No mail monopoly
To the Editor:
Re: Mr. Bill Silvester’s letter of Nov. 8. I’m prone to hyperbole, too, and I vomited as I read his complaint about the U.S. Postal Service’s past sponsorship of Lance Armstrong’s cycling team.
Most folks understand why a company puts its name on a widely viewed sports entity. The people who run the Postal Service made the decision to advertise that way. Actually, it’s not a bad idea, considering the popularity of cycling and, until recently, Armstrong. A “government-enforced monopoly” though? Really? How so? The only thing the Postal Service has a monopoly on is that mailbox on the curb.
Mr. Silvester is perfectly able to buy delivery of his items through a number of other companies. It may or may not be more expensive, and it may or may not take longer to get to its destination, and it may or may not be in very good shape when it gets there. A bunch of other companies will take his package and deliver it, frequently using the Postal Service for expediency.
Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution provides for the establishment of a Postal Service, just like it does the Navy. That service benefits us, too. I think it’s easy giving a few pennies of that hard-earned money of ours for the services we receive in return. If it bothers you so much, though, just stop buying stamps.
Kenneth P. Bartels