Monday, January 07, 2013

NYT: You May Not Have a Job, But at Least Michelle Obama's Dresses are Expensive

Normally I don't begrudge a politician or their family for spending a little more on amenities. That being said, I normally want to see that coming out of their own paycheck (which usually we pay for, anyway). After a series of expensive vacations, affairs, or other issues, many (if not most) politicians and their kin break this promise and just spend far too much while the budget remains bloated.

Understated elegance is a matter of electoral smarts for many politicians. Take a president that comes out in a polo shirt while golfing or a short button down shirt while touring a factory-- a little humility can often go a long way.

Usually we don't celebrate expensive extravagance of our politicians. The realm of the super-rich and the celebrities should not usually cross into the White House. A Republican that spends any sort of money on such items is immediately derided by the press (Sarah Palin, anyone?).

Unless they're a Democrat.

With the country only $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, you would expect many of the country's top politicians and their families to try and give a little back, even if it's just for show. Mike Bloomberg, for all of this stupid policies, works for a dollar, and the like.

The New York Times, however, celebrates Michelle Obama's expensive fashion sense. While the dresses may look good, they pay little solace to the family that can't make ends meet. They don't pay the bills for someone in the coal industry that lost their job in the last four years.

But at least she can be "First in Fashion."

How many unemployment checks would those dresses pay for?
Even more astonishing is that Mrs. Obama’s spending on clothes has attracted little scrutiny. Clearly that’s because she is seen as helping the American economy. Still, she has spent tens of thousands of dollars on clothes and accessories.

But it's okay because the money has stimulated the American economy. If we can get every member of Congress to start wearing these designer clothes, we'll be out of our problems in no time!
She was criticized for wearing $500-plus Lanvin sneakers at a food bank, in 2009. But at a time when economic inequality is a serious issue, you wonder why the first lady’s fashion spending hasn’t caused more fuss.
I wonder why the media didn't cover it!

This article seems to show what's wrong with the country. Michelle Obama can look nice, and spend the money to do it, but that doesn't count as a virtue and it doesn't count as a sound economic policy.

Please bookmark!


  1. Is she at least paying for her own clothes? Because according to a recent Mark Steyn column, taxpayers are being stuck with the bill (to the tune of $100k per year) for the employee charged with taking care of the Obama family dog. How is that a legitimate expense of the office of the president? It's a family pet, and any and all expenses related to caring for it should be borne by the Obamas, not the taxpayers.

    Last year, the Obamas spent $1.4 Billion of taxpayers' money keeping themselves and their closest associates living in high style. One and a half BILLION dollars, for one year. By contrast, the entire British royal family only cost British taxpayers $58 million last year. Where is the oversight for the Obamas' out of control spending of our money?

  2. Right on time here comes this article to deflect this criticism.

    "Michelle Obama Wears Same Target Dress Traveling to and from Hawaii Vacation"