I was surfing I am boreds website and came across this http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
What do you all think about this?
What do you all think about this?
the first ladys attendants
- Thread starter spanx
- Start date
I'm certainly no fan of the Obamas, and I don't have much respect for ANYONE in Washington, but to be fair;
A look at some first ladies and their staff sizes:
Laura Bush: Between 24 and 26 by end of President George W. Bush's term in 2009, according to Anita McBride, Mrs. Bush's chief of staff.
Lady Bird Johnson, whose signature issue was beautifying roadways, had a staff of 30, said Stacy A. Cordery, a history professor at Montmouth College in Illinois who studies first ladies.
Betty Ford had almost the same number.
Jacqueline Kennedy, who made renovating the White House her cause, had about 40 people on staff, Cordery said.
This is not to say that I think the excesses of paid staff are ok because everyone did it, I'm just saying that it is excesses that they are ALL guilty of.
A look at some first ladies and their staff sizes:
Laura Bush: Between 24 and 26 by end of President George W. Bush's term in 2009, according to Anita McBride, Mrs. Bush's chief of staff.
Lady Bird Johnson, whose signature issue was beautifying roadways, had a staff of 30, said Stacy A. Cordery, a history professor at Montmouth College in Illinois who studies first ladies.
Betty Ford had almost the same number.
Jacqueline Kennedy, who made renovating the White House her cause, had about 40 people on staff, Cordery said.
This is not to say that I think the excesses of paid staff are ok because everyone did it, I'm just saying that it is excesses that they are ALL guilty of.
Go easy with the context. That doesn't make for interesting blog posts at all
No particular political party has a monopoly on shady business or spending our money like it was theirs.
- Thread starter
- #6
I agree with you that all the first ladies had a staff of excess.What i'm curious about is why.She doesn't have a job.She is just married to someone who does.Does the speaker of the houses husband get a staff also?I wonder how many policitical leaders spouses get tax payer money.I don't know anything about politics but this just seems wrong.
I agree that this is excessive, but if you think that the fact that she doesn't draw a salary or have an official title means that she doesn't have a job then you haven't thought this through. Certainly every first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has had a full slate of ceremonial and political duties. I think that you'd find that there are a lot of other traditional positions like this in society that have been obscured by our conviction that only paid labor is a real job. The first example that pops into my head is my old CO's wife in the Marines. The "Colonel's Lady" didn't get paid, but wrangling all of the problems that came up with the families of the Marines in my unit kept her more than occupied.
The issue of the staff is a different thing. It certainly sounds excessive, and I bet that the jobs are largely political sinecures. Just like tons of jobs in DC--and everywhere else. Even worse, I bet that they're not just slacking off in their offices. They're busy creating more work for all of the other people who have jobs like they do.
To me, what's worse are the spouses of prominent officials who do have jobs. If you went down K street and clapped irons on all of the lobbyists who were married to politicians, there wouldn't be enough Paddy Wagons to carry them all off.
The issue of the staff is a different thing. It certainly sounds excessive, and I bet that the jobs are largely political sinecures. Just like tons of jobs in DC--and everywhere else. Even worse, I bet that they're not just slacking off in their offices. They're busy creating more work for all of the other people who have jobs like they do.
To me, what's worse are the spouses of prominent officials who do have jobs. If you went down K street and clapped irons on all of the lobbyists who were married to politicians, there wouldn't be enough Paddy Wagons to carry them all off.
Honestly, I agree that it looks excessive at first, but when you get down to it, some of these people are needed. There is so much going on at the White House, a staff of 20 seems to be normal. The first lady isn't just sitting around all day cleaning the curtains. Just the nature of what her husband does puts her in the limelight regardless of whether she wants to be or not. She has to have a cause and accomplish a goal. Look at what Ladybird Johnson did with the highways.
The point is that the First Lady is a busy woman. A lot of those positions are necessary. They follow a pretty standard heirarchy format. Also, I did a little digging and found a link that shows what each person has done in their career. Most of the positions seem necessary.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/01/more_michelle_obama_staff_appo.html
Also, I'm sure that some of the wives/husbands of heads of state in other nations have staffs just as big and maybe bigger.
The point is that the First Lady is a busy woman. A lot of those positions are necessary. They follow a pretty standard heirarchy format. Also, I did a little digging and found a link that shows what each person has done in their career. Most of the positions seem necessary.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/01/more_michelle_obama_staff_appo.html
Also, I'm sure that some of the wives/husbands of heads of state in other nations have staffs just as big and maybe bigger.
Just another case of the huge waste of money in Washington. But then what do you expect? Remember these people don't live like the rest of us. The people of this country have no one to blame but themselves. We're then ones who send this cast of idiots there to represent us. 
Just another case of the huge waste of money in Washington. But then what do you expect? Remember these people don't live like the rest of us. The people of this country have no one to blame but themselves. We're then ones who send this cast of idiots there to represent us.
+1
And, come November, when we go to the polls, we need to remember who the rascals are! It's been a lot of years since I've voted for an incumbent at the national level.
- Thread starter
- #11
It's terrible that I'm not articulate.I did not mean to say she does nothing.What I mean is we did not elect her or for that matter any first lady.We elected the person running for president to do for this country, not there spouse.If the first ladies what to do speaking egagements and projects of various kinds, then do it on there own dime or the orginization she is helpings funding.Which begs the question do the first kids get a staff of their own and if not why.I'm not picking on Michelle.I have never been interested in any of the president wives.I just happened across this and said to myself" w.t.h"
Maybe so, but;
1. The total annual salary of the 100 Staffers of the First Lady of Guatamala is less than what the guy behind the counter at Burger King makes.
2. Their salary isn't coming out of my paycheck.
Just goes to show politicians of any stripe abuse of our money. Another argument for a (very) limited government and low taxes.
If you are concerned with wasteful spending by the US Government, there are quite a few more areas I can think of to address than how many attendants the first lady has and whether or not they are necessary.
I agree - I don't think this is necessarily an indictment of Michelle Obama (especially when considered in context of the size of other First Ladies' staffs), but rather is emblematic of our inability to keep politicians accountable for spending. Given how large spending bills are, laden with ear-marked spending, it's nigh impossible as an individual constituent to make our representatives explain to us how spending various amounts of money will benefit us, people at the popular level.
One law professor, Larry Lessig, argues that Congress seems to be captured by private interest money and wants to change that. No matter your political stripes, it's an intriguing goal. See more here
I'm certainly not happy about the size and salaries of the First Lady's staff, but I am more disturbed by the out-sourcing of governmental functions to private parties (prisons, military) to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I have yet to see good justification for doing so; the day that someone shows me data on efficiency and cost-benefit analysis, such that private contractors do a better job at less cost to me, I will shut up.
One law professor, Larry Lessig, argues that Congress seems to be captured by private interest money and wants to change that. No matter your political stripes, it's an intriguing goal. See more here
I'm certainly not happy about the size and salaries of the First Lady's staff, but I am more disturbed by the out-sourcing of governmental functions to private parties (prisons, military) to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I have yet to see good justification for doing so; the day that someone shows me data on efficiency and cost-benefit analysis, such that private contractors do a better job at less cost to me, I will shut up.
Last edited:
"About half", what Calvin Coolidge said when asked how many persons worked in DC.
Professor C., u ain't bng P. C. but I think you are correct.
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith seems to be the best book written on how to grow an economy and the role of government in doing the same.
This is an excellent thread. Ever wonder if both political parties are laughing at us for thinking there is any difference between them?
Lately it seems the sole difference between a Rep and a Dem is what they say to get elected.
Hope I didn't disappoint you by being PI...but I'll never, ever let the thought police tell me what to think or say!
Term limits for Congress! No career politicians from any party!!
Last edited:
+1
But hopefully folks don't forget about what's going on now and come November they vote for their party.
If it means that much to you, make sure you vote for a bachelor next time.
It's hard enough attracting truly superlative candidates to seek high office, and it's certainly hard on their whole families to put up with the demands of that office ... telling them ... "oh, and do it on your own dime" seems like some pretty inane penny-pinching and a bit insulting to the family members of past, present and future presidents.
Oh, and she gets free airfare on Airforce One, as well. Are we going to protest that as well?
They're staff members. Using that word implies that she thinks of herself as royalty. I don't think it's the case. She has a staff, as have other First Ladies. There's an argument for First Ladies not having any staff, I suppose, or very little staff, but the article seems biased from the get go.
Similar threads
