Why does The First Spouse get a Staff?

[TickTockMan]

Personally I have never understood why The First Lady gets a staff and free travel. Is there any other job in the world besides a head of government that their spouse gets these benefits?

I wrote that in a past thread. Since no one gave an answer I ask again, but this time with a small article on The First Lady’s staff salaries.


Why should a spouse get a staff just because they said, ‘I do”?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/0...009/07/06/what-michelle-obamas-staffers-earn/

 

[bankside]

Probably because it would be implausible to expect the first spouse will have no role in the matters of state. Probably because in the course of history, the first spouse has always been pressed into service for his or her country, welcoming dignitaries, offering counsel, and being an inextricable part of the package. They put up with a lot of demands on their time, and they offer a lot to the country. It makes sense to offer some support for their efforts, and some support in dealing with the burdens of an office they never actually ran for but are still expected to uphold.

 

[TickTockMan]

Probably because it would be implausible to expect the first spouse will have no role in the matters of state. Probably because in the course of history, the first spouse has always been pressed into service for his or her country, welcoming dignitaries, offering counsel, and being an inextricable part of the package. They put up with a lot of demands on their time, and they offer a lot to the country. It makes sense to offer some support for their efforts, and some support in dealing with the burdens of an office they never actually ran for but are still expected to uphold.

Is that enough to justify the over $1.1 million spent a year? Keep in mind that is just of the staffers for The First Spouse that are mentioned in the article and not all in their disposal.


Why can’t they just have a couple of people to help? Do they really need a team of PR people for someone not elected?

 

[bankside]

I don't want an average person put in front of the media cameras of local and international journalists without any media training or media support when the same person has sat at state dinners and listened to who knows how many exchanges between world leaders. I want that person to have media staff. A million sounds cheap to me.

 

[chillyboi]

Wow what an eye opener, i wonder how Many Mrs. R. Reagan had?

 

[TickTockMan]

I don't want an average person put in front of the media cameras of local and international journalists without any media training or media support when the same person has sat at state dinners and listened to who knows how many exchanges between world leaders. I want that person to have media staff. A million sounds cheap to me.

There is a huge difference between PR people to make you look good and those that are there to prep you to do public functions. Why does the spouse need to look good in the eye of media? A lot of people have jobs where they do dinners and parties for clients, and their spouse helps. Why is it any different just because its more visible?

 

[bankside]

There is no political requirement for the spouse to look good at a state dinner? I'm not in favour of superstar vanity, but having it together and looking professional seems to be a good thing for a nation's interests.

 

[TickTockMan]

That’s fine and all, but I am talking about just the spouse’s staff, not the people that coordinate official dinners and parties for the government. Or even the people that help groom them for the official dinners and parties, but the people who‘s job it is to push a picture of them doing something charitable. The ones that help coordinate the posturing that goes on. Do we really need to pay millions just to make people look good in the eye of the public?

 

[TickTockMan]

As to the actual cost of the First Lady's staff, it seems to me there are more important things to burn one's bra about than worrying about that -- it's background noise in the bigger scheme of things, but I guess it gives the permanent minority, the America-Hating Republicans, reason to live. Which is a mixed blessing.

1) I have never wore a bra. (Though I should check into it)

2) I am not America hating. (I am indifferent to national pride)

3) I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican.

4) It is not a reason to live. (Its just trying to understand why its okay to waste millions.)


I do like how you took a bipartisan thread and tried to turn it into something against the Republicans though. It was a nice touch.

 

[Kulindahr]

I understand that the First Lady is expected to play a serious role, and so needs a staff, but I can't figure out what all those people do, even with their titles listed.

This one's not too hard: SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY

But how about this?: DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY

Policy? Projects? I didn't know she was in charge of making any policy -- does she needs help following it?

It looks like overkill, to me.

 

[TickTockMan]

Nancy also had some Hollywood astrologer to determine auspicious dates for travel and parties. You know, an oraculator. Funny, I don't recall Republicans whining and mianing when WWII service-avoider Rhonnie and his wife were burning up federal dollars on lavish parties for their fellow geriatric draft-dodging friends. Gues it's okay if you're a Republican -- they need not explain anything, dontchaknow, they just piss through public money and never get questioned about it. But Democrats, well, they're held under the magnifying glass. Seems like a dual standard.

As to the actual cost of the First Lady's staff, it seems to me there are more important things to burn one's bra about than worrying about that -- it's background noise in the bigger scheme of things, but I guess it gives the permanent minority, the America-Hating Republicans, reason to live. Which is a mixed blessing.

^ It's not "all about you," babe.

1. Can you please cite where I claimed you wear a bra?
2. Please cite where I called you "America Hating."
3. Can you also cite where I called you a Republican?

Sorry if you're offended that I called out Rhonnie but upon closer inspection you'll see I was responding to, you know, someone else's, you know, p-o-s-t about The Great WWII Service Avoider?

Actually you said, “As to the actual cost of the First Lady's staff…” meaning you were done about the Regan’s. Then you talked about the rest. Bitching about bra burn (I was assuming one would have been wearing it, but I may have been wrong), and America Hating Republican’s. Since I was the OP it was obviously pointed to me, babe.


At any rate its there in your posts and does not matter. I am a liberal. I always probably will be. This thread had nothing to do about political parties and all about wasteful spending. Why was it you cared about the Reagan’s spending, but no others? This was not a political thread. If you cared what one spends you should care about everyone’s spending.

 

[TickTockMan]

I understand that the First Lady is expected to play a serious role, and so needs a staff, but I can't figure out what all those people do, even with their titles listed.

This one's not too hard: SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY

But how about this?: DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY

Policy? Projects? I didn't know she was in charge of making any policy -- does she needs help following it?

It looks like overkill, to me.

That is my point. They make the spouse an official like they won something themselves. POTUS makes $400,000 a year. If their spouse want to play at the table let their family pay for it. They are going to make million when out of office. They will be able to afford it.

 

[iman]

As long as we are muckraking about questionable administration expenses, I have go to point out that the dog has it's own groomer, is fed by the staff, walked by the Secret Service and Joe Biden has to clean up the "accidents".

 

[TickTockMan]

Not so fast.

You accused me of denigrating you and yet when challenged, you do a goose-egg. That's okay, babe, I understand.

What are you talking about. You were the one who wrote it, I just quoted it, babe.


Are you mad because you thought you were going to show up a Republican, but only got another liberal?

 

[TickTockMan]

As long as we are muckraking about questionable administration expenses, I have go to point out that the dog has it's own groomer, is fed by the staff, walked by the Secret Service and Joe Biden has to clean up the "accidents".

The VP wanted more to do. He got it.

 

[NickCole]

This really is ridiculous.

And with administrations like Bush's and Obama's that are so secretive, whatever we can see is only the tip of the iceberg.

Despite an economic crisis and soaring debt, it's clear that curbing wasteful spending is not part of Obama's "change." At least not when it comes to the Obamas, themselves.

The highest paid is Chief of Staff Susan Sher, who gets the top $172,200. Here are the rest:

$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)

 

[NickCole]

I'm rather curious about First Lady expenses going back to Reagan to see how "ridiculous" this is. In a vacuum, it is absurd, but if it is typical, then it is just silly overreacting.

Oh, if others did it, it's not ridiculous?

So much for Change!

Either it's absurd or it's not, whether or not any or all First Ladies back to Reagan did it. But your take sure is revealing.

 

[iman]

The First Lady is an integral part of the administration. Although, she is not elected the spouse is part of the package that is elected to office.

What the First Lady does and says and how she acts reflects on the administration and on the country. Jackie Kennedy was a case in point, the entire country took pride in her trips to France and England.

I don't want a First Lady shuffling around the White House in flip flops and sweat pants or doing her own hair, I want a First Lady that is an asset to the country, and if that takes a staff of 15 people, I'm fine with it.

This kind of criticism reminds me of the petty sniping at the Clinton Administration for hiring their own travel staff and using Air Force One too much.

 

[Apollo]

Every First Lady will have a staff. It is expected, and probably has been that way since the beginning.

She spends 1 million to employ these people? That is what, a penny compared to the normal spending done by government?

The amount she spends is far less than what I expected.'

Like iman said, the presidency is a package deal. The president, the spouse and the kids. The First Lady must be prepared to represent the country along with her husband in all affairs of foreign and domestic relations.

I can only imagine the threads on JUB if Michelle was some trashy, lazy first lady.

Not to mention the First Lady's usually take up their own projects hoping to benefit the country. Look at ole' Hilary, she tried to fix health care.

 

[Apollo]

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