First, an apology. I posted something a while back about White House Christmas decorations. I said there were 18 trees, all decorated by professional decorators from all over the country.
That was based on a special I had seen during Obama's first term. Apparently, last year, there were 37 and this year there are 54. So, I apologize for the outdated information.
So, Fox News, which complains all the time about the War on Christmas and Obama's war on Christianity, also complained about too many Christmas trees.
By News Hounds, Sat, December 08, 2012
Perhaps because the "War on Christmas" needs new battles, or perhaps because there is no wrong way to attack the President, Fox Nation has posted an article condemning the First Family for displaying 54 Christmas trees in the White House. The "outrage" stems from Obama allegedly being extravagant with taxpayer money, "as Americans face a fiscal cliff," on "50% more Christmas trees than last year."
It seems unlikely, however, that Obama could do anything not to anger his detractors. Fox Nation's post comes from Investors.com which did almost the same story last year. Then, there were only 37 trees but Investors.com used the same picture and some paragraphs were repeated almost verbatim. For example, from the 2011 story:
"We have 37 Christmas trees here at the White House--37!" Michelle Obama excitedly told a recent group of visitors. "That's a lot, right? Yes, that's a lot of trees. And we also have a 400-pound White House gingerbread house."
In 2012:
"We have 54 trees in the White House," an excited Michelle Obama proudly told visitors the other day. "54! That’s a lot of trees."
Both articles talk about Bo, "who's being made into a kind of first family Christmas canine symbol" (2011 article) and "who seems to have become the First Family's favorite symbol of Christmas" (2012).
Coincidentally, Bo's presence was the source of last year's Fox Nation outrage - because last year's White House Christmas card displayed Bo near the fireplace instead of showing a Christmas tree. Then the headline blared, "No Christmas in White House Card." It is also worth noting that in 2008, then-First Lady Laura Bush told ABC News, " I think there are 49 trees in the whole house, just decorated with snow and tinsel and bright lights." It is doubtful Fox Nation found fault with that, even though it was a mere two months after the stock market crash in October 2008.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/fox-attacks-obama-having-too-many-christmas-treesI do think we could do without the pasha lifestyle on taxpayer dollars, regardless of who is in office.
However, I find it repugnant that the same WH whose first budget cut fuel subsidies to the poor spares no taxpayer dollars.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/inside-white-house/holidaysI realize this is close to the position of Fox News on this issue, except that I never gave Bush a pass and I never criticized any President for not making enough of an official deal of a religious holiday.
But, I see 54 trees and a 400 pound gingerbread white house as wretched excess. I would think so if someone spent his or her own money on it. But, someone living that way on other people's money boggles my mind. Isn't that pretty much why tsars and shahs and maharajahs and monarchs get deposed eventually?
Now, we get to see all this because it is Christmas, but the mindset seems to be there 365 days a year (along with the household staff and the white house staff).
I am all for the First Family's having a comfortable life, yes, even a much more comfortable life than the vast majority of taxpayers who are paying for the lifestyle of the First Family. And certainly the best advice about helping the country that money can buy (though WH staff anymore seems to exist more to protect the image of the President and I thought advice was what cabinet secretaries and the entire departments headed by them were for). And, of course, I understand the need for the security, the Secret Service, the Beast and other limos and drivers, the private planes and helicopters, etc.
How many multi-billionaires have that lifestyle, spending their own money?
When you are living on someone else's money in addition to getting a decent salary and great fringe benefits, at what point is enough enough? That point never seems to come at the WH anymore. Nor anywhere in government, judging by the stories we've seen about trips to Vegas and %25 a piece bagels or whatever. If you want to talk about entitlements, what is wrong with talking about that kind, too. I mean I realize none of it makes or breaks the U.S. budget, but it does add up. And again, it's all on our dime.
I am also mindful that we are at war.
And that the very first budget this WH sent to Congress cut fuel subsidies for the poor.
And the only cuts being sold to the public this blessed season are on the backs of the poor, the disabled and the elderly, not the Executive Branch (including the Dept of Defense) or the Legislative Branch (not the Judicial Branch, either, but I am hoping against hope that judges are not treated to free, private gyms and the other things to which the folk in D.C. have entitled themselves at our expense).
Okay, now someone needs to tell me which parts of this post are unreasonably Scrooge-ish.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
