White House Won’t Reveal How Much Michelle Obama’s European Vacation Cost Taxpayers

[Veritas]

Adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the cost to taxpayers of the Washington-to-Paris-to-London-to-Washington air travel would have ranged from $58,834.02 to $214,591.38, according to the inflation estimates by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50528



:thumbdown:

[Lady_Jean_La]

She is probably under much stress and needs a break too. imo

[ABC]

Air Force One was making the trip anyway. The number of folks in the jet does not matter. Of course, the wife and kiddies, probably the MIL too are making the trip. Soooooooooooo? Hope everyone will be having a good time and I am sure enjoying the pictures of Russia. Wow, look at that conference room from Moscow. Very anxious to see the trips around Red Square, the Onion Domes and maybe even Lenin's tomb. Hope they take a side trip to St. Petersburg too.

[MercedesV]

Part of the trip was official business, part was vacation. As is required, the vacation expenses, personal expenses, will be paid by the Obamas. The official expenses, are and should be paid by the taxpayers.

This is absolutely nothing new, it works this way with all First Families. Have any First Families released this information to the public? Did anyone care?

This subject has been raised before. Anyone care how much the taxpayers paid for Sanfords affair?

[ABC]

Part of the trip was official business, part was vacation. As is required, the vacation expenses, personal expenses, will be paid by the Obamas. The official expenses, are and should be paid by the taxpayers.

This is absolutely nothing new, it works this way with all First Families. Have any First Families released this information to the public? Did anyone care?

This subject has been raised before. Anyone care how much the taxpayers paid for Sanfords affair?
Mercedes, Sanford paid the money back which does not make it right to me. He is a cad and should be placed in public stocks. Hope the SC citizens get a recall going.:thumbdown:

[MercedesV]

Deflect,deflect,deflect.

But, FWIW - Sanford's expenses have already been looked at and he will repay any personal expenses involved.

Really, you mean just like Obama's will pay personal expenses. Without being forced to by media coverage. No deflection, just pointing out hypocriscy. This thread is a duplicate of a thread on this same subject right after the trip.

The Obama's are following the law, doing what is expected of them. What's the problem?

[MercedesV]

Mercedes, Sanford paid the money back which does not make it right to me. He is a cad and should be placed in public stocks. Hope the SC citizens get a recall going.:thumbdown:

I'm not sure about the whole stocks thing, but otherwise I agree with you. People are trying to make something out of nothing in the Obama's case. And we've already had a thread on the same subject. So, no one thought much about Sanford but with Obama it's a big deal. Which to me means it isn't the money or anything like that is the issue. It's trying to find fault where there isn't any.

[crocdog1]

I don't know - what is the problem? Why did you feel it necessary to add Sanford to the discussion?


As long as we are talking about expenses, why don't we add GWB?

During the some 2,535 days of his administration. he spent over 900 days on vacation/retreat time. Kennebunkport, Camp David, and of course, his favorite, Crawford, TX.

Think about it folks, the expense of Air Force One taking him to Crawford, where he had the super large BBQ shindigs. All of this fun while our troops were being killed in the unjust war in Iraq.

Tens of thousands were wounded, horribly, because we sent them in harms way with the most shoddy and inferior equipment ever issued to our troops.

I did not hear all of this outrage about expenses while GWB was in office.

Just my Humble Opinion on this subject.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Part of the trip was official business, part was vacation. As is required, the vacation expenses, personal expenses, will be paid by the Obamas. The official expenses, are and should be paid by the taxpayers.

This is absolutely nothing new, it works this way with all First Families. Have any First Families released this information to the public? Did anyone care?

This subject has been raised before. Anyone care how much the taxpayers paid for Sanfords affair?

Someone always cares. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

Really, you mean just like Obama's will pay personal expenses. Without being forced to by media coverage. No deflection, just pointing out hypocriscy. This thread is a duplicate of a thread on this same subject right after the trip.

The Obama's are following the law, doing what is expected of them. What's the problem?

There isn't a problem unless someone thought things would change. No problem here.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Comparisons are done all the time, for reference points. Why does that bother you?The Executive Branch has a budget passed by Congress. The budget is the reference point. imo

[Re-Poe]

As long as we are talking about expenses, why don't we add GWB?

During the some 2,535 days of his administration. he spent over 900 days on vacation/retreat time. Kennebunkport, Camp David, and of course, his favorite, Crawford, TX.

Think about it folks, the expense of Air Force One taking him to Crawford, where he had the super large BBQ shindigs. All of this fun while our troops were being killed in the unjust war in Iraq.

Tens of thousands were wounded, horribly, because we sent them in harms way with the most shoddy and inferior equipment ever issued to our troops.

I did not hear all of this outrage about expenses while GWB was in office.

Just my Humble Opinion on this subject.

And what an accurate humble opinion it is. imo GWB took excessive amounts of vaca time that the rest of us can only dream of. imo

IMO the Obamas will not do anything that is not right. They don't need too. imo

[Re-Poe]

Sorry, imo you were deflecting. Many do in the Palin threads. They somehow can't seem to get past the fact that Sarah is fallible.......

But she can fill a stadium. :rolleyes:

[Re-Poe]

Sometimes, it is what she filled( PAST TENSE) it with, that was most telling....:scared:

Yes, I agree. She may be pretty on the outside but on the inside- different story. imo

[Circe]

But she can fill a stadium. :rolleyes:

So can Brittany Spears.

[Carol25]

I have no problem of the expense of Michelle's vacation to Europe. I have't heard this is a weekly jaunt. I certainly don't see why others have to be brought into the discussion either.

Give this Lady a break. When the Omabas need some relaxation or a break, for heaven's sake, give it to them. We all know it will be expensive. It comes with the territory. You get a break when every you desire one. They are living a life of stress. Live the the Golden Rule.

[Lady_Jean_La]

There has been plenty of change, blinders and partisanship keep some from seeing it. Heck, there are still some puma folks so bitter, they haven't gotten past the Convention:tonguewag:
I was speaking of the Executive Branch budget and the expences incurred by the first family. Nothing wrong with having a little fun. imo

[MercedesV]

Does anyone complain about how much work our First Lady does for this country and doesn't receive a salary. Anyone have an estimate of how much money that saves taxpayers?

[Casspian]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50528



:thumbdown:


Hmmm... cns news source. Any other source for info on this or people who aren't outraged? I bet if it were Todd doing the same thing, the story would be entirely different now wouldn't it?

[ahlou3]

Enough said indeed, PG3. Threads like this make me want to barf and :cuss:

[Lady_Jean_La]

Does anyone complain about how much work our First Lady does for this country and doesn't receive a salary. Anyone have an estimate of how much money that saves taxpayers?I've never heard anyone complain but I doubt it saves money either. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

What a ridiculous topic. :lol: Why weren't there any inquiries when Jr. and laura took trips, or returned to the ranch in Crawford? What about Cheney's expenses??

The "agenda" of this topic is transparent. Enough said!

IMO

There were. imo

[Veritas]

I know where you're coming from, and you're 100% correct. Things are better in this country, but they are not where they should be. The KKK is STILL alive and well, and that speaks volumes to me. Hypocrites, all of them!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

JMHO


Do you not read your own links? Do you not understand what the history of the KKK is?

In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.[

:rolleyes:

[jammies]

What a ridiculous topic. :lol: Why weren't there any inquiries when Jr. and laura took trips, or returned to the ranch in Crawford? What about Cheney's expenses??

The "agenda" of this topic is transparent. Enough said!

IMO


NEWS FLASH: They OWN the ranch in Crawford. It's their HOME.

[jammies]

Do you not read your own links? Do you not understand what the history of the KKK is?



:rolleyes:



Worth repeating except that most folks would rather repeat smears and lies rather than finding out the truth. Ignorance seems to be in vogue these days.

Love your tagline, btw.

[Lady_Jean_La]

If I live to be 100 years old, I will always look back on some of the remarks I have read against our wonderful president and scratch my head in confusion. I still don't get it. What's not to like about him?It has always been that way and it will never change. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

I truly am not sure anyone who has posted in this thread read the OP - it has gone off-track almost from the start as to what the thread is about imo.

This is about the trip Michelle and the girls took last month to France and England. It was with separate travel arrangements than what the President took - they only had 1 event together at Normandy.

So, she took military aircraft (not AF1), an entourage of staff and secret service, a separate plane for baggage etc. All this cost $$$ that others are criticised for using (corporate heads). She wasn't representing the US, but sightseeing with her girls. All this cost WAY more than if someone jumped on a commercial plane and took a little trip to Europe. Yes, I understand the need for secret service etc, but that doesn't come free. They are paid anyway, but the added costs are in their lodging and food.

Trying to compare this with past first ladies and Presidents is a red herring. They weren't presiding over the "worst economy since the Great Depression", criticising others for their use of jets, or elevating themselves up as transparant.

If Michelle's office was open about it all, maybe they can justify it all to me and even I could put it to rest. All the secrecy does is fuel the speculation that even they know this would not "play in Peoria".

jmo

It all comes out of the Executive budget. Anywhere the First Lady goes she represents the USA. imo

[MercedesV]

I truly am not sure anyone who has posted in this thread read the OP - it has gone off-track almost from the start as to what the thread is about imo.

This is about the trip Michelle and the girls took last month to France and England. It was with separate travel arrangements than what the President took - they only had 1 event together at Normandy.

So, she took military aircraft (not AF1), an entourage of staff and secret service, a separate plane for baggage etc. All this cost $$$ that others are criticised for using (corporate heads). She wasn't representing the US, but sightseeing with her girls. All this cost WAY more than if someone jumped on a commercial plane and took a little trip to Europe. Yes, I understand the need for secret service etc, but that doesn't come free. They are paid anyway, but the added costs are in their lodging and food.

Trying to compare this with past first ladies and Presidents is a red herring. They weren't presiding over the "worst economy since the Great Depression", criticising others for their use of jets, or elevating themselves up as transparant.

If Michelle's office was open about it all, maybe they can justify it all to me and even I could put it to rest. All the secrecy does is fuel the speculation that even they know this would not "play in Peoria".

jmo

As is the law, the Obama's will pay all personal expenses. I posted this upthread early on. We had a thread about this right after the trip. It is what all First Families do and have done. It isn't anything new or different. The part of the trip that was official, will not be charged to the Obama's. So, in other words, the taxpayers aren't paying zip for Michelle's vacation. They will pay for the portion of the trip that was for official business. Just like every other First Family. Nothing new, nothing different, nothing wrong.

It's a thread to try and find fault where there is none. It's starting with a false premise that taxpayers are paying for Michelle's vacation. They aren't. And it isn't our business to know what the Obama's pay for personal business.

At the time of the trip there were articles which spoke of the plane Michelle used, and what the Obama's were going to pay for its use. For any other President and First Lady the subject wouldn't even be raised. Because it isn't an issue. It is a red herring.

[Lady_Jean_La]

As is the law, the Obama's will pay all personal expenses. I posted this upthread early on. We had a thread about this right after the trip. It is what all First Families do and have done. It isn't anything new or different. The part of the trip that was official, will not be charged to the Obama's. So, in other words, the taxpayers aren't paying zip for Michelle's vacation. They will pay for the portion of the trip that was for official business. Just like every other First Family. Nothing new, nothing different, nothing wrong.

It's a thread to try and find fault where there is none. It's starting with a false premise that taxpayers are paying for Michelle's vacation. They aren't. And it isn't our business to know what the Obama's pay for personal business.

At the time of the trip there were articles which spoke of the plane Michelle used, and what the Obama's were going to pay for its use. For any other President and First Lady the subject wouldn't even be raised. Because it isn't an issue. It is a red herring.

First, I agree it isn't a big deal and it is the same for everyone. But I disagree that is doesn't cost the taxpayer.

Prior to the trip, there is planning involving hundreds of people. There are hundreds of people doing things during the trip which are not seen. This all comes out of the budget approved by Congress and does cost the taxpayer. But it is worth it. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

Then maybe you can enlighten me as to why the first lady's office is not giving us a breakdown on the costs.
There was a taxpayer componant to this, so we have every right to know exactly what is was.

The part that they claim will come out of their personal budget has me wondering just how much money they really have. There is an end to their personal finances, and this was one heckuva expensive trip. Not to mention just how many are probably in the future.

I want transparancy! Is that too much to ask??

It may be released in about two months. Very complicated. There is another thread about the cost of Michelle Obama giving a speech in California and that was two months ago.

I've taken trips and didn't know how much it cost until all the bills come in. imo

We were talking some time ago about Speaker Pelosi's trip to Italy and they just released the costs for that - $58,000 not including transportation. imo

[Hey Paula]

The money spent on this vacation could have been used to fund one of MO's proclaimed pet projects, i.e., to support the troops. Instead, this administration broke a 42-year tradition by not allowing at flyover at the annual "God and Country Rally" in Nampa Idaho.

EXCERPT:

"For the Obama Administration to deny a flyover for the first time, is a slap in the face to all those who proudly serve our country especially when we are at war. These flyovers have been a special part of the 'God and Country Rally' for many years.

"Will the new policy of President Obama be that a person has to surrender their faith tradition to honor and pay tribute to our courageous men and women who serve in the military?

"With respect to the economic concerns that the Pentagon mentioned, I would answer this way. If we can pay hundreds thousands of dollars for President Obama to go on a date with his wife to see a Broadway show and have an expensive dinner in New York City, we can certainly find a way to honor our brave men and women who serve in the armed services with a simple flyover.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/4880710855.html

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

$172,2000 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)
$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
$90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)
$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)
Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)

[MercedesV]

If this were the case, I would think a good PR person would be saying something like the following - "Thank you for your inquiry concerning the travel expenses with the first lady. We are currently collecting all the information surrounding the expenses involved in her trip and we will be happy to provide it to you when it becomes available."

Instead, it appears we are supposed to trust them that they will pay according to the laws, but we aren't given the information to base it on.......yet.
jmo

I have to wonder when you became so interested in this subject. Did you worry about any other First Family, or did your interest and worrying start with the Obama family. Why the presumption that they are doing something wrong?

From an article at the time of the trip in question:

An aide to the First Lady called the travel in London "purely vacation" and told the Daily News that the Obamas are "paying for that themselves."

It was unclear Monday exactly what portion of the entire trip would be paid for by the Obama family. No price tag was available, either.

"The First Lady's office is following all the relevant rules and regulations regarding the reimbursement for travel expenses, as previous administrations have done," the aide said. "It's a military flight."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/09/2009-06-09_first_lady_michelle_obama_and_the_kids_check_ou t_london.html#ixzz0Kc3TPUNn&D

Maybe you should contact your representatives and demand an immediate change in the rules and regulations. You want good taxpayer money spent on revealing the First Family's private business because unlike any other First Family until proven innocent they must be guilty of doing this wrong. Did you trust the Bush family, the Clinton family, the first Bush family to do it right? Or did you think they were doing it wrong as well?

If the bill doesn't get paid it will become public knowledge. Like it did with Palin and with Sanford and who knows who else. Of course when Palin cheated and didn't pay it was people picking on her for no good reason at all. With the Obama's they are accused beforehand but they shouldn't complain.

Or is it that no one made an issue out of it until the Obama family. Who are accused of doing exactly what the other First Family's have done. So why are they wrong and no one else was?

[MercedesV]

To repeat what I said in a post upthread - "Trying to compare this with past first ladies and Presidents is a red herring. They weren't presiding over the "worst economy since the Great Depression", criticising others for their use of jets, or elevating themselves up as transparant."

And none of that prevents them from spending their own money. Seems they criticized people using jets at other peoples expense. Transparency is right there. They announced what part was vacation, they announced they were paying for it. They announced they were following the rules and regulations in place. What the economy needs right now is spending.

Not to mention each moment they were in Europe they were positively representing the US around the world. Educating their children.

If the economy changes how the rules should be, then people should act to get the rules changed. The economy doesn't change the fact the Obama's are doing what all previous First Families have done and are obey rules and regulations. A bad economy doesn't change that one iota. They are free to spend their money, and we have no right to tell them they can't.

Like it or not, bad economy or not, the First Family is expected to travel as part of the job description. So what does a bad economy have to do with what the Obama's did. How does a bad economy make it alright to accuse them of doing something wrong without facts? They traveled, part official, part vacation. They will pay personally for the vacation. Just like every other First Family. How does the fact we have a bad economy make what they are doing wrong? Why does it make it right to wrongfully claim that taxpayers are footing the bill?

[Lady_Jean_La]

I'm just guessing it was about $58,000 not including transportation. Kids got a trip of a lifetime and can tell their friends. No big deal. imo