Big-spending Obamas cost 23 times more than British royal family


The Obamas dance at a coronation — er, inauguration ball
Photo credit

When compared to the cost of maintaining the first family, the British royal family members are a bunch of outright pikers.

We use the phrase, “live like a king,” to describe the epitome of living large. When we do so, we’re talking real mansions — not the fake “McMansions” popular among today’s nouveau riche. Also included are the second and third homes, annual European vacations, exotic cars, fancy yachts and private jets — the whole schemer.

But what would it take to live not “like a king,” but as a king?

According to Wikipedia, that would be 40 million pounds, or about $60 million. Now that’s what I call living, something a guy could get used to. But as it turns out, it’s nothing as compared to what the first family spends.

The cost of maintaining our own royal family — the Obamas — is a whopping $1.4 billion with a “B,” as reported by the National Review. That means that Queen Elizabeth and her family’s expenses are a mere 4.3 percent of the Obama clan. Stated differently, the Obamas spend more than 23 times what the British royal family does.

Particularly galling is that with the sequester cuts initiated Mar. 1, the president doesn’t believe he can continue paying the $18,000 per week for the White House tour staff.

The National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke notes:

There was a reason that the Founding Fathers rejected titles and honorifics in favor of simplicity. Thankfully, the straightforward address, “Mr. President,” won out over the pretentious names that John Adams suggested, which included “His Majesty the President,” “His Mighty Benign Highness,” and “His High Mightiness.” (The Senate rather cruelly mocked Adams by suggesting it refer to him as “His Rotundity.”) Too many in our government have forgotten which way around this is supposed to work. Here in America, it’s supposed to be small government, Big People.

Here’s a postscript on the British royal family. Although it costs Great Britain 40 million pounds to maintain the royals to the manner born, they return to the treasury 200 million pounds in rent received from royal land. So in actuality they make money for the kingdom.

Meanwhile, there’s still a group of disappointed Iowa sixth graders that doesn’t understand why they’re prohibited from visiting “the people’s house.”

Read more at the National Review.


20 thoughts on “Big-spending Obamas cost 23 times more than British royal family

  1. Ralph Dtex says:

    Jeanette, your racism is a disgrace to this nation. You accept crappy factoids to spew your hatred of anything not white. If you want to be taken seriously, you should really consider that facts and compare them to previous spending patterns. But since you really don't care and you just wish to attack Obama you sound like an idiot.

  2. Ralph Dtex says:

    GBR= greedy blind republican?

  3. Ralph Dtex says:

    Bob, you and your buddy Neal know a lot about sucking. Dig beyond the bs factoid.

  4. Ted says:

    YOU could offer something original. Or could you. Think about it. Obama is YOUR President for four more years, because the GOP couldn't find a viable, winnable candidate with all their "talent?" working on it. You should cut down on the cool aid, or whatever you are enjoying…

  5. Who gave Borack&Michelle these spending through the roof ??????????????????Last I knew he was suppose to be the president&not live as a king.How do we stop this??????????????????????????Liz

  6. nick d says:

    Racism??? Where do you get her being racist out of this comment? Are we no longer entitled to our own opinions with out that bs being played?? You sir are a tool to attack someone like this and call her an idiot because she doesn't feel the same as you. Reading comments from people like you makes me feel sorry for having defended this once great nation.

  7. big al says:

    Ralph your racism towards Jeanette is out of line

Comments are closed.

Related Posts