Michelle Obama Thursday traveled separately from President Obama to Martha’s Vineyard, costing taxpayers thousands in additional expenses to get her a few hours of extra vacation time.
Mrs. Obama and her daughters arrived just before 2 pm Thursday on a U.S. government jet, according to the Martha’s Vineyard Times, which got its information from the local airport. The first lady’s office has been silent on her travel. President Obama arrived in the evening along with the family dog Bo.
The extra costs related to Mrs. Obama’s solo trip mainly include the flight on a specially designed military aircraft she took instead of Air Force One, as well as any extra staff and Secret Service that had to be enlisted to go with her. She would also have had her own motorcade from the airport to her vacation residence.
Mrs. Obama’s separate jet travel sends the wrong message on a host of issues, from global warming to the budget deficit to the economy – in which currently so many people can’t afford to take a vacation at all.
This is not the first time Michelle has gone on vacation ahead of the president on the taxpayers’ tab. Last December, she racked up what was likely more than $100,000 in expenses leaving early for their Hawaii vacation.
(Source: WhiteHouse Dosser)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
11 Responses
Does anyone realize that the President used to have to pay for his own secretary?
(And before anyone jumps in and says “well, Bush’s expenses were exorbitant too” – I know, and I abhor it too.)
Make Michelle travel commercial airlines in economy fare.
The biggest trait of someone fiscally irresponsible
OK people now we are talking dollars and sense here. Figure it out.
This is silly partisan nourishkeit…and the Democrats play the same obnoxious game. These excerpts are from a 2005 AP article:
“Bush enjoys travel advantage on taxpayer-financed Air Force One WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush is using Air Force One for re-election travel more heavily than any predecessor, wringing maximum political mileage from a perk of office paid for by taxpayers…
“…Even when the White House deems a trip as political, the cost to Bush’s campaign is minimal. In such instances, the campaign must only pay the government the equivalent of a comparable first-class fare for each political traveler on each leg, Federal Election Commission guidelines say…
“…Usually, that means paying a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for the president and a handful of aides. It’s a minuscule sum, compared to the $56,800-per-hour the Air Force estimates it costs to run Air Force One…
“…”It’s really something that’s abused,” said Bill Allison, managing editor of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, government watchdog group….
For complete article, see http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-01-air-force-one_x.htm
YonasonW, see #1: “(And before anyone jumps in and says “well, Bush’s expenses were exorbitant too” – I know, and I abhor it too.)”
It saves the taxpayers money. The more time he spends vacationing with his family, the less time he has to spend our money. If we can keep him distracted for the next 18 months, think of how much we’ll save!
Note the President Clinton was much more easily distracted, and the country prospered. Unfortunately, President Obama is better in the morality department.
so, he keeps on talking about “fat cats who have their own private jets”, and this dummy has TWO of them!
8. You got it all wrong. WE or more so THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HIM are the dummies! The rest of us are the suckers.
Socialists/Liberals are very good at telling everyone else they have to sacrifice as long as we are the sacrifices and they are the recipients.
The president and his family are entitled to the use of Air Force One at any time and for any purpose.
the suggestion that they travel by commercial airlines is totally absurd.
Just imagine the security nightmare that would create.
Note to Tea Party: No that is not a good way to get rid of President Obama.
To “akuperma” (no. 7):
The gist of your message, I agree with.
But where you adjudicate President Obama’s morality as superior to President Clinton’s, I must take issue–and, I suspect that on reflection you’ll realize that you agree with me.
President Obama went to Cairo and announced that Israel’s entire national history boiled down to the Holocaust. Back at the White House, he treated Israel’s popularly elected leader on a state visit to an unprecedented degree of hostility and disrespect previously reserved in Washington for foreign despots. President Clinton took neither of these outrageous steps, and after the 2000 talks fell apart, he made no effort to revise history to demonize Israel for the Arabs’ nihilistic intransigence.
We currently–and properly–know nothing about President Obama’s morality with respect to illicit personal relationships, but we absolutely do know, as a public persona and as a president, insofar as matters like justice, anti-Semitism and historical truthfulness are concerned, that he is a deeply flawed character whom we would all be much better off had he been cut in the moral mold of President Clinton. We don’t have to claim that President Clinton was perfect to merely recognize him as the towering moral giant that he is when compared specifically with President Obama. As an aside, there is a sad social commentary in the observation that Clinton’s big campaign revelation that we reacted to first with horror and then with an apathetic, downwardly revised standard of acceptance, was “I didn’t inhale”; now we have sunk to the point that we can turn a blind eye to a national leader candidate who irresponsibly cheered amen for 25 years to Rev. Wright’s various and many egregeous indiscriminate firebobmbs in his wrath against all things good and decent and in consonance with the American way.