Postal Reform: Lobster Or Road Kill?

A Michigan Congressman once told me that any bill proposed to the House of Representatives would usually get about 100 votes — sight unseen — if it had the word "reform" in its title. With 435 House members, that's a good start!

Reform is a positive word. A good thing. Positive and happy: Like sunshine, bubbles or a puppy's breath. Sometimes.
 
The legislator who gave me the tip was a Democrat. But he said it worked the same with Republicans. He explained that his colleagues and their staffs were often so overwhelmed by work (or trying to get reelected) that if a colleague they liked, trusted or owed introduced a "reform" bill they would support it.
 
That may be why so many pieces of legislation have the word "reform" in their title.
 
Reform to those proposing it is always a good thing. The smart, economical, right thing to do. But often to those who stand to be reformed, it's the equivalent of urging the captain of the Titanic to try to get a little closer to that pile of ice.
 
Take the Postal Reform Act. Please!
 
Decades ago it was decided that the old Post Office Department was too political, too slow and stuffy. That it needed to be run like a business. Hence it was reformed, taken out of the president's cabinet and reborn as a quasi-government operation called the U.S. Postal Service. Over time it became almost entirely self-supporting. In addition to competition from FedEx, UPS and other carriers, the USPS is suffering because people tweet or email more than they write cards or letters.
 
Bottom line: The USPS is in trouble. A lot of this, it says, is because unlike other federal operations it must pre-fund retirement costs big-time. It has cut jobs and wants to cut more. It would like to be able to reopen contracts with its powerful unions. And eliminate Saturday mail delivery and a ton of mom-and-pop post offices.

More