The House Democrats’ $25 billion bill funding for the USPS, passed after Pelosi “bravely” defied convention and called lawmakers in on a Saturday so that 26 Republicans could join all the Dems present in passing a (doomed) $25 billion aid package for the US Post Office that would also undo several ‘streamlining’ cuts.
Ahead of the House vote on Saturday, Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who famously switched parties at the end of 2019, said he supports the Postal Service, but is suspicious of certain provisions of the Democratic bill during an appearance on “Fox & Friends”.
Rep. Van Drew
As the conversation turned to the Democrats’ $25 billion aid package for USPS, Van Drew pointed out an interesting provision of the USPS law that hasn’t been widely reported: One part of the law, he explained, makes it easier for people to sue the post office.
This could lead to a “lot more liability issues….[and] a lot more costs.”
“They suddenly put in there that now you can sue the post office,” Van Drew said on “Fox & Friends Weekend.” “We’re going to have a lot more liability issues, a lot more costs, certainly more money for, I guess, attorneys, but a whole lot less money for the taxpayers.
“Who told them to do that? Who wants that? Why are we doing that? I don’t understand what we’re actually doing sometimes rather than getting good work … accomplished for the people of the United States of America. It’s just folks arguing with each other, and Democrats not wanting to cooperate, ever.”
In a letter from the White House warning of an impending veto should it somehow pass the Senate (it probably won’t), the administration said the bill “would arbitrarily give USPS $25 billion in “emergency” taxpayer funding, without linking that funding to either the COVID-19 pandemic or the upcoming election.”
Watch below:
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
House Democrats already tried to tie USPS funding to another pandemic relief bill that has by all accounts died on the vine. Even without the money, Postmaster General has reversed some cuts to avoid “even the appearance” of interference.
