https://news.nd.edu/news/postal-ser...ressional-mandate-not-low-prices-expert-says/
View attachment 809238
words words words
“It would be unwise to allow this to continue,” he said. “Also, covering a $6.5 billion shortfall with a four-fold increase in parcel post would essentially close down that class of service. They cannot make it up with higher-priced stamps.”
Contact: James O'Rourke, James.S.ORourke.2@nd.edu
If you are arguing that the PAEA should be repealed or replaced, then make that point. You seem to keep making the point that eh USPS is losing money because of it.
You’re original comment that was, lets face it, a lie. 75 years isn’t in the PAEA and it wasn’t true. If you found it in a meme or a political post, it doesn’t really matter. There are issues, but that lie makes politics a problem in trying to fix a real issue.
Keeping it simple – the USPS own fact sheet explains that scrapping the pre-funding requirement “will not reduce our underlying liability for retiree health benefits, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position”
https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the-facts.pdf
The team working on a potential solutions – The Task Force on the USPS – notes that the USPS did not pay the $43B that was to-plan. The mistake that O’Rouke makes is that he is looking at the first 10 years of the PAEA, not the financial reporting as I mentioned in the previous post.
2019 10K states they aren’t funding it…and so does the 2009…you can feel free to check all of them in between.
https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2019.pdf
https://about.usps.com/what/financi...stal,States” with the mandate that we offer a
I’m not saying they should, I’m saying they didn’t and since they didn’t it isn’t hampering their P&L. It is NOT the reason they are losing money because they haven’t paid it. If they did, yes, they would be out that much more. It is a liability.
The USPS states right in their fact sheet that they are going to have to default on the obligation.
This is the problem I have with people in an echo chamber. If you only want to hear what you believe, it becomes a breeding ground for Dunning-Kruger. Nobody escapes it.
Where I don’t fault you – This is not easy stuff and the amount of political noise is huge. You have to actually read the law and understand the finances. To do that, education to understand principles aside, you need to read them. Had you done so as I pointed at in my last post, you may have understood better. It is clear Shannon Roddel posted an article on other people’s opinions. While I may not disagree with the need to change the law, if the article represents O’Rourke’s understanding, then hopefully I can help clear things up with the email I sent him.
The article you posted make the mistake that some people call “Banking in your head, not in the bank”. It reports on the plan, not the performance to the plan.
Where I do blame you – I already told you this. You’re blinded by what you want to see, not what is. You will continue on, no matter what I just gave you for free here.
While I will not go back and forth with you on this any more, the information I’ve given you is more than enough to do your own math. It isn’t a waste for me, since I’m not going to use it for an undergrad exercise. It is current.
