But as I discovered on Thursday, when I watched a Senate hearing on the current Postal Service crisis, that’s not likely to happen. For one thing, Mr. Potter isn’t really asking for the tools he needs to turn the Postal Service into a real business. He is asking Congress to relieve it from the health prepayments, which he is likely to get, at least temporarily. He is also asking that the Postal Service be allowed to reduce mail service to five days a week, and to eliminate some postal branches. These aren’t exactly revolutionary ideas  yet they are viewed as highly controversial in Congress, which frets that constituents might get angry if the local postal branch closes.

Image Congress expects the Postal Service, run by John E. Potter, to turn a profit, but also wants a say in its operation. Credit... Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times

But even if Mr. Potter were to get his way on these two items, they would still be only stop-gap measures that fail to tackle the bigger question. As the Internet continues to erode the use of snail mail, does the Postal Service’s business model still make sense? Do we even still need the government to deliver the mail anymore?



To me, the answer is obvious: no.

Think for a minute about the mail that comes into your home. In the modern age, very little of it is personal mail. The vast majority is commercial mail of some sort  advertisements, bills, movies from Netflix or catalogs. Once upon a time, said Rick Geddes, an associate professor in the department of policy analysis and management at Cornell University, the postal service was viewed as “a way to bind together the nation. In subsidizing mail service to rural communities you were keeping them connected to the rest of the country.” But today, he added, “it is kind of silly to say we are binding together the nation through advertisements and catalogs.”

These days, the main justification for keeping the postal service as a quasi-government entity is the belief that no private company would be willing to deliver the mail to sparsely populated rural areas of the country. People fear that it would be a little like airline deregulation: communities that weren’t large enough to justify flights in the newly deregulated environment lost their carriers.

But that mission of universal service has all but blinded just about everyone connected with the Postal Service. Congressmen  many of whom, after all, come from rural areas  are loath to give the Postal Service too much free rein for fear that Mr. Potter’s minions will start shutting down post offices. (Never mind that 2,000 of them serve fewer than 100 people each.) The postal unions, with their no-layoff clauses, have used universal service to justify benefits so generous the Postal Service would save $600 million just by bringing them in line with other federal employees.

As for Mr. Potter himself, while he may want more freedom to run the Postal Service like a real business, he, too, seemed surprisingly wedded to outmoded ideas about mail service in America. “This country needs to have and to protect universal service,” he said. “Our business is all about making sure every American can stay connected with every other American.”

I failed to ask him the obvious follow-up question: Don’t e-mail messages now do that?

For most of us, of course, it does  and that will increasingly to be the case, as broadband makes it way into, yes, even those rural areas that everyone is so worried about. Michael A. Crew, a professor of regulatory economics at Rutgers told me that that while the Postal Service’s “short-term situation is bleak, its long-term situation is really bleak.” He is one of a number of experts who say they believe that even when the recession ends, the Postal Service’s woes won’t be over. As businesses look to save money in the recession, for instance, they are starting to do end-arounds the Postal Service. Online bill-paying is become ever more popular. Evite is starting to replace mailed invitations to parties. None of that business is ever coming back.