Friday, December 31, 2010

Bush took a lot of vacations, so why shouldn't Obama?

There's a story in the Washington Examiner today about how much President Obama's vacation is costing. Evertytime Obama goes on vacation there's such a report.

In the comments section of these online articles, there's always the same rebuttal....Bush took more vacation time than any other President, so its hypocritical to complain about Obama's vacations.

Here's the rub: the US is more in debt now than its ever been, unemployment is at 10%, it would be nice if Obama would show some kind of sensitivity to the plight of the people by working harder than Bush did. If he must take vacations, why not take them in Florida, or Las Vegas, which are really hurting right now?

Then of course there's Obama's carbon footprint. We the people are supposed to cut back on our use of gasoline (and if we won't do it voluntarily we'll be forced to give it up because gas will be $5 a gallon by next year), our use of non-recycable items, ya da ya da...but the Obamas have their secret service (and if the secret service is there why do extra police need to be there?) and so on.

What other presidents did or didn't do doesn't matter. At this time in our country's history, should a president be splurging on vacations when he's already taken so many? And while 10% of the populace can't afford to do so?

No comments:

Post a Comment