ce’s future. While I agree tough choices lie ahead, I disagree with The Post-Star’s analysis.

First, it’s important to understand the Postal Service doesn’t receive taxpayer dollars as this piece suggests. Rather, it operates independently, making choices based on revenue and expenditures.

Second, closing post offices in rural towns doesn’t solve the problem. The Postal Service’s plan to cut approximately 4,000 small post offices would result in savings of less than 1 percent of its total operating costs, while disproportionately affecting families and businesses in many parts of rural New York.

For its part, the Postal Service is taking action. It is offering modified retail hours in place of office closures, and finding new opportunities to sell products like stamps and packaging in the hopes of raising revenues.

Congress, too, has a role to play. While taxpayer funding isn’t involved, Congress has oversight over the Postal Service and a responsibility to see it run efficiently. There is no question the Postal Service has a problem, with nearly $16 billion in yearly losses. Responsible action is required.

Of this $16 billion, $11 billion is attributable to a pre-funding requirement, initiated by Congress in 2006, for employee health benefits. This does not include billions in overpayments USPS made to employee pensions. In Congress, I have cosponsored legislation to give USPS the flexibility to address these gaps, and believe both the House and Senate must come together to find a solution.

The Postal Service must find a path to cut costs, fund retiree benefits and maintain services. In turn, Congress must offer the Postal Service enough flexibility to strike that balance. Closing small post offices in rural America won’t get us there, but common sense and a focus on the facts just might.

U.S. Rep. BILL OWENS

Plattsburgh