Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lisarea
I've always had the impression that the USPS was one of the better run government agencies.
I believe they've gotten a few appropriations for things such as security, but for the most part, they've been self-sufficient for about twenty years now, their expenses covered by the cost of postage and other direct costs.
Taxpayer money goes to subsidies for private companies in exchange for providing what are seen as unprofitable services all the time. How are appropriations for the USPS any different?
|
The USPS is not self-sufficient if it gets 1 billion dollars in subsidies AND an untold bundle in breaks from taxes and regulations AND a government-enforced monopoly on the service they provide. Anyone who runs a business knows the advantage this provides.
And, my god, if they are one of the better government-run agencies, that is because every government organization is a shithole. Read the section of the article that describes labor/management relations at USPS, and it will tell you how the term "going postal" came about. I went to the website
DisgruntledZone.com, where USPS employees post their frustrations, and it was one of the scariest websites I have been to (second only to the one with the haunted room where you look for the ghost, and you get blasted with an ugly screaming face after one minute).
I am the type of person who believes that every person should cover the cost of the public services they use. If they drive a car and live on a public street, they are the ones who should pay for the public roads. If they smoke, then they should pay for their own lung cancer treatment. And if they mail off a huge bundle of advertisements, then they should completely cover the costs it takes to deliver. I am opposed to every government subsidy that encourages this kind of abuse, but the USPS is an especially plain example.