USPS Office of Inspector General

Comments (5)

• 

  Anonymous

  Reduced rates for not-for-profits may be desirable, but the question is: who should pay to cover the costs? Forcing other mailers to pony up seems unfair. So who does that leave to foot the bill? Taxpayers, who will be on the receiving end of these not-for-profit solicitations? That option may be just as bad or even worse from a fairness standpoint. (It's worth noting that not-for-profits are not the only mailers getting postage breaks. The postage paid by magazine publishers.)

  Mar 16, 2009

• 

  Anonymous

  Many nonprofits provide a great service to their communities; it is important to support them. The question is how to do it efficiently. You can either subsidize specific nonprofit activities (mailing in this case) or give them direct grants and let them decide how to put these funds to a better use. The first option amounts to the government attempting to micromanage nonprofits, which is rarely a good idea. The second option devolves the decision-making to the people who know their work the best – nonprofits themselves. Instead of requiring USPS to provide services to nonprofits at reduced rates, Congress should provide financial support to nonprofits directly. In addition to offering nonprofits more freedom in decision-making, this would reduce the burden for extra housekeeping for the USPS.

  Mar 04, 2009

• 

  F Wayne Johnson

  I do support the reduced rates. If the USPS is going to remain viable in the 21st century, we have to maintain a consistent customer base. If we rescind the discounted rate for the non profits, they will find another medium to reach their customers/constituency. We are hemoraging commercial customers at an unsustainable rate because our products are losing their value in the eyes of our customers.

  Mar 03, 2009

• 

  edward stephens

  we would lose money .lesss mail would be generTED

  Mar 03, 2009

• 

  Anonymous

  Definitely No

  Mar 03, 2009