Sperling claimed the IRS has been “poorly invested in” regarding technology and personnel, impacting the capacity to effectively carry out its job.
“How did that happen?” MacCallum sarcastically asked. “The cost of government goes up and up and up every year. So why would we be so far behind the eight ball with this technology?”
Two things - one is - yes, it's often true that government agencies often fall way behind the eight ball when it comes to adopting new technologies. From my experience, it's just not always cost effective to continually upgrade every single system. Upgrades to things like software systems and operating systems are often upgraded on a schedule - but I can tell you many desktops were still running Windows XP more than ten years after it was introduced.
MANY years ago, I was at a conference where the newest features of a software package we used on our mainframes were being introduced, and a co-worker asked a question I REALLY wanted him not to ask - because I knew the answer. He asked if the new software could do X, and the speaker got a puzzled look and said that feature was available some five versions back.
THIS - this, I'm fairly familiar with. Upgrades and keeping up with technology changes OUGHT to be baked into the budget, but it's usually the first to go, along with training.
But the second thing is -
JUST ABOUT every damned year, the IRS manages to bring in a record amount of revenue - they (almost) always bring in a lot more money than the year before. The problem isn't they're not bringing in enough money - the problem is, they're now close to spending TWICE the amount they bring in. They consider it praise-worthy when they only spend 50% more than they bring in.
THEY DON'T NEED MORE AGENTS to get the money. They need to stop spending it. This effectively DOUBLES the size of the IRS. If they ever, ever had the sense to eliminate most income taxes and put us all on some kind of consumption tax, the IRS wouldn't be needed at all.