Inspectors General (IGs) serve an important purpose within the federal bureaucracy. They are supposed to be independent, internal watchdogs that guard against fraud, corruption, waste, and other failures. But based on the recent actions of some Inspectors General, their independence is being questioned.
Congress created the system of Inspectors General in 1978 with support from both parties and President Carter. The 72 IGs monitor agency activities and report on agency malfeasance. Many IGs are appointed by the president to shield them from agency interference.
In theory, IGs are supposed to crack down on waste, but IGs are often too soft on their agencies. Complaints have increased over the last several years. The Washington Examiner discusses the issue:
In the past two years, IGs at a half-dozen Cabinet-level agencies have been accused of retaliating against whistleblowers or softening their findings to protect top department executives or the White House.
Damning information about high-level misconduct has been scrubbed from recent IG reports at the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and a slew of independent agencies, according to congressional reports and outside watchdog groups.
The Commerce IG has been rebuked for retaliating against his own people by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and two congressional committees.
At the Department of Veterans Affairs, the acting inspector general is under fire for downplaying whistleblower claims and absolving the agency of blame for patient deaths in a high-profile report, even though the report confirmed that the VA used phony scheduling practices that led to delays in care.
Whistleblowers who have turned to Congress or the media routinely say inspectors general failed to investigate their charges of wrongdoing and then idly watched as their bosses subjected them to brutal retaliation for exposing agency secrets.
Even investigators within IG offices have faced retaliation for reporting internal wrongdoing or attempts to withhold embarrassing findings, according to congressional reports.
IGs are supposed to be guardians of the public interest, but sometimes they are the opposite. Congress has even had to use its subpoena power to force IGs to release documents and reports in some cases.
IGs serve an essential function ensuring that taxpayer funds are spent wisely, but many IGs are falling short on their oversight responsibilities. If they refuse, who will watch the watchdogs? As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, “”In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men…, you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
