the fashionable first lady the world’s been waiting for…waiting for her to pay for her fashions

The media’s favorite punching bag, Sarah Palin, seems to be criticized for everything she does, short of breathing. No scratch that, people have criticized her for that, too. But, for some reason, Michelle Obama is *the First Lady we have been waiting for* and can do no wrong…even if she is wearing clothes she didn’t pay for. Instead of criticism for wearing clothes she didn’t pay for, she is deemed a fashion icon.

The media, and Obama goons dug through Sarah Palin’s trash looking for dirt to discredit her. She was attacked for wearing clothes the RNC paid for, for the campaign trail. Even though Obama erected fake Greek columns, and threw 12,000 flags in the trash, Palin was attacked for $150,000 in clothing the RNC purchased to clothe her family, because they didn’t have anything decent enough to wear, as the world watched.

The garbage dwellers have now gone after her for her per diem expenses.

“Gov. Sarah Palin must pay back taxes on nearly $18,000 in expenses she charged the state for living in her home outside Anchorage instead of at the state capital, officials said Wednesday.

A review of state policy and Internal Revenue Service tax laws determined the per diem payments should be treated as income, Department of Administration Commissioner Annette Kreitzer said.”

But now, we find out, from one tiny little news story on Newsmax, that Michelle Obama has been receiving free clothes. And not a peep from the MSM.

“For years, the press excoriated Nancy Reagan for borrowing clothes and jewelry from designers. Yet Michelle Obama has been doing the same thing — without any outcry from the media.

Accountants say that the first lady’s practice of borrowing both clothes and jewelry raises major tax and disclosure issues, not to mention ethical questions.

“The transactions are clearly taxable,” says Richard Rampell, a Palm Beach, Fla., accountant whose clients include several of the island’s billionaires. “The designers are indirectly paying Michelle Obama to go and display their wares. And they get a huge economic value for it, just as if they were paying a model to do this. If they are paying her in this indirect way by lending her their clothes, then she is actually performing a service for the designer, and she should have to recognize as income whatever the value is of the clothes that she got.”

Aside from the tax implications, Obama is obligated to report the value of the clothes she has received free of charge on government forms mandated by the Ethics in Government Act.

The items Obama has either borrowed or received free have included a $17,313 pair of Loree Rodkin diamond earrings and clothes and gowns worth $1,000 to $6,000. In some cases, Michelle Obama’s representatives have said she will donate the items to the Smithsonian.

That makes no difference, Rampell says.

“If somebody gives her a dress and it’s worth $6,000, and she’s not expected to return it, then she has $6,000 worth of income, or she’s received a $6,000 gift,” he says. “I’m sure that the company is deducting the cost of that dress — the cost of manufacturing, the design, the materials and all that other stuff. And then when she gives it away to the charity, then she gets a charitable contribution for it.”

While some articles in the press have reported that the clothes or jewelry were given to her free of charge or lent to her, none has criticized Obama or compared her practices with Nancy Reagan’s. Instead, the articles have swooned over her fashion sense.

snip

Michelle Obama is not exactly impoverished. Her husband has been making as much as $4.2 million a year, mostly from book royalties. In taking freebies from the fashion industry, she has introduced Chicago-style dealings to the White House and raised questions about any policies Obama may develop relating to the fashion industry. Her refusal through her press office to answer questions about the arrangement or to disclose the details conflicts with the president’s pledge to adhere to transparency.”

Michelle Obama is not paying for her clothes. She is not reporting that she is taking these clothes for free. She is not being forced to pay for her clothes, or report them as income or gifts for tax purposes. One can only hope that now that she has been *caught* she will report the clothes on the ethics forms. The excuse given is that she is donating the clothes to the Smithsonian? How fortunate the Smithsonian will have 100 sleeveless shift dresses in four years. And the Obama’s weren’t even going to be billed for some of these items, until Newsmax called them on it?

“Besides clothes for the first lady, the Obama family has received custom-made clothing for their two daughters from J. Crew. J. Crew also supplied Michelle Obama’s green gloves and other items. On the day that was announced, the company’s stock increased by 10.6 percent. The firm says it will send invoices for the items and that Mrs. Obama will return any unused items.”

Why the hell was such a fuss made about Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, but not a peep about Michelle? At least Palin’s wardrobe went to charity.

And why is Obama always talking about responsibility but doesn’t walk the walk. He tells us to turn down our thermostats but he sits in a sweat box of an oval office. He talks about people who were irresponsible and didn’t pay their taxes, or bills, but appoints a cabinet full of tax evaders. And now Michelle might be guilty of the same thing, if she is not reporting these clothes as income. He talks about stimulating the economy and consumer confidence, but Michelle is accepting freebies, and not spending her own money for clothes.

Obama talks about wasteful spending, and criticizes CEO’s for their private jets, but flies around the country to give even more speeches, talking about our deficit, and to sell a trillion dollar stimulus package. He takes Air Force One and the Marine One Helicopter to fly off to Chicago for the weekend, Camp David for one night, his first month in office. He throws lavish parties, with expensive beef, and champagne. He condemns corporations that fly to places like Vegas for company retreats, but yet hosts a retreat for the Democrats. He preaches about parental responsibility and leading by example, but he smokes.

He blames Bush for the state of the economy, and says he inherited this mess, but takes no responsibility for his votes on Iraq funding, and his part in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle. He talks about fiscal responsibility, but yet, he hasn’t paid some bills from the inauguration, and campaign.

“Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama’s victory celebration in Grant Park — despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions.”

There’s yet another new report of Obama campaign/DNC unpaid bills — this one from Springfield, Illinois. Obama owes the city at least $65,000 for overtime and other costs.

Barack Obama spent a record $760 million getting himself elected president. But his campaign, Obama for America, still owes Philadelphia nearly $24,000 for several pre-election events, and the cash-strapped city hasn’t given up its collection efforts.

The media has been blathering on and on about what a fashion icon Michelle Obama is, and that Obama is a master on the campaign trail, throwing lavish celebrations. Well, I think it would be quite easy for anyone to look fabulous if they didn’t have to pay for their own clothes. And anyone can throw lavish parties and inaugural events, if they don’t have to worry about how much things cost.

Michelle Obama didn’t even pay the designers she wore on Inauguration day.

The hypocrisy is just staggering.