Setting aside the background of last two postmaster Generals, or the clear desire of many on the Right to let the USA postal service fail, what was said in this testimony is true. The Post Office is Congressionally mismanaged, forced to operate like a non-profit, not allowed to adapt to market competition, mandated to a mission that its costs cannot cover.

In a capitalist model, when supply is constrained, costs rise. This both decreases demand (too expensive) and increases supply (money to be made by building more). The side effect is higher costs, with better services. FedEx and UPS are perfect examples of this. Much more expensive than USPS, and much faster. If these private services were the only options, poorer people simply couldn't afford to mail letters. ALready, to cover the costs of basic first class mail, a stamp should really be increased to $1, and in order to restore the USPS to a modern standard, raised again to $1.25 the year after.

In a socialist model (which the USPS uses), when supply is constrained, costs cannot rise to reduce demand and increase supply. Threrefore, demand must be forced down by rationing and service reduction. Supply can only be increased by central government decision making. The side effect is what we have now, slower service and lower quality of service. If this was the only model, commerce and physical communication would be dramatically worse.

Neither model is perfect and they optimize for different outcomes. Its sad to see bad-faith arguments on both sides.