New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Michelle Obama's $300K "Job" at Hospital Eliminated (Obama earmark kickback)

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
You might remember this one...

After Barack Obama became an Illinois state legislator, his wife moved up as well, scoring a job as 'vice president of community relations' at the University Of Chicago Hospital for a very generous salary of $121,910. When Obama became a senator in 2005, her 'salary' leapfrogged to $$316,962 for the same job...and one of Senator Obama's first acts in office was to see to it that the hospital received over a million dollars of your tax dollars as an earmark.

Well, Michelle has moved on,and guess what...that vital job of hers,worth a salary of over $300 K has been quietly eliminated.

It's the Chicago Way, cushy no-show jobs in exchange for political patronage...fist bump.

Of course, she had to work twice as hard to get half as far. She said so, so it must be true.

But I wonder, is this so very different that what Rod Blagojevich was popped for? Except that Blagojevich got caught and embarrassed everybody.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2871169/posts
 

fairsheet

Senator
I remember back prior to the '08 elections, when "earmarks" were at the center of our political conciousness. Unlike a rather surprising number of Congresspeople, both Obama and McCain conformed with the new "rule" calling upon them to actually list and publicize their earmarks. Obama listed his and McCain listed his. Actually though, since McCain proudly requested no earmarks for his constituents, his list was......shorter than short.

Anyway.....back in the '08 day - since earmarks were "all that" - it would've made perfect sense for the GOP to seek out presumptive "flaws" in Obama's earmark thinking. Unless they were even more incompetent than some may thing, it's reasonable to assume that they did look for flaws and found none.

Anyway...I TOO am troubled by some of the presumably outrageous salaries paid out to those luminaries who sit on this board or that, and/or appear to be mere figureheads. BUT....we really can't know whether that salary is unreasonable, unless we know how much that person brings into the organization. If they bring in more than they "cost", it's a no-brainer good deal.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
I remember back prior to the '08 elections, when "earmarks" were at the center of our political conciousness. Unlike a rather surprising number of Congresspeople, both Obama and McCain conformed with the new "rule" calling upon them to actually list and publicize their earmarks. Obama listed his and McCain listed his. Actually though, since McCain proudly requested no earmarks for his constituents, his list was......shorter than short.

Anyway.....back in the '08 day - since earmarks were "all that" - it would've made perfect sense for the GOP to seek out presumptive "flaws" in Obama's earmark thinking. Unless they were even more incompetent than some may thing, it's reasonable to assume that they did look for flaws and found none.

Anyway...I TOO am troubled by some of the presumably outrageous salaries paid out to those luminaries who sit on this board or that, and/or appear to be mere figureheads. BUT....we really can't know whether that salary is unreasonable, unless we know how much that person brings into the organization. If they bring in more than they "cost", it's a no-brainer good deal.
"We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Barack Obama

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam409216.html#Ahyk58WvmUWyLDrm.99
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
I remember back prior to the '08 elections, when "earmarks" were at the center of our political conciousness. Unlike a rather surprising number of Congresspeople, both Obama and McCain conformed with the new "rule" calling upon them to actually list and publicize their earmarks. Obama listed his and McCain listed his. Actually though, since McCain proudly requested no earmarks for his constituents, his list was......shorter than short.

Anyway.....back in the '08 day - since earmarks were "all that" - it would've made perfect sense for the GOP to seek out presumptive "flaws" in Obama's earmark thinking. Unless they were even more incompetent than some may thing, it's reasonable to assume that they did look for flaws and found none.

Anyway...I TOO am troubled by some of the presumably outrageous salaries paid out to those luminaries who sit on this board or that, and/or appear to be mere figureheads. BUT....we really can't know whether that salary is unreasonable, unless we know how much that person brings into the organization. If they bring in more than they "cost", it's a no-brainer good deal.
This is a very fair post as long as you are not one of the people that bash big corporations for paying their CEO's millions of dollars.

Remember if a big name CEO is brought in for say 5 million dollars a year and he raises the stock price to a point that it brings in hundreds of millions to the company then his salary is more than worth it. But of course those CEO's get bashed on here on a daily basis. But it is the same premise as Michelle at 300k.
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
I remember back prior to the '08 elections, when "earmarks" were at the center of our political conciousness. Unlike a rather surprising number of Congresspeople, both Obama and McCain conformed with the new "rule" calling upon them to actually list and publicize their earmarks. Obama listed his and McCain listed his. Actually though, since McCain proudly requested no earmarks for his constituents, his list was......shorter than short.

Anyway.....back in the '08 day - since earmarks were "all that" - it would've made perfect sense for the GOP to seek out presumptive "flaws" in Obama's earmark thinking. Unless they were even more incompetent than some may thing, it's reasonable to assume that they did look for flaws and found none.

Anyway...I TOO am troubled by some of the presumably outrageous salaries paid out to those luminaries who sit on this board or that, and/or appear to be mere figureheads. BUT....we really can't know whether that salary is unreasonable, unless we know how much that person brings into the organization. If they bring in more than they "cost", it's a no-brainer good deal.
"If they bring in more than they "cost", it's a no-brainer good deal."

Exactly.

Hense the previous statement by another poster, "When Obama became a senator in 2005, her 'salary' leapfrogged to $$316,962 for the same job...and one of Senator Obama's first acts in office was to see to it that the hospital received over a million dollars of your tax dollars as an earmark.", get it now?
 
Top