Replies

You need to carefully READ and COMPREHEND the entire article. The $300k was for clearly cited for back taxes. The $89k was money she erroneously charged the taxpayers to cover flights costs of 89 flights she took on her hubbies jet which she supposedly has reimbursed to the taxpayers . The point of my posts was that flights costs for an eight seat jet are no where near $1000 per flight hour and that something smells with the math in the story.

The $89k was money she erroneously charged the taxpayers to cover flights costs of 89 flights she took on her hubbies jet which she supposedly has reimbursed to the taxpayers . The point of my posts was that flights costs for an eight seat jet are no where near $1000 per flight hour and that something smells with the math in the story.

I have heard of a bunch of other cases where politicians hitch rides on private jets and "reimburse" the owner $1000 per flight. Apparently there is a law that says that congresspersons must reimburse the owners of private planes, but somehow limits the reimbursement to $1000. (I don't know the details of how much of this comes from a congressional travel allowance.) So the plane owner gets to bribe the politician with a discounted flight on a private jet and the politician saves time and money. The difference in this case is that McCaskill was making the payment to her own family.

You need to carefully READ and COMPREHEND the entire article.

I did. I also read all the other articles on this subject. The first one referred to $87,000 in UNPAID PROPERTY TAXES. It seems to me the media may be mixing up the figures as well.

and that something smells with the math in the story.

I think we completely agree on that.