Is it fair that Michelle Obama gets to fly to Spain and South Africa (not to mention leaving four hours early for Martha's Vineyard) and spend taxpayer money?
This is the same federal government whose agency, the GAO, according to Philip Klein, says ObamaCare is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over ten years, rather than $900 billion that Obama said it would cost.
This is the same federal government that, according to Merrill Matthews, spent the $2.6 trillion Social Security Trust Fund on "other" things, and according to Charles Krauthammer, contains nothing. As a baby-boomer, I ask you: "Is that fair?"
And here is some more irony for you. According to Michael Taylor, personal financial literacy is important because the ability to function in a literate society includes financial literacy. He discusses the consequences of not being financially literate. Is the federal government immune from being financially literate? As Taylor points out, "Inappropriate financial decisions can have long-term negative effects." Is that ever true, as we are discovering today.
I want it clearly understood that both parties have gotten us into the current financial situation. However, the current administration has increased the national debt from over $10 trillion to over $15 trillion in the past 39 months. And this from Obama who commissioned the Simpson-Bowles committee, then disregarded its recommendations.
So the question is, "Why can't the federal government follow the financial literacy advice that it teaches?" But wait. There is a big difference between "literacy" and "responsibility." Until the federal government offers classes on "responsibility." we are stuck with what we have. But consider these yet-to-be-opened cans of worms: Who gets to define what is responsible? Will that definition be fair? Who gets to decide if the definition is fair?
But that's just my opinion.
Article comments
1 - Jet Gardner
I was going to chastise you that childish cheap shots don't become you Warren... But you've made them so Cliché that they're hardly worth paying attention to.
By the way, all you have to do is take every objection every liberal had to Bush and wife "traveling" to fundraisers and vacations during campaign season for his second term and change the names.
Every single incumbent president who's running for a 2nd term is accused of wasting taxpayer dollars, but you know what Warren?
Anyone with a brain knows that a sitting president travels in Air Force One-not some cheap unprotected airliner, that he needs protection wherever he goes and that his wife and loved ones need protection to... and get it.
...and on the taxpayer dollar. EVERY FUCKING PRESIDENT Warren.
I guess this proves you don't possess half of a functioning brain.
Why isn't something done about it?
Because if we took it away from Reagan, Clinton couldn't have used the perk, If we took it away from Clinton, Bush II couldn't have used the perk, and so on.
It means that the next and the next and the next president will also use the perks of the office, and the opposing party will always whine about it, until their man uses the perks of the office, and they you'll be saying the EXACT same thing I just said when I complain about him/her.
For Christ's sake grow up.