Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-03-14
Postal Rate Debate

OF March . reveals great, ig-
norance Of the postal rate
situation. He alleges that the
Clark-Proxmire amendment
demanded that higher pos
tai rates be imposed on pub
locations Of larger circulation
than on publications Of
smaller circulation" As the
sponsor Of a similar magazine
publishers subsidy Limitation
amendment adopted by the
House last summer, I can say
with authority that this is
not the purpose, intent or
! result Of the amendment.
The subsidy-limitation
amendment merely requires
all second class mail users to
pay the Post Office Depart
ment's cost Of handling and
delivering their publications
after each individual publica-
ton has incurred q maximum
loss Of 100000. This maxi
mum loss was SIG million in
the Senate amendment. The
tremendous postal deficit win
never be reduced so long as
individual publications are
carried at losses amounting
to millions Of dollars each
year. They are. in effect, be-
ing subsidized by all taxpay-
ers. while the large publish
ing companies benefiting
most from these subsidies are
making record profits.
Contrary to Mr.. Lawrence's
contention, the circulation Of
the magazines has nothing to
do with the principle Of sub
sidy limitation. Under the
present law, the rates for
magazines vary according to
the amount of editorial con-
tent, advertising content and
the zone delivery charge.
Since no two magazines are
exactly the same in these
: three criteria, it can be said
that second-class rates have
always been higher on large
circulation magazines, since
these magazines have his
torically carried the greatest
volume of advertising. To
charge that this is somehow
discriminatory or an uncon-
stitutional violation of free
dom Of the press" is ridicu-
lous.
Perhaps Mr.. Lawrence's
judgment in this matter is
clouded because of the per-
sonal interest he has in the
subsidy limitation amend
ment as editor of United
States News and World Re-
port. This magazine, along
with many other well-known
publications, dips deeply into
the postal subsidy trough at
the expense Of the American
taxpayer. He is quick to at
tack subsidies to farmers and
other types of Federal aid
programs in his articles
and magazine editorials. yet
he somehow feels that Fed
eral aid" for magazine pub
fishers Is proper and to limit
it in any way would be un-
constitutional.
The position Of those of us
who support the subsidy linz
itation amendment is clear.
We feel it is unfair to over
burden the people who use
flrst-class mail in order to
pay for the huge postal def
cts in second-class mail.
caused by subsidization of
magazine publishers who can
and should pay their fair
share Of the postal costs. Each
type Of mail should be
charged rates which are suf-
f1cient to meet the cost to
the department in handling
that mail, plus a fair share
Of the overall costs of main
tanning the postal establish
ment. Subsidies to any type
Of mail user places an unfair
burden on all others. This
inequity is what we are seek
ing to regulate by the sub
sidy limitation amendment.
In fairness to all. 1t should be
retained in any postal rate
bill approved by the Congress.
George M. Rhodes,
Member of Congress,
Pennsylvania.
4 4
Editors note: Mr.. Law
rence's reply to the letter
above follows.)
Perhaps Representative
Rhodes would concede that
the Senators who sponsored
in the Senate an amendment
similar to the one he offered
in the House cannot be
charged with great ignorance
Of the postal rate situation"
For in the debate on the
Clark-Proxmire amendment,
as reported in the February
q Congressional Record,
Senator Clark Of Penn
sylyania himself referred %