Living the life of Malia
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, Dec. 8, 2012, 9:00 p.m.
As President Barack Obama and his “progressive” pals push forward with their plans to suck even more money out of the private economy, part of their already failed program of attempting to tax and spend America back to prosperity, a new and fiscally tawdry tale of Obama family excess has come to light.
It was in March that the White House successfully lobbied to have removed several online media accounts of daughter Malia's Mexican vacation. It was described as either a “spring break trip” or a “school trip.” Privacy and security were cited.
Malia, then 13, was accompanied by as many as 12 friends. But not only did the trip come at a time in which Americans were being warned of the dangers of traveling to Mexico — for little things like being kidnapped and beheaded by drug cartel thugs — it came as millions of Americans continued to struggle to make ends meet. Worse, the White House tried to hide the trip's price tag.
Records obtained by Judicial Watch (through a federal lawsuit filed when the government ignored a Freedom of Information request) show the cost of living the life of Malia in Mexico was $115,500.87.
It's unclear if taxpayers were reimbursed for any of the tab. But it's the latest in a long line of pricey, president-less, Obama family vacations that now total more than $1 million since 2009.
As Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton notes, it's hardly the message to be sending a nation “in these tough economic times with huge public debt and high unemployment.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Junk nutrition
- The secret ballot: Protect it
- Lever A-1: Pot-infused brownies
- Sunday pops
- THE BOX
- Keystone caper: Pipeline politics
- The big sting: To what end?