I think the commenter was pretty explicit about their lack of knowledge on the subject. Their viewpoint is logical from first principles, but it seems like it's off-base in the facts.

Would you mind elaborating a bit more on the 'current law' aspects? I think that would be more constructive than: 'do some more research on this topic before [commenting].'

I also know nothing about this, but from reading the article and your comment, I'm confused how they arrived at this point of being $805 million behind in their pension obligations if current law is solid on this point. Maybe it took them down in the end, but shouldn't the intervention have happened far sooner?