Lol. There is no attack of her regarding the "shutdown," but rather an attack that as a human being that has a need for 16 "non-essential" personal assistants (servants) in the first place, paid by the taxpayers. Of course she still has more personal assistants that were not furloughed, but still, who needs that many servants on the taxpayers' dime? It is one thing if someone pays for that kind of service from their own finances, but seriously, it is estimated that she has like 25 to 30 personal servants. She has no "responsibilities" required of her under the office as a first lady. I could understand 1 for her and each kid (3), and maybe another 1 or 2 to help coordinate dinners and/or public events, but 30ish? BTW feel free to attack any first lady, regardless of party, who wastes and abuses the taxpayers money, I would support your editorial.
Yes, I know, but these days overspending is the problem, so all "abuse" and "waste" of tax revenues gets attention. Just because it was done before, doesn't make it okay to repeat - multiple wrongs don't make a right after all.
Nothing in the constitution says the anything about personal servants, as that is usually reserved for royalty. Imagine if your local mayor's wife started using city tax revenues for personal servants... This overspending, waste, fraud, abuse... at every level has got to stop.