Even though it’s been denied (and the media gracefully accepted the denial), Michelle Obama may have monetarily benefited by her husband’s various political positions. It must be a Chicago thing.
Why should his presidency be any different. Instead of lobbyists pushing the idea, how about using your kids…?
CNN has a segment that they call “CNN Student News” that is supposed to highlight the news of the day for the kiddie set. Pursuant to that, in a December 15 segment, CNN floats a question asking if Michelle Obama (or any First Lady) should get a government salary just for being First Lady?
Funny, I don’t remember this discussion coming up four years ago, or eight years ago, or twelve years ago…. See a pattern?
Alina Cho does make a point of mentioning Michelle Obama’s position as the first “black” first lady. Wouldn’t want her doing the work of white women for free….
But, what we really ended up with is a slight to those same students to whom CNN was ostensibly relating the news. No where in the report was there any talk of the Constitution in particular nor the law in general as the CNN anchor cajoled the kids into viewing with awe the “work” of the First Lady and in fostering in them a feeling that First Ladies should be paid for this “work.”
Thanks again for the Obama tactic of using unsuspecting children to get their way.
As long as you vote “correctly”, sure. Heck, you don’t even have to vote in your county and you get a bonus for going to the polls more than once.
Can I get paid for being a voter?
This looks to me like a case of a bad report, not Democrats pushing an agenda. It’s about reporters without journalistic skills and editors without scruples.
The talking head says, “Some folks question whether that position should be paid.”
This “journalist” can’t even use the “some people say” lazy way of causing a news-worthy controversy. It’s obvious that no one except the writer has brought up the idea of a paid First Lady. That’s why it’s not “Some people say that position should be paid.”
Instead, they’ve approached a few people saying “Shouldn’t the First Lady be paid?” (And the answer is “no”.) For the majority of the segment, the question asked was “What does the First Lady contribute?”
(Comment from my over-shoulder-reading friend: The report never mentioned Mrs. Reagan’s restoration/refurbishment of the White House through PRIVATE donations, nor her anti-drug campaign.)
BTW if the Obama administration were to push for a paid First Lady, the Republicans would have a perfect comeback: Obama can’t handle the presidency without full-time help from his wife. Then let the “whipped” jokes begin.
I like the idea of voting for first lady!
She is being paid, as the mother raising Obama’s Children, she gets part of his earnings. Oh, I forgot Politicians don’t share their money with anyone and being married to the Messiah is payment enough anyway.
ok I say we should give her a salary of 15k a year, but we should make the presidency a non-paying job.
Or we should have an election for the job of first-lady
Wait a second. I thought Michelle made it quite clear publicly that she intended to be a stay at home wife and mom during this administration. They think she should get paid for that?
I appreciated Mrs Bush’s comment.
Cut me in, or cut it out. Hey, it’s the Chicago way. Typical of dems as well, always looking to scam more money from the tax payers.
but… but…
[i]Its FOR THE CHIILLLLDREN![/I]
Again typical Democrats, you have to sacrifice and do with out for the greater good, but not them. Just like Obama wants us to help the poor, but not him. He should not have to help his family out that are living way below the poverty level. Just us, the working class. Work for us and work for those that do not want to, and work for the established dems.