Reply
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 03:19 pm
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
First Lady requires more than twenty attendants
By Dr. Paul L. Williams Monday, July 6, 2009
“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, “ Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn’t perform any official duties. But this hasn’t deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.
How things have changed! If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michele are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
5. Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
14. Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
18. Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
21. Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)
22. Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
Actually, her press secretary told FactCheck.org that the staff was 24 in number.
While some have suggested this is wildly more than what other First Ladies have had, that itsn't necessarily the case. Although she has the biggest staff ever assembled, apparently it's only a mere 33% larger than the largest prior First Lady staff. (Laura Bush at 18).
Putting aside what is arguably a particular thread of hypocrisy running through the Obama White House, why does any First Lady need a staff of this size?
Laura Bush absolutely didn't need 18 and Michelle Obama certainly doesn't need 24.
This is outrageous.
personally i'm glad that jack bauer is part of her staff
@ebrown p,
Perhaps you would care to explain why it's "silly" to be outraged by this, and why the First lady needs a staff of 24.
@wandeljw,
i'm a canadian, and i would never trust anything that came from canada free press
I think the real question is Why Are Conservatives so Gullible and Incapable of Factchecking?
@Green Witch,
in fairness, everybody wants to believe the worst about their enemies
@djjd62,
True, but even I used sites like FactCheck.org before posting something about the Bushies. There is sometimes a little truth in a crazy claim, but it helps to know the big picture before putting it up to debate.
And, again, the question is: Why does Finn post nonsense such as this without any fact-checking? This is so obviously a non-issue. To say that's this thread is "silly" is an understatement. It's ludicrous.
@Green Witch,
i try not to post facts, only opinions, they can be disagreed with but never disproved
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:
And, again, the question is: Why does Finn post nonsense such as this without any fact-checking? This is so obviously a non-issue. To say that's this thread is "silly" is an understatement. It's ludicrous.
Once again, the answer is obvious. He's an asshole. There really isn't anything more to it than that.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Never forget "truthiness". Finn is awash in stories that are "truthy".
Jacqueline Kennedy had 40 on her staff....doesn't seem fair.
About the only thing that is unprecedented is how low some people will stoop to attack Obama.
It's amusing to watch you all fall over one another to point out my gullibility or simple dishonesty, and to this end I would agree with djjd62:
"in fairness, everybody wants to believe the worst about their enemies"
If you take the time to actually read the snopes piece, or for that matter the factcheck.org piece (which I myself referenced) you will see that what they were addressing is the viral e-mail that quotes portions of Dr. Willimas article and not the article itself. What both sources have indicated is bogus is the claim that prior First Ladies did not also have sizeable staffs.
If you now read my original post you see that I have not made the argument that Mrs Obama is the first First Lady to have an outrageously bloated staff, and have indicated that Laura Bush's staff of 18 was also outrageous.
The issue is not that Michelle Obama has a staff larger than any other of her predecesors, but that it is outrageous that any of them have staffs of this size.
If you believe that the issue is silly, you should be able to offer an explantion for why any First Lady needs such staffs, or that the money spent on them is inconsequential and could not be spent in a much more productive way.
Have we actually reached a point where we believe it's silly to worry about wasting more than a million taxpayer dollars a year? I guarantee that most of you don't believe that the wife of a CEO should have a 20 person staff costing her husband's company over a million dollars a year.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Notice how Finn diverted the attention away from his bullshit mistatements without nary a missed beat?
Hes a master at it aint he?
@Finn dAbuzz,
Why do you think her staff is bloated Finn?
If someone receives 3000 letters a day and is expected to answer them all does that mean they shouldn't hire 20 people to do that just because you think it is overkill?
How many people do you think Vice Presidents at corporations have working for them? 2? 30? 150? It all depends on which ones you want to count as being on their staff.
Counting everyone that works in the office of the First Lady is a little disingenuous since many of the jobs are dictated by the governmental requirements. The WH has functions and affairs that the First Lady oversees. The social staff would be there even if there was no First Lady but the author counts it as working for the First Lady.
Quote:I guarantee that most of you don't believe that the wife of a CEO should have a 20 person staff costing her husband's company over a million dollars a year.
This is silly.. If the CEO is given a house to live in with staff and expected to hold corporate functions there as well as allow public tours, a full security detail 24 hours a day for himself and his entire family, complete travel by the corporation for everyone in his family, and his wife is expected to interact with the shareholders constantly, no one would think the staff of 20 to be unreasonable at all. In fact, most CEO's would complain that 20 wasn't nearly enough for his wife.
Reading through the history and list of accomplishments of all of our country's first ladies, it is pretty easy to see why they would need such a large support staff. Take a walk through history and see for yourself:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/first-ladies
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace