Is Obama’s Inauguration TOO EXPENSIVE?


President Barack Obama’s inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m. This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush’s inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton’s in 1993.

Mayor Adrian Fenty agreed that costs for increased security and crowd control would dwarf the original allocation. And for a city facing a budget shortfall and the same economic downturn affecting the rest of the country, now is not the time to rack up debt, Fenty told CNN.

Contrast that with coverage of President Bush’s last inauguration:

President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?
■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.
■ A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year….
The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt’s inauguration during World War II.

“President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake,” according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. “During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified.”…

Barack Obama’s big shindig will cost more than three times as much money. Perhaps it’s time that President-elect Obama be held accountable for something?

-600 to 700 more armored Hummvees
-Vaccinations for 70+ MILLION CHILDREN
-1/100th of the Democrats’ Congress’ deficit


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

OK, this is another of those trick questions, right?

I don’t know about you, but I’m lovin’ this!

Gotta love that Hope and Change!

The Pink Flamingo

Another non-surprise.

This is merely another example of the executing on the entitlements these folks feel they deserve. Irregardless or the economic situation, war, famine or flood these dogs are gonna have their day for the next 4-8 years.

If you are not already desensitized to this spending by now, you will be…. you will be…

i think this is bullshit. i have always thought these things were way to big, and expensive. why should my tax dollars pay for any bit of this, it should only cover the swearing in. all parties should and probably are paid for by political schleps. this is so wasteful. aren’t they the party of the poor woeking class stiff? how can they afford a coronation such as this? makes me sick, and i really don’t care what party has a party this big, it is insane.

This egomaniac will ruin your country before you have time to turn around. But it is his goal; before you turn a country into communism, you have to first bankrupt it. I still cannot believe that some idiots voted for this bum. God helps America!

Why even have a big song and dance in the first place? Why pay $40m let alone $125m? Televise it in a small room or scrap it;) Maybe Oprah could pay for it? Or have Coke sponsor it – ‘Yes we Coca Cola Can!’

In the UK we have an election within six weeks, the opposition person is already in place so you don’t need all the big fuss about primaries etc. Then whoever wins goes to have a cuppa with the Queen and before you know it in a few days the old PM is out if he or she lost. Not everyone is happy but at least it is dirt cheap. (Except having a Queen and all the fluff about opening Parliament etc)

who the f is this other blast??? I am blast! 🙂

I think inaugural stuff is a total waste of money… just get to work! We have seen enough of you on the campaign trail! Get to work!

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I always had a parade and a big shindig, with a band and dancing, whenever I’ve started a new job. And the new employer always footed the bill!


Ya gotta admit — this is Change!!!

$150 mil and not enough porta potties for the mall, no room for the number they need to accomodate the crowd, it’s also a BYOTP(bring your own toilet paper) event, ‘keepin classy’. I’m betting strolls through the park could be an unforgettable experience. Perhaps bio hazard shoes will replace the much mocked cowboy boots of 2001.

Remembering the criticism of the Bush Innauguration, we now could say that was chump change. Why would anyone be surprised, we’ve already seen that extravagance and Barack Obama are twins. Should he worry about his followers and the potty problem? Naw, just pack those leetle photo ops in.

I honestly hope everything goes well; that everyone has a nice time, enjoys our nation’s capital, and that nothing bad happens.

I believe they will safely have a nice time Scott, we have brave, professional people that have planned for this event, they will make sure nothing bad happens. Whether it was Obama or McCain security will do a good job. I doubt it would have been as expensive if McCain would have been elected though.

I doubt it would have been as expensive if McCain would have been elected though. ~ Missy

Of course it wouldn’t have been as expensive if McCain had won. No one would have performed the hadj to Mec– er — DC for McCain.

I can see hawkers selling those Obama plates now. And just about every other item imaginable. The t-shirts, alone, will drive me crazy for years.

This megalomaniac emperor needs his coronation.
God help all you americans. It won’t be long before he says he rules by divine right.

uh, i dunno, how many food pantries in each state might 170 million help?
“Cuba wanted change in 1959; be careful what you wish for”
PLEASE give Michelle a decent dress instead of one of those “sausage casings”
This is just the beginning of the “In Your Face, Chumps”

Of course, one problem here…

The Bush Bash cost of $40 million was party and meetings only. The cost of security was a secret and excluded from the cost. Last year, a Washington Post story put the estimate ultimately at about $115 million for security in 2005. Hence, total cost for Bush’s 2005 bash was $155 million.

The Obama cost estimates of $160 million or so are INCLUDING security!

If you’re going to compare costs, at least make them an apples-to-apples comparison!

zoomie, got a link we can read up on?

Per the BBC from 1/2005, the $40 million was paid by private donations, the security for the Bush inauguration was $17 million, DC was asked to pay it out of their HS funds.

Note the attitude in this piece.

This morning, Mary Ann Marks, one of Kerry’s former aids said most of the millions for Obama’s is for security. So far he is getting $15 million from Homeland Security and I don’t know how much DC will have to kick in through the city’s Homeland Security funds. I understand security costs for the little train trip are quite expensive, costing Delaware and Maryland some big bucks, they have to shut down and secure quite a bit of stuff along the way.

So, if WaPo is correct, we could doubt them, I would guesstimate that Obama’s security costs could at least double the 2005 Inauguration when all the receipts drift in. Wonder if WaPo will be around to scrutinize Obama’s coronation.

Pull your heads out of your butts people.

“Ms. Douglass of the committee said the expenses this year would be greater than those for any previous inauguration. In modern times, inaugurations have been financed by a combination of public and private money. In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers.

Still, only about 400,000 people attended in 2005, while officials expect at least two million this year. That means added costs for opening the whole Mall, setting up more JumboTrons and providing 5,000 portable toilets, among other items. (The District of Columbia alone spent more than $15 million in 2005 and says costs this year will triple.)”

Pathetic. The same people who decried criticism of Shrub as un-American and un-patriotic are the first ones in line acting like giddy schoolgirls, lapping up and repeating the pablum presented to them by the right wing-nuts and the MSM.
Are you better off now than 8 years ago ?

“Pathetic. The same people who decried criticism of Shrub as un-American and un-patriotic “

Yep… pathetic all right.

Pathetic that you are so filled with hate for a good man.

Pathetic that you don’t even realize that the only elected and senior party officials flinging around the “unpatriotic” “unAmerican” labels were ALL DEMOCRATS.

Downright pathetic.

What an ass.

Enjoy your party and have some fun. We’ll even pay for your porta potties, security and to clean up the mess.

But don’t come dumping your crap about “Shrub” and “unAmerican.”

That’s just…well, PATHETIC!

And what is your contribution to this conversation …???
I don’t hate Shrub, I just can’t fathom the level of idiocy that led people to vote for him not once but twice. But when I see the level of idiocy displayed here it becomes very clear.

Challenge the information I present if you want to be taken seriously by anyone outside the sheeple that regularly read and repeat this kind of un-sourced, un-researched CRAP. The entire basis of the post is undercut. Security was not included in shrubs inauguration and this one is expecting 5 TIMES as many people.

Deal with FACTS. If shrub did such a great job why does almost any credible historian agree that the challenges facing the new president are greater than those faced by any before him ?

Stay in “your” America Mike, because we don’t need you in real America

Are you better of now than 8 years ago ?

I suppose you think the insult “shrub” is how you show your respect for the man?

You’ve invalidated any desire I might have to listen to your vile propaganda.

And you close with another of the famous insults to the patriotism of someone you disagree with.

Again, how PATHETIC!

People who Just theFacts disagrees with have some level of idiocy, especially if they twice voted for Bush. Idiots. Nope, they don’t just have their own differing opinion, they’re idiots.

Yayyyyyy, insults. I think that’s in the Support The Donkey handbook: for those who voted for Bush/those who disagree with your left wing platform/those who have anything negative to say about Obama, it is perfectly okay to insult them. We’re expected to be vile so let’s roll with it.

That’s in the same paragraph as: NEVER give Bush credit for anything good… EVER.

anyone notice an uptick in BDS as the Inaug draws closer? Seems like there’s a bit of longing for scapegoat and hate already peeking out of the dark hole.

They just hate the man-not the policies. If they hated the policies, they’d be up in arms at Obama’s continuing them rather than telling us to “give the man a chance” “give him a break” “He’s not even President yet”

Tuesday boys and girls….TUESDAY

Wednesday morning, the gloves come off. I support the office of the President, the position, the policies he’s SAID he’s gonna follow, but I have no historical evidence/precedent to warrant believing The Infallible One can do anything other than vote PRESENT and read a teleprompter.

I think that works both ways – there’s plenty of those who hate Obama the man beyond what he represents. I think it’s ok to take digs at any politician but the level of rancour seems pretty high with Bush and Obama. But then again I suppose policians of yesteryear – particularly like Nixon, Carter, Reagan & Clinton got more than their fair share of abuse.

Gaffa, American politics is UGLY UGLY UGLY. You should see some of the things our founding fathers did to each other-and each others’ families-back in the day. This is divisive, and I wish it weren’t so, but it’s nothing like it used to be.

I wish people paid attention to the policies and not the people. For example:
Bush/Obama both said they want to close Gitmo, but neither can because no one will take the prisoners, so Bush gets bashed, and Obama gets cover because “He’s not even the President yet” Next it will be, “well, he just got sworn in” Then it will be, “It takes time” etc

Bush/Obama have the same positions on Pakistan, Iran, and Israel, but Bush takes heat from anti-war groups over all three. If W’s a warmonger in respect to those, then why not Obama?

Bush/Obama have both said the US needs to leave Iraq in a condition that doesn’t warrant us having to invade a 3rd time. Bush gets heat, Obama gets free pass.

Bush/Obama both see tax cuts as necessary, but Bush gets heat from people saying that you can’t give a tax cut during multiple wars and a bad economy. Obama…free pass.

I say support/oppose the policies first and foremost

Oh boy, two buffoon’s in a row Mike, one more and we have a hat trick. I campaigned for democrats for years, Carter cured me. What we have now is a President elect that is dumping his campaign promises as fast as he can, rapidly morphing into Bush II in foreign policy. Obama’s social policy is a dem standard, let’s throw money at it, anything, bloated government always works. It’s too big now, just wait til he gets done with it. And how much carping have we heard about the current President’s spending which was congressional spending that he didn’t veto? You ain’t seen nothing yet. Judging from their remarks made in here, these two little dems will not be able to handle what’s coming down the pike.

I proudly voted for President Bush twice because he deserved my vote, you can’t take the fact that he protected this country away from him. Do I regret that he had the congresses to work with that he had, both dems and some reps, yes. Do I think too much was spent? Yeah, reaching across the aisle can get expensive, he wanted his troops funded during war, he went along to get along.

I think Obama can be bashed because he already has a record as a Senator and as a candidate. For things he said and promised.

But inevitably Bush will get bashed more because he has been POTUS for the last 8 years. Obama is going to have to play the cards that have been dealt to him by Bush.

Bush is closer to Gitmo issue – because he sent the prisoners there in the first place. He could of kept them in the Middle East or sent them to the US and he could of tried them by now. So he is responsible for that. So although the limited options now are the same for Obama or Bush – but Bush get bashed for getting the US into that situation. That seem fair enough.

Again with the war – Bush got involved with those 2 wars. Some peaceniks may disagree with both wars. I happen to agree with Afganistan but not Iraq. Either way – Bush may the choices. Because Bush and Obama both want to wind down the troops levels in Iraq – doesn’t mean its a level playing field. The responsibility for going into Iraq was Bush’s not Obama so the responsiblity and criticism is for Bush. Obama wouldn’t even have gone into Iraq in the first place.

Same with tax and spending. Bush gave tax cuts some time ago before the current recession whilst spending a trillion dollars on war. He spoke about but didn’t doing anything on the looming sub-prime mortgage situtation which caused the whole mess. Again although both Obama and Bush’s cure might now be the same – Bush had plenty of time to enact prevention – he didn’t.

On the flip side – Bush inherited things from Clinton when he got in 8 years ago. That’s why – after 8 months in office – I don’t think 9/11 can be blamed on Bush. It happened, it was a shock – but Bush put in a whole load of prevention to stop that happening again.

So after Obama’s honeymoon – there will be plenty of time to bash Obama when he starts making his own decisions on a whole set of issues which will come up which weren’t even connection to the Bush years. And of course he can be bashed on how he will deal with the things he has been dealt with. But it’s not the same.

I don’t hate Shrub, I just can’t fathom the level of idiocy that led people to vote for him not once but twice. But when I see the level of idiocy displayed here it becomes very clear.

The old ‘if you were knowledgeable you’d vote my way’ argument… As in “if they only knew, they’d realize my side was right”… It’s the mantra of every dictator.

Challenge the information I present if you want to be taken seriously by anyone outside the sheeple that regularly read and repeat this kind of un-sourced, un-researched CRAP. The entire basis of the post is undercut. Security was not included in shrubs inauguration and this one is expecting 5 TIMES as many people.

OK, BUT if you are going to compare Apples with Apples, you have to go ALL THE WAY. Obama is being inaugurated during a time of IMMENSE ECONOMIC WORRY! The world is already in EXTREME TROUBLE, and this is before we are even feeling the ramifications of a failing car industry (do you realize what the car industry represents? how many industries it touches? we’re talking plastics, metals, chemicals, mining, the service industry). The word of the day is SACRIFICE! If Obama was about “change”, if he really wanted to LEAD BY EXAMPLE, he’d SACRIFICE SOME OF THE EXPENSES OF THIS ABSURD INAUGURATION.

At this time, Obama should have spent FAR LESS, not far more money.

What a vindication it would be if he actually practiced what he preached starting with the first act as president – what an example that would set for the nation… This would have been a perfect place to cut back as despite it’s emotional ramifications, the inauguration really does not affect people’s day to day lives.

Deal with FACTS. If shrub did such a great job why does almost any credible historian agree that the challenges facing the new president are greater than those faced by any before him ?

Credible Historian? Bush isn’t out of office yet and you’re talking about historians? You are probably talking about the same people who lauded Clinton as a great president when he left office… Of course, as the Bush presidency began, Clinton’s failures became more and more apparent! Under Clinton Al Qaeda was allowed FREE REIGN AND POWER! They recruited, they established & embedded in nations worldwide; they launched attack after attack and Clinton did absolutely nothing. The result was that the Islamic world saw Bin Laden’s organization as ‘credible’ and ‘strong’ – they were seemingly invincible against the mighty USA despite their brazen attacks.

It was Clinton’s inaction that lead to Al Qaeda’s growth, and it was Clinton’s complacency that failed to prevent 9/11.

Furthermore, alot of the credit (or lack thereof) given to president’s is largely undeserved. We often judge leaders simply by the circumstances of the world during the time they lead. Clinton was seen as a strong leader for economy but HE REALLY WASN’T THE ARCHITECT OF THE DOT.COM BOOM (not even close!)… Growth under him was comparable to other Western Nations.

Bush on the other hand, has lead in America’s hardest times in 30+ years. He inherited a worldwide Jihad, a Jihad that had been allowed to fester and grow through the Clinton administration. He inherited a deeply divided America, a division heavily exacerbated by the ‘election issues’ and the vile rheotric that came from both sides. He inherited a deregulated sub-prime loan issue (another issue that he’s blamed for, even though it’s an issue that has been going on for MANY YEARS).

Bush was also attacked by an enemy the USA had no experience fighting (hence the ‘learning curve’ in Afghanistan and Iraq) and was the victim of rheotric that bordered on flat out libel. The rheotric that came from the Iraq War, esp. from Democrats has been DOWNRIGHT OBSCENE. FOR AN AMERICAN POLITICIAN TO UTTER “BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED” OR TO EVEN HINT THAT THE PRETEXT TO GO INTO IRAQ IS A LIE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. Intelligence Agencies WORLDWIDE said that Saddam had WMDS, it wasn’t just the USA! The UN had gone back on threats to deal with Saddam if he did not comply (they gave him umpteen chances) – many there believed he had WMDs. THE WORST ARE THE DEMOCRATS, for they too were calling for an invasion of Iraq (how quickly we forget) – they have since convinced part of the nation that their president sent Americans to death based on a lie. This is what they said before the Iraq War BTW:

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein… now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

For his part, Bush has never retaliated against this libelous attacks (I wish he had, i.e. did you know that 500 tonnes of YellowCake Uranium were transported to Canada recently from Iraq? This yellowcake was formerly Saddam’s). In order not to divide the nation further, Bush never negatively to the endless onslaught that came his way.

Are you better of now than 8 years ago ?
Al Qaeda has been severly degraded : Bin Laden is irrelevant, if they get him good, if they don’t, then so what… It’s the network that’s important, not the man… One American soldier’s life is not worth losing over this man, now that he has been largely neutralized.

The Iraq War has worked in sending a message to the region’s leadership: Egypt & Jordan are finally showing signs of fighting Hamas (Mubarak actually lambasted Hamas in Arabic!); Qaddafi (of Libya) has rejoined civilization (you forget what a force of evil this guy was!); the UAE is opening up and Westernizing; Iraq is no longer a safe haven for terror training camps and funding; even Mahmoud Abbas has lowered the amount of Suicide Bombings and attacks coming from his Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade (yes, “Moderate Fatah” is the mother organization to the AAMB).

The people of Iraq, finally seeing the dwindling of the intimidation & anarchy that comes with every major revolution – are seeing Americans as allies. They are finally recognizing that it is the insurgents that have caused them the greatest misery and casualties (not sure why they didn’t understand it before, mathematically challenged is my guess).

Afghanistan is no longer the terrorist haven it once was.

The War on Terror has kept the terrorists on the run. A terrorist on the run does not have the time nor the resources to launch attacks such as 9/11 and7/7. America has not been attacked since 9/11 (do NOT take that for granted!)

Despite current economic issues, Bush’s early tax cuts proved correct (the best way to get money to the middle class is by empowering businesses (“the rich”) to HIRE) and lead to above par economic growth (again, Clinton’s successes were at a time when the world was flourishing, Bush’s in a far more troubled world)

The LEFT would like us to believe that Bush has ruined Americas image in the world but the facts again, prove otherwise. Once fervent anti-American bastions, France, Germany & many other nations have elected pro-Bush politicians.

Considering the realities of the world today, is America better off – DEFINITELY.

As Obama enters office we are witnessing a gradual move towards Bush policies. As his team is briefed to the realities of the world, I believe he will come to realize that Bush’ policies came as a result of necessity – and will do little to change them.

I believe many of his moves will be largely cosmetic – he’ll ‘close Guantanemo’ by relocating and renaming the camp. He’ll take a clause or two out of controversial acts and rename them (The Patriot Act will become The Progressive Partnership For A Safe America, lol). Beyond that, I wouldn’t expect that much ‘change’…

Fantastic post wingless, welcome to FA!

Bush’s $42 million dollar cost was the cost WITHOUT the cost of security. WITH security it cost $115 million in 2005.

Meanwhile, $150 million dollars in the highest ESTIMATE for Obama’s inauguration, made up by an AP reporter. He said the inauguration “Could cost as much as $150 million.” It COULD cost as much as $300 billion. The Obama number was, more or less, pulled out of someone’s ass. The reporter came up with it based on a $75 million dollar request from the city of D.C.

Why don’t you just admit this entire post is a lie?

wingless, Obama feels no need to sacrifice since he is spending other people’s money. Something he’s quite good at… from his campaign events to his promises as POTUS.

The rest of your comment? Absolutely stellar….

@Michael: Why don’t you just admit that you don’t care about poor people, the homeless and those who have lost their jobs???? If you did, you would be first in line yelling at Obama to donate all the money he’s spending on this orgy to help people in need.

Oh, that reminds me… don’t conservatives in red states give oodles more money than you blue state of mind types to charities that actually help people?

Here’s why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush’s 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration’s security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here’s The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama’s inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.)

Premise fails. You are lying.

I can understand some of the excitement and high costs surrounding a glass-ceiling-breaking candidacy…..if all presidential inaugurations are historic, this one is ground-breaking historic for many Americans. (The reason I say “some” and not “all”- because it really is a moment for all Americans to be proud of – is because I never doubted it would happen; I just wish it happened to a more worthy/weathered candidate who shares my political ideology).

But for a candidate who promised us all big changes, to be a different kind of politician, you’d think that he would have cemented a more larger-than-life legacy on day one, had he done as comment #5 and #8; which is not to say that the people who are excited about him don’t deserve to have the pomp and circumstances parade. I’m happy for them.

Still, in these economic times, all that spending….*whistles*


Here’s why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush’s 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment:

Sorry. I think it has much more to do with having the scarlet letter “R” next to your name:

4. Less is more?
After criticism for his first inauguration in 1981, which cost $16.3 million for nine white-tie balls, President Ronald Reagan attempted to scale back the budget and have a more “for the people” celebration. However, the budget ballooned from $12 million to $20 million, and there were 10 balls instead of nine and two galas instead of one. Apparently, “scaling back” meant that the balls were black tie instead of white and the entertainment was less high-brow than at previous events, according to the Washington Post.

“The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush’s 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That’s right, $157 million.

Unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) ends up costing $630 million, we can safely say it certainly won’t cost four times what the Bush bash did in 2005. And unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) runs to $257 million, we can safely say the event won’t cost $100 million more than Bush’s, as Fox & Friends claimed.”


You’re quoting MediaSplatters, the George Soros organ, here?


Next you’ll wonder why you have no credibility.

Oh gawd…it’s meatbrain. Name-calling again. Typical. I wonder if he realizes the irony that we let him post here, but he has me blocked on his site’s spam filter and won’t release my comments there.


ok look,
ABC News (that neocon mouthpiece that it is) also reported on this.

The [honest] Media [Doesn’t] Matter piece has two flaws that I can see.

First, it complains that the $160mil (ABC and others call it $170 now) is unsubstantiated, but then the MM piece doesn’t substantiate the crux of its own claim: that Obama’s estimate doesn’t include security. That brings us to the next…

Second, the MM makes the claim that Obama’s $160mil cost doesn’t include security costs and is thus unfair to the $40mil cost of the Bush Inaug. BUT…later in the very same article the MM writer points out that the $40mil cost for the Bush Inaug does NOT include security costs either-thus killing his own, unsourced, arbitrary article.

For instance, here’s The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:
The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

Ultimately, I think the question here is common sense (though I understand that’s a problem for some people). Think about it this way…

Obama’s Inaugural celebration is expected to have 4-5x as many people as President Bush’s 2005. Doesn’t it seem rational then that the costs of Obama’s would be 4-5x as high? Now think about this…did Bush have Springsteen, Aretha Franklin, Bono, and a Live Aid list of performers as well as this many balls, this many outside events? No. No way! It’s purely logical to see Obama’s as costing more, and it’s completely STUPID to think that his costs as much as Bush’s did. Anyone who thinks he can get 4-5x more fanfare at the same cost is either deluding themselves that his committee is that much better this year, OR absolutely paranoid that somehow the committee just handed out cash 4-5x back in 2005.

btw, meatbrain, consider this your 1 warning….if you call any of the FA writers a liar, I’ll ban you myself. As you and others can see, I’m happy to discuss and even trade jibes, but I won’t be called a liar-especially by the likes of you. I hope you’ll stay and we can talk, but you have now been warned.

by Eric Boehlert
Media Matters for America
Sat, Jan 17, 2009 10:40am ET

Entire article here:

“…sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don’t do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work.

…the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press INCLUDED security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million LEFT OUT those enormous costs.

The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being COMBINED…in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, MINUS the money spent on security.

The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration…SEPARATE from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush’s 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? …$157 million.”

Let’s see, the need for 20,000 additional security forces($$$$$) and Maryland, Virginia and DC are asking for a reimbursement of $75 million, as mentioned in Scott’s link. Figures mentioned for the Obama Inauguration has been as high as $170 million, so start adding it up. If it cost $157 million, so says Media Matters, for the Bush Inauguration with 400,000 attending, the $150 million figure offered by MM, plus $75 million, plus security costs for 20,000 *additional security forces* plus miscellaneous costs for the possible 3+ million expected, supports the fact that Obama’s Inauguration is expensive.

Let’s pay the 10,000 additional police $15ph for 10 hrs, even the very low $15per hr. plus estimating only 10 hours without OT is $1.5 million before travel expenses, food and lodging. The 10,000 National Guard members aren’t free either as there would be food, lodging and travel expenses for that too. Without complete information we are now up to $226.5 million and that doesn’t even include the lawsuit over and costs for the extra 2500 porta potties and clean up for a crowd whose numbers and mess can’t yet be determined.

BTW, if you noticed, the figure of $75 million that DC has requested, as mentioned by those above using MM as their source. That figure, per Scott’s article, included Virginia’s and Maryland’s security costs. So, MM’s accuracy isn’t to accurate.

Isn’t it amazing how many people had the kneejerk reaction to cut/paste from Media Matters as if it’s NOT a political talking point machine; as if it’s a reliable, unbiased, accurate source for anything? In contrast, I don’t see a single FA article from The Weekly Standard or even Newsbusters.

The fact is, Obama’s Inaug is 4-5x as big in size and grandeur, and SHOULD cost 4-5x as much as a result, but whether or not it’s good to have a big show in these times is as much in question today (if not more) than it was 4yrs ago.

I wouldn’t want any of them budgeting for me. Yikes.

Are you sure your handle isn’t DOH? Anyone who can’t express themselves without using 4 letter words is pretty stupid. Silly little boy…feeling inadequate?

But then, expressing one’s most hateful side is a trait of liberals right DOH?

I liked this community better before it had standards.

@Fit fit:

The door is right over there =====>

Feel free to see yourself out.