Getting Nervous in Iraq

Iraqi army not ready to take over until 2020, says country's top general

Lieutenant General Babakir Zebari calls for US army to stay beyond Obama's 2011 deadline for complete withdrawal

Matthew Weaver and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 August 2010 08.20 BST

The Iraqi army is not ready to take over responsibility from the Americans, its most senior general has warned, as the White House insists the US army is on course to end its combat role in the country by the end of this month.

Lieutenant General Babakir Zebari told a defence conference in Baghdad that the Iraqi army would be unable to cope without backing from US forces.

He suggested the Iraqi army would be incapable of assuming control for another decade.

"If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians: the US army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020," he said.

This is not the first time Zebari has said Iraq needs the Americans to stay longer, but the timing of his comments makes them significant.

Barack Obama has pledged to hand over military responsibility to the Iraqi government by the end of the August as part of plan to reduce troop levels to 50,000.

Zebari said the reduction in US troop numbers was "going well" but only because "they are still here". He predicted trouble next year when all the remaining US troops are due to leave.

"The problem will start after 2011 – the politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 2011," he said.

Last night the White House said Obama was satisfied that the US could finish its combat role in Iraq safely this month and meet the deadline for removing troops from the country by the end of 2011.

The president was briefed on withdrawal by his national security team and the top US commander in Iraq, Ray Odierno. The White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "The president heard directly from General Odierno, who said that we were on target to complete our drawdown by the end of August. Already we have removed over 80,000 troops from Iraq since President Obama took office."

Violence in Iraq has fallen since the peak of sectarian warfare in 2006-2007, but in July the number of violent civilian deaths from daily bombings, shootings and other attacks rose sharply.

US officials expect violence to worsen as insurgents exploit the failure of political factions to agree on a new government after an inconclusive parliamentary election in March. This week US-backed militia leaders have said al-Qaida is attempting to make a comeback in Iraq.

"There continues to be terrorists in Iraq. There continues to be acts of violence," deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said. But they had not affected "the positive trends" in Iraq and the overall level of violence had gone down, Rhodes said.

The president received an update from the vice-president, Joe Biden, and Christopher Hill, the US ambassador to Iraq, on Iraq's troubled efforts to form a new government.

Biden's national security adviser, Tony Blinken, said frustration was building among Iraqis over failure to form a governing coalition. "There is a sense of urgency to move forward and get a government formed," he said. "We really believe there is forward movement. But it's not up to us."

Federal Debt Grows at a Rate of 25 Times GDP, Two Years in a Row

This is the most frightening Post I have put up on this site. It is frightening because it is based on demonstrable facts and our own logical experience.

According to Stockman, $700 billion to $1 trillion in structural deficit reduction is needed and that cannot be done by spending cuts alone. Politically, he is correct. The Democrats and many of the Republicans do not want to cut anything and the Republicans are against any tax increase.

Tax increases without dramatic spending cuts will accomplish nothing and would probably make things worse.
Misapplied tax increases will hurt economic growth and will reduce the revenue available to the government.

Governmental spending cuts will reduce somebody's income by an amount equal to the cuts. That will be deflationary and increase unemployment. There is no painless or simple way to get out of this mess. It is not going to spontaneously disappear.

As an aside, the Democrats are back in town to save governmental union jobs with $20 Billion more in new debt.

___________________________________

Beware the light at the end of the tunnel
Commentary: It's a debt train about to collide with federal obligations

By David Stockman

David Stockman served in the House of Representatives and was President Reagan's budget director. He was a founding partner at The Blackstone Group and now runs Heartland Industrial Partners, a private-equity fund. This article first appeared on Minyanville.com .

GREENWICH, Conn. (MarketWatch) --

The federal deficit is no longer an abstract long-term problem; it's a financially critical freight train hurtling down the track at alarming speed.

Here's a dramatic way to look at it: Nominal GDP is only $100 billion higher than it was back in the third quarter of 2008. That means it has been growing at only $4 billion per month, while new federal debt has been accumulating at around $100 billion per month.

Yes, this period represents the worst of the so-called Great Recession, but never in history has the federal debt grown at a rate of 25 times GDP for two years running! See "The Road to Recovery: Are We There Yet?"

This time is markedly different in terms of the business-cycle impact on the budget. During the past three quarters of "recovery" -- with real growth of 5.0%, 3.7%, and 2.4%, respectively -- nominal GDP growth has averaged only about 4%. This is steeply below the figure for past cycles when we had 7-10% nominal GDP growth due to higher real growth and much higher inflation.

Consequently, nominal GDP -- the true driver of federal revenue since they tax our "money" income, not the statistical "real" income confected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Commerce Department -- has only grown at $50 billion per month during the last three quarters. In other words, the federal debt still has grown at two times the rate of GDP during what looks to be the strongest phase of the recovery.

Further, if we're in a period of sustained debt deflation, it's extremely likely the GDP deflator will shrink toward zero and real growth will struggle to make 2-3%. Hence, nominal GDP growth is almost certain to be even slower in the quarters ahead -- say 3% or $40 billion per month -- than it has been since last summer. This "realistic" outlook compares with the Office of Management and Budget forecast, which assumes double this level of nominal GDP growth of a 6% annualized rate, or about $75 billion per month.

At the same time, there's virtually no chance unemployment will drop much below 10% in the context of a deflationary "recovery," meaning that budget costs for unemployment, food stamps, etc. will remain elevated, not come down by hundreds of billions as currently projected, either.

Consequently, under the current policy baseline and including extension of the Bush tax cuts -- at a cost of about $300 billion per year -- and with even mildly deflationary economic assumptions, it's not possible for the baseline deficit to drop much below $1.5 trillion any time before 2015.

Triple the debt

So we have baked into the cake a rather frightening scenario: monthly federal debt growth upwards of $125 billion, or three times the likely nominal GDP growth of $40 billion per month -- as far as the eye can see. See "The Main Event: Inflation vs. Deflation."

The publicly held federal debt will be about $9 trillion when the fiscal year ends in September, and since it now is growing at 3 times that of GDP, it should reach $12 trillion at the next presidential inauguration in January 2013. Adding in state and local debt, we'd be at $15 trillion, or a Greek-scale 100% of GDP before the next cabinet is picked.

Every reason of prudence says not to tempt the financial gods of the global bond and currency markets with this freight-train scenario: Do something big to close the deficit, and do it now.

Also, there's no possibility in either this world or the next of obtaining the needed $700 billion to $1 trillion in structural deficit reduction by spending cuts alone. We've had a rolling referendum since the first Reagan budget plan in 1981, and progressively over these three decades the Republican party has exempted every material component of the budget from cuts, including middle-class entitlements, defense, veterans, education, housing, farm subsidies and even Amtrak!

Like Casey, the GOP has been in the anti-spending batter's box for 30 years, and has never stopped whiffing the ball. The final proof is that the one GOP spending cut plan with any integrity -- the "roadmap" of Congressman Paul Ryan -- has the grand sum of 13 co-sponsors, and I dare say half would call in sick if it ever came to a vote. Therefore, tax increases are now needed because it's too late and too urgent for anything else.

Plus, both the Keynesians and the supply-siders are wrong about the alleged detrimental impact on the business-cycle recovery of a big deficit reduction package, including major tax increases. The reason is that both focus on GDP flows, with Keynesians pointing to a subtraction from consumer "spending" and the supply-siders emphasizing a detriment to output and investment.

Blocking the flow

Under present realities, though, the problem isn't the flows; it's the massive, never-before-seen stock of combined public and private debt that's depressing the economy, which overwhelms any "flow" effects from fiscal policy. Specifically, at $52 trillion, credit-market debt today is 3.6 times that of GDP, compared with 1.6 times that of GDP when the original argument of supply-side versus Keynesians opened up back in 1980.

Moreover, this 1980 total economy "leverage ratio" hadn't fluctuated appreciably for 110 years going back to 1870. So I call it the "golden constant," and note that had the total economy-leverage ratio not gone parabolic after 1980, credit-market debt today would be $22 trillion at the 1.6 times ratio.

In short, the economy is freighted down with $30 trillion in excess debt. The process of liquidating the household and business portion of this -- about $24 trillion -- will swamp the normal cyclical recovery mechanisms for years to come. And it's insane to keep adding the mushrooming public-sector portion of the debt or order to artificially juice the GDP numbers for a few more quarters.

Finally, in the context of secular debt deflation, the overwhelming priority is public-sector solvency, not conventional growth. So policy needs to be geared to long-term balance-sheet repair, not short-term flows. In every sector -- household, government, business -- the numbers are awful, and far worse than the bullish mainstream seems to recognize. See "Why Government Spending, Public Sector Jobs Are Burden to Society"

Let me close with one example: At least once a day someone on CNBC talks about the $1.5 trillion in corporate cash on the sidelines and how healthy business-sector balance sheets are.

That's pure baloney. If you peruse the flow of funds, and you'll see that corporate-sector cash assets have increased by $279 billion since the December 2007 peak, and now total $1.72 trillion. According to the same data, non-financial, corporate-sector debt has increased by $480 billion and now stands at $7.2 trillion. Corporate debt net of cash has actually increased by $200 billion during the Great Recession.

Stated differently, corporate debt net of cash was $5.3 trillion or 36.7% of GDP at December 2007 and is now $5.5 trillion or 37.6% of GDP. There's been no de-leveraging in the business sector either -- especially when its noted that tangible assets have also declined by 20% on a market basis and are flat on a book basis during the same period.

"The Fed is largely out of bullets"

The mistake being made should be obvious. The focus on consumer demand is not working. Neither is the deficit spending to save government jobs.

Every government job saved or created takes away from the private sector in the form of taxes or federal borrowing. Creating consumer demand is a good policy if we are trying to stimulate China. China exports more to the US and the spending is created by borrowing more money from China.

Policy should be job creation in the private sector. That can be done by doing less: less regulation, less taxes and less government meddling.

________________________


Aug. 8, 2010, 7:00 p.m. EDT
Fed may resist market pressure for bond buys
Will seek to jawbone market that it is alert to downside risks

By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch)

Confronted with a U.S. economy that appears to be decelerating, the Federal Reserve may ratchet up cautionary language but many expect the central bank will refrain from buying more bonds to bolster growth.

"I am sure they are going to do nothing," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock in Boston.

"The whole question" will surround the language of the statement, he said, where the central bank will want to stress it is "on the job and aware of downside potential," Cheney said.

The Federal Reserve is due to announce its decision from its one-day meeting on Tuesday at 2:15 p.m. Eastern.

The pace of the recovery has been slowing, putting pressure on the Fed to act to ward off a double-dip recession and falling consumer prices known as deflation.

Gross domestic product grew at a 2.4% annual rate in the second quarter, down from a 3.7% rate in the first three months of the year. The labor market seems stuck in second gear with the private sector adding fewer than 100,000 jobs per month since May. See full story.

After the weak job report for July on Friday, pressure for the Fed to take action mounted in financial markets, said John Canally, economist at LPL Financial Corp. in Boston. Economists at Goldman Sachs said Friday they expect the central bank to reinvest the income from mortgage-backed securities it holds back into the bond market - a "baby step," in their words, in the direction of unconventional easing.

But many Fed watchers believe the Fed is still forecasting a slower expansion rather than new danger emerging.

"I don't know they are really prepared to panic about this," said James Glassman, economist at J.P. Morgan Chase.

Many analysts said the July job data did not seal the deal for an easing.

Last month, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke stressed the central bank was "ready" to take further steps to stimulate the U.S. economy if growth turns out to be weaker than expected.

"We are ready and we will act if the economy does not continue to improve -- if we don't see the kind of improvements in the labor market that we are hoping for and expecting," Bernanke told Congress.

Bernanke listed the options he said that the Fed is open to considering.

• The first option would be to signal to markets that rates are on hold for a very-long "extended period."
• The second would be to reduce the interest rate on excess reserves.
• And the final option would be adjusting the balance sheet by not letting maturing housing-related securities run off.

"That may sound good but the Fed is largely out of bullets," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisers.

Many analysts are not impressed with these options and argue the Fed is about out of ammunition, with interest rates barely above zero and having bought $1.7 trillion in housing-related assets.

"It does feel the Fed is at point of pushing on a string. They can pump out more money but all that does is pump up bank reserves," Cheney said.

"If low interest rates were going to get the economy humming it would be humming already," Cheney said.

Some economists said the Fed will not reach a consensus on Tuesday.

"I would be surprised if they make up their mind what to do yet," said Glassman.

The Cordoba Mosque?

Professor Longhair, Big Chief Video ( How you getting back?)

How you getting back dude?

Michelle Obama, Fit to be First Lady of Cameroon.

It is a beyond cliche to note that one of the sad characteristics of most African leaders is a flaunting display of opulence. The opulence is conversely proportional to poverty and always makes an ugly comparison. Michelle Obama would make a fine and foxy first Lady of Cameroon. She would fit the role as perfectly as she fits her growing inventory of multi-thousand dollar dresses.

I found this little article from Ouest France which highlights a French visit by the president of Cameroon to France in 2009:

Paul Biya, the president of Cameroon, paid an official visit to France on July 24 to meet with Nicolas Sarkozy. He then extended his stay at La Baule (on the Atlantic Coast). Today (August 28) he received the medal of the city from the hands of its mayor, Yves Métaireau (photo above). "This is a friend that we welcome" declared the mayor, who was careful not to comment on human rights or on the politics of Cameroon.

During the reception given in his honor, Paul Biya expressed his satisfaction with the trip: "This is the third time we have been to La Baule. We are very fond of it and we will certainly come back."

He then went over his meeting last month with the French president: "It was a success in every way. I respect France for her ability to distinguish herself on questions of democracy, peace, and the development of poor countries. In this climate of crisis, it is necessary for industrialized nations to strengthen international solidarity."

While France reaffirmed her promise of financial aid to Cameroon and confirmed (the 2006) payment of 537 million euro, over a five year period, to help the country get out of debt and to foster development, Paul Biya and his wife enjoy the good life in La Baule.

For two weeks they have been residing at the Royal and Hermitage Hotels, where they have rented 43 rooms at 42,000 euro a night, with thalasso, casino and shopping sprees. Their expenses total in the millions. They are scheduled to return home in early September.

Does it have more than a whiff of familiarity?


__________________________
Politics Daily

Michelle Obama's Lavish Spain Vacation Sparking Criticism
1 day ago

While first lady Michelle Obama continues sightseeing and shopping in southern Spain with her daughter Sasha and friends as "private" tourists, questions are being raised about the cost to taxpayers and whether a lavish vacation sends the right message during tough economic times in the United States.

Mrs. Obama also has a "public" part of the vacation, but it's hardly heavy lifting and without any formal agenda. On Sunday, Mrs. Obama and 9-year-old Sasha will have lunch with King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia at their summer palace on the island of Majorca.

This trip is sparking the first controversy Mrs. Obama has faced since becoming first lady. While Mrs. Obama covers her personal expenses, taxpayers pay for security and support staffers, plus most costs associated with her Air Force plane.

CBS News has run two stories -- on its Thursday evening newscast and on Friday morning -- examining the public costs of Mrs. Obama's travels. ABC did a piece Friday morning about Mrs. Obama and Sasha buying matching sundresses, the ritzy resort they visited and the heavy coverage of the visit by Spanish media. NBC ran a story about the trip as well, and more network coverage is in the works.

Contributing to the developing narrative: a column by Andrea Tantaros in the Thursday New York Daily News headlined, "Material girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation."

"It is very difficult to lead a private life when you are a public figure," Anita McBride, the chief of staff for former first lady Laura Bush, told me. "No one would deny an official the need for a vacation. But the more expensive or lavish the trip, the greater the risk of criticism."

The first lady arrived in the Mediterranean coastal city of Marbella on Wednesday, checking in to the super-posh Villa Padierna, along with her daughter, friends, a small number of staffers -- the East Wing would not say how many -- and a security force. (The Obama's older daughter, Malia, 12, is at overnight camp.)

On Thursday, Mrs. Obama's entourage arrived in the historic city of Granada, also in southern Spain. According to a story in El Pais, before visiting the landmark cathedral in the city, Mrs. Obama's group stopped for ice cream, and didn't mind people snapping pictures on their cell phones. The day also included viewing a flamenco performance and in the evening a visit to the Alhambra palace.

When the trip was first announced, it was billed as "private mother-daughter trip with longtime family friends." On Wednesday in Politics Daily, I wrote that Mrs. Obama may well take some criticism for the Spain vacation. While first ladies always stay at high-class hotels -- security is a big part of the reason -- a five-star resort on Spain's coast creates a potential perception problem. The U.S. jobless rate is still high -- 9.5 percent on Friday. And while Mrs. Obama and President Obama have tried to encourage tourism in Gulf Coast areas not impacted by the BP oil spill, she is highlighting the beauty of Spain's Mediterranean beaches before the first family travels to Florida's Gulf Coast on Aug. 14 for a weekend stay.

During the Wednesday afternoon briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the "appearance" of Mrs. Obama's trip. "The first lady is on a private trip," Gibbs said. "She is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. And I think I'd leave it at that."

While the White House has emphasized that Mrs. Obama pays her personal costs, as do her friends who flew to Spain on their own, taxpayers pick up a big chunk of the tab.

According to CBS News, the tax dollar part of the vacation include an estimated $146,000 round-trip cost for the U.S. Air Force 757 aircraft, not counting ground time; about $95,000 in hotel costs for an estimated 70 security personnel -- Secret Service and military -- who get a $273-a-day government per diem, plus costs for the dozen or so cars in her motorcade. I'm told that three shifts of agents are needed for a trip of this magnitude.

While the trip may not be "politically smart," said Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus on CBS, "it was not a let them eat cake moment."

The East Wing argues that Mrs. Obama is a private citizen, not an elected official, and she wants to focus on her friends and family. While taking August off, she plans to ramp up her schedule after Labor Day. I'm also told the East Wing is not going to react to these stories about Mrs. Obama's travels.

From Spain, Mrs. Obama did keep tabs on the Senate's passage of child nutrition legislation. On Thursday night, the East Wing told me, she called four senators who played a role in passing a bill that is central to her signature issue of reducing child obesity: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.); Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

I don't think anyone is begrudging Mrs. Obama vacations or sharing with her kids and pals some incredible opportunities she has from her unique perch to see the world. Some of this just has to do with the scale of a trip without some official substance.

While former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled with Chelsea and former first lady Laura Bush took Barbara and Jenna with her on trips, the overseas travel was in connection with "official" business that was more than lunch with royalty at their summer palace. And it's not like Mrs. Obama is lacking a diplomatic agenda. Her April visit to Mexico City was the kick off of her "international agenda" with a focus on developing youth leadership.

Mrs. Bush's true personal trips were hiking vacations in national parks with female pals.

Politics Daily readers who weighed in after my Wednesday piece summed up Mrs. Obama's situation.

"redrage727" wrote, "A little restraint would be appropriate in these tough economic times. It would mean a lot to the American people who pay for all these vacations and outings and would go a long way towards better relations with the people of the U.S. "

Replied "melonart," "I believe I detect a bit of envy and jealously in the comments I am reading. I am of the opinion that a public person can't win regardless of his or her choices in their private life..they are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. Let a mother show her daughter a bit of the world."

Murder Most Foul in Afghanistan

The dead are believed to be six Americans, one Briton and a German who worked for a charity providing eye care and medical help. They were part of the IAM, International Assistance Mission.

This is what they said they were doing in Afghanistan:

The IAM is an international charitable, non-profit, Christian organization, serving the people of Afghanistan, through capacity building in the sectors of Health and Economic Development.


IAM’s core values are:

• Dependency on God
• Love for All
• Teamwork
• Accountability
• Learning
• Quality Work

This is what they were doing in Afghanistan:

Over the decades since 1966, Afghanistan and its people have seen a lot of war and other trouble. As an NGO committed to the Afghan people, IAM has always sought to have a good working relationship with the government. IAM's work has been appreciated by the people and the authorities to the extent that it was able to continue its work for all but a few months when it was forced to suspend its programmes.

Over the years the involvement of IAM work in Afghanistan has expanded and now includes such areas as renewable energy, primary mental health care, physiotherapy, teaching English and community development. IAM is focused on working in areas that are the most needy and underserved. IAM now has projects in some of the most remote parts of the country.

This is their reward:

___________________


Eight doctors killed in Afghanistan
Eight German and American doctors have been found shot dead alongside three bullet-riddled cars in a remote northern province of Afghanistan.

By Ben Farmer
Published: 7:58AM BST 07 Aug 2010
Telegraph

Two Afghans were also found dead with the three women and five men the local police chief said.
Gen Agha Noor Kemtuz, provincial police chief, said it was unclear what the group had been doing in Kuran Wa Munjan district of Badakhshan, but speculated robbery had been a motive for the attack.

He said villagers had reported finding the abandoned vehicles in Afghanistan several days ago and an investigation team was sent to the densely-forested scene on the border with Nuristan province, one day's drive from the provincial capital Faizabad.

He said: "We couldn't find any passports or anything," he said.

"Nothing was left behind."

German and American diplomats confirmed they were urgently investigating the reports, but said the remote location was hampering investigations.

A United States embassy spokeswoman said: “We have reason to believe that several American citizens are among the deceased.

“We cannot confirm any details at this point, but are actively working with local authorities and others to learn more about the identities and nationalities of these individuals.”

Badakhshan is considered one of the safer, though most remote provinces in Afghanistan. The poverty stricken region attracts a small number of hikers and adventure tourists.

Unemployment Holds, Michelle Obama Holds Court at Villa Padierna Hotel, Spain

Queen Michelle's Spanish Retreat

The Queen and Her Court

Sodahead

"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, " Michelle Obama


First Lady requires more than 20 attendants

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary. How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:


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)

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. Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

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. 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. 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 Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)

17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)

18. 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. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)


There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .