Alex Pappas @ The Daily Caller:
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC.
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/#ixzz27eQgn3b2
Good Grief, no wonder he wants to get reelected, no one has ever lived this way.
CURT
HI,
TALKING ABOUT MILLIONS
I BET you could find the one who rob the porch and many treasure fro JEFFREY GUNDLACH,
ONE . SEVEN MILLION OFFER FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE SAFE RETURN OF 13 STOLEN WORKS
OF ART UNIQUE PLUS PRICY WATCHS AND FINE WHINE IN THE COASTAL TOWN OF SANTA MONICA,
NEAR LOS ANGELES, THE LOST WAS PRICE AT AT 10 MILLION INCLUDING
THE RED PORSCHECARRERA 4S SPORT CAR, AND 200000 REWARDFOR TIPS LEADING TO THE UNDAMAGE RETURN
OF HIS ARTWORK REMAIN IN PLACE,
NO QUESTION ASK AN ANONIMOUS TELEPHONE TIP LINE WAS SET UP 855 692 4997 AND AN ANONIMOUS ONLINE TIP SITE
AT http://www.wetip.com
I SURE WOULD LIKE YOU TO GET THE REWARD, EVEN IF YOU TEAM UP WITH OTHER PROS,
now let’s begin, where would a red porsch be hiding,?
where would those painting be hidding?,
who would be interesting in that burglary,
we must go by elimination,
that poor man is so devastated, we must all help
Curt, Don’t you think the headline of your blog post is misleading? I’ve read about this latest tempest in a teapot controversy. It’s not worth the time to argue it, except to say that the author of the book doesn’t claim that $1.4 billion was spent on “the Obama family” (i.e. Barack, Michelle, daughters, and dog). It was that esteemed news publication, The Daily Caller, that made the claim that the money was spent on “the Obama family.” No, it wasn’t, as even a cursory reading of your own selected quote makes clear.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
CURT
THAT IS BESIDE THE MANY TRILLIONS ON THE DEBT,
HOW DARE OBAMA ATTACK MITT ROMNEY AS BEING RICH, AS IF IT IS A SICKNESS,
AND HE LET BELIEVE THAT MITT WON’T UNDERSTAND THE POORS, HE SURE UNDERSTAND THE POORS MORE THAN OBAMA,
MITT ROMNEY HELP THE POOR ALL ALONG HIS FAITH WHICH ARE KNOWN TO HELP THE ONE IN TROUBLE, AND CJ TOLD ABOUT HOW GOOD THEY ARE, BECAUSE HE LIVED IT HIMSELF.
OBAMA IS VERY RICH BUT HE PRETEND TO BE THE SAME AS THE POOR, TO GET THEIR VOTES
ONLY THAT,
HE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THE POOR, HE DOESN’T PAY FROM HIS POCKET FOR THE POORS
MITT ROMNEY DID PAY WITH THEIR OWN MONEY FOR THE POORS,
ANY ONE ON WELFARE BEWARE OF LIES FROM THE OBAMIST, THEY FOOL YOU IN 2008
THEY TRY TO FOOL YOU AGAIN THIS ELECTION,
@Larry, from the book’s description on Amazon.
While you may want to quibble about whether those funds were spent directly on the Obama family, instead of on payroll and other expenses for those who serve the Obama family, the point remains that the $1.4 billion is lavish, unprecedented, irresponsible and thoughtless in a time of Congressional spending and recession for the nation’s citizens. It is we who pay that bill and the nation has a right to criticize this lifestyle as extravagant and unnecessary.
So I disagree. Because all of this cost is the result of servicing the “Obama family” in the lifestyle they wish in the people’s House, it most certainly is spending on “the Obama family”. They are not monarchy, but it seems they prefer to think of themselves as such.
Hi Mata, common, not you, too. This is of the same quality as the “birther” claims:
e.g.
http://open.salon.com/blog/mpbulletin/2012/04/13/jetting_around_obamas_vacation_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_man
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
I’m blockquoting the book’s description, Larry. Not doing the fact checking for the book.
The breakdown doesn’t matter to me. The documented point is that the WH administrative and entertainment expenses for this WH far exceed any prior POTUS. We know he’s extremely czar heavy, and both Michelle and Obama’s staff are far expanded to what previous First Family required. None of that is disputable because the WH admin costs are on record…. Bo and his plane or not.
You are micro focusing to nit pick, and not looking at the extravagant budget that is reality.
But since you want to focus on Bo, and from your “FactCheck” article, it seems there were a “few” staffers on board as well, and the reason they took two jets is because of the limited runway at the destination airport.
My suggestion is that if the Obama’s were prudent and modest in their personal demands, they would have shaved down their entourage to fit on a single plane. Just how many servants do they need while on vacation?
MATA,
WOW this is going far, and just begun, and the timing is perfect CURT,
the book is the concentration of many hearsay which come with facts,
bye
Hi Mata,
Head to head “czar” comparison between Presidents (which is the type of expense which most runs up the tab in question and which has nothing at all to do with the Obama “family).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
Also, do you have a source for your statement regarding WH administrative costs? In context with prior Presidents?
With regard to taxpayer funded travel:
I respectfully submit that you don’t know the details of the “two plane” trip in question and you don’t know how any other administration would have handled the details of the trip.
As I said, it’s not worth arguing this stuff (at least to me, it’s not worth arguing). But wouldn’t you agree that the blog headline was misleading (i.e. that “taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year”). That was the only point that I was raising, at this time.
P.S. In the religious freedom wars, the nuns are starting to pull ahead of the bishops, which was 100% predictable (in fact, I did predict it). When the Vatican came down hard on the nuns, on the side of the bishops, it was a gift to Obama, given that the bishops had clearly interjected themselves into the Presidential race against Obama, and the nuns are widely perceived as being pro-Obama.
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/poll-obama-surges-ahead-among-catholic-voters
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I’d say it has more to do with perception, Larry. And right now, the perception is that the President isn’t living the same admonition that he gave the American people, back after his inauguration. That is, that we must save, conserve, and live frugally. Within our budgets. And yet we see the President, and his family, living high off the hog, so to speak, with the golfing, the vacations to exotic places, the parties and celebrities, and the hearsay about the staffing itself. And while some of that hearsay may be false, the perception is that the President isn’t living what he preached.
Even you cannot deny that.
Obama’s latest ad touts a “new economic patriotism.”
He explains: “I’d ask the wealthy to pay a little more.”
Erika Johnsen at Hot Air asks, “Does that sound severely creepy to anyone else?”
YES, it does, Erika.
Here Erika links and Fisks Obama’s ad.
openid.aol.com/runnswim
you demand proofs but you don’t seem to know yourself why you deny the words of MATA,
and more of on the POST ITSELF,
Hi Bees, Mata herself notes that she’s simply quoting from the publisher’s description of the book. Mata is not defending what the publisher is saying, because Mata didn’t fact check it. The publisher wants to sell a lot of books to make a lot of money. The people most likely to buy the book are people eager to read anti-Obama stuff, just as the people who bought all those anti-Bush books were people eager to read anti-Bush stuff. So the publisher describes the book in a way to whip up a go-viral frenzy — basically sensationalizing it. That’s what publishers tend to do — in order to sell more books.
No, I don’t accept a publisher’s description as being any sort of certification of fact.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, you seem to excel in finding left wing groups/organizations/publications that support your own personal viewpoint. So let me be very clear; the National Catholic Reporter does NOT represent Catholics as a whole. It was created by someone who was left wing, taking the whole “social justice” meme to extremes. At times, The NCR has supported gay marriage, abortion, left wing social justice programs, just to name a few. It had its heyday decades ago, because those who could not subscribe to the teachings of the Church just dropped out.
Now, let me be also quite clear about another thing; if you subscribe to abortion, same-sex marriage or any socialist “social” justice programs, you are Catholic in-name-only, and probably use your religion for the same reason that Barack Obama, Jr. joined Jeremiah Wright, Jr.’s Trinity Church.
BTW, saw that a couple of other companies are fleeing your beloved California and leaving Californians to try to find other jobs in a state that is bleeding companies. When you have no company left, except for the trash that now constitutes Hollywood, do you think you will wake up then and decide that liberal policies don’t work?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, Michelle Robinson Obama’s mother lives with her and Barack in the White House. And Mrs. Robinson also travels with Michelle Obama on many trips paid for by the taxpayer, as does Michelle’s extended family, and friends. Perhaps you can provide us with a link that shows where the Obamas have picked up the tab for the expense of her mother living in the White House or her extended family, including her brother, traveling on AF2 with Michelle Antoinette? Or maybe you can show us where the Obamas paid for their tony vacation on Martha’s Vineyard?
Now, I don’t expect the Obamas to pick up the tab for the Secret Service, or the communicatin requirements that are needed when they go on vacation. But I remember how the left screamed bloody murder when George Bush went to Crawford for vacation, to a ranch and home BUSH PAID FOR. I also remember how the left screamed bloody murder over George Bush playing golf when we had soldiers in harm’s way. What happened to that complaint? Seems that Barack is always hitting the green although we are still losing military in Afghanistan, in greater numbers than Bush, I might add.
So defend the Obama’s out of control personal spending on the taxpayer dime if you can by showing where they have actually paid for anything.
Paul “Subsidiarity” Ryan is not the authority on Catholic Church social justice teaching.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html
https://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/i23pacem.htm
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-catholic-church-teaches-on-health.html
http://vox-nova.com/2009/11/09/quote-of-the-week-pope-john-xxiii/
etc. etc. etc.
Regarding the various specific wedge issues, it’s a well established principle that Catholics are not required to base their vote in a political election on isolated positions of the different candidates, but, rather, are “permitted” (in conscience) to consider the entire constellation of political considerations.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
From Marketwatch, May 22, 2012:
The article, complete with the supporting numbers, can be found here.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Perhaps you can direct me to the passage in the Bible where Jesus advocated the taking of one person’s wealth at the point of the Roman sword (the government of the time) so that Cesar and the Roman officials could give that money to those they determined deserved it more than the person who actually earned it?
Hi Retire:
Firstly, thank you for the current tone of your comments, directed to me.
Secondly, with regard to #19, I have two answers. Number 1, we were discussing Catholicism. As you know, unlike evangelical Protestants, for whom the Bible is the ultimate and only authority, in Catholicism there are three, co-equal sources of authority: Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Holy Magesterium (of which the highest authority figure is the Pope). My references in #17 were derived from the latter (Holy Magesterium). With regard to Holy Scripture (number 2), we are all familiar with “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” Rome, in the time of Jesus, had a robust system of state-sponsored charity (i.e. taxpayer-sponsored state charity). Forgive me for not taking ten minutes to look up references/links to this paragraph (I simply don’t have the time, presently), but you should have no difficulty whatsoever confirming the aforementioned to be accurate.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
It’s good to be king
Re: #19:
Paul also commented on government and taxes in Romans:13
@Larry, there is no single “cost of the White House” type budget figures because all that data is spread out over 23 separate accounts, and doesn’t often get compiled in one until someone does the yeoman’s work.
However submitting to Congress a list of the WH staff and their salaries has been a mandate since 1995. In 2009, the same author of the above linked PDF about figuring size and costs of WH related expenses did an organizational chart of Obama’s 2009 WH staff. According to their annual report to Congress, their reported staff size was 487 that year. I believe this year’s is 468.
You can see most of the Bush year reports here.
Whether the various “czars” are on those lists, you can only check via names. But Obama has more czars than prior presidents, and he pays his staffers more per the news reports. The two together logically dictate higher WH expenses. So while I didn’t count heads and add up employee salaries, I’m assuming that those reporting on it did.
It also doesn’t help that some of Obama’s highly paid staff members owed the IRS almost $834K in back taxes as of the beginning of this year.
Like Geithner, there must be a strange disdain or disconnect for Obama appointees and staffers, handling paying their “fair share”, I guess.
Actually, no… I don’t. I don’t consider Obama or Michelle’s respective staffs, plus all the extra czars, advisors and other sundry workers differently than any particular expense that benefits the “family” as a single entity or unit. Perhaps it’s because you are choosing to interpret the Obama family as only something that does benefit the “family unit”, while I consider that phrase to be all inclusive for expenses of any or all of the “family” members combined. Without reading the book, we don’t know what is included in the $1.4 billion… i.e. does it include standard Secret Service or other salaries of those over 2000 that come under the DOD budget?
But as johngalt said, the perception seems to be supported by the news reports from both liberal and conservative outlets. The Obama’s appear to be very expensive to maintain in the lifestyle they want to enjoy, plus are very generous in hiring staff and their pay rates compared to prior administrations. And it’s particularly distasteful considering our economic climate.
Well, Larry, I respectfully retort that the details were provided in your FactCheck link above… where it plaintly states:
Like I said, the Obama’s were in Maine for a recreational weekend, where they bicycled in Acadia National Park, toured Cadillac Mountain, walked along Frenchman’s Bay, took a boat ride in the harbor, had dinner and ice cream. Just how many servants and staff is required for a brief weekend holiday that they couldn’t fit on one smaller jet?
How a prior POTUS and administration would have handled it is a moot point since the economic recession of the nation isn’t apples to apples.
I don’t know. It said “staff,” not “servants.” What sort of “staff” do you think a President needs? When a President takes a vacation (and “W” made how many trips to Crawford?), it’s always a working vacation. How many “staff” did “W” take to Crawford, compared to how many Obama took on the trip in question? Unless you know these data, then I don’t think we can have a useful discussion on it.
Also, no matter how you cut it, you can’t count the so-called “czars” and their various staff and expenses, an “Obama family” expense. The headline says that taxpayers were on the hook for $1.4B of expenses to support the “Obama family.” Why can’t you — just once — agree with me on even the slightest point? The headline was misleading.
– LW/HB
Let’s try this again. No, I can’t agree with you because you and I read the Obama family phrase differently in context.
Ergo you read an “Obama family” expense as one that benefits just the family members personally.
I read “Obama family” as a combination of the expenses that is attributed to Obama, Michelle and any family benefit… as well as likely their higher administration costs which are documented as being higher than any other prior admin.
So you’re lecturing me about “staff” vs “servants”? Seems to me that a “staff” member acts to serve their employer, Larry. I didn’t say slaves… in which case your lecture may be warranted. They are paid hired help who are there to serve the needs of any or all of the Obama family. I consider that the inclusion of unappointed czars (where Obama holds the title, even from your Wiki link), additional staff members and higher wages.
Which brings me back to vacationing staff/servants needed for a day and a half weekend trip to Maine. So you want to know how many Bush took when he was on vacation? Well, I’ll tell you what, Larry… considering that the liberals not only complained mightily about Bush expenses, including investigating the admin for violations of the Hatch Act, why don’t you give me even a single documented instance where the Bush family took two jets for a weekend pleasure trip vacation, in order to accommodate all their entourage? In fact, why don’t you show me even one time where Laura Bush took a personal plane to fly out to a pleasure destination four hours earlier than her husband because she didn’t want to wait?
The point of the book is actually not entirely told in this Daily Caller article, Larry. The full title is “Presidential Perks Gone Royal: Your Tax Dollars Are Being Used For Obama’s Re-Election”. You can also read Gray’s bio there… he’s no newcomer to administrations and their size. And he’s attempting to bring up the point that sitting POTUS have an advantage of hiding their campaign expenses amongst doing the people’s work. And the Obama’s have evidently used that perk to the max. Ironic considering their investigation of Bush, yet they ignore Sebelius’ violation of the Hatch Act. In fact, the Office of the Special Counsel, when finishing up going thru the Bush admin actions, did an informal look-see at Obama’s admin in Jan 2011… and determined that they hadn’t learned jack from all his whining about Bush. And that was before he launched into this campaign.
SOLYNDRA IS WHASHED OUT NO RETURNING OF THE MONEY TO TAX PAYERS, AND OBAMA
JUST GAVE 200 MILLION DOLLARS, TO ANOTHER SOLAR COMPANY
WHO DONATED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN 2008,
YOU KNOW I THINK OBAMA AND HIS COMPANIES ARE PLAYING THE PYRAMID GAME,
WHICH THE SAME MONEY TAKEN FROM THE TAXPAYERS IS GOING AROUND AND AROUND UP AND ABOVE TO THOSE ENCIRCLING AND BACK TO OBAMA , BUT WILL NEVER COME BACK
TO THE TAXPAYERS,
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
“and “W” made how many trips to Crawford?”
So you are comparing apples to oranges. “W” made numerous trips to Crawford, but once the communications/security systems were put into place, there was no additional expense to re-do them. But everytime Obama goes to Martha’s Vineyard, or Florida, or Hawaii, those systems have to be constructed from square one, each and every time. So right there, the expense of providing those services (communications/security) are greater because they have had to put them in so many different locations. One other thing I bet you didn’t know, “W” and Mrs. “W” paid for the buildings that housed his Secret Service detain at his Crawford ranch.
I asked you about the money it costs to allow Mrs. Robinson to travel with her daughter, and as with most things that you don’t want to discuss, you chose to ignore it. Do you think the American taxpayer should be picking up the tab for Michelle’s mother, brother, and close friends, to travel with her, and if not, then can you prove that the Obama’s ever picked up the tab for those trips?
@retire05: @retire05:
I suppose the take away from this type of thinking is that we should only elect those who are wealthy enough to afford their own vacation compounds. The fact the Obamas would choose to “rent” (how declasse) on the Vineyard must certainly be a dealbreaker for those who believe we must be ruled by super-wealthy political scions. I guess the nice thing for some is that the Republicans still predictably offer that option.
@MataHarley: Thug from Chicago and his beard, Moochelle spend taxpayer money and mock the “bitter clingers of their guns and religion.”
@Tom:
Wealth has nothing to do with it, and I know a number of people, who I would not consider wealthy, who own ranches as large as the Prairie Chapel Ranch.
The Obamas own a tony historic Georgian mansion in Chicago. A home large enough that they pay $25,000/yr in property taxes on. Not exactly your common digs. Yet, they do not vacation at their own home, which the Bushs did. Why is that? Instead, they rent a nice little place on Martha’s Vineyard that goes for $30-50K/week. Who’se picking up the tab for that?
FDR, while a wealthy man, never gave the appearance of being part of the elite during the Great Depression and his wife sure didn’t being seen in clothing that most middle class women could afford, and later on after the war stared, in a uniform type suit. John Kennedy vacationed at his family home; LBJ vacationed at his own home in Texas. The Clintons, never owning a home until after they left the White House, were not known for extravagant vacations. So what changed, Tom? I thought the Democrats were for the “common” man and worked to give that appearance. Guess the Democrat Party is not your old Democrat Party any more, and has stayed the same only in the respect that they, like you, continue to pay the class warfare card. Tell me, Tom, how much does Obama have to earn before you consider him “wealthy?” A million a year? Five million a year? Or like 2011, almost two million? If you want only mid-income earners in the DNC, you better dump Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, and all the other Democrats with high six figure incomes. And why did you Dems choose a guy who was listed as one of the top five wealthiest Senators when you picked John Kerry if you wanted someone who could relate to the “common” man?
Obama is a paid servant of the people of the United States. We have a right to know how he, and his overly indulgent wife, spends our money. Just like we did when you lefties were screaming about Bush vacationing at his own home in Texas.