Washington Insider: Office Perks for Cabinet Criticized

A number of media outlets are reporting recent criticism of administration travel costs. For example, the Washington Post says that this is one of the wealthiest cabinets in modern U.S. history but that criticism is widening over travel expenditures by some of the billionaires, budget hawks and business executives who head federal agencies.Inspectors general in executive branch departments have opened at least five investigations into charter or military flights by Cabinet officials amounting to millions in federal spending, and the Post lists new examples of questioned expenditures. These include those of Energy Secretary Rick Perry and EPA administrator Scott Pruitt who faces expanding investigations into his travel by private jet.These investigations “threaten to undermine a core pillar of Trump’s relationship with his base,” The Post thinks. The President has said he's "not happy" about some of this spending, the Post says.Adding to the costs are travel accommodations for Cabinet aides, guests and security details, who accompany secretaries on all trips. Thus far, officials have assumed no financial responsibility for passengers on their flights, The Post says. Tom Price who resigned at the end of last month as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, ran up charter costs of more than $500,000 but pledged a $51,887 check to reimburse the government for his seats. An HHS spokesman told the Post that Price “was under no obligation” to pay but that this was “him wanting to make a gesture.”To deal with fallout over travel costs, the White House has imposed a new approval process for charter jet travel by non-national-security Cabinet members. The protocol will be supervised by Chief of Staff John Kelly.White House approval for military flights, which have long required special permission, came under question when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin ran up at least $800,000 on such trips, including a flight with his wife to visit the nation’s gold stash at Fort Knox. A report last week by the Treasury watchdog said the flights were legal based on Mnuchin’s schedule and need for secure communications, “but poorly justified.”White House spokesman Raj Shah on Friday called the use of military planes for Cabinet and other essential travelers “sometimes an appropriate and necessary use of resources.” One indicator of how the administration has tried to curb expenditures, he said, is the sharp reduction of what are known as military air White House support missions — travel the president must request.However, the Post says “some government accountability groups argue that the Cabinet behavior reflects the president’s own disconnect with government frugality, evidenced by his weekend trips to his private golf clubs and Mar-a-Lago, as well as the costly travels by Trump family members that must be monitored by government employees and Secret Service agents.”The White House argues that the President’s travel is essential “Every weekend that he’s traveling, no matter where he is, the president is working,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders said last week. Furthermore, “this is a president that is committed to helping move his agenda forward. And certainly I think that those weekends have been very successful in doing that,” she argued.Cabinet leaders have historically been background players, pushing their boss’s agenda, the Post notes and observes that “Trump’s appointees have joined in his vow to control spending by imposing employee travel restrictions, cutting programs and leaving positions open.” However, “in their own travel, many have swapped the cramped cabins of commercial airplanes for private jets,” or have traveled widely while mixing official duties with vacations and political events.Now, Congress is increasingly taking notice, the Post says. It notes that Reps. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore., and Grace F. Napolitano, D-Calif., wrote last week to the EPA’s inspector general that the Cabinet trips are “symptomatic of a troubling culture that appears to have swept through this administration.” In addition, it argues that travel by Trump and the Cabinet has “highlighted tensions among agencies and the White House over contradictory federal spending messages from Republican leaders.”Well, this is not a new problem and it crops up here and again in most administrations and both parties. Still, it almost seems a self-inflicted wound this time, sure to be observed and reported. While the actual cost of federal perks is rather small relative to the size of federal program, the political “optics” can be quite costly—and, very difficult to ignore, Washington Insider believes.