, "I feel that the postal service, even if it closes all of these post offices, is not going to save all that much money and there are risks to reducing your network," like alienating customers, she said.
So you're admitting that closing down some post offices, or even just sharing space in a gas station will save money. Great. Saving money is what the USPS needs to do. What's the downside again? Oh, customers might be "alienated"? What the heck does that even mean? It sounds like 28% of the customers have alienated themselves already, Ruth. Are you saying that people will be so upset that the post office closed that they'll boycott the mail? They won't mail stuff because they're upset?
Even if Miss Postal-bureaucrat is right, and the USPS doesn't save a ton of money (it's projected to save only $200 million), saving $200 million is still a good thing when the USPS is in $8 Billion in debt. But Miss Sensitive-Pants doesn't care - it's not her money. She's more worried about people getting teary-eyed if the local post office closes in a town of about 400 people. That's a town the size of Nichols, SC.
I detest the argument "Oh, that's not a big expense; cutting that won't do much." When you're $8 Billion in the hole, you can't afford to be so magnanimous with your budget. No wonder the Federal Government has finance issues. When did "Is this a good thing to spend money on?" get replaced with "Yeah, that's not really a good expense, but cutting it won't make up our entire budget gap, so leave it in." You know what they say: $200 million here, $200 million there, pretty soon you're talking real money.
No comments:
Post a Comment