Alternative headline: Businesses plead with US taxpayer to continue subsidizing their operating costs and invoke sentimentality and patriotism to do so
And yes, Jefferson expressed concern about it. And I don't disagree with him in principle; it can certainly seem like a waste of money. However, it has morphed into something beyond what was probably intended (as a lot of things in the Constitution have). Delivering medication, ballots, voter registration, government documents, delivering secret and confidential mail for the government, etc. These are things that I feel should be backed by the federal government, and paid for with taxpayer money because it benefits all of us to have a mail system that is not based only on profits.
I know you aren't disagreeing with me, and you are merely adding context, by the way. I am not trying to argue/debate with you.
The market is not providing a military or water or garbage utilities, so if we want those things, we have no choice but to put up with the government's version of them. They will never be profitable so the government is the only logical provider.
On the other hand, the market is already providing a number of competent, successful mail delivery companies that are able to survive without taxpayer money. Why should we pay to prop up a bad business model (i.e. the USPS) when so many better models already exist, and anyone can use them?
> Packages are just 5% of its shipping volume but eCommerce accounts for nearly 30% of the agency’s revenue.
To describe this as “taxpayers subsidising business costs” is ridiculous.
What are the costs associated with delivering those packages?
Getting your bizarre ecommerce purchases delivered to the middle of nowhere is not a reasonable business. Treating it as a necessary public service is even more unreasonable.