|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Covering Dallas, Monmouth, Independence, Falls City and surrounding areas since 1868
February 19, 2013
Stopping Saturday
mail not a solution
As president of Branch 2296 of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) here in Dallas, I would like to respond to the article "Saturday mail delivery on way out" printed in the Feb. 13 edition of your newspaper.
The reason for this letter is to give your readers the rest of the story.
First, since 1971, the U.S. Postal Service has not received one penny of taxpayer money. This organization relies only on the sale of stamps, postage and other services. In the time since 1971, the Postal Service has seen tremendous growth and now serves 144 million addresses nationwide six days a week. The post office is mandated under the U.S. Constitution, Title 39.
The main reason the Postal Service is experiencing financial trouble is a 2006 law that requires it to pre-fund its retiree health benefits 70 years in advance. The law only gives the Postal Service 10 years to get this done. In fact, the first fiscal quarter this year would have been a profit for the service had it not been required to make this payment. This means the post office is making money.
Eliminating Saturday delivery will not solve this problem. Only an act of Congress can fix this unreasonable burden. In a speech given by the postmaster general on Feb. 13, he stated that the cost savings from eliminating Saturday letter delivery was just an estimate. The truth is the savings will be very little, if any, due to our need to still process mail to keep it from backing up.
Stopping Saturday mail will only weaken the largest and strongest mail delivery network in the world. That cannot be good for anyone in America.
David C. MacAdam
Salem
HB 2787 a bad idea
for state education
On Feb. 13, I attended a House Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development hearing. HB 2787, out-of-state tuition for illegal immigrants, was the topic.
Prior to the hearing, testimony sign-up sheets were available. The hearing, taking 125 minutes, heavily favored the "for" group; the "against" group was given only 20 minutes.
The chairman, later quoted in The Oregonian, stated that he was unaware of a second sheet of opponents who had signed up to testify. My friend and I were on the first sheet but were not called to testify. During the hearing, the chairman stepped down to address his views. His statements took valuable time away from further testimonies.
Coverage in some newspapers in the state prior to and following the hearing heavily favored the "for" group.
Passage of HB 2787 means: acting contrary to federal law; injustice to current legal out-of-state students who are paying out-of-state tuition; more taxes because of the increase in illegal immigration; and lawsuits against the state.
We already are being taxed to pay for illegal immigrants in our public schools. Contract your state senator and representative concerning your opposition to HB 2787.
Clifford Girod
West Salem
ACEBOOK