_______________
Barack Obama's inauguration will be historic.
Never before in the history of this nation has it cost so much to mark the peaceful transfer of the power of the presidency.
Does that make sense given the current economic crisis? Is that responsible? Shouldn't the party be a little more subdued?
No. Those guidelines only apply when Republicans are assuming office.
WASHINGTON -- Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.
The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.
Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.
In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.
...The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.
Obama's inauguration committee says it is mindful of the times and is not worried people will see the four days of festivities as excessive.
"That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it," said committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values."
How hypocritical!
How totally predictable!
"The country" may not be looking at the excess as inappropriate.
I will be.
Spending is already out of control with Obama at the helm, and he's not at the helm yet.
...Security and transportation costs are being paid by taxpayers. And with millions of tourists expected to descend on Washington for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, Bush declared a state of emergency, allowing the district to recover some costs for the event.
It was necessary for President Bush to declare a state of emergency!
When you're watching the inauguration, remember that you are paying for the party. Be proud that your tax dollars are funding the management of this emergency.
The inauguration committee is paying for 10 stadium-style screens to broadcast the inauguration ceremony on the National Mall. It is also hiring garbage and recycling services and renting thousands of portable toilets for what one supplier called "the largest temporary restroom event in the history of the United States."
"The largest temporary restroom event in the history of the United States" -- I never thought of a presidential inauguration as a "restroom event."
It's undeniable. This inauguration is truly historic.
We may never see such a large temporary restroom event again in our lifetime.
_______________
Speaking of being historic, how green is the supposedly greenest inauguration in history?
More.
I think attendees, especially those holier-than-thou green celebrities, should consider purchasing inaugural offsets.
Let's take a quick stroll down memory lane to January 2005:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Washington Post, they were expecting a whopping 100,000 visitors to GW's 2nd inauguration, and were estimating the event would cost $40 million (they actually spent $42.3 million). However, that amount did NOT include the cost of security and other expenses paid for by the government. According to the The New York Times, the government pitched in an additional $115.5 million for GW's bash. Total cost: $158.8 million.
Planners today are expecting anywhere from 1 to 2 million people may try to attend Obama's inauguration. Given the difference in scale, and 4 years of inflation, $150 million is (relatively speaking) a bargain.
There's a funny thing about comparing "memory lane" with estimates of what security may cost for Obama's bash. It's a silly exercise. We need the final numbers.
ReplyDeleteWhat we do know is that Obama’s inauguration will set history again, this time in terms of security.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- This year's inauguration is expected to set many records: the largest crowds, most bridges closed and highest security of any presidential swearing-in.
Barack Obama's inauguration Tuesday is considered a National Special Security Event, a federal designation that puts the Secret Service in charge of security for the entire day. But this year the special security tag has been extended to four days, starting when the president-elect starts making his way to Washington from Philadelphia by train Saturday.
"It will be the most security, as far as I'm aware, that any inauguration's had," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
...Bridges into Washington and about 3.5 square miles of downtown will be closed Tuesday. The security perimeter covers more of the city than in previous inaugurations.
Thousands of extra police, military troops and law enforcement agents, including plain clothes officers roaming the crowds, will be on hand to handle the potentially 2 million people who could descend on the nation's capital.
People attending the ceremony and parade can expect to be searched by machines, security personnel or both. Precautions will range from the routine — magnetometers, like those used at airports — to countersnipers trained to hit a target the size of a teacup saucer from 1,000 yards away.
There will be undercover officers, bomb sniffing dogs and air patrols. Washington's 5,265 surveillance cameras, spread around the city, are expected to be fed into a multi-agency command center. Including the Secret Service, 58 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies are providing security.
...Thousands of officers from 40 police jurisdictions will line the 137-mile route from Philadelphia to Washington on Saturday. Crowds are expected to gather at numerous spots, including overpasses, parking lots and commuter train stations. Obama is retracing the journey of Abraham Lincoln, who also rode to his inauguration on a train from Philadelphia. Lincoln was smuggled under cover of darkness from one train station to another to avoid a feared assassination attempt.
The Metropolitan Police Department's 4,100 officers and an additional 4,064 officers from police departments across the country will be on duty, said John Cohen, a senior adviser in the terrorism information sharing office of the director of national intelligence.
Wow! The cost of security for the "Let's act like Lincoln" train event alone must have been massive. I wonder what the final bill for that 137-mile trek will be.
Now if the security for Obama's inauguration is the most extensive ever, it's hard for me to believe that the ESTIMATES are on target.
There's no way so dramatically much more security in 2009 could cost less than what security cost for President Bush's inauguration in 2005.
Now, I know Dem hack groups like Media Matters compile info and conveniently toss around numbers so other hacks can attempt to fire back at charges of Obama's hypocrisy. I understand the group's desire to stage a defense in hopes of silencing the critics. (By the way, the very partisan Media Matters should be stripped of its tax-exempt status, but that's an issue for another day.)
The truth is at a time of extreme economic crisis, the likes of which we haven't seen according to Obama, and in the midst of two wars, it's both irresponsible and inappropriate to be staging an inauguration so stunningly excessive on the taxpayers' backs.
There's more: Washington Mobilizes 42,500-Strong Security Force for Inaugural
ReplyDeleteThis is literally an unprecedented army of security. $$$
I'd rather he throw the bash so the country can celebrate, with great cause!, and offset the costs by ending the ridiculous war in Iraq.
ReplyDelete1 more day!
So should we just take it easy and hope that the millions of people all have good intentions and behave themselves?
ReplyDeleteYou rebuttal to August26 is sad. You can't write in a post about the costs and then flippantly reply something along the lines of "we'll see" when people point to your complaint being off-base.
Rather than trying to build a grassroots hate storm, try dialoging with people. All I see on your blog is anger, there aren't any ideas about what to do, just what makes you mad.
Here is my challenge to you— try writing a couple posts about what you like in America and what can be improved. And do it without being negative in anyway.
"Birdy," do you know what security will cost for Obama's inaugural festivities?
ReplyDeleteYes, there are estimates, but for "August26" (actually Media Matters) to make the case that President Bush's inauguration actually cost more than Obama's will is ludicrous.
I'm not being flippant at all.
Your attacks on me are way off base, "trying to build a grassroots hate storm." Give me a break!
You obviously don't read my posts if you believe that.
Here is my challenge to you —- try writing a couple of comments about what you like about President Bush and what he has accomplished. And do it without being negative in any way.
Debauchery. I'm not saying there isn't any reason to celebrate but this is just too much.
ReplyDeleteMary -
ReplyDeleteI'd love to know what was so troubling in my last post to this thread that you felt the need to censor my comments.
I didn't censor your comments.
ReplyDeleteYour post is published in full.
I made second post that is missing in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteI didn't "censor" your post.
ReplyDeleteResubmit.