First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants

Dr. Paul L. Williams Bio

Email ArticleShop CFP

Photo Gallery

By Dr. Paul L. Williams Monday, August 17, 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.

We were wrong.

Michelle Obama, as we reported on July 7, is not served by twenty-two attendants who stand by to cater to her every whim.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Little did American voters realize the call for “change” would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.

The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.

Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady’s staff in the wake of an article that appeared on thelastcrusade.org and Canada Free Press on July 7.

The article, which became a chain letter viewed by millions of Americans, reported that Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants - - more than any First Lady in U.S. History. It provided the following list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady:

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. $102,000 - 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. $65,000 - 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. $60,000 - 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. $45,000 - 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. $36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
    
22. $36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
    

Readers throughout the country expressed outrage that Mrs. Obama would hire an unprecedented number of staffers in the midst of the Great Recession.

I found it interesting while trying to catch up on this thread to read that you continue to think that tort reform will fix the healthcare system. It wont.

..............................................................

If it is working in the State of Texas, why can't it work for the rest of the states? We should always proceed after a trial period has been proven to work out, and copy it. It's when we try to proceed when we've already seen the same approach fail that's rediculous.

Well said, BJean. President Obama has said all along that he was going to tackle the tough issues that previous presidents, especially bush, passed on. Bush just kicked the can down the street. And Obama said that if he is a one term president because he has the guts to tackle these difficult and contentious issues, then so be it.

The economy was the number one issue when he got elected. It was head and shoulders above all other issues.

Now, exactly what did the people want President Obama to do about the economy?

If the banks failed - our economy would fail.

If people didn't get more money in their pockets, there would be little spending, thus putting our economy in further decline.

Was Wall Street at fault for getting us into this mess? Absolutely!! And they were bailed out in spite of their greedy decisions - but to not bail them out would have put us in a depression. Instead of reading our current headlines that say the recession is basically over, there are signs of life in the economy, the job loss has slowed down - we would be reading headlines that say: Economy in full blown depression, unemployment to reach 20% by year's end.

No one, including Pres. Obama, liked having to bail out the banks. But he wasn't responsible for the de-regulations that allowed Wall Street to jeopardize our economy. The republicans who pushed through the deregulations were. Now, President Obama is pushing for more regulation for Wall Street so that their greed cannot destroy our economy like it did last year. It will be interesting to see if the republicans support this.

The bank bailouts have helped our economy and some have begun paying the government (us taxpayers) back with interest.

The stimulus has helped do just what it said - stimulate the economy. Much of the stimulus was in the form of a tax cut for wage earners. You don't hear a lot about this tax cut from those carrying signs that say things like "Zoos have an african lion and the white house has a lyin' african".

People have more money in their pockets from tax cuts, the stimulus has saved or created a million jobs and the recession appears to be over. But it took money to solve these problems and stave off a full blown depression.

Now imagine what those signs would say if Pres. Obama had done nothing and we were in a depression complete with bread lines?

As far as change goes - it takes two parties to be bipartisan and all we've seen from the republicans is dissent, obstructionism and complaints and defense of the status quo, which of course always benefits the "haves" .

Edited September 16, 200916 yr by Cleo's Mom
spelling

Christianity has a place in U.S. Government. The evidence is clear that our Founding Fathers built our nation on the 'self-evident' truth that our rights are 'endowed' to us 'by our Creator'. This is the Faith that began this Nation.

John Adam's said," Our Costitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Christianity has been under attack for years. The major enemy of Christianity has been, and is, the Civil Liberties Union. Christianity played a major role in this countries birth and growth. On the wall in congress's Library there is a citation that says , "the Heavens declare the glory of God...", and a statue of Moses and the 10 Commandments appears in the US Supreme court. We 'swear to tell' the truth on the Holy bible in our courts. It is "In God we Trust" that is printed on our money, and on and on I could go. Facts don't bother activists who despise Christianity. Their knowledge of American History indicates they never learned it in school. The battle against Christianity is useless; it has survived the attacks for 2009 years and is unlikely to falter now. Despite what Obama says about this country not being a Christian Nation, 76.5% of us believe that it is. That's 159 million Christians.

Right Cleo'sMom. And I can never understand how exactly the middle class can afford to support the Republican agenda like they do. And I can't understand it if they don't recognize the results of a Republican administration as being the catastrophy that it created. Not just the economy, but in nearly every respect.

And patty, what is your source of information saying tort reform in Texas is working? And in what way is it working?

Has it changed the ability of Texans to get affordable insurance? I'm a Texan and it sure hasn't helped me get lower insurance rates OR better medical treatment or drugs.

Two doctors have turned down my insurance and I've had to pay all of my expenses incurred by getting treatment from them. My rates are exorbitant and yet every year I get less and less coverage. And although we are "lucky" enough to be able to even get coverage through DH's former employer, we would like to change companies, to the one we use to provide healthcare insurance for our employees, but the company we use for our employees won't provide coverage for us. We both have preexisting conditions. Meaning we've both had surgery.

Please explain in detail how tort reform in Texas has benefitted me - as a solid citizen of the great state. I need you to tell me what kind of job my Republican dominated legislature has provided me. Cause living here isn't revealing anything of the sort.

BJean - not that those like you and me, who understand the facts, need more data to prove our points, but in speaking to the AFL-CIO, President Obama said he would fight the culture of irresponsibility that allowed the top 5% of ther earners in the nation to garner the vast majority of the economic growth during the last decade while the middle class Americans saw their inflation-adjusted wages decline.

You don't see or hear anything from the sign carriers about what the bush tax cuts cost us taxpayers. Or what it cost in terms of lost revenue. The cost of healthcare or the stimulus pales in comparison to the tax cuts and the Iraqi war combined.

patty people who want a government that is not based on your Christian beliefs are not necessarily people who do not believe in God or have Christian principles. You are painting everyone with a very biased brush. Including President Obama who merely stated the facts.

A person who believes that we should have a secular government may be totally motivated by fairness and inclusion, as opposed to exclusion and unfairness.

Your insistence that the government should be ruled purely by your Christian beliefs is not fair to those who do not share your beliefs. And this is their country just as much as it is your country.

People who are not born again Christians may still have quite strong beliefs in God and the Bible. And people of other faiths and who believe in a different god should be treated the same under the laws of our government as you are.

If we were to adopt laws that are based purely in the Christian theological concepts that you espouse, the laws could be viewed as biased and exclusionary to those who do not share those same theological beliefs.

I cannot understand why this is such an impossible thing for you to grasp and accept. It would be like Ben Franklin saying that because he is a Christian, no one is accepted in this country unless they first have a test to find out if they are Christian or at least agree to worship his religion as he believes it.

Just isn't and wasn't that way. And it never will be.

I think this Catholic nun said it very well in her letter to the editor. This is someone who knows and interprets the bible and certainly is a christian.

Anger and fear work against the common good - Open Letters - post-gazette.com

Oh my, Cleo's it's in a nutshell what you and I have been saying but we've been using more words and bullet points. She said it so well it deserves to be posted here so nobody misses it:

Two destructive trends appear to be growing in U.S. culture. One is an "in your face" culture built upon anger, hatred, bigotry and ignorance. The second is a culture of fear built on a lack of accurate information or, at times, intentionally crafted misinformation. We observe both daily in news reports.

You readily recognize the script: "I am right, you are wrong. Period."

Or, "There is a conspiracy of (fill in the blank -- liberals? media? government? whomever?) out to destroy our American way." Sadly, many people accept leadership mainly from talk-show personalities who feed on stirring hatred, anger and fear and who have little or no personal experience of working within constitutionally shaped systems we call government.

To observe Americans shouting angrily about "big government" or "socialism" makes no sense when our pockets/purses hold Social Security and Medicare cards, our pensions and savings accounts are federally insured, our children are educated in a public school system, we drive daily on a massive system of interstate highways and bridges or ride mass transit sustained by federal dollars, we are protected globally by our country's military forces -- the list could go on and on. Who do people imagine that "government" is?

It is time to tone down the mindless anger before we self-destruct. The immediate need is for collaboration, citizens and elected leaders in both political parties, to continue the genuinely American tradition of building society on the principle of the common good.

SISTER PATRICIA McCANN

Oakland

patty:

kartman you live in a more liberal state. So I think your experience is a little different than for some of us. I live in a very conservative state and my personal experience is different from say, you or someone who's from Vermont.

And yet we voted Yes on Prop 8, go figure:cursing:

I found it interesting while trying to catch up on this thread to read that you continue to think that tort reform will fix the healthcare system. It wont.

..............................................................

If it is working in the State of Texas, why can't it work for the rest of the states? We should always proceed after a trial period has been proven to work out, and copy it. It's when we try to proceed when we've already seen the same approach fail that's rediculous.

How about we copy the successful Single Payer or Government Option Health Care programs that rest of the Free, Industrialized, Western nations have all adopted and enjoy:confused:

Well said, BJean. President Obama has said all along that he was going to tackle the tough issues that previous presidents, especially bush, passed on. Bush just kicked the can down the street. And Obama said that if he is a one term president because he has the guts to tackle these difficult and contentious issues, then so be it.

The economy was the number one issue when he got elected. It was head and shoulders above all other issues.

Now, exactly what did the people want President Obama to do about the economy?

If the banks failed - our economy would fail.

If people didn't get more money in their pockets, there would be little spending, thus putting our economy in further decline.

Was Wall Street at fault for getting us into this mess? Absolutely!! And they were bailed out in spite of their greedy decisions - but to not bail them out would have put us in a depression. Instead of reading our current headlines that say the recession is basically over, there are signs of life in the economy, the job loss has slowed down - we would be reading headlines that say: Economy in full blown depression, unemployment to reach 20% by year's end.

No one, including Pres. Obama, liked having to bail out the banks. But he wasn't responsible for the de-regulations that allowed Wall Street to jeopardize our economy. The republicans who pushed through the deregulations were. Now, President Obama is pushing for more regulation for Wall Street so that their greed cannot destroy our economy like it did last year. It will be interesting to see if the republicans support this.

The bank bailouts have helped our economy and some have begun paying the government (us taxpayers) back with interest.

The stimulus has helped do just what it said - stimulate the economy. Much of the stimulus was in the form of a tax cut for wage earners. You don't hear a lot about this tax cut from those carrying signs that say things like "Zoos have an african lion and the white house has a lyin' african".

People have more money in their pockets from tax cuts, the stimulus has saved or created a million jobs and the recession appears to be over. But it took money to solve these problems and stave off a full blown depression.

Now imagine what those signs would say if Pres. Obama had done nothing and we were in a depression complete with bread lines?

As far as change goes - it takes two parties to be bipartisan and all we've seen from the republicans is dissent, obstructionism and complaints and defense of the status quo, which of course always benefits the "haves" .

Well said. My only wish is that he would use his mandate to push even harder on the things that matter

- The Economy

- Health Care

- The Environment

- Foreign Policy

- Green Technology

- Don’t ask Don’t Tell

I agree with Obama’s assessment that it is better to be a one term president than to allow these issues to fail. He should put his money where his mouth is and fight the good fight and get some sweeping change passed, damn what happens in 2012. As far as I see it, the only obstructionism that matters right now comes from within the Democratic Party. The Republicans have made themselves irrelevant and we are not capitalizing on it.

Christianity has a place in U.S. Government. The evidence is clear that our Founding Fathers built our nation on the 'self-evident' truth that our rights are 'endowed' to us 'by our Creator'. This is the Faith that began this Nation.

John Adam's said," Our Costitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Christianity has been under attack for years. The major enemy of Christianity has been, and is, the Civil Liberties Union. Christianity played a major role in this countries birth and growth. On the wall in congress's Library there is a citation that says , "the Heavens declare the glory of God...", and a statue of Moses and the 10 Commandments appears in the US Supreme court. We 'swear to tell' the truth on the Holy bible in our courts. It is "In God we Trust" that is printed on our money, and on and on I could go. Facts don't bother activists who despise Christianity. Their knowledge of American History indicates they never learned it in school. The battle against Christianity is useless; it has survived the attacks for 2009 years and is unlikely to falter now. Despite what Obama says about this country not being a Christian Nation, 76.5% of us believe that it is. That's 159 million Christians.

Patty, I can’t disagree with you more on this topic. Whatever you “think” the founding fathers intended, what we ended up with is a Secular Democracy. No politician in their right mind would succeed in politics today trying to defend your point of view.

BJean - not that those like you and me, who understand the facts, need more data to prove our points, but in speaking to the AFL-CIO, President Obama said he would fight the culture of irresponsibility that allowed the top 5% of ther earners in the nation to garner the vast majority of the economic growth during the last decade while the middle class Americans saw their inflation-adjusted wages decline.

You don't see or hear anything from the sign carriers about what the bush tax cuts cost us taxpayers. Or what it cost in terms of lost revenue. The cost of healthcare or the stimulus pales in comparison to the tax cuts and the Iraqi war combined.

I’m gonna have to do some research on this topic (don’t like posting hearsay), but I heard or read a few days ago that the Bush Tax cuts cut out something like $2.3T in revenue plus another $230B in some sort of interest. That money would have covered TARP, Health Care, and a chunk of the Stimulus plan.

Here is a link (this is one of several that are out there)

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48trillion over the 2001-2010 period.

This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.

[...] Over the upcoming decade (2010-2019), the costs of the health care proposals approved by three committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are projected to be around $1 trillion. (One committee trimmed the costs of its health care bill below that amount, but an official estimate of the cost reductions was not available at the time of this writing.)

Edited September 16, 200916 yr by KartMan
added source link

And some of us didn't see a dime of it. And yet my health insurance premiums are out of sight.

why can't we go across state lines to purchase insurance? That would increase competition. Soooo many other ideas besides a public option, but Obama doesn't want to go those routes. What gives? Sounds like something fishy there.

TV ads soliciting plantiffs for medical malpractice suits skyrocketed 1,400% from 2004-2008 while spending on those ads soared 1300% in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to research carried out by the Campaign Media Analysis group for the institute for legal reform. The ads' successes have made the trial bar even more protective of its lucrative turf, but Democratic Politicians also have benefited because in the last election cycle, more than 99% of trial lawyers' political contributions went to Democrats, according to a recent analysis of National Law Journal data. That explains why health care "reforms" moving through Congress are devoid of long, overdue tort reform.

Is it acceptable for the lawyers to make obscene amounts of money off health care, but not the insurance or drug companies? Or is it the reality that our President (a Lawyer himself) and Congress (comprised of mostly attorneys) are protecting their own? Or perhaps trial lawyers are major contributors to Democratic coffers? And you people trust the government.(rolling my eyes again)

Dr's offices cannot handle the immense paperwork of the number of insurance companies they now deal with.......they simply do not want more.