Well, this doesn't look too shabby either.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0711nj1.htm

For the sake of context and enlightenment:


For purposes of comparison, please consult Dan Froomkin's 2004 White House Staff List-By Salary published in the Washington Post on June 13, 2004. Tallying Laura Bush's staff from the list provided by Froomkin totals $561,325 in annual salaries for the former First Lady's staff.


In other words, even accounting for inflation, Laura Bush's expenses were less than half of Ms. Obama's--and this was in those flush times derided by Obama fans.

Is this real outrage or faux outrage now that we know Mrs. Obama has twice the staff that Mrs. Bush had?

It's still faux outrage, considering that with a little googling (on my blackberry no less) I found out that Laura Bush had a staff of 21 in 2002.

Quote: "It was a slow day at the White House last Friday, so first lady Laura Bush took her 82-year-old mother, Jenna Welch, her entire 21-member staff, and a couple of us newsies off to indulge in what now clearly appears to be one of her passions - appreciating art."


Source:
Chicago Tribune
Published July 1, 2002
"Laura Bush showing keen interest in the arts."
Byline: Michael Killian

Calibrater: I disagree. I always liked Laura Bush.
@Hoosier- sounds reasonable, so obviously it must be true.

Calibrater: I disagree. I always liked Laura Bush.

I like tongue in cheek.

You betcha.

I know, I just didn't want to be accused of being un-American and hating Laura Bush or anything.


And to GT- You've outdone yourself this time. I'm sure a reporter for the Chicago Trib lied about her staff size just so we could argue on the internet.

Here's another one for you GT. From that liberal rag newsmax.com.

"Laura Bush traveled to Afghanistan in March 2005. Her staff of 21 was not told of her plans."

Newsmax.com
"Behind the scenes with Laura Bush"
Tuesday, October 6, 2008
By: Ronald Kessler

Faux outrage? You betcha.

My point is that if we're going to whip ourselves into a frenzy we might as well direct it towards something that can have an actual budgetary impact- I mentioned in another thread waste in military spending (because it's the largest portion of the budget)

I am pretty sure entitlement spending outpaces military spending

. We should also, as reasonable people debating an issue, take into account prescedent for previous administrations.

And actually, I have 2 sets of numbers from 2 very different sources confirming a staff size of 21. Someone else posted an incomplete listing of salary for other staff members, they counted 12 that were definitively staff members for the first lady. So if I'm a betting man, I'd bet a little higher than 12.