There has been little attention to a shocking figure placed on the Obama Inauguration: $170 Million. At a time of millions without work and a crumbling economy, it is fair to ask if spending that record amount of money sound the wrong signal to the country. One group, however, insists that this figure is inflated.
CNN is quoting a figure from Mayor Fenty that the city will spend $50 million. ABC is quoting $170 million. The New York Daily News reports that
The federal government has budgeted $49 million for this year’s inauguration, more than triple what taxpayers spent at Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
Earlier this year, the District of Columbia, Virginia, Maryland and the Washington transit authority sent a request to federal lawmakers for more than $75 million to cover a variety of inaugural costs ranging from security to transportation.
It is unclear why a solid figure or estimate is not clear at this point.
However, there is a host of expenditures by federal and district sources that need to be combined and it is not clear where the true figure might fall between $50 million and $170 million. For my tastes, both figures are disturbing. The actual swearing in ceremony will cost only around $1.2 million.
I realize that this is a bit much to ask for, but what if Obama had decided to forego the pageantry and given $100 million to the jobless. I was critical of the obscene amount spent on Bush ($40 million) and I am equally upset with this amount. I believe these balls and endless festivities tend to send the wrong message to our leaders: that they are regal, if not royal.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt held a modest ceremony during World War II and Franklin Pierce canceled the inaugural balls as frivolous expenditures.
Bush has declared an emergency for the District to funnel more money into the event.
These events are getting out of hand. There was a time when a president gave a speech, took a walk or ride in an open car, and went home. There were balls but few in number. Now, every president seems intent on out-doing his predecessor — as if proof of his mandate.
For the full story, click here.
Schlock – for 50 mil? We could put on a nice party for that kinda coin.
This is the kind of thing that leads to revolutions.
You need to consider how much of that bill is going to toward security. No doubt the threat environment is going to be tense with the number of people they expect to have in town. In addition to the massive number of people, given that there has already been at least one disrupted death threat against the president-elect that was made public, in addition to ones that we probably never heard about, the Secret Service is probably pulling out all the stops. I’m not saying that there isn’t some rediculousness in regards to the spending, but I don’t think the matter is as simple as having too many parties or too much extravagance.
I would like to see a breakdown of those numbers. Obviously, security personnel is playing a huge part in the need for additional expenditures. I’m not defending the high dollar amount, but merely pointing out that Obama is the first “new” (non-reelection) president to be inaugurated post-9/11, and the predicted crowds this week necessitate the need for more personnel, particularly in comparison to the crowds (or lack thereof? at least comparitively?) for Bush’s reelection. At the same time, I certainly don’t agree with declaring the emergency in order to tap federal funding- but if the local officials were more organized to begin with, or if DC wasn’t shut out of a real voice in Congress, maybe this wouldn’t have been necessary.
Additionally, it’s a great service to the public to include the A/V equipment so that those not lucky enough to get a ticket to the event can be included in this moment, not to mention the expenses of the necessary things like toilets.
So, maybe $160 million is too much- but I won’t pass final judgement without seeing where all that money is going.
I agree and I appreciate that Professor Turley openly expresses his opinion. Given the tough economic times, I prefer a more austere recognition of the peaceful change of political power.
However, I think that the majority of people have had 8-years of nothing whatsoever to celebrate; therefore, let the masses, and the world, exult in the ‘defeat’ of the Bush et al. corruptness and mismanagement that has led us to the brink of complete financial destruction. Furthermore, this might be one of the last opportunities for such financial extravaganzas.
FFLEO,
Eh, I’ll have to concede the “celebrate the defeat of Bush” point.
Buddha,
As much as I consider this inappropriate and wasteful spending, I think it is more about an expression of what the people want and need after an 8-year political drought.
What a waste of money. We’re heading into a depression, people are losing jobs, the stocks are going down and we’re spending our tax dollars on a $160 million dollar party? I don’t care if this is our first mixed raced president, it still doesn’t justify the costs.
Yeah it’s a lot of money and could be spent otherwise, but… it’s not exactly like they’re loading pallets of bills onto semi’s, is it? Or FedExing it straight to the Caymans?
That money (the $160M) is going into the economy, it’s buying security, utilities, musicians, venues, party clothes, etc, etc.
And it’s not like it will be alone, either. There will be tailors and sales staff selling the party clothes. People will be setting up and cleaning up the Balls. The hordes coming to the Inauguration are not ALL going to be sleeping on the floors of friends in the area, and eating PB&J’s they’re bringing from home — SOME of them will be staying in hotels and eating in restaurants… which means work for wait-staff, cooks, dishwashers, maids and laundry folk, dry-cleaners, cabs, and on and on.
It’s the same exploding head I get every time somebody says “the space program money was wasted”.
chimene – “It’s the same exploding head I get every time somebody says “the space program money was wasted”.”
I thought I was the only one this happens to.
~cough~ bread&circuses ~cough~
First, this employs people. A lot of people.
Second, a lot of this is probably security costs.
Third, a lot of this is paid for by non-government funds.
Fourth, the best rationale for this chunk of change is that it means that Bush is out of Washington — now that’s priceless.
A small ceremony wouldn’t require all that security. Yes, this sends the wrong message. This is like “birthday party wars” and it shows a lack of understanding of the dire financial straights so many people are in. Just as it’s not necessary to spend tons of money to celebrate and show the love and happiness one feels at a child’s birthday, this money is not necessary to express people’s joy with Obama’s election.
Do lavish parties and spending really express this happiness? If they do, are they the only way it may be expressed? I just don’t believe so.
I thought Clinton’s coronation was over the top and now he’s just a piker. This is such a hard time for so many. Why not go small, dignified, and acknowledge that wretched excess got us into this problem in the first place. Why not give the money to the poor?
MASk,
Come on, we’re nothing like ancient Rome; our aqueducts are all underground.
Chimene I heartily agree with you!
Compared to the $700 billion bailout this local economic stimulus is chump change! (pun intended for benefit of trolls: W=chump O=change)
Time to celebrate – let the party begin!
Remember 2001:
Here’s an alternative account …
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200901140010
Larick thanks for the link!
Look, it doesn’t really matter if Obama&Co. plan a party for 10 or a party for a million, there are going to be more people in the city and surrounding than the area can support. Many people are coming in from out of town– I know significantly more people from out of town who are going to inaugration than people from the area going.
A lot of the money is security for Obama— but a lot of it is for the people who are going to attempt to get to inauguration. I say try, because it’s going to be impossible. For example, every single bridge from Virginia into DC is closed to normal traffic. The metro will be running on “rush hour” schedule, but they anticipate “crush”
levels. Yes, that is exactly as scary as it sounds.
The federal government didn’t spend money preparing for Katrina, and we aren’t happy they saved the money. Declaring the DC Metro area a free-for-all zone except immediately around Obama would save a lot of money too—- but it would also result in a National Tragedy.
I usually not a big fan of big government paid celebrations, but I agree with Former Fed and Buddha, et al that it is time to have a big party to celebrate the freeing of a people from the yoke of the oppressive Bush/Cheney regime. The fact that it helps the regional economy is just an added plus.
Yasminah: I agree 100%.
And look at it this way — it’s cheaper than a revolution.
1. Any civic, state, or federal agency with any responsibility for the Inauguration has been trained over the past 8 years to request and receive more money for security. Mostly, for the appearance of security. There will be a lot of security theater. A little of it will be effective.
2. In some segments of American society, Barack Hussein Obama is regarded as un-American, anti-American, and a one-man sleeper terrorist cell who has risen to the highest office in the land. Undoubtedly, there will be others who profess less excuse for their opposition to the first black President. All these people have the right under the 2nd amendment to bear arms – or, carry a loaded gun. Such people pose a threat to the properly elected President of the United States for the duration of his term. I hope that police forces are going to have the resources to counter armed opposition to Obama completing his Inauguration.
3. Money spent on constructing the sets for the events, on waiting on the revelers, on driving them to and from hotels, on manning the checkpoints, is not going directly into the pockets of the Wall Street tycoons whose bonuses have fallen below 7 figures this year. The people who serve the people who party should benefit at this time.
4. This is history. This is an unprecedented event. It’s not so regal, that’s the departing President, Mr. Unitary Executive. This is Mr. Vox Pop.
5. Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town: not only does Obama become President of the US, but the worst President in the history of Presidents leaves. There is much to celebrate in this, in spite of the state of the economy. Let freedom ring: let America rebound.
6. Some perspective:
$350,000,000,000 has already been spent on Wall Street under TARP, That much again has been released this week, and more than three times this much has been spent on the Financial Crisis outside of TARP. The Washington Post has estimated the cost of the war in Iraq – leaving the war in Afghanistan aside – at over $340, 000,000 per day.
$160,000,000 – the high estimate – is less than twelve hours of the war in Iraq. If $160 million per working hour had been spent on Wall Street by Hank Paulsen, it would have taken more than a year to spend half the TARP funds – but it’s gone in about two months.
Yes: Hank Paulsen has spent enough money to hold an Inauguration every hour of the day.
Where’s my invite? Where’s yours? Hank? Did you forget someone?
We are losing our way with this expensive inauguration. If John McCain had spent this kind of money, we would all know it was wrong. If John McCain had ordered a paramilitary police force to surround D.C., we would know that was wrong. Instead, we are cheering both these things along.
To me, we are at a dangerous crossroad in this society. When we say something is O.K. because “our” guy is doing it, even though if someone else did it, we would protest, then we are following a person, a cult of personality, not our Constitution.
I still mainitain that it does not take 50+ million dollars to celebrate the end of cheneybush or the election of Obama. A celebration is not money dependent. It is like saying people who have the most expensive wedding will have the best marriage.
Let there be joy or celebration. It doesn’t need to cost that much ever, and especially not in hard times. After the celebration it is more important than ever to keep our heads, pay attention to what is being done, and demand that our newly elected president do what is right, not what is politically expedient.
‘…Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies, told the New York Daily News, which estimated the cost at $160m: “We’re always very budget conscious. But we’re sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful
transition of power, and you don’t want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is.”…’
—-
I think it is appropriate to have a jubilant celebration. I also, however, agree it’s not necessary to be ostentatious about it.
Whatever it ends up looking like, I doubt it will be characterized as ‘schlock’ – not for 50 million plus. I have no doubt that there will be lots of economic stimulus provided by the millions of people participating, independent of the funding budgeted for public services including security. Spending money makes money.
Encouraging individual celebrations and supporting community ones is very smart.
We are opening up our kitchen/family room Monday, and again on Tuesday on a smaller scale, to Inaugural Blinis n’Martinis – a variation on Vodka & Latkes which is always fun where everybody contributes.
I am featuring Maine Sweet Potato and Yukon Gold Blinis and inviting people to bring the ‘toppings’ from caviars, cured/smoked salmon, smoked trout, creme fraiche/herbed sour cream, homemade salsas and ‘marmalades’, cheeses, and roasted vegetables – whatever they can come up with that’s festive ie ‘non-schlock’.
We are planning to do some BBQing on Tuesday because people are coming here right from work etc and then we’re going to all watch the swearing in etc, together, on video.
This article involves part of the inauguration monies and the source.
Quote from salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/17/sirota/
“Obama sells out to Wall Street
The president-elect’s support of the bank bailout is payback to his wealthy Wall Street supporters.” By David Sirota
{Quote: “Amid paeans to “new politics,” we’re watching old-school paybacks from a politician who raised more Wall Street dough than any other — a president-to-be whose inauguration festivities are being underwritten by the very bankers who are benefiting from the bailout largesse.
“Or maybe before attempting more sleight of hand, Obama should take a moment away from studying Lincoln’s speeches and Roosevelt’s fireside chats and recall the irrefutable sagacity in one of the most (in)famous Bushisms of all.”
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee,” the outgoing president said early in his first term. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me (twice) — you can’t get fooled again.” …End Quote}
Barry Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jan 17, 1:23 pm ET
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.
“President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake,” the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. “During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignifie
PARTY ON! It’s about time we had something to celebrate.
Whether it’s too high or low, I don’t plan to watch one minute of any of the pageantry. When the guy pisses everyone off in say, 8 months, you wish you would have not voted for him. You think things are bad now, just wait.