Fun in the Sun
No, in the grand scheme of things, it’s not a lot of money. And I’m a firm believer that Presidents should vacation. But it’s the stick in the eye that while the rest of us are facing massive tax increases and generations of debt, Mrs. Obama insists on enjoying a few more days in Hawaii at our expense. Enjoy…
President Obama will return to Washington from Hawaii Thursday while First Lady Michelle Obama and her daughters plan to continue their vacation, adding at least $100,000 and probably more than $200,000 to taxpayer costs for the excursion.
Instead of accompanying her husband home on Air Force One, Mrs. Obama will fly on her own Air Force jet at a later date and require security and staff to remain in place in Hawaii for the length of her stay, which reportedly could extend until January 6.
Perhaps the better way to look at it is that I’m thankful Potus is cutting his vacation short rather than cutting brush in Crawford for a month like gw
Did in the past!
But I hate to let facts get in the way of your post!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 0900 hrs
Generally speaking, when lefties resort to Bush Bashing, I assume that I have won the argument
Posted by Owen on December 26, 2012 at 0909 hrs
Owen-
I agree with you that I don’t like this idea of costing the taxpayers additional dollars. (for the record, I am a fan of neither GW Bush or Obama). However, when Bush was president, the reality was that it was very expensive to protect him wherever he was from the radical elements of the american left, just like it is now very expensive to protect Obama from elements of the american right.
It is unfortunate that both ends of the political spectrum are unfortunately often defined by the worst elements in each. I do think our leaders (of both parties) living more modestly would have a positive impact on the public perception of our leaders, but i doubt it will ever happen. When was the last time our leaders actually led by example?
As a side note, look at the disaster coming on Obamacare. I don’t even know where to begin on this one. Wisconsin public employees are going to be EXTREMELY anti-Obamacare once they realize how much it screws them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 0915 hrs
Massive tax increases brought to you by the Republican Budget Control Act of 2011 which, by the way, all Wisconsin Republican congressional members voted for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 0941 hrs
Wisconsin public employees are going to be EXTREMELY anti-Obamacare once they realize how much it screws them.
Wanna bet they blame Walker?
I see they singled out Republicans for the 2011 Budget Control Act. The bill that passed Harry Reid’s Senate with unanimous consent and was signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama, right before he went golfing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 0953 hrs
Two-Plane Michelle strikes again, though this time she waited until the family was out of DC to demand the second flight.
Posted by steveegg on December 26, 2012 at 1010 hrs
We should also remember that the whole reason we’re having this discussion about the tax cuts is because Republicans didn’t make them permanent at the outset. And the reason they didn’t make them permanent at the outset is because they never would’ve had the votes to pass them absent the use of reconciliation, which requires that the bill be limited to ten years. And had they been required to use normal legislative procedure, they never would’ve had the votes to pass them - not even close.
Some conservatives will recognize the reconciliation process as the legislative tactic they stridently bemoan as bringing about the end of the Republic anytime Democrats mention the possibility of using it.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 26, 2012 at 1013 hrs
Remember this is all done by the very people who keep telling us that *we* need to make sacrifices, that *we* need to share the burden, that *we* need to pay our fair share.
What exactly are they sacrificing? This is costing the taxpayers more so FLOTUS and the girls can have their vacation. Some sacrifice.
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 26, 2012 at 1051 hrs
The bill that passed Harry Reid’s Senate with unanimous consent and was signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama
Yup, both parties are responsible for passing the Budget Control Act of 2011 from Paul Davis Ryan to Barack Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 1106 hrs
The people voted last month. They like two-plane Michelle.
Whether they like her in three years after continued higher taxes, 8% unemployment and 0 to 1% economic growth with hyperinflation on the horizon will be a different story.
But for now, party on Barack.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 1701 hrs
BlueDogConservative hit a home run with his post about this thread topic, sans his “sidenote” regarding Obamacare.
“Generally speaking, when lefties resort to Bush Bashing, I assume that I have won the argument.”Owen (or steveegg or steve austin or TerryN) if you would be so kind as to show us kind readers of your blog any posting from your archives regarding the significant reservations of the number of vacation days taken by any other president besides Obama, and its subsequent costs, please enlighten us.
Moreover, are there any blog postings regarding criticism of the amount of “vacation time”, i.e. annual recesses deemed “work breaks” or “home district visits”, that Congress receives?
If yes, thank you.
If no, your argument falls woefully short of consistency.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 1732 hrs
The president was originally scheduled to come home with his wife. There is no fiscal cliff solution, so why should his wife cut her vacation short?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 1834 hrs
They’ve had a number of vacations already. That’s a reason.
They could show some fiscal responsibility by not incurring other costs to the taxpayers. That’s another reason.
They could walk the walk (actually sacrificing something), instead of just talking the talk (telling all of us how we need to sacrifice). There’s yet another reason.
No one is *entitled* to a vacation (let alone a $4M one), and sometimes stuff comes up (in this case, the fiscal cliff). That makes it four reasons.
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 26, 2012 at 1910 hrs
What precisely are you sacrificing, hsgbdmama? Who’s this “we” you’re speaking of?
Shall we assume you would fall into one of the top 2% of taxpayers whose marginal tax rates would be modestly increased? Are your combined deductions such that you would be impacted by possible changes to the itemization process? Or is this the same sort of rhetorical sleight of hand by which people living on annuities call themselves “working families” and people making $500k a year describe their “middle class” lifestyle?
Because the reality is that the overwhelming majority of Americans aren’t sacrificing boo, and aren’t going to be asked to sacrifice it either.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 26, 2012 at 1958 hrs
Because the reality is that the overwhelming majority of Americans aren’t sacrificing boo, and aren’t going to be asked to sacrifice it either.
No one knows what their particular “sacrifice” is going to be until this is all settled, however, when it comes to the government and “sacrifices”, they don’t ask, they demand under penalty of law. That is of course if you mean taxation instead of “sacrifice”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 2012 hrs
Why should michelle cut her vacation short?
What exactly is she taking a vacation from? Her pamper life in the white house with her 26 personal sevants. Ya their just like us.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2012 at 0645 hrs
Reaper, try being on display for the whole world 24-7 and tell me you have a pampered life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2012 at 0811 hrs
Shall we assume you would fall into one of the top 2% of taxpayers whose marginal tax rates would be modestly increased?
No, we are not anywhere near being a $250,000/yr millionaire or a $250,000/yr billionaire.
Wow, that was funny, thanks for the laugh!To answer your question, we and many others have sacrificed quite a bit in this economy, and with fiscal cliff talks going nowhere and the yet to be learned taxes/fees coming in in the president’s health care plan, we all will be sacrificing more.
For us, we took a pay cut and freeze which lasted for three years. In the meantime, costs like gas, utilities, food and health insurance continued to increase, so we had to forego things. This year was the first year in close to a decade where we have been able to take a week-long vacation (otherwise we have done some overnight things and day long trips), and it was nice to do.
Have we suffered terribly? No. When we took the pay cut and freeze, we chose to look at it as still having a job, still being able to have a roof over our head and food on our table, even though we had to cut back on things. But we did sacrifice.
I suspect the 23M+ people who are still un- or under-employed have sacrificed too in this economy, in having to make choices and setting priorities for their limited funds, in losing their jobs, in losing their retirements, in losing their homes. For students coming out of college, too many of them have sacrificed their futures through being sold a bill of goods and left with five to six figure debt, while not having any viable job prospects for the field they have been trained in.
Yes, the American people have sacrificed.
So, I ask again, what have our leaders in Washington sacrificed, especially the ones who are calling for us to share the burden, to sacrifice, to pay our fair share? Have they had to forego anything?
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 27, 2012 at 0824 hrs
Thanks for clarifying, hsgbdmama. I wasn’t expecting that the answers to my questions would be affirmative; I just think that sometimes we need to be careful with using plural pronouns.
I also don’t dispute your general sentiment, though I’d also point out that most of this sacrificing over the last few years has had to do with things largely outside the control of either party in Washington, with perhaps the exception of those who created a wildly lackluster system of regulation in the finance sector. In fact, some (but probably not I) might argue that Washington has worked too hard to ensure that people didn’t have to sacrifice. That said, lots of people haven’t had to sacrifice. Lots of people have done just fine through the recession. It’s hard to generalize.
But am I supposed to begrudge him going back to his home state for the holidays? Would we be complaining if he went back to Indiana, or Missouri, or Illinois? Or is this more about the illusion that some have of Hawaii as a tropical paradise? After all, it’s not his fault that his travel requires an entourage. That’s something that we, through our government, insist upon for our presidents.
For me to suggest he shouldn’t travel means I should probably suggest that no other Americans who can afford to visit their families do so; you know, shared sacrifice and such. I guess I didn’t have any business coming back to Wisconsin, since some people couldn’t afford the three tanks of gas it takes me to get here and back.
I’m just not one for symbolic gestures. They’re great for press releases but in the end are totally irrelevant.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 27, 2012 at 1032 hrs
RS;
It may have been a symbolic gesture, one only great for press releases, for the first family to fore-go the holiday trip to Aloha land. But, a lot of what the first family does is DESIGNED to be only press release fodder. Even POTUS’ returning early to deal with the financial cliff is the stuff of press release. Is there anything he is accomplishing in DC that he could not just as easily deal with electronically from his mother’s living room?
POTUS has taken fewer days of vacation than many of his predecessors, and I do not begrudge him family time at the holidays, but there IS a bit of hypocrisy in not making the, albeit symbolic, sacrifice of perhaps just staying in DC for this year.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2012 at 1007 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 49
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/19/2013 08:30 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).