By Mark for the TIB Network:
from the Washington Post:Last week, the committee said it would spend $30 million to $40 million, all of it paid for by private donations.
Well, Pete, it appears that Bush's inauguration may cost a TOTAL more than Clinton's SECOND inauguration. However, I have to ask this question: Was Clinton's (either) inaugural paid for by private contributions?
Here is another perspective on the positives of this so-called "wasted" inaugural money. The money will fuel the local economy for three days of events, be taxed, and is over 80% done by private donors. Yep, a total waste, I suppose.
Oh, and as for President Clinton's Inaugural, check out this article...despite the Post's claims, this article says it cost over 41 million:
First of all, how much do you think it cost to put on the little ol' Inauguration? Nope, not any of those guesses. It cost $41.7 million! Now that's not too shabby of a party budget.
Of course, even though I am directly quoting, I must be lying or something.
Regardless, it costs nothing to attend the inauguration, other than to stay in the cold weather. And, it is going to be costing the American people very little outside of what people want to give for the festivities. However, the left will talk of armoring humvees or tsunami relief is where the money should go, but these are the same people who think THEY should have all our money to do with as they please in a centrallized economy, think the UN is trustworthy (despite Oil for Food), and who think Michael Moore is a documentarian.
Point of order, the humvees are over 80% armored, in fact the reason more are not uparmored is that the bases that make the materiel for the uparmoring can't find enough workers to maintain shifts. Of course, what the left will not tell you is that their guy did not want to provide the funds for the armoring. Details, details....
