SUBSCRIBE TO RSS FEEDIf you pay taxes then you are paying for Michelle Obama’s servants, er, “assistants”.
Forget the fact that we are in the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression. Forget that there is record national debt, and ignore the high unemployment and suffering amongst the common people. Because Michelle Obama needs 26 assistants at our expense–a bill that works out to more than $1.7 million dollars per year!
Remember, “First Lady” is not a political office–she is not entitled to any assistants. In fact, First Ladies of the past had to pay their assistants out of their own pockets! (I am not referring to Laura Bush here–she had a taxpayer-funded staff as well. But hers only cost us a “mere” $1+ million of wasted money per year.)
Apparently all of the new jobs from the economic stimulus packages were created inside of the White House.
SEE:
First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants
Michelle Obama’s Personal, Million-Dollar Staff
Material girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation, NY Daily News
.
Filed under: Barack Obama | Tagged: Barack Obama, corruption, debt, economy, Laura Bush, life, Michelle Obama, politics, recession, tax, waste, White House |
Daily Liberty Research 
What kind of person could justify such pompous, selfish behavior to themselves while the nation rots away economically? Or at any time for that matter?
“What kind of person could justify such pompous, selfish behavior to themselves while the nation rots away economically? Or at any time for that matter?”
Her husband was made by the media and pushed into office by them. Neither of them belong there, it’s an ego trip for them and sensational love-fest ratings for the media. Vomit.
FWIW, Laura Bush had a similarly sized entourage. It comes with the post.
Actually, multimillion dollar entourages are not supposed to “come with the post”. Being the First Lady is not a political office of any kind.
Also, I mentioned Laura Bush above as well. Whether someone belongs to the Democratic Party or Republican Party is completely irrelevant these days — both parties are equally bloated and corrupt.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp
Fact-Checking is good for your credibility
I’m not sure what makes Snopes the ultimate source of truth on the internet over any other established news/information source, but thanks for backing up my information.
According to Snopes: “the original White House report is accurate, it’s fair to say that Michelle Obama has about 22 staffers working for her…”
My headline of “26 Assistants” and the figure of $1.7+ million comes from the Canada Free Press story as it originally appeared at the time my blog post was written. Their numbers have since been revised downward a bit.
So yeah, it’s totally acceptable for the First Lady to waste up to $1.3 million per year on 22 assistants–just don’t waste over $1.7 million!
Well its clear that this just shows how much she loves us and wants the best for her fellow citizens.
Meanwhile the dollar plummets, unemployment rises, more banks fail, and the national debt rises to levels beyond repair.
You’ve fallen victim to a hoax. Those charges about Mrs. Obama are false.
A hoax? Ed, see for yourself:
Click to access July1Report-Draft12.pdf
BTW, as was alraedy stated, this is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Its just as ridiculous that Laura Bush had such a large group of overpaid personal staffers at her beckon call. I do think its strange that you would defend this kind of abuse of authority though. We have people living in tent cities in America and all the First Lady seems to be concerned about is what kind of designer shoes she wears or when she gets to take her next taxpayer-funded vacation to Paris.
Is the number 22, is it 26 is it more or less? We’re clearly spending at the very least around $1.3 million for the staffers with “first lady” in their title according to the report I’ve linked to. What about the servants that aren’t on this list? The exact number of servants is irrelevent. The point is that when you have someone who is waited on by a million dollar taxpayer-funded staff — can this person be called a public servant? Who’s serving whom here? Do you have any regard at all for your country’s financial welfare?
But let’s face it, this is only a minor footnote to the greater looting that is taking place in our nation, thanks to past and present administrations, Congress, lobbyists, a complacent public and big banks.
Why shouldn’t the First Lady, whose services we get for free, basically, have a staff? Why shouldn’t she have enough staff to handle the job we require her to do?
Where do you get off calling policy wonks “wait staff?” Do you also assume, contrary to fact and common sense, that the Secretary of Defense is a woman who takes dictation, types letters and licks envelopes?
The point is you’ve made scurrilous charges that are false, and silly on their face, but scurrilous and troubling because of the complete inaccuracy of the thing. For 30 years the office she holds has been an official office, with a budget that get scrutinized by OMB and Congress — what excuse have you for being asleep the last 30 years? How does that authorize you to make completely inaccurate claims?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that whatever the cost is, is too much? Since you’ve done no analysis on what the workers do, other than your denigration of the titles of these people (are you opposed to women working in government? what sort of odd bigotry fuels your tirade?), how can anyone know that the staff isn’t too small?
Did you look at that draft document? It shows 16 people on the First Lady’s staff. Your count is off by at least 6, according to your document.
Which of those people do you claim is not justified, at least by the need to coordinate with the Secret Service for protection of the family, especially with the inflammatory charges you’ve made here?
I’ve got two posts stuck in your moderation file. You going to let them out to breathe?
Ed, I actually work during the day, so take it easy on the comment moderating thing, eh?
16, 22, 26…as I said the exact number is irrelevant. The dollar figure is over $1.2 million at the very least, and for an unofficial, unelected position that is just not justified.
Frankly your smears are pathetic, you made no justification of the million-dollar staff yourself, only continued to use name calling to divert attention from the more important issue that people in Washington such as the first lady and their illustrious staff are overpaid and out of touch with reality, you seem to be as well.
You want to talk about history? Are you even aware of the fact that some of the most prominent figures in the founding of America refused their government pay and even maintained side businesses to support themselves while they performed their duties of office? That’s the type of thing that a true public servant does. Note also that these were individuals that were elected into public office. Did you know that Ron Paul regularly returns the unused portion of his annual Congressional budget? That is the type of committment that we need in our leaders.
BTW, I support equal rights for people of any race, religion, sex or creed– I support the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and I believe those documents should be upheld by all of us as citizens, and by the actions of those we elect to govern us.
Come back when you can hold an intelligent discussion, because honestly next time I will moderate your smears right into the trash.
More than you know. Of course, some of those incidents aren’t what they appear at first — Congress refused to let Washington work for “expenses only” when his Revolutionary War expense claim came in about 13 times as high as the salary they had offered, that he so nobly turned down.
I work, too. And I volunteer. I can hold an intelligent discussion, but it bothers me when people make scurrilous claims. If you wish to argue government is too big, make the claim.
You don’t argue that. You argue that a good woman is instead a kind of tyrant. You don’t argue that there are good reasons to reduce staff, you call names. You report as straight fact the name-calling of others who obviously are driven by some rather unsavory purposes which skew their claims.
I wish your moderation dealt with smears. The original post would have stayed out of publication, I think. The information you rely on is, in reality, what you accuse my mere questions of being.
Are there too many working for the office of “First Lady?” MIchelle Obama takes no salary at all — doesn’t that put her on a par with the other patriots you admire from the start? Then she deserves to have her policy aides listed as policy aides, and not denigratingly referred to as “wait staff.” Don’t you think?
Does America get less value than America pays? Make the case. Is there a case to be made on the facts?
When Washington’s astounding expenses bill was presented, Congress didn’t turn to press releases complaining of Washington’s “wait staff” — though such charges might have had merit, then. When Washington again volunteered to work at no salary, Congress didn’t put out newspaper columns going after a good man’s character. Instead they dealt with the real problem before them, and continued to honor the good work the man had done.
They paid the expense claim, and heaped praise on the man for what he’d done for the nation.
Shouldn’t we be at least as noble as they?
The issue of government being too big is an overarching issue here, but more directly to the point is the fact that we’re in the middle of a major economic crisis (as has been mentioned numerous times here) the case has been made on this post and throughout this blog—its time to start making cuts in our taxes and current taxpayer expenses. Cutting expenses is the obvious solution for any business facing money problems. I had to give up roughly 1/5 of my income last year to federal taxes; this doesn’t even include state and sales taxes. I didn’t make that much money, in fact it was barely enough to support myself. What was my reward? The dollar continued to lose value, jobs became scarcer and the economy continued to deteriorate while government made no course corrections. So yes, I’m going to speak out when I feel tax money is used for negligent purposes like hiring a staffer to coordinate Oprah appearances– although it pales in comparison to the trillions that we’ve handed over to private banks, the specifics of which banks, how much, and what for, we may never know.
“Tyrant” was your word. The blog post compares the first lady to a queen, and with her continued involvement in extravagant fashion shows, constantly appearing with lavish jewelry, ridiculously expensive dresses, huge weekly parties, appearing in magazines like Glamour and then having a million dollar staff, the comparison is appropriate. This is someone that is indifferent, and/or out of touch with the average American that struggles to just pay the monthly bills. She’s possibly just caught up in the pressure that is put on her to be this type of queen-like figurehead for the country. I don’t place the blame squarely on her shoulders. The American people seem to long for an aristocracy to take away the “burden” of their freedoms and solve all their problems so they don’t have to think for themselves anymore.
I know of no evidence of that. I think that is a canard.
Good heavens! Surely you would not make such charges without examples, would you? And yet, I can find no such examples in the news pages. Whatever are you talking about ?
I think it’s inappropriate to call her working with elementary school classes “huge weekly parties.” Inappropriate to the point of real animus.
How is that inappropriate?
Which of the staffers is not performing duties that justify the salary?
I think someone has misled you about what is going on, what the First Lady does, and what the duties of her staff are. The source you originally cited is grossly in error, and I do not find any substantive, honest support for any of the other charges.
You got me Ed, I see no news reports of the first lady attending fashion shows so she knows what to wear — its because she has one of her STAFFERS do it for her!! Our tax dollars at work.
No, Desirée Rogers doesn’t show up on the official list with a title as being a specific “First Lady” staffer. And yet she’s goes on a fashion mission for her. Strange, maybe the number of staffers really shouldn’t be considered 16 and is really 17, or 18, or 19 or 26. But who CARES! We’re spending hundreds of thousands for presidential fashion advice. I’m sure the people living in our nation’s tent cities will understand how important it is. Its called hubris, and its a bad sign for any nation in decline.
Michelle Obama’s ‘eyes’ in fashion’s front row at New York Fashion Week
NPR: Weekly White House Cocktail Parties
Obama kicks up White House entertaining