Postal reform--how likely is it? (The Mail).

There appears to be near unanimous agreement among newsletter marketers and other direct mailers that "postal reform" legislation is a necessity for the economic future of our businesses. Industry leaders are declaiming it a meetings and in interviews; trade publications editorialize about the urgency of the issue.

It may be that "postal reform" is a good thing, but like President Bush's "education reform" legislation, Satan lurks in the details.

Permit me to draw upon nearly 25 years as a Washington lobbyist for national organizations to explain why postal reform will be a difficult sell on Capitol Hill.

First, it's tofu. It may be good for you, but it's certainly dull. With many apparently more pressing issues on the table, it will be difficult to focus Congress's attention on the problems of the postal system or to imagine the Bush White House or the House Majority Leader twisting many arms in its support.

Congress knows very little about USPS. It's been 30 years now since the postal service became an independent agency, and there probably are not more than a half-dozen legislators on the oversight committees who know much about the issues.

Things used to be very different. Van Seagraves, the founding publisher of Business Mailers Review, used to say that "in the bad old days, big mailing interests 'took care of' of a few key members of Congress with substantial campaign contributions. In turn, those members protected the interests of the mailers in rate reviews.

"Since the independent postal service was established," Seagraves continued, "the mailers have had to hire legions of lawyers and expensive economic consultants, etc., etc. to participate in rate cases.

"All in all," Seagraves concluded, "the congressmen gave better return on the dollar."

But supposing postal reform legislation at least gets introduced, the typical congressperson's reaction will be, "Who does this bill help (or hurt)?"

Most "explanations" of postal reform go on about "modernization, streamlining, improving productivity, giving USPS the ability and flexiblity to develop innovative new services and respond to changing market conditions." Apart from the fact that it's difficult to know what any or all of that means, here are some observations:

* In the current conditions of economic downturn or even recession, the impact of the Enron implosion and similar stories, it's difficult to sell the idea of making USPS "run like a business." The shine is off the luster of the corporate boardroom.

* It sounds like the major beneficiaries of postal reform will be very large mailers. Are we asking Congress to enact a bill that will make life easier for credit card marketers and other "junk mailers" to cram constituents' mailboxes full of unwanted ads?

No one can maintain a straight face and say that postal reform will lower the cost of the First Class stamp Aunt Minnie puts on her birthday card to her niece. The best we can offer is the hope that, with postal reform, perhaps the rate of increase in postal rates will slow.

Not a big seller as a talking point.

* It's being observed frequently that in the current recession and after September 11--while the airlines, travel industry and related businesses have laid off literally hundreds of thousands of employees--USPS has not forloughed even a single worker even though faced by a similar slump in business. The law doesn't permit it. Again, what our typical representative may think is, "You're suggesting I support a bill which could result in many hard-working postal employees who live (and vote) in my district losing their jobs?"

I am not saying that the need for postal reform isn't as great as industry spokespersons suggest. I'm just outlining some of the reasons that it may be a much harder sell on Capitol Hill than some anticipate.

A Modest Proposal-- Last year USPS posted a loss of $1.7 billion on a volume of 210 billion pieces of mail. My arithmetic says that a one penny increase on each piece would have changed the red ink to a $400 million mark.

And think of the savings on lawyers, accountants, economists, lobbyists, et al. in the rate case hearings.