(no subject)

[windelina]

The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration, which is raising $40 million in private funds for the most expensive inauguration in history next week, wants the District of Columbia, for the first time in history, to pay all of its own expenses -- estimated at more than $17 million. In order to do so, the district will be required to divert $11.9 million from federal homeland security funding earmarked for hospitals, firefighting equipment and transit command centers.

The city's costs include $8.8 million in overtime pay for police officers, $2.7 million to pay officers being sent from around the nation to help with the event, $3 million to construct reviewing stands and $2.5 million to place the entire city infrastructure on emergency status. More than 100 square blocks of the city will be closed to vehicular traffic for this first post-9/11 inauguration.

For all previous inaugurations, Congress has made a direct appropriation to the perennially cash-strapped city to cover most or all of its costs. Boston and New York also each got $50 million from the federal government to cover costs associated with last year's party conventions, although those are private events while the inauguration is an official celebration.

Critics from many quarters have asked whether it is even appropriate to have an extravagant, boisterous inauguration, given that soldiers are dying daily in Iraq and hundreds of thousands are still suffering the catastrophic effects of the South Asia tsunami.

********

I am so not surprised.

Remember: Bush originally offered 15 million to tsunami aid - less than HALF of what his inauguration will cost. I think we know where his priorities are.

Comments

[birdfigment.livejournal.com]

There are actually some permits that have been granted for anti-war protests on the parade route, shockingly (and happily) enough. And there are a lot of other things planned for DC next week. I'm not happy, but I'll be involved in at least one of those things.

[petsnakereggie.livejournal.com]

I'm doing the "I hate my President" dance right now.

It isn't all that hard. It mostly involves one finger.

[redbird23.livejournal.com]

I was listening to MPR talk about all the security measures being taken and it made me so sad.

We are spending all of this money so a bunch of people can celebrate and pat themselves on the back for a job well-done (winning an election by a narrow margin that was still rife with voting problems even after all the hype from four years ago). Meanwhile, there are SO MANY OTHER PLACES that money could be better-spent.

Does this improve our image to the world? Does this foster good will? Peace among nations? Generate a giving spirit?

I don't think so, and those are the reasons I can think of to spend gobs of money on luxury items at this juncture.

[morgana-lafey.livejournal.com]

I know I'm just echoing everyone else, but I need to vent a little about this whole thing. I can't think of anything tackier than spending an exorbitant. amount of money to celebrate a victory that was narrowly won AT BEST. I would think that someone who probably cheated his way into office would be quiet and gracious, especially when we're at war and a significant number of people in the world are still reeling from a natural disaster, the likes of which we have never experienced. But no, not W. Nothing's too extravagant for God's Chosen King of America. He's not only having a grand inauguration, but the most expensive one in history. He's just adding insult to injury for those of us who don't support him. I feel bad for DC having to pay for this hoopla, especially since a majority of people there didn't even vote for Bush.

[windelina.livejournal.com]

My favorite part is where they're taking money from HOMELAND SECURITY funds for the city to pay for this stuff.

Just a bit hypocritical for our "War President", eh?

[morgana-lafey.livejournal.com]

No shit!! Our "War President" wants to have his war and his party too.

[birdfigment.livejournal.com]

This has been Big (and Angry) news here. We already have to deal with making our public transport system and roads support all the f*cking inauguration tourists. But now we have to pay for it too??

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

You're going to pay for it one way or the other - what difference does it make which pocket the money comes out of, since it all comes from the Feds anyway? This is a tempest in a teapot.

[birdfigment.livejournal.com]

There are certainly things I'm more upset about. But how is it that we - the taxpayers of generally fucked-over DC - would pay for the inauguration anyway? I require enlightenment.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

If the Feds pay for it out of their own budget, it comes out of the income taxes, excise taxes, and tariffs you pay them. If the city pays for it, it comes out of the property taxes, sales taxes, and whatever other fees you're shelling out to Mayor Williams and the rest of the crew. (Actually, the way the article describes it, you're paying for it through the feds and the city, since the Feds are handing grant money to the city which the city is then using for the inaugural expenses. So you're stuck with the cost either way, right? Might as well enjoy the party and/or go out and protest.

[birdfigment.livejournal.com]

If the Feds pay for it, then doesn't the money come from taxpayers all over the country?

And oh yes, I'll be there. ...I wouldn't miss it.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

Well, sure...and that of course includes you and other taxpayers in DC.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

Is that $15 million in addition to or including the cost of the two carrier groups we have down there helping, Windy? For that matter, doesn't all the privately raised tsunami aid count, or do you only count tax-funded assistance?

For that matter, it says here in the article you're quoting that the Homeland Security money could be used to pay the costs associated with the inauguration, since it hadn't been spent on anything else. Knowing the incredible efficiency of the DC city government, they'd probably forgotten they had the grant money sitting around. This is the same outfit, mind you, that bent over for Major League Baseball and agreed to build a new stadium with public funding, and which routinely leads the nation in per-pupil school spending while managing to trail Mississippi in student achievement.

But yeah, you're right, what the hell are we thinking, throwing a bash to celebrate W's inauguration (complete with Kid Rock, woo!) when people are dying in Iraq? For that matter, why did we celebrate Clinton's inaugural back in '91 when people were dying in Somalia and Bosnia? Gosh, there's really no reason at all for anyone to have a good time this year, what with the tsunami and the ongoing slaughter in the Sudan and the horrible repression continuing in Tibet. Let's just cancel Marscon and Anime Detour and Convergence too, and sit around in sackcloth and ashes this year meditating on how sad the world is and what fucked-up people live in it. Yeah, that's the ticket. *rolls eyes*

[windelina.livejournal.com]

You're taking what I said farther than what I meant.

To me, it doesn't matter that DC hasn't spent that money yet - it's for Homeland Security, which we keep hearing is so damned important (and it is). The DC residents are completely enraged about it - sacrificing their (potential) security for the President's party.

The primary points are:
1. most expensive inauguration ever when we have the largest deficit ever and underfunded education programs
2. expecting DC to pick up the bill for the first time ever

We need a celebration, I do not deny that. Every inauguration deserves its celebration. I think they could do this inauguration a whole lot cheaper, frankly. I think it says volumes about their priorities when they have to be shamed into giving any real amount to the tsunami aid, and publicly embarrassed into giving our troops decent equipment (like body armor) but they have no problem spending more money than has ever been spent before on an inauguration.

And I believe Kid Rock is no longer in the program because fundamentalists objected to him - but I could be misremembering ... or just hoping.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

You're taking what I said farther than what I meant.
Am I? I read your post two, maybe three times and went through a couple of drafts before posting my reply. I was trying to avoid hyperbole but apparently didn't avoid it enough.

Yeah, it's DHS money, but if it hasn't been spent yet, why all the sudden outrage that it's being spent on one particular aspect of security (Presidential) as opposed to being spent on, say, bioterror defense gear? I'd think if it was that damn important to Washingtonians, they would have leaned on the City Council and the Mayor to spend it by now.

Sure, it's more expensive than previous inaugurations. But you're confusing the money spent on the inauguration party itself (which is all privately contributed and not paid for with taxes) with the money being spent on security. And that money is coming from the Feds to begin with - it's just making a pit stop in the city treasury before going into the pockets of the police and other security agencies. As I said in a reply to birdfigment's comment, this is a tempest in a teapot.

Yeah, they could do the inauguration a lot cheaper. We could all do things a lot cheaper. Your allusions to body armor and tsunami aid are complete (and inaccurate) non-sequiturs that don't really have anything to do with the inauguration at all. As for being "shamed" into increasing aid, ISTR that we were first off the blocks to offer aid, and those carrier groups were there faster than anyone else's help...come to think of it, I think we're still waiting for the UN to stop holding meetings and tooling around in their SUVs. As for being stingy, we look pretty good compared to some of our European "allies". Including, I am ashamed to say, Spain.

I hope you're wrong about Kid getting dropped. His recent hit summarizes the way a lot of us feel about foreign policy these days. "Ain't nothin' but a cowboy, baby..." :)