Iran's Days Are Numbered
US Women's Hockey Team Is Pretty Much Telling the Media to Get a...
Stelter Tries to Sterilize SOTU Ratings; Canadian Media Hold Hockey Player Struggle Sessio...
My State of the Union Bucket List Evening
The America the Left Loves — and Hates
The U.S. Olympic Men's Hockey Team Did It the Right Way
They Always Underestimate America
The State of Our Journalism Is Viciously Anti-Trump
The Press vs. America
To Achieve American Energy Dominance, All We Needed Was a New President
To Stand or Not to Stand…That is the Question
Pakistan Declares 'Open War' on Taliban in Afghanistan
Georgia Man Ordered to Repay $27.9 Million in Telemedicine Durable Medical Equipment Scam
Fraud Czar JD Vance Halts Quarter-Billion Medicaid Dollars to Minnesota
Minnesota Lawmakers File Articles of Impeachment Against Gov. Tim Walz, AG Ellison
Tipsheet

Your Tax Dollars at Work: IRS Travel Edition

Your Tax Dollars at Work: IRS Travel Edition
A new Inspector General report for the IRS finds that some employees have racked up impressive (shall we say) expenses for traveling to and from Washington, D.C.
Advertisement

Here are some of the figures for the "travel" days for the executives in 2011 and the associated expenses:

Executive A - 290 days - $88,951

Executive B - 238 days - $115,806

Executive C - 213 days - $105,127

Executive D - 172 days - $135,333

Executive E - 179 days - $47,322

Executive G - 193 days - $86,433

Executive K - 174 days - $64,521

Executive L - 173 days - $62,233

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that some of these folks are actually commuting to work in the nation's capital, and charging us for it.
Jamie Dupree of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who broke the story, notes that the report on executive travel found "no evidence of wrongdoing."  Au contraire - I would argue that, although nothing in the report itself alleges illegality or any breach of IRS regulations, that fact is a scandal in itself.  Like so much in DC, the outrage here isn't what's illegal, it's what's permitted.
Were these people so uniquely valuable to the agency that we needed to subsidize these travel costs in order to have the benefit of their services? Were there special situations that legitimately prevented them from relocating to the place where they work? Or were federal government employees once again providing an example of the Beltway's reflexive contempt for the taxpayers who subsidize their oh-so-privileged lifestyles?
Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement