IBJNews

Postal Service seeks increase in cost of stamps, to 49 cents

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It soon could cost 49 cents to mail a letter.

The postal Board of Governors said Wednesday it wants to raise the price of a first-class stamp by 3 cents, citing the agency's "precarious financial condition" and the uncertain prospects for postal overhaul legislation in Congress.

"Of the options currently available to the Postal Service to align costs and revenues, increasing postage prices is a last resort that reflects extreme financial challenges," board chairman Mickey Barnett wrote customers.

The rate proposal must be approved by the independent Postal Regulatory Commission. If the commission accepts it, the increase would become effective Jan. 26.

Under federal law the post office cannot raise its prices more than the rate of inflation unless it gets approval from the commission. In seeking the increase, Barnett cited "extraordinary and exceptional circumstances which have contributed to continued financial losses" by the agency.

As part of the rate increase request, the cost for each additional ounce of first-class mail would increase a penny to 21 cents while the price of mailing a postcard would rise by a cent, to 34 cents. The cost to mail a letter to an international destination would jump 5 cents to $1.15.

Many consumers won't feel the increase immediately. Forever stamps bought before an increase still would cover first-class postage. The price of new forever stamps would be at the higher rate, if approved.

The Postal Service also said it would request price increases totaling 5.9 percent for bulk mail, periodicals and package service rates, according to a filing to be made with the commission Thursday.

Media and marketing businesses that rely on postal services say a big increase in rates could hurt them and lower postal volume and revenues.

Rafe Morrissey, the Greeting Card Association's vice president of postal affairs, said the rate increases were "no substitute for common-sense, structural reforms" and the group hoped they would be rejected.

The post office expects to lose $6 billion this year and is seeking help from Congress to fix its finances.

Barnett said the increases, if approved, would generate $2 billion annually for his agency. The agency last raised postage rates on Jan. 27, including a penny increase in the cost of first-class mail to 46 cents.

The Postal Service unsuccessfully sought an emergency 5.6 percent rate increase in 2010, citing the recession. The commission acknowledged that the recession had hurt revenues, but said the rate request was more of an attempt to address long-term structural problems.

Barnett said the post office would reconsider its rate request if Congress passes legislation to put the agency's finances back on track. But prospects in Congress are unclear.

A bipartisan bill in the Senate would end Saturday mail delivery after one year and cease door-to-door delivery for new residential and business addresses. The agency says ending Saturday mail delivery would save $2 billion each year. But many lawmakers, along with postal worker unions, have resisted such changes, saying they would inconvenience customers.

Postal Service supports the proposed delivery changes. It also is seeking to reduce its $5.6 billion annual payment for future retiree health benefits. It missed two of those payments in 2012, one deferred from the previous year, and is expected to miss another at the end of this month, when its fiscal year ends.

The Senate bill would change the method by which the retiree health costs are calculated, as well as allow the agency to ship alcoholic beverages and compete with private shippers.

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe was to appear before a Senate panel on Thursday to press lawmakers for swift action.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved a bill this year that would allow the Postal Service to gradually shift from door-to-door delivery to cluster box and curbside delivery. No Democrats voted for the measure.

The bill, introduced by the chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also would end Saturday delivery and change how pension and retiree health costs are calculated.

Issa said the proposed rate increases were merely a short-term solution and that the agency's "costly, inefficient delivery" system needs to be fixed. Such increases could hurt businesses that rely on the post office, he said.

The Postal Service is an independent agency that receives no tax dollars for its day-to-day operations but is subject to congressional control.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Cutting costs at Post Office
    McKinsey & Co told the Post Office that they will have to go to 3 days a week service to cut costs. What's wrong with Monday, Wednesday and Friday for 1/2 the public and Tuesday, Wednesday, and Saturday for the other 1/2 if it keeps the Post Office solvent and the price of first class mail down?
  • Make if Fifty
    Why now skip one step and make them 50 cents? Less pennies in change to deal with. They'll raise it again anyway and will still go bankrupt in the end. Just think of a world without junk mail!!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT