Yes, how dare they be required to fund their pensions rather than taking the risk-shifting approach of "oh, we'll have the money later", as employed by GM, Bethlehem Steel, ec.
Factually, they're being required to overfund it, to the tune of 75 years in advance, which is money that they can't reinvest. No business should accept being run that way.
Yeah. I don't have any experience with this stuff beyond planning my own retirement, but I recall playing with the numbers a bit a year or two ago when this was more often in the news. It looked to me like the amount of money they were required to put aside would (if the USPS managed to stay solvent over the decades and continue funding the pension fund) eventually make the USPS pension fund a world financial power.
I admire the idea of forcing a large organization, public or private, to keep its defined benefit plans fully funded. I don't really think that's what congress was shooting for.
Here, the improbable implication of your claim that I highlighted is that businesses are normally allowed n-year cutoffs (for some value of n) for discounted future liabilities.
It was not simply a reassertion.
If you need another reason your claim is implausible, it would suggest that, should a business issue a zero coupon bond with 76-year maturity, it should log that as an increase in book value (with corresponding tax liability). But obviously a loan should not itself increase tax liability!
Regardless, it's impressive that you can't handle being corrected. I get that you think you're generally the smartest person in the room, but sometimes you'll be wrong. Calm down, take a step back, and think critically in the future (especially if you think you've made a logical point.)