Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!SPCVXA!BEN From: BEN@SPCVXA.BITNET (Ben Cohen) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics Subject: Re: stamp cost rise Message-ID: <90040.0157.BEN@SPCVXA> Date: 9 Feb 90 01:57:00 GMT Sender: Forum for the Discussion of Politics Reply-To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics Lines: 27 Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM Gateway >>Yesterday, I heard the cost of a stamp would rise to .30 by February of next >>year. Do we have to pay for the PostalmServices inefficiencies and wastes? Do >>you think the increase is too high? > Offer one of your colleagues 30 cents to take a letter across >the city, see how far you get. Offer him 30 cents to take it to >California - see what it gets ya. 25 cents, 30 cents...it's still >a bargain. Sorry for the full quote, but this needs some context. According to the NY Times yesterday, the 5 ct. increase is more to subsidize the federal deficit than to pay for better service. [The following is done from memory, so the gist will be right, but the facts might be slightly off :-)] Originally, the Postal Service was part of the federal budgeting system. Back then, it was operating at a loss and needed to be part of the fed. budget to cover operating expenses. Then it started breaking-even and was separated from the budget and had to cover its own expenses, etc. _Then_, to everyone's amazement, the Postal Service started becoming a profitable organization. Shortly thereafter it was reintegrated into the federal budget so that the excess could be applied to the deficit. Personally, this smells a lot like the Social Security issue. We're making the deficit seem smaller than it really is by some creative accounting which is using up surplusage that should be saved or applied elsewhere. Ben Cohen Bitnet: Ben@SPCVXA Saint Peter's College Internet: Ben@spcvxa.spc.edu Jersey City, NJ USA ICBMnet: 40 42 57 N/74 03 54 W ATTnet: 1-201-451-5959