castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

I'll follow this post with another one with my commentary:

Second Swearing-In for Bush Is Costly
January 13, 2005 8:34 AM EST
WASHINGTON - It will take President Bush less than a minute to take the oath of office next Thursday, but before the inaugural events are over some $40 million may be spent on parades, parties and pyrotechnics.

And that doesn't include the costs of the most intense security operation in inaugural history.

The amount spent on this year's festivities will rival the $40 million raised to celebrate Bush's first inauguration in 2001, and will exceed the $33 million spent by President Clinton in 1993 when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.

While the partying is being paid for privately, there have been some mutterings about the scale of the celebrations at a time of war and natural disaster.

Money for the celebratory activities is being raised by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which as of the end of last week had received $18 million, much in six-figure donations from wealthy supporters and corporate sponsors.

Among the dozens of $250,000 donors are Home Depot, Bank of America Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ford Motor Co. Kevin Sheridan, a spokesman for the committee, said the fund-raisers were confident they would reach their goals. Sales of inaugural memorabilia, another source of revenue, have been even better than in 2001, he said.

The big donors are rewarded with a variety of inaugural packages, including meetings with political VIPs, tickets to the swearing-in ceremony and parade, and hard-to-get entry into the official inaugural balls and dinners.

The events begin Tuesday with a salute to the troops and a youth concert. On Wednesday there will be a celebration on the Ellipse, including a fireworks show, and three candlelight dinners.

On Thursday afternoon, after Bush takes the oath of office at the Capitol, some 11,000 people will take part in a parade from the Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue, to the White House. That night there will be nine official balls.

Bleacher seats for the parade cost $15, $60 and $125 apiece, while a ticket to a ball - with the exception of one ball for military personnel, which is free - runs $150.

The office of the first lady said Laura Bush will personally pay for her outfits to inaugural events, which include gowns designed by Oscar de la Renta, Carolina Herrera and Peggy Jennings.

"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted - if not canceled - in wartime," Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. wrote Bush on Tuesday.

Eight congressional Democrats from the Washington area on Wednesday wrote another letter to the president complaining of what they said was the unfair financial burden being imposed on the District of Columbia.

D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams has estimated it will cost the district $17.3 million to help pay for security at the first post-Sept. 11 inauguration, which includes 6,000 law officers and 2,500 military personnel to guard the 250,000 people at the swearing-in and the half-million expected to line the parade route.

Williams, in a letter last month to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, said he can use $5.4 million from a fund for special events in the capital, but the other $11.9 million will have to come from the city's federal homeland security budget.

The expenses, Williams said, include $5.3 million in overtime costs for police officers and $2.9 million to cover logistics costs, such as transportation, lodging, box lunches, water and granola bars.

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, which is responsible for the swearing-in ceremony, has $1.25 million to handle various production costs, such as staffing and printing, as well as catering and flowers for the luncheon in the Capitol following the oath of office.

The Architect of the Capitol also has a budget of $2.8 million as part of a construction project to spruce up the West Front of the Capitol, where the ceremonies will take place.

Inauguration day, with its street closings and heightened security, will also be a holiday for federal workers in the Washington area. That, according to the Office of Personnel Management, costs taxpayers an estimated $66 million.

---

On the Net:

Presidential Inaugural Committee: http://www.inaugural05.com/

Joint Congressional Committee: http://inaugural.senate.gov

Copyright 2004 Associated Press.

[JuntaJoe]

I've seen articles similar to this and heard the mutterings on various media outlets concerning the inauguration.

I waited to opinionate until I stumbled across the AP report as it doesn't lapse into hyperbole.

I simply don't know what I'd do without AP reporting.


Anyway, about the inauguration costs......

I'm of mixed opinion on the concept of a fancy expensive inauguration.

First, the size of it all. Do we really need such a fancy affair in wartime? Of course, this is one of those wars like the Cold War that might go on for years or decades and we simply can't live with the bunker mentality for that long. We do need to live our lives, right? This part of the issue is what really is giving me mixed feelings.

Second, the costs. I am more in control of my opinions here. I could care less about anything paid for by private funding. Let them have NASA Shuttle rides for all I care if they use private funds for it. But someone over at the RNC had better carve out a chunk of cash to reimburse DC security expenses out of those fancy donations. A short sweet ceremony in the Supreme Court Chief Justice's chambers is all I'm willing for the government to spring for. Everything else should be not come from taxpayers. DC had better get a fat reimbursement check, imo.

[Che]

The coronation is in poor taste.

[Eddy]

I don't know what to think. It is the president of the US, even if I hate the man, I still think the office deserves respect.

[Morticcia]

JuntaJoe wrote: Do we really need such a fancy affair in wartime? Of course, this is one of those wars like the Cold War that might go on for years or decades and we simply can't live with the bunker mentality for that long.

This is not like the Cold War. The Cold War was fought covertly. This is a war where the casualties can be heard about, nightly, on the news.

If custom dictates that war-time presidents, as this dumbo likes to remind us all that he is, hold a muted inaugural, then I think they should mind custom. If not, the only problem I have is that private donations ARE being used, as this cements the fact that the current administration will be even more beholden to the big business interests than they already are.

M

[JuntaJoe]

And while I agree with you, Tish, that private concerns have access to government via money, it is how the government is currently run in our semi-capitalist system.

You certainly can't fault the private donors. If they don't pay in then the competition gets an advantage when they donate. Remember that the most lefty liberal and fanatical right winger both put their hands into the corporate cash bucket. If Hillary had run and won this year, don't you think her inauguration would just as fancy? Note her husband had set the last record.

So given the political system we are currently in, I don't have a problem with all that money being spent by private donors.


So I'm only interested in opinions that cover 2 areas. The rest of you can still comment on the private donor access problem, but I feel that is a topic best left to another debate and not really related to the situation.

My first concern is the appropriateness of the appearance of such a big affair. I'm very interested in everyone's opinions as I feel this is the biggest issue that I'm not decided on.

About the second issue that DC citizens shouldn't pay tax money for security for this party, I suspect that most of us here agree on issue. Even a liberal can see the folly of dumping tax money into party favors. For every cheese platter bought that is less money given to DC to cover its expenses. Someone of high Republican profile really needs to shame the RNC into paying the security expenses. Do we really want the DC police force to run out of funds too early in the year and request a tax boost from Congress just stay funded? And we all know where that supplimental money would come from. Our wallets without our permission.

[estio]

JuntaJoe wrote: DC had better get a fat reimbursement check, imo.

earlier quote from AP:

6,000 law officers and 2,500 military personnel to guard the 250,000 people at the swearing-in and the half-million expected to line the parade route.

The expenses, Williams said, include $5.3 million in overtime costs for police officers and $2.9 million to cover logistics costs, such as transportation, lodging, box lunches, water and granola bars.


Doing the math: 5.3 million in OT for 6,000 officers is $883 EACH.
Add to that another $350 for room and board for all 8500 personel and it sounds like the police in DC are living higher on the hog that Bush is.


I wouldn't be sending the District any money without a bill - and receipts. :lol:

As for the party - BFD. More money will be spent on ads for beer this year than will be spent throwing the parties and parades.

[JuntaJoe]

Hmmm, interesting math.

Yep, I'd demand an itemized reciept too. But DC shouldn't be forced to pay the true bill.

As for the party, I wasn't concerned about the money as I mentioned before, just the festivity of it all in time of war.

[estio]

Yeah, the exaggerated cost syndrome is common in politics. I do agree that DC should be reimbursed for actual costs but good luck getting an uninflated number determined.

As for the level of celebration for the re-election, I think it's all tacky. A new pres should throw a party. A re-elected pres should say "thanks!" then get back to work - war or no war.

The political palm greasing that really goes on at these events is the part of our govt that makes me sick. When Joe mentioned the "semi-capitalist" society comment a few post back, I just hope he meant that the "highest bidder wins the political favor" was the part that detracts from a true capitalist society.

Buying political favor is needed only in govt controlled societies.

[JuntaJoe]

That's one reason, estio.

Toss in social programs and a host of other things and it can't be called a capitalist system.

But as I said, that's a topic for another debate. :wink:


Yeah, I can see a big party at the first winning of an election.

A small party for campaign workers might have some merit after later wins as well.

Yep, Dubya lost a golden chance to real cement his legacy by going the typical route.

He could have set a precedent that would have both done him a favor to his legacy and won him brownie points out the cazoo.

The man has a huge agenda lined up for his second term and the opposition is oiling their guns.

A no-frills example would have put the opposition on notice that he plans to get things accomplished and earned him support from the people. Many a time a president has gotten locked up in Congress and had the citizens bail him out with outrage at the legistlators.

Reagan was a master of that tactic.

Well, Dubya may not get all he wants done this time around, but he'll still have the party to remember. :roll:

[Che]

Nero fiddled while Rome burned :lol:

Quote: The man has a huge agenda lined up for his second term and the opposition is oiling their guns.


hehehehheh... and he has more than just Dem's to worry about :twisted:

Now that the elections are over... quite a few Reps found where they had left their cojones :P

Dubya's entering a minefield that many Reps would rather avoid... Social Security :wink:

[Eddy]

Like anyone under the age of 40 will ever see a dime of the Social Security that was stolen from our paychecks.

[Che]

Actually, I am old enough where changes will not have to much of an effect.

Between my VA Comp and SS... I hope not to eat to much dog food :roll:

Investments are still not back to pre-scandal days :evil:

The party-goers need to remember one thing... even the AP polls, show that voters have lingering doubts and concerns with the Administration.