Post office wants 3-cent boost to stamp prices

Recent hike boosted price 2 cents
The cost of a first-class stamp went from 37 cents to 39 cents in January. Before that, the price had been unchanged since 2002.

The proposed increase would boost the price of mailing a letter to 42 cents.

The increase in January was required so the post office could place some $3 billion in an escrow account, a step required in law.

The House and Senate have both passed bills to eliminate that requirement and efforts are under way to resolve differences between the two versions, but it also faces the threat of a presidential veto.

Since that increase went into the escrow account, the Postal Service still must cover rising costs of fuel, salaries, equipment and other expenses.

In addition to its own fuel expenses, the post office has about 70,000 employees who use their own vehicles and are reimbursed for fuel costs, and there are some 17,000 contractors whose rates are adjusted for rising fuel costs.

Large loss expected
Overall, the Postal Service expects to finish this fiscal year about $2 billion in the red.

While a 3-cent increase in first-class stamps would be the most visible change, rates will change for other types of mail also.

For example, it currently costs 63 cents to mail a two-ounce first-class item whether it’s a letter, large flat envelope or package. But the post office makes more than 30 cents on the letter, 10 cents on the flat and loses money on the package.

That means the agency will be looking at shape as well as weight in setting new rates, officials have said, particularly in the face of a decline in first-class mail as more people pay bills and send messages via the Internet.

Congress mandated the escrow requirement in 2003 when it passed a law reducing the amount of money the agency has to pay into its retirement system, which auditors said was being overfunded. Instead, Congress ordered the money to be used to reduce debt and, when that was done, to be put into the escrow fund.

The White House has opposed the release of the money from the fund because placing it there counts as income for the federal government and releasing it would have the effect of raising the deficit.

MORE FROM LIFE

Life Section Front

Census: Small cities lose luster in downturn U.S. charities may not have a happy holiday Lost war bonds not easy to find Idaho boy kills bear that wouldn’t leave porch Mass. immigrant tuition bill to get new push Used shoes gain traction in poor countries Life Section Front   Add Life headlines to your news reader: