Being Realistic About the Costs ...
Well just like I thought, apparently Clinton’s Inauguration cost more then Bush’s even though some pundits were calling Bush’s the ‘most expensive ever.’ This was of course wrong. Not everyone just blatantly lied about it ... take this AP story for example from a few days ago:
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.
What that leaves out is how much Clinton spent on his second inauguration in 1997 --- which cost $42 Million, which when adjusted for inflation “exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.”
So do I care that Clinton spent a lot? No, of course not it’s mostly private funds ... and Clinton and Bush both used a much smaller amount of public funds for security, with Bush’s costing a few million more --- however that’s only to be expected in today’s world.
There would be millions in public security funds spent no matter how much the parties cost. And the same people and company’s that provided the private funds, I bet they were the same people and companies that gave the most to Tsunami aid organizations. If people want to spend their own money to throw a party, let them spend it.
Other stupid things the AP liked to drop in:
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.
Now think about that, it’s kind of like saying that New Years in New York costs the City so and so amount of money without mentioning the influx of money that comes into the City from tourists. That’s why they have New Years there every year, they get lots of money back into the City --- the same thing happens in D.C., I know I’ve been to these things when I lived in Virginia.