The Oct. 5 Fed Page article “Repackaging the mail: Should USPS be sold?” contained misleading assertions. It purportedly was about a Brookings Institution paper on the U.S. Postal Service but astonishingly led with an unattributed policy prescription for downgrading service. “Everyone understands. . . . To stay afloat, the post office needs to get its costs under control, by” closing post offices and ending Saturday delivery, among other things, the article said. But those recommendations aren’t supported by most lawmakers, the Postal Service, the Postal Regulatory Commission and many businesses.

The shift in political sentiment — unacknowledged in this article — reflects sharply improving postal finances; to many lawmakers, it’s illogical to cut services now operating at a profit.

We’re told that Republican lawmakers have sought for years to sell the Postal Service. Which ones? Not one is quoted or even named.

In what may have been an attempt to bestow legitimacy on the idea, the article also noted that a Democrat from Brookings has joined this (unnamed) band of lawmakers who oppose public mail delivery. But later we’re told the Brookings scholar doesn’t support privatizing mail delivery.

The article lacked any serious discussion of how the Brookings plan would work or whether it makes sense. (It doesn’t.) What was the point of this article, beyond touting The Post’s policy preferences?

Fredric Rolando, Washington

The writer is president of the National Association of Letter Carriers.