So, Michelle Obama is struggling to pay for her kid's extra-curricular activities, moaning about how hard it is to pay for fresh fruit- and meanwhile she and her husband are donating thousands of dollars ($22,500 in 2006 alone) to the venom-filled United Trinity Church.
Odd set of priorities, don't you think?
BTW, at the above link you'll discover that while the rest of the American press is eager to give Obama a free ride, the Chicago press is taking up the slack and actually doing their job. There's also a record of the Obama's charitable donations.
The average American household donates 2.2% of their income to charity, while the Obama's gave less than 1% between 1997 and 2002 (0.2% in 1998). In 2002, when their income was in the top 2% in the US, they donated a mere 0.4% to charity. They gave $1,050 to charity, compared with the average American household's gift of $1,872.
Speaks volumes about his deep and abiding commitment to helping those less fortunate than himself, doesn't it? I guess he'd rather forcibly tax your income to pay for his grand schemes than donate some of his own.
The Obama's donations to charity spiked after he went to Washington- and presumably realised that presidential candidates, particularly Democrats who seem to know better how to spend your money, need to demonstrate they they can give some of their own wealth too.
Public attention to charitable gifts has led to uncomfortable moments for prominent political figures. Then-Vice President Al Gore came in for withering ridicule in 1998 when his tax return showed he had contributed just $353 to charity. So did then-President Bill Clinton, after a review of old tax returns revealed that he had once claimed a $75 deduction for donating a suit with ripped pants to the Salvation Army, as well as $2 for a pair of used underwear and $9 for six pairs of used socks.
Stay classy, Bill.