Bush's Second Swearing-In to Cost $40M

  1. http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=417&sid=388162

    Bush's Second Swearing-In to Cost $40M
    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.

    "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.

    -----------------------------------------------

    Although I find the entire amount of money spent on the second inauguration to be obscene, I'm particularly disgusted by the $17.3 million bill dumped on the city. Afterall, DC voters rejected Bush in the 2004 election by a 90% margin, so why should they get stuck footing such a big chunk of the bill?

    Additionally, the inauguration is a federal holiday, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $66 million.

    So much for fiscal responsibility
    •  
  2. 67 Comments

  3. by   Thunderwolf
    The cost is enough to make me swear. What a waste of OUR dollar. Give the guy a certificate, a salute, and be done with it....or let it come out of HIS pocket. Do you know how many people could be clothed and fed with all that money?
  4. by   Roy Fokker
    Isn't GOP paying for this?
  5. by   fab4fan
    Nope...Joe Taxpayer gets to foot the bill.
  6. by   URO-RN
    Democrats in Washinton c/o spending?

    Wonder if this was John Kerry's Inauguration would the press be reporting on the cost? I think not.
  7. by   Roy Fokker
    How many Republican administrations have actually managed to cut down spending?

    The current President has approved almost all spending bills that has passed his table - this wouldn't be so bad if he didn't cut taxes at the same time.

    I don't have a problem with Govt. cutting taxes - Govt. budgets should be balanced, not in surplus. That money belongs to Joe and jane America, not to the Govt.

    However, that doesn't mean you can live beyond your means. When you cut taxes (source of income), you also reduce spending.

    When it comes to fiscal prudence and spending, GOP has been just as guilty as DNC - neither of them have show fiscal prudence worthy enough to run a household of four, let alone a nation of millions.
  8. by   URO-RN
    Of course not! Dems or Reps can't play the "holier than thou" card.

    It's amusing because if this was Kerry's inauguration, and the Reps would bring up the issue of cost, then guess what the Dems explanation would be?
  9. by   SmilingBluEyes
    I think things like this must be stopped, if any President will be taken seriously on the issues of economics and spending/thrift. This would go for Kerry as well as Bush. This is outrageous by any standard.
  10. by   Fluesy
    Does it really matter if a Democrat or a Conservativel spends the money? The question remains - How much is too much???

    All too often I see issues like this which should be a call to accountability lost in the Right versus Left rhetoric.
  11. by   URO-RN
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    I think things like this must be stopped, if any President will be taken seriously on the issues of economics and spending/thrift. This would go for Kerry as well as Bush. This is outrageous by any standard.
    Exactly.
  12. by   SharonH, RN
    Quote from Elenaster
    http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=417&sid=388162


    -----------------------------------------------

    Although I find the entire amount of money spent on the second inauguration to be obscene, I'm particularly disgusted by the $17.3 million bill dumped on the city. Afterall, DC voters rejected Bush in the 2004 election by a 90% margin, so why should they get stuck footing such a big chunk of the bill?

    I could not agree with this more. That was the part that really frosted me. It's like they were throwing it in the face of the people of DC. The whole thing is outrageous.


    Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks who voted for Bush for some bizarre reason, is calling for Bush to call off the huge expensive parties. He wants the president to show leadership and fiscal responsibility. I agree with his thoughts on that but why in the world would he expect that type of behavior from Bush????????
  13. by   Spidey's mom
    Doesn't this happen whenever there is an inauguration? And we always complain about the expense.

    I completely agree with not spending so much money, especially on an incumbant.

    But it will take some kind of legislation I think.

    Hey, if they would just toss about 1/4 million my way, I'd be able to fix my house us, pay off my debts, pay for my kids college and be a stay at home mom finally. Maybe I should write my congressman.

    steph
  14. by   JVanRN
    40 million...thats' one hell of a party.

close