Jim Crum sent me this list of salaries of Michelle Obama's staff. Note that five of her staff earn over $100,000 per year. I am certain that they make major contributions to the public welfare. Certain.
1. $ 172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director
of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and
White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and
Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 -Medina
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First
Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the
First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the
First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social
Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social
Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events
Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for
the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First
Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press
Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and
Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For
The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to
the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and
Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 -
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First
Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the
First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the
First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social
Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social
Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events
Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for
the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First
Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press
Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and
Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For
The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to
the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
7 comments:
Perhaps, Dr. Langbert you should look at this
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77011/when-shuls-were-banned-in-america
I'm not sure the two circumstances are the same, although I am sympathetic to your point. In the 1600s it was the norm to establish state religions here. New Amsterdam was a commercial colony but even so Peter Stuyvesant did not want to accept Jews. This wasn't because of anything the Jews did to the Dutch but because of a view of society as rooted in religious faith. It is necessary to recall that (1) Muslims were nowhere permitted in Christian Europe; (2) a number of Christian countries including England and France had evicted Jews during the Renaissance; (3) the Catholic-Protestant warfare, violence, torture and cruelty were horrific in 1500s to 1700s. It might have been interesting if the Jews had founded their own colony as did Roger Williams, who objected to the Massachusetts Puritans' handling of the Native Americans, and who supported the separation of church and state to the chagrin of the Massachusetts colonists.
Likely there were too few Jews to constitute a separate colony but that would have been fascinating. In any case, there was no Bill of Rights until 1776 and the states continued to maintain state religions for several decades after that.
I don't believe the case of the World Trade Center mosque is similar because it is a private matter. For example, would it be appropriate for a society that advocates German ethnic ties to open up shop across the street from the Holocaust Museum? There is nothing wrong with the German organization per se, no one objects to it, but the taste involved might be inappropriate. Insisting on the German organization's right to do so is itself tasteless and offensive, which is characteristic of the Democrats such as Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg (who lies and calls himself a Republican, his party is Bloombergicanism). A debate over foolish tastelessness is not quite the same thing as the question of First Amendment rights that you raise, but I appreciate your point. Certainly all religious groups ought to have rights.
The First Amendment does not protect "appropriate" or "tasteful" speech. It just protects "speech". Coming to your example, in The Village of Skokie the US Supreme Court permitted the Nazis to march even though many Skokie residents were Holocaust survivors.
If you would have read the article, it says:
n Connecticut, for example, statutes limited the right of religious incorporation to Christians long after the Bill of Rights mandated religious liberty for all on the federal level. It took a special act of the state legislature, in 1843, to ensure that “Jews who may desire to unite and form religious societies shall have the same rights, powers and privileges as are given to Christians of every denomination.” Thanks to this act, Congregation Mishkan Israel opened in New Haven that year; it was only the second synagogue in all of New England.
Many attorneys, in fact, most make over 100 K, many bill upwards of $500-$1000 per hour.
Their jobs are also for life, very few are ever criminally prosecuted in Canada - its a brother/sisterhood and you cannot file criminal charges against an attorney without the permission of another attorney in Canada - an unwritten rule. None of these things would be true for any of these White House jobs.
I don't think these wages are at all high, given the transitory nature of the job. Its likely people just take the jobs to get inside information for investments, better paying private sector jobs that depend on gov. connections after their contract is up. Attorneys also get priviledged information as well wrt stock markets, gov contracts, etc.
I think people need to start looking at the legal profession a lot more closely - the world is the way it is because its run by attourney's, not politicians. They control the courts and ARE the politicians. They have the monopoly on law and justice. Obama is just there to take the hits for it.
I don't think the first lady needs a staff. She should get a job and work like everyone else.
I'm not aware of anyone who says that government can or should stop the mosque (except for Paladino, who is obviously crazy). Rather, they are opposed to government funding of the mosque and against the mosque being built on moral grounds. The same arguments can be made about Nazis in Jewish neighborhoods. They should not do that on moral grounds. It is not a government issue. However, government funding should not be permitted.
"The First Amendment does not protect "appropriate" or "tasteful" speech. It just protects "speech". Coming to your example, in The Village of Skokie the US Supreme Court permitted the Nazis to march even though many Skokie residents were Holocaust survivors."
Post a Comment