« My advice to pollsters in regard to the Gaza conflict | truthseeker77's Blog | I'm having this sense of Déjà vu »
Americans don't like expensive inaugurations
In 2005, a Washington Post/ABC News poll asked Americans, in the context of Bush's $40 million inauguration, to state their preference between a "smaller, more subdued inauguration" and continuing the "tradition of large inaugural celebrations." These were the results:
Better to have smaller, more subdued inauguration: 66%
Continue tradition of large inaugural celebrations: 32%
The figure includes 86% of Democrats, 46% of Republicans and 68% of Independents.
It will be interesting to find out the true cost of Obama's inauguration, at a time that we are not only at war, like in '05, but we are also in a very precarious economic situation. It will likely not be $160 million, a figure being floated without evidence by the media; but how much will it be? Let's suspend our judgment until we have a concrete answer.
Advertisement
Two million people, maybe even twice that many are going to show up at one place in an attempt to see history take place. Something that will be written about a century from now.
Porto potties cost money. Extra police cost money.
Extra Secret Service cost money. Portable medical vans cost money.
A lot of money was donated by private individuals and groups.
But whatever it costs, this is worth it.
In my most humble opinion as the lowliest of the low.
January 17, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it a bad thing to pour all this money into a struggling urban area during hard economic times? It seems in the desperate rush to find something to new to complain about, you've lost sight of what you're actually arguing against. This is a massive economic stimulus package for a city that most desperately needs it. If Obama can get people to privately donate to such an effort, more power to him and I'm sure the working people of Washington D.C. appreciate it.
January 17, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And keep in mind, it's more than just the money that's going into the inaugural ceremonies. It's the 2,000,000 people going to local businesses and paying local taxes. Those local taxes then go into local shelters, local schools, and local infrastructure.
Of course, this is all horrible, because Obama hates the troops or some bullshit...
January 17, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly, I heard Adrian Fenty today saying DC is, at least somewhat, recession-proof, being a company town for Uncle Sam, Inc.
It's a city with plenty of poverty, but it's much less reliant on industry than, say, Cleveland; or on trade than, say, New York.
That said, I suspect that survey is more or less bogus. People are always going to favor frugality in the abstract, but we're all suckers for pomp & circumstance.
Personally, as long as Obama is secure and nobody gets hurt (or dies of frostbite) in the crowds, I don't care what they spend.
January 17, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I'm also sure people in the DC toursism industry would at least privately disagree with Fenty.
January 17, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a huge boost to the DC area economy. It's not like the money is being burnt. I live in the DC area and the place is alive, on fire, after being dead and demoralized for 8 years. Maybe this is a good time to keep your dreary thoughts to yourself. You wanna cure world hunger? Go right ahead. For now, we want to celebrate the return of the greatest nation on earth. And the inauguration is not entirely under the control of the incoming President. My advice....grab a few cold beers and enjoy the moment. Chill, ok?
January 17, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Kate!
He's there now!
:)
Yay! I got champagne chilling
January 17, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, I knew there was a reason I liked you
January 17, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bwak and DD! Very exciting here in DC right now. Ain't nobody gonna ruin this party for me!
January 17, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, sister!
January 18, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think rather than comparing costs, compare polling data, since that what you are citing. Not that I think either the cost or polling data on the subject is of much interest.
January 17, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon - and I preface this by saying that I would have the same response if this was McCain's inauguration.
In today's current economic crisis and record unemployment, it is disgusting to have any inauguration at all.
I don't care if it's coming from private sources. If I were POTUS I would tell people to please give their contributions to local food banks instead of the inauguration.
This inauguration is projected to be the most expensive ever.
Even if it's a huge boost to the DC economy. Just cancel the party and give money directly to the DC residents. It will be even more of a stimulus then
January 17, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet you are a hell of a lot of fun at a party.
January 17, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
By that token, we shouldn't hand out money to banks, insurance companies, or anyone else. Give it directly to charity.
Right?
January 17, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your trying to make an analogy between an inauguration party and a bank bailout?
January 18, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you posting on the internet? Shouldn't you be giving your time to charitable pursuits right now? In these hard economic times, I'm frankly disgusted that you've chosen to partake in these frivolous luxuries. Shame.
January 18, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again all people do is change the subject and make completely silly remarks. I'm sure alot of people on here do community service. (Since you brought it up - I spent my evening last night at a meals on wheels in downtown NYC)
January 18, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The remarks are attempts to demonstrate the inherent fallacy of your original proposal.
Cancel the inauguration? Really? That's what you'd do? Your solution smacks of ivory-tower idealism. Put another way, it's utterly impractical, as most people want to see Obama inaugurated. Never mind the (very, very high) political cost - inaugurations are tradition, and that's going to be followed, because it's expected.
This country has been at war, and still held inaugurations. This country has been in dire economic straits, and still held inaugurations.
Even if this ends up being the most expensive inauguration ever...so what? As long as Americans want to see their President be publicly sworn in, inaugurations (and all their attendant costs, which will only increase in the future) are going to happen.
January 19, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd - I want to see him inaugurated but I don't want the country to spend so much money on it. How can you be so certain that most of America doesn't agree with me?
January 19, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Bank bailout" is an oxymoron, don't ya think? My point is that if you think the private interests that donated to this party need to be more charitable, then perhaps the banks out to practice a bit of charity themselves, instead of looking to the taxpayers cover their "losses."
They could start doing a bit of "charity" too. Like coming down a point or 2 from their 39% interest charges and avoid charging poor people multiple bank fees that add up to $100s of dollars because they bounced a $15 check at the grocery store.
Maybe the bankers don't need to live so high on the hog.
January 18, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is completely apples and oranges. This post has nothing to do with bankers, it has to do with the inauguration and how much money should be spent on it
January 18, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fella, your post was ridiculous. Cancel an inauguration?! Of the first black President, no less! Sheesh! Now that you get answers to your silliness, you don't like it.
January 19, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK - cancelling it was a bit of a reach, but I stand by the original statement that in this economic environment we shouldn't be spending record amounts on an inauguration.
January 19, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You speak like a propagandist whose main line of B.S. has just fallen, in turn retreating to his secondary line of B.S.
If the economy was good, you'd have some other grave lament.
January 19, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your priority if you want to think that. But I was just commenting on the original post which discussed whether people think the money spent on inaugurations is excessive.
I don't understand how that turns into "propaganda" on my part.
January 19, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak -
MCB is pulling his "Republican Sanctimonious Victim" shit today. It's about as attractive as genital herpes, yet he insists on sharing with all of us.
(buttseks and truck nutz!!)
January 18, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell - I was not the one who put up the original post. I am simply commenting on it, just like everyone on here is free to do.
Like I said in my initial comment, this is not a partisan thing. If McCain had won the election and was spending this much on an inauguration, I would criticize him in exactly the same manner.
I am sorry my response got you so angry that you are now swearing at me. But again I am simply giving my point of view on a blog that I did not even start in the first place.
January 18, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Awwww . . .
Go piss on someone else's cereal.
You're a bore.
Bill the Bore.
~OGD~
January 19, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you ever have any comments that are constructive?
January 19, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Ooooo....
Nice try Bill the Bore.
Constructive dialog? With you? Why?
As the President stated: "It's time to set aside the childish things." I dare you . . .
~OGD~
January 20, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And also, dear seashell.
January 18, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's quoting a Republican talking point, as well:
"Asked about Obama's inauguration last week, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay hammered on the cost.
If Obama were "serious" about changing Washington, DeLay said, "He would announce to the world: 'We are in crisis, we are at war, people are losing jobs; we are not going to have this party. Instead, I'm going to get sworn in at the White House. I'm going to have a nice little chicken dinner, and we'll save the $125 million.'"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17569.html
And he stands by another Republican talking point here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/
January 19, 2009 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except, of course, 2 million tourists aren't just going to give their money away. I realize MiddleClassTroll, like TruthSeeker, is trying to find any avenue to wag a moralistic finger at thoughtless ole' Obama, but seriously, consult this visual representation of what you're doing:
-*--------------------------+--
*=Point of Self-Parody
+=You
January 18, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama inauguration committee has budgeted $45 million for this soiree. At last reporting, about 2 weeks ago, they had raised around $28 million, of which about $25 million had come in from big donors ($50,000 personal donation, $300,000 when bundled), the remainder from smaller donations.
I recently learnt President Zachary Taylor charged donors to attend his inauguration, and then promptly turned around and gave ALL the monies collected to the poor.
Seeing as how President elect Obama appears to be 'channeling' President Abraham Lincoln, maybe he will take a cue from President Taylor.
January 17, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever it costs, it's worth it--do you realize that we've put up with 2,920 days of Bush?!? And he stole the election in the first place. Look at the faces of the people in the crowds today--I'll bet they think it's worth it. Lighten up and celebrate!
January 18, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
the money is not going into some black hole. It is going back into the economy.
January 18, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can you be so sure?
January 18, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because he's not an idiot.
January 18, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that in depth analysis.
January 18, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
how can i be sure? where the heck do you think money goes when you purchase goods and services? or do you think he pockets the money?
January 18, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
no of course he doesn't pocket the money. But a lot of the costs for the port-a-johns, security, pretty greek columns ala the convention, etc. don't show up as sales in the small business owners' cash registers. Alot of the costs don't "trickle down". That was my point.
January 18, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, a lot of those costs DO show up in SBO ledgers as revenues.
Local companies will provide many of the Jersey barriers, street signs, printing, trinkets, Johnny-On-The-Spots, and other items needed to handle 2 million people.
Those 10,000 charter buses expected? They have to be directed, parked and secured. That's hours racked up by various municipal and airport employees (there will be a runway closed to give some of those buses parking space).
Local law enforcement (DC police, not the federal government) will get money out of this too, as their officers will help supplement the federal coverage.
Local vendors are likely to do much better at this inauguration than past ones, if only because the sheer size of the crowd affords more chances to provide government and tourist services.
(As for the East Wing-style set used at the DNCC, who do you think provided that? Or, all of the signs used there? Or the confetti? Or the balloons? The programs? The buttons? The lanyards? Here's a hint: I work for a Fortune 500 company headquartered just outside of Denver. I've ordered corporate items from the same company that got a decent chunk of the DNC dollars.)
January 19, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious. Why is your post dated January 18th, 6:36 AM?
January 18, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know.
January 18, 2009 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh chill and have a good time. The good guys won for a change. After 8 years of listening to a funeral dirge, we need a whopper. Otherwise we have to suffer the hangover with being able to say, "Yah, but what a great party!"
Plop! Plop! Fizz! Fizz! Fuck off Republicans, this party is...happening. Whew! Yah!
January 18, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well sure, people were going to say that in 2005, after enduring the idiot Bush's second one.
But then again, I'm sure if you check the press acounts just before almost EVERY inauguration, they will all be projected to be the most expensive ever by someone. Where's the story, if they're just another routine event?
And just before all of the inaugurations, I'll bet that at least 86% of the opposing party will say they are against spending large amounts of money on them.
So the statistic quoted is, in my opinion, at best, irrelevant, as is the conclusion drawn from it.
January 18, 2009 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt if in this instance there will be three or four layers of private contractors who are friends and family of the well connected grabbing most of the money on the way down to the actual expense of the inaugaration, like they do things over at the Pentagon and the Dept of Homeland Contractors, I mean Homeland Security.
January 18, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I signed my name on this much $$$ in Iraq on a bridge that had already been blown up twice.
Your priorities are torqued.
January 18, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez, who cares? Is this taking money away from starving babies somewhere? Democrats didn't like Bush's shindig, big surprise. I hated Reagan's too.
I imagine many Republicans will complain about Obama's budget. It sounds like this includes you, even if you pretend to suspend judgment.
And your title is wrong and misleading, in that you only offer evidence for one rather contested election, and certainly can draw no useful generalizations from it.
January 18, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares how much it costs. We are ready for a party to end all parties, and a whole bunch of the money is being spent to make it so that regular folks can be a part of it...
Isn't there enough important stuff to complain about?
January 19, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole post is like a troll deal anyway.
Bush's inauguration? Of course they liked smaller ones, preferably with a different celebrant as well! And the question is such an empty-headed trap, it's like asking if you prefer things to be more expensive or less expensive. How did they *expect* people would answer? Meaningless, all of it.
January 19, 2009 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 19, 2009 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is maddening, but you're right about 2005.
This is a thing that weighs heavily indeed on one, being an American: how the fuck did we end up in a country where people could walk into voting booths and elect an utter tool like George Bush as President. It's really troubling, and while it's not the only example of American stupidity (consider e.g. Palin, televangelists, belief that Iraq was involved in 9/11), it is about the worst.
January 20, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink