Hope & Change promised to save taxpayers from a lot of wasteful spending, but as it turns out, that kind of fiscal responsibility doesn’t come cheap:

The White House released its staff salary data today as has been required of all administrations annually since 1995. The list goes from the top, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, all the way down to the lowest-level employee. The Office of Vice President and Office of Management are not included. The staggering sum for the Obama administration staff comes to $38,796,307.00.

In comparison, the White House staff salaries for President Bush’s last year in office, 2008, came to $33,193,021.00. That’s a difference of $5,603,286.00, or an increase of 16.9% from the Bush administration to the current Obama administration.

And all this after the left called Obama’s “salary freeze” for White House staff making over $100,000 a “welcome change” after eight years of Bush/Cheney.

You see, it’s not necessarily the amount of the individual staff salary that adds up — it’s the number of staff.

And while we’re at it, President Obama’s “Deficit Reduction Commission” is asking for more funding.


5 Responses to “Staff Salaries: Money Wasting Bush vs. Fiscally Responsible Obama”

  1. OK_Loyalist on July 3rd, 2010 4:17 pm

    What bothers me worse, is the latest stunt from the House. "House Democrats ‘Deem’ Faux $1.1 Trillion Budget ‘as Passed’ "
    Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that "deemed as passed" a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the "deeming" document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget.

    The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed.


    Be sure to look at the roll call vote on the trickery. I noticed OK's only Democrat member Dan Boren voted Yea when thinking that no one is watching him side with Pelosi. Rest assured even though I'm not in Boren's district, I will be donating/contributing to his opposition after our primary at the end of this month. In this all red state (2008 election), there is no reason to have this milk toast minion representing OK.

    Our two Senators Inhofe & Coburn is the kind of leaders that I like seeing represent us.

    Side note: http://www.uselections.com/uselections/ is a great place to find who/what/where of the election cycle of 2010.

  2. Joe Redfield on July 4th, 2010 3:46 pm

    The more you spend, the more you save!

  3. Josh on July 9th, 2010 5:29 pm

    Every single staffer could be making 5 times as much in the private sector. There are under 500 staffers working for the White House. Any private business the size of the U.S. Government would employ 10 times that many executives and executive assistants at least. Hell, most fortune 500 companies have hundreds of employees all of whom make more money and do less work than the lowest person on the totem poll in the White House. The White House is incredibly understaffed and as a result most of the staffers work 75+ hour weeks and most don't get off for holidays like other Federal Government Employees. Goldman Sachs employee compensation was in the billions. $38 million…that's a bargain. And if your response is, well they don't produce a good product, maybe that's cause they're massively understaffed. How well do you think IBM would do if it had a $38 million budget for it's executive staff?

  4. Beck on November 17th, 2010 5:37 am

    Is that why staff is bailing … salaries too low?? And I thought it was because of the leadership, or lack of. But what do I know, I'm just one of those old white women with a tight hold on my gun and religion. Well, my religion, anyway.

  5. Rhonda on January 5th, 2011 4:23 pm

    I can't afford a gun. I don't even make $14,000/yr. with the job I have now, since I lost my job over two years ago. There's 487 White House staffers. How many did Bush or any other president have for that matter? My guess is, they had considerably fewer. Josh is an idealist. His rational is, "they could make more in the private sector." Josh, government employees make much more than the private sector. I know someone who is doing the same **** job I am and she's making $43,000. All I am is an assistant, just like all of the assistants in Michelle Obama's staff or her crummy husbands staff. Ms. Bookey and Ms Jackson who work for Mrs Obama make about $35,000 plus the enormous health care package and retirement benefits. Just where does Josh think this money comes from? That extra over $5.5 million is paying for 37 more staffers for Obama alone, not to mention Mrs. Obama; that rounds out to an average salary per person of $151,440.00. Most people I know who have personal assistant positions such as myself, are not making what these people make in wages, let alone the perks. Josh needs to grow up and do some independent research instead of blindly trusting "the One". By the way Josh, did you know that Obama nationalized student loans (which mean a one bank monopoly), doubled the interest rate and has made requirements that students can no longer receive student loans to attend a private institution such as Cornel, Stanford, Pepperdine, U of Penn, Princeton, Northwestern, DePaul, Yale, Harvard, MIT and even DeVry or a school as insignificant as Everest College? Yes, ONLY state universities, look it up young man. It would seem that only the wealthy will be able to send their children to the prestigious universities and kids who would rather work in a doctors office or a dental office can't get a student loan either. Isn't it funny because Obama won with the majority of the youth vote and he totally messed up their futures.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.