Why I like the internet

[Kenscollick]

It really is the information super highway.

I found this to be an interesting read.

What Michelle Obama's Staffers Earn
Posted:
07/6/09
Filed Under:Obama Administration, The Daily FLOTUS with Lynn Sweet

The Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, on the shores of Lake Michigan, north of Chicago, brings together local politicians, floats -- I loved the klezmer band on the back of a flatbed truck -- and marchers from different government agencies. (My favorite, the "Yes, you can afford to live here" banner carried by fellows from the upscale suburb's community land trust office.)

I ran into Herbie, who I've known since kindergarten, and we chatted about our upcoming Von Steuben High School reunion (I'm on the committee, of course). Then I caught up with my cousins' cousin, whom I spot lined up on the parade route.

This "small world" kind of a morning continued when I fell into conversation with a woman who must have seen my column in the Chicago Sun-Times about a just-released list of White House salaries, and she started talking about how her friend Joey is doing.

Joey, she said, is seriously underpaid.

Joey is Joseph Reinstein, a former Highland Park resident who left his job as a marketing executive to join the Obama White House as a Deputy Social Secretary.
His boss is Desiree Rogers, the White House social secretary. Reinstein met Rogers when she was running the Illinois Lottery in 1992. Reinstein was in advertising then, and the lottery was one of the accounts for his agency; Rogers recruited Reinstein to be a deputy director in her office. His salary is $65,000 a year.

My sister finds it distasteful that the salaries of White House staffers are made public; then everyone compares them, and just how productive can that be? But Congress ordered the annual disclosure, and since 1995 the White House has been required to report to Congress details of most of the West Wing payroll.

The president makes $400,000, and there is a big gap between that and the highest paid staffer -- $172,200.

The salaries for staffers in the Office of First Lady are also on the newest list. 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)

I would say that Joey is not underpaid the President is.

 

[Rich]

And I suppose you think Bush staffers all worked for free?

In actuality:

Top-level staff members of the Obama White House earn the same amount as their predecessors in the Bush administration, according to a report submitted to Congress Wednesday.

Source

Ken, why do you have to use a music lover's forum like this to post your ridiculous partisan hatchet pieces? I mean, really. What is the point of posting this stuff on the MLOC forum?

 

[C.A.P]

Is this not OFF TOPIC? Seems you like it or you would not respond. Maybe its bait for the fish who just cant stop from biting the worm. Ken , Your a good fisherman ! :ROFL:

And by the way Good read !

 

[Rich]

Maybe its bait for the fish who just cant stop from biting the worm. Ken , Your a good fisherman !

I guess that's my biggest problem with it, CAP. Ken's posts appear to be made for the sheer purpose of baiting a partisan political argument, rather than engendering any meaningful discussion. He rarely adds any real discussion of his own, just cuts and pastes highly partisan political articles and then often abandons the threads. His thread on Sotomayer is a prime example of that. Rather than trying to have a real discussion, Ken just appears to be posting political spam.

Not to mention that cutting and pasting an entire article like this is a clear violation of copyright law and could get Tom in trouble. It is one thing to link to an article in it's original source or to quote from it and link to the source. But just copying and pasting an entire article stolen from another source and posting it on this site is a clear violation of law and could subject both him and Tom to criminal and civil penalties. Think I am making that up? Then read up on this case.

 

[User211]

Hmm... I sincerely doubt the copyright point will be an issue here, Rich... looks to me like it is a press release. They'll simply see this quote as some pretty insignificant publicity. The membership of this forum is tiny, and you can see from the hit counts that hardly anyone reads it - at least compared to the publication's readership, or indeed, the population of the USA.

No offense to forum members, of course!

 

[Rich]

Have to respectfully disagree with you there, Justin. I'm afraid you don't really understand the legal climate in the U.S. right now with regard to these issues. The article he cut and pasted was not a "press release." It was an original article authored by columnist Lynn Sweet and lifted from a news site called "Politics Daily" which is a division of AOL News. Their terms of use specifically prohibits anyone to "reproduce, reprint, copy, store, publicly display, broadcast, transmit, modify, translate, port, publish, sublicense, assign, transfer, sell, loan, or otherwise distribute the Content without our prior written consent." No question that copying it in it's entirety and pasting it here is theft under American law.

The size of the forum or the number of hits to the post really doesn't come into play. It is still a violation of law that puts Tom at risk of civil and criminal penalties. Newspaper organizations have been aggressively going after these kinds of infringements lately. Similar arguments could have been made in support of the woman who downloaded a few songs and is now facing a $1.2 million judgment against her from the record companies! Just because you are small potatoes doesn't mean they won't come after you to make a point.

 

[User211]

All points taken, in truth the situation may not be too dissimilar here. Whilst I bow down to your expertise in the legal field, I still think the odds of any action are absurdly low. But the consequences may potentially be high, as you indicate.

Anyway, it's Tom's call on whether it stays or not...

 

[RichTeer]

Similar arguments could have been made in support of the woman who downloaded a few songs and is now facing a $1.2 million judgment against her from the record companies! Just because you are small potatoes doesn't mean they won't come after you to make a point.

Wow, she should move to Canada. Downloading music for one's personal enjoyment has been deemed legal by Canada's Supreme Court.

 

[HsvToolFool]

The First Lady (or First Husband when it happens) should not have a "staff" unless it's paid from family income. They are not elected and should have NO official input on government policy nor present themselves as representatives of anyone except the Presidential family. While hosting foreign dignitaries or other official functions, public funds should be used. But while using their celebrity status to support charities or making Party fundraising appearances, private funds should be used for travel and support staff.

Other than Hillary and now Michelle, I can't name any politically ambitious First Ladies who actually desired the status of defacto Cabinet members. I doubt that I'm the only person who finds the concept offensive.

 

[Rich]

Brian,

The first lady is not an elected official, and receives no salary, but she does serve as the official hostess of the White House, in charge of organizing and executing official social ceremonies and functions of State at the White House. To enable her to carry out those duties, she has a staff known as the Office of the First Lady. This Office is an official part of the Executive Office of the President.

Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. We could argue all day about whether it is necessary. But this system has been in place and been used by every President/First Lady since Warren Harding was in office. It was actually codified into law in 1978. So it isn't like Michele Obama just suddenly came up with the idea.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly leads you to conclude Michele Obama wants to be a "defacto cabinet member?"

I guess you forget that Nancy Reagan was heavily influential in Reagan's White House. She was responsible for the "Just say no" campaign, part of the creation of the "war" on drugs. She also consulted an astrologer and controlled her husband's schedule based on what he told her. She was responsible for Reagan asking his Chief of Staff to resign. She controlled access to her husband and attempted to influence his decisions.

For that matter, Betty Ford was an advocate of women's rights and lobbied for the Equal Rights Amendment. She was also, interestingly, an activist for the legalization of abortion. So don't pretend that Hillary and Michele are the only politically active and outspoken First Ladies we have ever had.

 

[MDSPHOTO]

I am neither a Dem or GOP member so this is not a partisan attack, but this seems to be one of the major problems we face-Big Government. I am not saying that the first lady for either party should not have an assistant that is paid well, but does she need so many people with combined salaries reaching close to $1M annually??? Sure it easy to shrug it off and say that with trillion dollar budgets, and deficits, a million is peanuts, but take into account that every major player in federal & state government has this type of posse and it appears we are wasting what could be billions in tax payer money.

If the current administration continues with the "government should have a department to oversee every facet of our lives" mentality there will be more leaders with more staffers that appears will just compound this problem. Trust me when I say, I am not anti-Dem, I don't believe for a second that the GOP ticket would have us out of the current recession any faster, but big government and socialism is not the answer.

 

[Len44]

I am not saying that the first lady for either party should not have an assistant that is paid well, but does she need so many people with combined salaries reaching close to $1M annually??? Sure it easy to shrug it off and say that with trillion dollar budgets, and deficits, a million is peanuts, but take into account that every major player in federal & state government has this type of posse and it appears we are wasting what could be billions in tax payer money.

Excellent point! Of course, I think that the current First Lady only needs these people to the extent that Laura Bush needed all those people to assist her...

If the current administration continues with the "government should have a department to oversee every facet of our lives" mentality there will be more leaders with more staffers that appears will just compound this problem. Trust me when I say, I am not anti-Dem, I don't believe for a second that the GOP ticket would have us out of the current recession any faster, but big government and socialism is not the answer.

It would seem that thus far there is far less oversight of "every facet of our lives" than under the Bush/Cheney administration...

Sure wish we could see more statesmanship and less blatant partisanship than what we're getting these days. If the Republicans had any idea how ridiculous they appear by opposing anything and everything the President (who is, uh, actually Leading) proposes, they might get some new leadership to replace the silly Mitch McConnell & John Boehner show.

Earlier, the President reached out to Republicans in a spirit of cooperation, and was soundly rebuffed. Somehow, some folks have got it in their heads that their job is to oppose anything and everything the President seeks to accomplish for our Country.

Gotta remember -- it was Bush and Cheney who got us to this point. It will take time and great effort to dig us out of the The HUGE mess those folks buried us under.

 

[tsmooth]

Sure wish we could see more statesmanship and less blatant partisanship than what we're getting these days. If the Republicans had any idea how ridiculous they appear by opposing anything and everything the President (who is, uh, actually Leading) proposes, they might get some new leadership to replace the silly Mitch McConnell & John Boehner show.

Earlier, the President reached out to Republicans in a spirit of cooperation, and was soundly rebuffed. Somehow, some folks have got it in their heads that their job is to oppose anything and everything the President seeks to accomplish for our Country.

Gotta remember -- it was Bush and Cheney who got us to this point. It will take time and great effort to dig us out of the The HUGE mess those folks buried us under.

You try to make a bipartisan point by going on a partisan rant? Why are you so worried about the Republicans when you do not need one single vote in the Senate or the House? Don’t you want the Republicans to be raked over the coals when all this sweeping legislation takes hold, pulls us out of this mess, and makes the Democrats look great?

Republicans don’t support these moves because they are fundamentally opposed to what the President is doing. Running a 1 TRILLION dollar budget deficit just over half way through the fiscal year is reckless (note that the WORST budget deficit under GW Bush was 400 Billion). What happens if we cannot float bonds to cover this massive shortfall? Do we just create more money? What kind of effect is that going to have on the savings and futures of Americans?

Is opposing Obama’s plans on the economy and healthcare really looking ridiculous? From what I can tell there is a downward trend in Obama’s “approval” rating, corresponding to an upward trend in the “disapproval” rating. It seems the American public is changing heart as they discover what is really contained in these proposals:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

To your other point, Republicans are opposing ideas but are also creating alternatives. Congressman Paul Ryan (R) Wisconsin created the “Republican Substitute to H.Con.Res 85” or the Budget Alternative. This budget proposal thinks about the long-term effects and creates a plan for sustainability for generations to come. It does not use a finical crisis as a basis to expand the government and ram through short-term goals.

http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/hbcrepbudget.shtml

It also breaks down healthcare, Medicare, and Medicaid with plans to keep them finically viable. In contrast, the plan being floated for Nationalized Healthcare is similar to the plan enacted in Massachusetts in 2006. Judging by the costs and the way people are gaming the system, is this really another topic we want to deal with during the worst economic times since World War II?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726287099225209.html

It was even imposed by Mitt Romney, so what would happen if this bill was mostly written by less conservative authors? Once again, can we really afford that right now?

 

[Len44]

You try to make a bipartisan point by going on a partisan rant? Why are you so worried about the Republicans when you do not need one single vote in the Senate or the House?

For the record, I am hardly "worried" about the Republicans...although the 60 Democratic Senators do not necessarily constitute a solid 60 votes every time, on every issue. For instance:

- Some Democrats seem to vote independently, not just how the party leaders tell them to vote. Some may note this as a contrast with another political organization.

- Some Senators, notably Kennedy and Byrd, are only able to participate on an occasional basis. Sad, but this is the reality of the situation.

- Finally, as John F. Kennedy once rather famously remarked: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Don’t you want the Republicans to be raked over the coals when all this sweeping legislation takes hold, pulls us out of this mess, and makes the Democrats look great?

As a registered Republican myself, I would say "not especially." Again, what I would really like to see is for both parties to work together for the good of the country. Used to see this quite a lot. I can pretty well pinpoint when the train left the tracks on this, but some would just accuse me of rabid partisanship -- or "going on a rant."

Republicans don’t support these moves because they are fundamentally opposed to what the President is doing.

With all due respect, Republicans don't support ANY proposals by the President because they have the crazy-A$$ idea that their job is to oppose anything and everything, because, because...well, by golly -- it's not their idea. This is not only sad, it is pathetic.

Running a 1 TRILLION dollar budget deficit just over half way through the fiscal year is reckless (note that the WORST budget deficit under GW Bush was 400 Billion). What happens if we cannot float bonds to cover this massive shortfall? Do we just create more money? What kind of effect is that going to have on the savings and futures of Americans?

Funny how this was never a concern when Georgie B & the Boyz were running up ruinous deficits after inheriting a terrific economy from (sorry, know you probably hate him) President Bill Clinton.

Is opposing Obama’s plans on the economy and healthcare really looking ridiculous? From what I can tell there is a downward trend in Obama’s “approval” rating, corresponding to an upward trend in the “disapproval” rating. It seems the American public is changing heart as they discover what is really contained in these proposals:

<Yawn> This is widely recognized as the normal "settling" that occurs during this period with nearly all Presidents. The really sore point for some is that President Obama's popularity remains higher than Bush's at similar points in their respective terms.

To your other point, Republicans are opposing ideas but are also creating alternatives. Congressman Paul Ryan (R) Wisconsin created the “Republican Substitute to H.Con.Res 85” or the Budget Alternative. This budget proposal thinks about the long-term effects and creates a plan for sustainability for generations to come. It does not use a finical crisis as a basis to expand the government and ram through short-term goals.

Good Grief!!! In NO way is President Obama using this "finical (sic) crisis as a basis to expand the government and ram through short-term goals."
Fixing this current awful mess (referring here to the health-care system) was a significant issue early on in Barrack Obama's campaign for the Presidency -- well before the depth of the financial crisis was known. Which, BTW, was, uh, and I hesitate to mention this, but some might suggest was brought on in large part by the "benign neglect" / lack of oversight during the eight long years when Sir George reigned supreme...

But, I am glad to see that at least the Republicans are at last proposing something. I'm sure that the Democrat leadership will give it the same consideration that the Republican leadership gave their proposals...

Judging by the costs and the way people are gaming the system, is this really another topic we want to deal with during the worst economic times since World War II?

Naw, probably not. Since these are "the worst economic times since World War II" we should probably just bring all the troops home, turn everything over to the bankers, crawl under the covers, and bend over and kiss our butts goodbye. Yeah, let's just give up, shrink from every challenge -- yeah, that's the ticket.

Damn, now wouldn't that make us all pumped up with that indomitable American Spirit?!?!??

Sheeezh!!!