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.
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.
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.