by Left Baker takes a partisan shot at Trump here at "Counterpunch" which is revealing. The Postal Service has a huge amount of fixed costs in the form of retiree benefits and especially retiree health benefits. Congress has required that the Postal Service prefund 75 years of retiree health benefits. This requirement sets the Postal Service apart from private businesses, who do little or no prefunding of retiree health benefits. It also accounts for almost all of the Postal Service’s losses over the last decade. This is interesting as Baker seems not to understand that what the Postal Service is doing is the same Modified Accrual accounting methodology as any Federal government entity uses.Baker says "Congress has required that the Postal Service prefund 75 years of retiree health
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Andreas Cervenka och den svenska bostadsbubblan
Mike Norman writes Trade deficit
Merijn T. Knibbe writes Christmas thoughts about counting the dead in zones of armed conflict.
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Debunking the balanced budget superstition
Left Baker takes a partisan shot at Trump here at "Counterpunch" which is revealing.
The Postal Service has a huge amount of fixed costs in the form of retiree benefits and especially retiree health benefits. Congress has required that the Postal Service prefund 75 years of retiree health benefits. This requirement sets the Postal Service apart from private businesses, who do little or no prefunding of retiree health benefits. It also accounts for almost all of the Postal Service’s losses over the last decade.
This is interesting as Baker seems not to understand that what the Postal Service is doing is the same Modified Accrual accounting methodology as any Federal government entity uses.
Baker says "Congress has required that the Postal Service prefund 75 years of retiree health benefits."
Like this is some special thing that Congress is doing to the Postal Service or something.
Yo, Baker, hello!! this is how Congress treats ALL financial dealings of the Federal government.
Modified Accrual is described:
"Modified accrual accounting is an accounting method commonly used by government agencies that combines accrual-basis accounting with cash-basis accounting. Modified accrual accounting recognizes revenues when they become available and measurable and, with a few exceptions, recognizes expenditures when liabilities are incurred."
Private businesses use normal Accrual Method where they can accrue the future value of their retirement funds based on some assumed ROI of the fund over the period that the fund is estimated to have to provide benefits so they don't have a problem.
The whole REAL problem comes in when you're an idiot and conflate these two methodologies (like Baker is doing here...) and evaluate Modified Accrual accounting based on normal Accrual criteria or vice versa.
This is routinely what the CBO morons do and all their Peterson toadies and then they say "the US is bankrupt!" or whatever nonsense they spew all the time. "Unfunded liabilities!" , etc... its simply a product of their idiot accounting method conflations.
So who is dumb here where Baker doesn't even understand basic principles of Accounting 101?
I don't know if you want to be going all around calling the President dumb when you yourself don't even exhibit an understanding of basic principles of Accounting like all the other debt doomsday morons out there.
Baker might as well apply for a grant from the Peterson people.