Look Who’s Arguing for Higher Postage

It was a busy past week for postal reform followers, as the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Oversight Committee convened a hearing on a bipartisan measure to implement various Postal reforms. Perhaps the most contentious part of the Senate’s current bipartisan proposal was the centerpiece of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act: The annual rate cap on postage increases tied to the Consumer Price Index.

Well, it was a busy past week for postal reform followers, as the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Oversight Committee convened a hearing on a bipartisan measure to implement various reforms that would enable billions in necessary U.S. Postal Service (USPS) savings. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee already passed a postal reform measure earlier this year—without one vote of support from Democrats. Whatever bipartisan effort the Senate can put forward matters greatly, since votes of majority Democrats are needed in the Senate (and eventually the House) for passage, and also to garner White House support.

Perhaps the most contentious part of the Senate’s current bipartisan proposal, based on comments filed and testimonies given, was not five-day delivery or relief from funding mandates of pre-retirement of health benefits (though both of these have their own list of supporters and detractors), but rather the centerpiece of the now-in-effect 2006 postal reform law (Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act): The annual rate cap on postage increases tied to the Consumer Price Index.

Marketing mailers—USPS customers—insist that such a cap remaining in place.

It is this measure of fiscal discipline that acts as the single most important indicator to mailers that the Postal Service will operate within its means, and mailers will have predictable increases in postage that can be budgeted for with a high degree of certainty.

Uncertainty, on the other hand, is the specter that advertising mailers most fear—and one that channels ad dollars most formidably to other media. The 2007 rate hike (the last rate hike ahead of the 2006 law’s implementation) clearly showed what exorbitant and unexpected increases can do, such as the case of catalogers in that year.

Now we have postal unions (predictably), USPS management and the PMG (less predictably), the USPS Inspector General, and even a Senate Republican (now that’s a surprise) arguing for an emergency rate hike (a “last resort” allowed under the current 2006 law, if and when exigency is proven) or, as the Senate bipartisan bill would allow, the removal of the CPI cap altogether as the USPS looks to $20 billion in overall relief (much of which it has achieved already in its own cost-cutting to date) to balance the books.

Well, I have my own feelings about the negative effects of exigency—which I shared recently in a post. (I’m not an economist here, just a student of history.)

Yet, to do away with the CPI price cap stricture? That would make disappear the crowning achievement of the 2006 law that USPS customers fought so hard for. Getting rid of the cap means exigency, in practice, could be a permanent fixture in postage increases—and mailer flight to digital and other channels will be the “giant sucking sound” as uncertainty reigns again (my apologies to Ross Perot). As we know from the past: USPS management goodwill, Postal Regulatory Commission oversight, and mailers’ testimonies of warning in rate case hearings are not enough to stop punishing and unpredictable rate hikes. A law that keeps cost increases in postage within CPI, however, largely has halted such malaise.

The losses that the Postal Service is experiencing today have to do with Congressional mandates, not nimble efforts of USPS management and workforce to right-size the Postal Service and its infrastructure to USPS mail volume trends.

Mailers: Stay tuned—and be prepared to mobilize.