3 May 2017 3:09 pm
Misty » 03 May 2017 2:52 pm » wrote:A blast from the past.
More lies.
1. Their pension fund was never 'unfunded.'
2. Congress forced them to overfund their pension fund in order to try to drive them into bankruptcy, so they would have the excuse they needed to privatize them.
Yeah, how's that bankruptcy thingy going Puss?
Even if I accept the claim of a liar like you, pension calculations are complex relying on funding decades into the future, not on what funds might be available today.
The Postal unions are urging Congress to allow the Postal Service to stop making these prefunding payments. What would happen?
Chairman Issa: The Postal Service's unfunded liabilities will soar to around $100 billion by the end of the decade. This will reverse hard-won progress. The unfunded obligations will be 25% higher than they were before the Postal Service started its prefunding payments.
With declining revenue, this huge unfunded liability would be a burden that the Postal Service could not afford to bear.
LL: So bottom line, the unions claim of the postal service pre-funding pensions for future workers is false?
Chairman Issa: Absolutely false. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service recently found that pre-funding requirements match Congress’ intent when they were enacted in 2006. The intent is to ensure that the growing unfunded liability for retiree health care for current employees is covered. These employees negotiated for and earned these benefits with their work, so USPS should pay for them.
Likewise, USPS must be self-sustaining, and not funded by the taxpayers. Prefunding is a prudent measure to protect employee’s earned benefits and taxpayer money.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432