"THE OPERA ISN'T OVER UNTIL THE FAT LADY SINGS"

The following is a perspective by postal commentator Gene Del Polito. The views expressed are solely the author's.

I have no doubt that the title of this piece will ring some chimes with the sports fanatics that are reading this. If that isn't you, dear reader, then I'd suggest you look up this phrase in Wikipedia. The reason I've selected this title is because of its aptness to much of the who-hah we hear these days over this bill or that which has been introduced in Congress, which, if enacted, is supposed to cure all that ails the American postal system.

Just this week, yet another postal reform bill has been introduced -- this one by Republicans and Democrats who serve on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (more specifically, by Senators Lieberman, Carper, Collins, and Brown). It is, without question, an interesting bill, and I believe its sponsors genuinely believe that if it were enacted it would go a long way to ensuring the Postal Service's institutional stability. There, of course, are other sponsors of other measures that have been introduced in the House and the Senate who fervently believe that their answer to the Postal Service's dilemma would really be the charm.

As so often happens when any bill is introduced, there is a line-up of interested parties who are prepared to laud the measure, even if the praise is limited to nothing more than "it's a good beginning" and "we'll work closely with Congress" as the issue moves ahead. But there's a hollow sound to much of what can only be characterized as empty praise. Characteristically, those who offer their words of support choose not to highlight the shortcomings of any proposal out of concern of offending those members of Congress who at least have awakened to the need to address a pending crisis.

There are hundreds of bills that are introduced by well-meaning legislators in every Congress. There are very few bills that ever find their way to enactment. And there will be a long, tough road ahead for any of the postal reform billls that have been introduced in this Congress before they ever find their way to the President's desk. The question that many people ask is "what makes a bill right." The answer, at least in this instance, is not all that difficult to divine.

The problem facing the nation's postal system is a very simple one to understand. At this point in time, the Postal Service's costs are significantly greater than its source of revenue, and the size of its physical and human resources now exceed what is necessary to attend to present-day or any reasonably predictable future workload demand. Simply raising revenue by raising rates would only worsen the Postal Service's dilemma. The only thing this would accomplish is to provide an even greater incentive for businesses to seek other venues for communication and commerce, and leave the Postal Service with no real option to address a more greatly bloated and costly infrastructure.

The ultimate test any postal reform measure must pass is equally simple to discern. A successful postal reform measure, if enacted, would ensure (1) the fiscal viability of the U.S. Postal Service, (2) the Postal Service could operate on a self-sufficient basis, and (3) the ability of the Postal Service to satisfy the nation's need for universal postal service.

Something very much needs to happen which hasn't happened yet. Every bill that has been proposed thus far to remedy the Postal Service's ills must be subjected to an objective, non-partisan determination as to whether the measure is able to meet the three-pronged test of postal reform sufficiency. There also needs to be a commitment and resolve to reject any measure that fails to meet this sufficiency test. At the very least, it would mean that the sponsors have more work to do before their measures are seriously considered for enactment.

So, who should be the arbiter that makes this determination? In the end, it will be Congress. Before we get to the end, however, it would be helpful to hear from the agency that's the focus of all this legislative business. Is the Postal Service of the opinion that this bill or that would be sufficient to provide and satisfy the nation's continuing postal needs?

Thus far, however, many in Congress have voiced great skepticism of the Postal Service's ability to render an objective and non-partisan assessment. It's been fascinating to hear legislators in both chambers say the Postal Service's numbers or its recommendations cannot be trusted. Here we have sitting atop the Postal Service someone who has been appointed to serve as its chief executive officer, someone who should be in a position to know the kinds of challenges the Postal Service faces, and, at the very least, should be in the position of knowing what, if anything, can be done to put its business and finances in good order. This person, who we call the Postmaster General of the United States, is reasonably well paid for his work and expertise. No one, thus far, has questioned his competence or his fitness to remain in office. Yet there still are some who say his judgment cannot be trusted.

Alright, let's set aside for the moment the supposition that the PMG is the best one to make a reasonable assessment of any legislative proposal's sufficiency. If not him, then who?

Well, in just the recent past, the decision was made to seek the opinion of the Congress' chief watchdog, the Government Accountability Office (GAO). After all, Congress goes to GAO for an assessment of the sufficiency of many of the Postal Service's actions, and, just most recently, inquired of GAO an opinion regarding the Postal Service's funding retirement-related obligations. Why not then ask GAO to subject every proposal that's been introduced thus far to the sufficiency test any bill would have to meet (i.e., it must ensure (1) the fiscal viability of the U.S. Postal Service, (2) the Postal Service could operate on a self-sufficient basis, and (3) the ability of the Postal Service to satisfy the nation's need for universal postal service).

Remember, there is no such thing as good legislation or bad legislation. Good and bad are value judgments that can warp any clear perception of a bill's sufficiency. The only thing that matters is whether, if enacted, the bill works to cure the ills for which it was created.

There are some who say that solving the Postal Service's dilemma may be too difficult a task for Congress to address at this time. Some say we should be satisfied with even a few small steps in the right direction (whatever the devil that may be). They say that this is a crisis whose actualization can be forestalled for Congress to address another day.

Bunkum! We've already done that. We called it the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. That's how we got where we are today. We don't need to replay what history already has shown to be a false start in addressing fully the nation's enduring mail service needs.

There's still a lot of work that needs doing in the months ahead. Just keep in mind: it really ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.