Why Does America Still Need The Postal Service?

The latest rate hike shows what happens when government refuses to let an outdated institution die.

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! Usually our afternoon content is behind a paywall… If you are not yet a paid subscriber, consider upgrading — you are missing a significant portion of what we produce each week, and your support makes it possible. If you want to get it all and support my efforts, please consider a paid subscription!

Most of our content is available on our podcast feed. So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. Which is available on your favorite podcast app. You can listen to it right here as well.

⏱️ 5 min read

---

Another Increase, Same Old Answer

Last weekend, the U.S. Postal Service once again raised prices across the board. The Forever Stamp climbed to a record 82 cents, but that was only the most visible change. Mailing postcards, international letters and numerous other postal products became more expensive as the Postal Service implemented another nationwide rate increase.

This wasn’t an isolated adjustment. It was the latest in a long series of postage increases that have become almost routine. Each announcement follows the same script: operating costs are rising, mail volume is falling and higher prices are needed to keep the system afloat. Instead of asking whether the institution itself should evolve, Washington simply asks Americans to pay a little more.

We have seen this movie before.

Costs go up. Revenue falls. The Postal Service raises prices. Americans are told there is no alternative.

There is always an alternative. Washington simply refuses to have the conversation.

The question is no longer whether an 82-cent stamp is too expensive. The better question is why the answer always seems to be charging Americans more to preserve a government institution that fewer people rely on every year.

The Postal Service isn’t the only federal institution that deserves this conversation—but it may be the easiest place to start.

Conservatives often argue that government should periodically justify its existence. If that principle means anything, it ought to apply here.

America Already Solved The Problem

Think about how you communicate today compared to just twenty years ago.

You pay bills online. Your bank statements arrive electronically. You sign contracts digitally. Tax returns are filed with a few clicks. Family photos are shared instantly. Friends send text messages instead of letters. Even birthday cards and invitations increasingly arrive through email or social media.

When was the last time you mailed a personal letter?

When was the last time you mailed a utility payment?

When was the last time you bought a book of stamps because you actually needed one rather than because you happened to be at the post office?

The Postal Service did not become less central because Americans stopped communicating. It became less central because technology offered faster, cheaper and more convenient ways to accomplish the same tasks.

The market adapted. Americans adapted.

Washington did not.

Government Rarely Retires Itself

This is about much more than postage.

Private businesses live in a world of constant accountability. If customers disappear, companies innovate, downsize, merge or close. They do not simply announce another price increase and expect consumers to applaud.

We no longer use telegrams. We no longer rent movies from Blockbuster. We no longer flip through phone books to find a plumber. Technology replaced those services, and the marketplace moved on. That is how innovation works. Old solutions give way to better ones.

Government operates under a different set of rules.

When demand falls, agencies ask for larger budgets, higher fees or additional subsidies. When technology changes the marketplace, government rarely asks whether its own role should change as well. Instead, it searches for ways to preserve the status quo.

That is why conservatives have long argued that government should be limited, efficient and focused on responsibilities that only government can perform.

The Postal Service is not unique. It is simply one of the clearest examples of a broader problem. Washington almost never retires institutions whose original mission has been overtaken by technology. Once government programs are created, they develop constituencies, political protection and a remarkable ability to survive long after the country has changed around them.

What Would Replace It?

None of this is meant as a criticism of the men and women who deliver our mail. Postal employees perform the job they have been asked to do, often under difficult conditions. They are not the problem.

The question is whether the institution itself still makes sense in its current form.

There will always be legitimate public needs. Rural communities deserve dependable mail service. Military families rely on it. Prescription medications and certain government communications remain important.

Government could still guarantee universal mail service where it is genuinely needed. But instead of assuming the federal government must own and operate the entire system, Congress could competitively bid routes, contract with private carriers where practical and focus taxpayer dollars on truly essential services rather than maintaining an outdated nationwide bureaucracy.

Conservatives trust competition because it rewards efficiency, innovation and accountability. Government monopolies rarely do.

So, Does It Matter?

The latest postal rate increase is about much more than an 82-cent stamp.

It is a reminder that government has a habit of preserving yesterday’s institutions while asking taxpayers to pay tomorrow’s prices.

Conservatives rightly ask hard questions every time Washington proposes creating a new federal program. Is it necessary? Will it become permanent? Can the private sector do the job better?

Maybe it is time we started asking those same questions about the programs Washington created generations ago.

Limited government is not simply about preventing the next bureaucracy from being born. It is also about having the discipline to reform, privatize or even eliminate programs that no longer serve the country as they once did. Otherwise, every federal agency becomes permanent simply because it exists.

If we are unwilling to ask that question about something as obvious as the Postal Service, then our commitment to limited government risks becoming a slogan rather than a governing principle.

The price of a stamp is now 82 cents. The cost of refusing to rethink government is far higher.