WASHINGTON — Citing budget cuts, the Internal Revenue Service is canceling this year's employee bonuses for managers and is working to cancel bonuses for union workers, the agency announced Tuesday.
Acting IRS head Danny Werfel told workers in an email that he is canceling the bonuses because of automatic spending cuts enacted this year. The agency was scheduled to spend nearly $98 million on employee bonuses this year – $76 million for union workers; $19.3 million for nonunion workers, including managers; and $2.5 million for executives.
The bonuses, which were made public in June, riled members of Congress who were already scrutinizing the IRS for improperly targeting conservative political groups when they applied for tax-exempt status.
Werfel, however, did not mention the controversy in his message to employees.
"Given the unprecedented budget situation and consistent with government-wide policy, I do not believe there should be performance awards this year for IRS employees, managers or executives," Werfel said in a statement. "Previously, the IRS determined that, consistent with government-wide guidance, non-bargaining unit employees and managers would not receive awards. I have now instructed our senior leadership team to determine options we can take to eliminate awards for bargaining unit and senior executives as well."
The National Treasury Employees Union said it believes the bonuses are legally required under its collective bargaining agreement
The agreement calls for the IRS to set aside 1.75 percent of union salaries for bonuses, but there is a clause that could enable the IRS to renegotiate. The vast majority of bonuses are based on performance, according to the contract. The agency has more than 90,000 employees.
"NTEU has had a negotiated performance awards program at the IRS for decades, pursuant to the law and regulations which specifically direct agencies to implement such merit-based incentive programs," the union's president, Colleen M. Kelley, said in a statement. "It is NTEU's position that the awards are legally required as part of the collective bargaining agreement between NTEU and the IRS. NTEU is in bargaining with the IRS over this issue and intends to fully pursue the bargaining process to the end."
The IRS has been under intense scrutiny since the agency revealed in May that agents had improperly scrutinized tea party and other conservative political groups. Since then, the IRS has shared documents with Congress that show some liberal groups may have been targeted as well.
The agency has also been criticized for lavish spending on employee conferences and the potential employee bonuses.
Werfel, however, said, "This is not a reflection of the quality or performance of the work done by the IRS workforce, but rather an unfortunate byproduct of the difficult budgetary situation we find ourselves in."
A House Republican spending bill would cut IRS funding by 24 percent for the budget year that starts Oct. 1. It would also prohibit funding for employee bonuses and awards until the bonus program is reviewed.
"An acknowledgement that all bonuses might be inappropriate is welcome," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who first publicized the potential for employee bonuses at the agency.
"But it shouldn't take a media firestorm and congressional outrage for the IRS to act within its budgetary constraints," Grassley said. "The IRS still could give bonuses to union members and senior executives, according to today's announcement. Rejecting the White House's mandate to stop bonuses across the board would be a slap in the face to taxpayers."
In April, the White House budget office ordered agencies to cancel discretionary bonuses because of automatic spending cuts. The directive was written by Werfel, a former budget official who has since been appointed as acting head of the IRS.
If the IRS is successful in canceling union bonuses, the agency will also cancel two scheduled furlough days for workers, Werfel said.
Earlier this year, the agency announced five furlough days in which the entire agency shuts down because of budget cuts. The agency has already imposed three furlough days.
Kelley, the union president, said the IRS doesn't need to cancel bonuses to cancel the furlough days.
"The IRS should examine all parts of its budget and operations before eliminating incentive awards for high-performing frontline employees," Kelley said. "IRS employees are dedicated and hard-working professionals who perform important and difficult work for our country. Employees have already earned these awards. The awards that are due are based on employee performance evaluations for work already performed beginning in 2012."
Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter: http://twitter.com/stephenatap
Also on HuffPost:
The U.S. incarcerates its citizens at a rate roughly <a href="http://www.parade.com/news/2009/03/why-we-must-fix-our-prisons.html" target="_hplink">five times higher than the global average</a>. We have about 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of its prisoners, according to The Economist,. This status quo costs our local, state and federal governments a combined $68 billion a year -- all of which becomes a federal problem during recessions, when states look to Washington for fiscal relief. Over the standard 10-year budget window used in Congress, that's a $680 billion hit to the deficit. Solving longstanding prison problems -- releasing elderly convicts unlikely to commit crimes, offering treatment or counseling as an alternative to prison for non-violent offenders, slightly shortening the sentences of well-behaved inmates, and substituting probation for more jail-time -- would do wonders for government spending.
End Of The Drug War
The federal government spends more than <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20072096.html" target="_hplink">$15 billion a year</a> investigating and prosecuting the War on Drugs. That's $150 billion in Washington budget-speak, and it doesn't include the far higher costs of incarcerating millions of people for doing drugs. This money isn't getting the government the results it wants. As drug war budgets balloon, drug use escalates. Ending the Drug War offers the government two separate budget boons. In addition to saving all the money spending investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating drug offenders, Uncle Sam could actually regulate and tax drugs like marijuana, generating new revenue. Studies by pot legalization advocates indicate that fully legalizing weed in California would yield <a href="http://canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html" target="_hplink">up to $18 billion annually</a> for that state's government alone. For the feds, the benefits are even sweeter.
Let Medicare Negotiate With Big Pharma
The U.S. has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/01/us-healthcare-costs-sb-idUSTRE5504Z320090601" target="_hplink">higher health care costs than any other country</a>. We spend over 15 percent of our total economic output each year on health care -- roughly 50 percent more than Canada, and double what the U.K. spends. Why? The American private health care system is inefficient, and the intellectual property rules involving medication in the U.S. can make prescription drugs much more expensive than in other countries. Medicare currently spends about $50 billion a year on prescription drugs. According to economist Dean Baker, <a href="http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/intellectual_property_2004_09.pdf" target="_hplink">Americans spend roughly 10 times more than they need to</a> on prescription drugs as a result of our unique intellectual property standards. These savings for the government, of course, would come from the pockets of major pharmaceutical companies, currently among the most profitable corporations the world has ever known. They also exercise tremendous clout inside the Beltway. President Barack Obama even <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/barack-obama-politics_n_1847947.html" target="_hplink">guaranteed drug companies more restrictive -- and lucrative -- intellectual property standards</a> in order to garner their support for the Affordable Care Act.
Offshore Tax Havens
The U.S. Treasury Department estimates that it loses about <a href="http://www.ctj.org/pdf/stopact.pdf" target="_hplink">$100 billion a year</a> in revenue due to offshore tax haven abuses. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has been pushing legislation for years to rein in this absurd tax maneuvering, but corporate lobbying on Capitol Hill has prevented the bill from becoming law.
Deprivatize Government Contract Work
In recent years, the federal government has privatized an enormous portion of public projects to government contractors. Over the past decade, the federal government's staffing has held steady, while the number of federal contractors has <a href="http://pogoarchives.org/m/co/igf/bad-business-report-only-2011.pdf" target="_hplink">increased by millions</a>. This outsourcing has resulted in much higher costs for the government than would be incurred by simply doing the work in-house. On average, contractors are paid <a href="http://pogoarchives.org/m/co/igf/bad-business-report-only-2011.pdf" target="_hplink">nearly double</a> what a comparable federal employee would receive for the same job, according to the Project On Government Oversight.
Print More Money
There's an old saying in economics: You have to print money to make money. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/underwear-sales-growth-economy_n_1952214.html" target="_hplink">Okay, there's no such saying</a>. Nevertheless, the great boogeyman of many conservative economic doctrines -- inflation -- isn't such a bad idea during periods where much of the citizenry is drowning in debt. Inflation is by no means a perfect remedy: it's a stealth cut to workers' wages. But it also has many benefits that are often unacknowledged by the Washington intelligentsia. Inflation makes housing debt, student loan debt and any other private-sector debt more manageable. Today, when <a href="http://www.corelogic.com/about-us/researchtrends/asset_upload_file448_16434.pdf" target="_hplink">10.8 million</a> homes are underwater -- meaning borrowers owe banks than their houses are worth, moderate inflation could ease that debt burden. By effectively reducing monthly bills, moderate inflation could actually put more money in the pockets of these homeowners to spend elsewhere, thus stimulating the economy. Moderate inflation -- 5 percent or so -- could also help alleviate the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57555780/student-loan-debt-nears-$1-trillion-is-it-the-new-subprime/" target="_hplink">$1 trillion</a> in student debt currently plaguing America's graduates. Make no mistake -- hyperinflation of 20 percent, 30 percent or more -- is bad. But the U.S. has ways to crush inflation when it gets out of hand, as proven by the Federal Reserve under then-Chairman Paul Volcker in the early-1980s.
Print Less Money
The government prints a <em>lot</em> of $1 bills. But it turns out that minting $1 coins is much, much cheaper. Over the course of 30 years, the government could save $4.4 billion by switching from dollar bills to dollar coins. Here's looking at you, <a href="http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/nativeamerican/" target="_hplink">Sacagawea</a>.
Immigration: Less Detention, More Ankle Bracelets
The government spends <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/04/ice-slow-to-embrace-alternatives-to-immigrant-detention.php" target="_hplink"> $122 per person, per day</a> detaining immigrants who are considered safe and unlikely to commit crimes. The government has plenty of other options available to monitor such people, at a cost of as little as $15 per person. For the first 205 years of America's existence, there was no federal system for detaining immigrants. The process began in 1981.
Financial Speculation Tax
Wall Street loves to gamble. In good times, financial speculation is the source of tremendous profits in America's banking system, but when the bets go bad, the government picks up the tab, as evidenced by the epic bank bailouts of 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, this speculation is difficult to define in legalistic terminology and even more difficult to police. One solution? By taxing every financial trade at the ultra-low rate of 0.25 percent, the U.S. government can impose a modest incentive against gambling for the sheer sake of gambling. If there's an immediate cost to placing a bet, a lot of traders will choose not to bet. What's more, this tax could raise about <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/media/why_a_financial_transaction_tax" target="_hplink">$150 billion a year</a> for the federal government.
Taxing greenhouse gases would generate $80 billion a year right now, and up to $310 billion a year by 2050, <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/07/carbon-tax-mckibbin-morris-wilcoxen" target="_hplink">according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution</a>. It would also help avert catastrophic ecological and economic damage from climate change.