By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This article examines President-elect Trump’s consideration of privatizing the United States Postal Service (USPS), a move deemed impractical and potentially harmful. The USPS’s universal service mandate ensures nationwide mail delivery, a service no private company would profitably undertake, especially in rural areas. Privatization would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of unionized jobs, many of which have historically provided upward mobility for minority communities, and negatively impact numerous businesses reliant on affordable, widespread mail service. This action contradicts Trump’s populist rhetoric concerning job preservation and support for working-class Americans.
Read the original article here
Privatizing the Post Office would be an unmitigated disaster. It’s a simple statement, but the implications are vast and deeply troubling. The immediate impact would be felt most acutely in rural areas, where profitability would dictate reduced or even eliminated service. Imagine the cost of delivering mail to a town of only a thousand people – it simply wouldn’t be worth it for a private company prioritizing profit margins.
This isn’t simply about convenience; it’s about access to vital services. Many people rely on the Post Office, especially those in underserved communities, for crucial government benefits and communications. Losing that reliable, affordable service would be devastating.
The potential for abuse is equally alarming. A privately owned postal system would face significantly less regulatory oversight, leading to a higher likelihood of mail tampering and invasion of privacy. The idea of a private company freely accessing and searching through our mail is deeply unsettling, reminiscent of the concerns surrounding mass surveillance of digital communications. This is a fundamental violation of our rights and a threat to individual liberties.
Furthermore, the cost of postage would undoubtedly skyrocket. We’ve already seen examples of private shipping companies charging exorbitant fees, particularly for deliveries to remote locations. Under a privatized system, a simple birthday card could easily cost ten dollars or more, and delivery times could stretch into months.
The financial argument for privatization is also flawed. While the Post Office faces financial challenges, it’s crucial to understand the context. These challenges are often self-inflicted, the result of deliberate underfunding and mismanagement. Comparing the Post Office’s “losses” to the far larger budgetary expenditures of the military is a false equivalence. The Post Office is a public service; its purpose is not to generate profit, but to provide a vital service to the entire nation.
Furthermore, the claim that the Post Office is “losing millions” should be examined critically. Are these true losses, or are they the result of deliberate policies aimed at making the Post Office appear financially unstable to justify privatization? The real issue isn’t a lack of profitability but rather a refusal to acknowledge that it is a crucial and inherently costly public service.
The privatization of other government services, such as prisons, hasn’t yielded positive results; instead, it’s consistently led to decreased quality and increased cost. Applying this model to the Post Office would be a reckless gamble with devastating consequences. The focus should be on reforming and improving the existing system, not on dismantling it for the benefit of private corporations.
The constitutional implications of privatizing the Post Office are also significant. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. While this doesn’t explicitly forbid privatization, it strongly suggests that the service is intended to be a public institution, not a commodity for private profit. Any attempt to circumvent this fundamental principle would be a blatant disregard for the founding principles of our nation.
The true motive behind such a move is likely less about improving efficiency and more about consolidating power and control. The privatization would allow for the manipulation of mail-in ballots, potentially impacting future elections in a way that favors those pushing for the change. It’s a cynical ploy designed to benefit a few wealthy corporations at the expense of the American people.
This is not a matter of left versus right; it’s a matter of protecting essential services, ensuring fair access for all citizens, and preserving our fundamental rights. Privatizing the Post Office would be a catastrophic decision, one that would harm communities, individuals, and the very fabric of our democracy. The potential benefits to a select few are massively outweighed by the risks and detrimental effects on the nation as a whole. This is a battle worth fighting, and the fight to save the Postal Service must begin now.