The article mentioned the trip to Martha’s Vineyard. It alluded to the fact that taxpayers are paying for their trip to Martha’s Vineyard. Is it really true that taxpayers are paying for the rent where they’re staying, and is that the policy? If so, that’s outrageous. We shouldn’t be paying for presidents to go on vacation. While it may be a drop in the bucket compared to our deficits, it sends a horrible message to taxpayers out there.
Bush “vacationed” at the Camp David Presidential Retreat.
The Obama’s vacation in mansions and 5-star hotels at taxpayer expense, while the media pretends not to notice.
The taxpayers already provide a vacation retreat for the president. It’s called Camp David.
I read that the Obamas are picking up the tab for the rent ($50,000 per week) but the taxpayers are footing the bill for everything else — Secret Service, transportation, etc. When Michelle insists on separate planes in order to arrive 4 hours early, that is simply outrageous.
No...we are NOT paying the $50,000 rent (I heard we weren’t from someone reputable on Hannity last night)
Since so many of Barry’s “advisers” are along on this vacay I
wouldn’t doubt that we’re paying for the trip.
You know, he gets a five minute briefing from them and then
it’s off to the ice cream store.
You appear to be a knowledgable history buff Mr. Libertarian, you tell us. Was that a baited question?