by Jacob G. Hornberger

March 19, 2026

According to an article in the New York Times, the U.S. Postal Service has advised Congress that it will be “out of cash in less than 12 months.” The situation is aggravated by an announcement by Amazon that it plans to severely curtail the use of the Postal Service for the delivery of Amazon packages.

Five years ago, the Postal Service came up with a 10-year plan for fortifying its financial situation. That was after it had lost $14 billion over a period of 14 years. For the past five years, however, the financial situation has not gotten any better. According to the Times, “In fiscal years 2024 and 2025, the agency incurred net losses of $9.5 billion and $9 billion” and in “the first quarter of fiscal year 2026 — it lost nearly $1.3 billion.”

The Times points out, “After successive years with net losses, the Postal Service, which is meant to be self-sufficient, is up against a federally mandated borrowing limit.”

Thus, to resolve its crisis, the Postal Service is asking Congress to permit it to borrow more money and to charge more for postage. But does anyone really think that borrowing more money and charging consumers more for postage is going to resolve the Postal Service’s financial woes?

There is another solution, one that seemingly hasn’t yet entered the minds of the members of Congress: Simply abolish the Postal Service.

Keep in mind that this is a governmental institution, which should give everyone a clue as to why it is such a disaster. Even more important, this governmental agency is a monopoly — a genuine monopoly — one that the law protects from competition insofar as the delivery of first-class mail is concerned.

In other words, the law prohibits any private-sector company from competing against the Postal Service in the delivery of first-class mail. If one tries to do so, the Postal Service and the Justice Department will immediately secure an injunction from a federal court that shuts down the private-sector competitor.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if an entity cannot survive and prosper with monopoly privileges, it doesn’t deserve to remain in existence.

As an aside, have you ever noticed that American statists who rail against enormously successful private-sector companies as “monopolies” or “oligopolies” never rail against a genuine monopoly — that is, one that relies on the law to prevent competition?

A question naturally arises: What business does the U.S. government have in delivering mail?

Even though the Constitution permits the government to deliver mail, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a good idea. As we have seen with other forms of communication — email, FedEx, UPS, etc. — the free market is perfectly capable of delivering mail. The free market produces the best of everything. The government produces the worst of everything. In fact, as we have seen time and time again, the only thing the federal government does well is kill people.

What about people who live in the mountains? That’s, of course, the excuse that the Postal Service has long given to justify its continued existence — that the free market will not ensure the delivery of mail to people who live in the mountains. Yet, somehow people who live in the mountains are able to get milk, bread, and other essential items. If they can get those things, private businesses will be able to figure out a way to get them their mail.

Of course, a less drastic option would be to simply repeal the Postal Service’s monopoly privileges, thereby permitting the private sector to freely compete against the Postal Service in the delivery of first-class mail. But we all know what would happen: The demise of the Postal Service would simply be accelerated. If it can’t succeed with monopoly privileges, it is not going to be able to succeed without monopoly privileges.

Better to simply put the Postal Service out of its misery by abolishing it entirely, now rather than later. Government has no more business doing mail delivery than it does engaging in any other peaceful economic activity. That’s what the free market is for.