EPA Inspector General Report finds massive waste from Trump's Pruitt flying business class, staying in swanky hotels

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/05/16/thanks-uncle-sucker.html


Oh shit, I’ll bet Fox News is all over this kind of grift and waste since they’re a bunch of fiscal conservatives.


A whole lot’a nothing will come of this.


Pruitt is a world-class grifter and representative of the worst of the Trump administration, but the IG didn’t find that “he bilked the taxpayer out of nearly a million dollars by breaking government rules,” as stated in the summary. The section you quote instead finds that he spent $985,037 on travel, $123,942 of which was excessive under EPA rules. Is he sleazy and dishonest? Absolutely. Is it possible that your summary is correct in spirit because its is likely that all of Pruitt’s travel expenses were unjustified as “EPA Administrator” because he was likely traveling as a means of harming the environment rather than protecting it? More than likely. But misrepresenting the facts is unhelpful when trying to illustrate the ethical cesspit that is the Trump administration.


Pruitt is a piece of trash that can rot in hell for all I care, but honestly if I was at that level of oversight requiring that much travel I’d be pretty annoyed I had to fly coach.


That’s $123,942 because he travelled first/business class although he apparently shouldn’t have. In addition there’s still the 16 trips to or via Tulsa, Oklahoma, the hotel nights that were more expensive than the per-diem, etc. (see the list), so the cost of excessive travel was more than $123,942 but presumably less than the nearly $1,000,000 claimed.

I agree with @cannibalpeas that it sounds a bit harsh that an official at that level should be required to fly economy but, apparently, them’s the rules. Nobody is forced to be EPA Administrator if they don’t like the (non-)perks.


The EPA’s Office of the Inspector General has published the results of a long investigation into Pruitt’s spending

Is there going to be another report about the costs incurred by this long investigation? A decent percentage of $120K, I reckon.

The fellow was memorably unctuous, but now that he’s gone I reckon those resources would be better employed in ousting this new coal lobbyist.

1 Like

“Disgrace” is a strong word to use for a man who is proud of everything he’s done.

Shame is not something these criminals feel. All they feel is slightly sad that they were unable to continue being criminals at their peak pace.

1 Like

Perhaps we need to overhaul flying so coach is no longer equivalent to steerage. But I’m not sure why people with oversight are owed better service than the average bureaucrat, who might be a physician, an engineer, a PhD of some sort–or just a clerk, technician, other minion. The latter jobs can be just as taxing, especially in the present world where often one person is doing the work that used to be done by three.


Wheeler knows the score. When you get into a position of power like that you don’t use it to bilk the taxpayers for a few hundred thousand dollars in personal expenses—that’s small potatoes.

Instead, you use that power to shape policy in such a way to channel billions of dollars toward your personal business interests.


Just to recap

“Pruitt said that he regularly flies first class — spending multiples more than his predecessors on travel — due to unspecified security concerns, which he argued are a result of a “toxic” political environment.”

1 Like

Good point, but to be fair, I was talking about myself in that position ;~)


But how much was spent keeping him M-O-I-S-T ? https://boingboing.net/2018/07/05/scott-pruitt-must-be-kept-mois.html

Well given that those requirements are a result of years of people whinging about federal overspend, 'my tax dollars at work" jokes, etc., any annoyance felt by someone appointed by someone elected on a ‘drain the swamp’, anti-federal manifesto is fine by me.


The only argument for a more cushy seat is if the administrator had to go on lots of trips. By “had to,” I mean actual government business that required their presence. Say trips to converse with people and groups who have a legitimate stake in the agency’s policies, NOT frivolous junkets or secret off-the-record meetings to allow industry to make policy and offer lucrative job offers when they get out of jail.

1 Like

It might be helpful to not refer to Trump but refer to the GOP instead.
At this point, they are the same thing and should not be distinguished.

Trump is the lure of the anglerfish. If people think of them as separate things, they are even more dangerous. Don’t encourage this, please.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.