In the meantime, my buddy, the Urban Christian notes that President Barack Obama threw at $150 million inauguration celebration, more than the last three Presidential inaugrations combined. And for those who correctly point out that the level of poverty and economic destruction in Zimbabwe is at a completely different level than the hardships borne by those in the United States, note that Obama's party was approximately 600 times the cost of Mugabe's - is the Americans who are losing their jobs and losing their homes really 600 times better off than Zimbabweans (according to one measure of per capita income, Americans make on average a mere 80 times more than Zimbabweans)? Just asking.
Naturally, the comparison isn't completely fair and very unscientific. But as the Urban Christian points out in his blog entry, fiscal responsibility can and should start in Washington, D.C. Maybe there was a leadership-by-example opportunity that was missed by President Obama around good stewardship.
By the way, no truth to the rumor that with Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul performing at Obama's inauguration, President Mugabe had to settle for a slightly inebbriated Amy Winehouse.
Posts
4 comments:
Well that just tears it. Having to deal with Amy Winehouse automatically justifies anything Mugabe ever did or ever will do. Did you know that in a UK poll, Amy Winehouse was the number one person to show up in Britons' nightmares?
It's also important to note that President Bush received unbelievable amounts of criticism for his $40 million inauguration party, yet in ostensibly worse economic times The Last Son of Krypton received not even a slap on the wrist for his $150 million spectacle. Debacle. Whatever.
My candidate, Thomas Jefferson, walked in a solemn procession from the Capitol to the White House, consciously eschewing the pomp of leader worship.
Hmmmmm ... did either of you critically read the article that was referenced from the other guy's blog? If not, you should. If you don't want to read it, then at least read this to straighten out the matter:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003
If you don't want to read that either, then know this: Bush's 2005 inauguration TOTAL cost was $157 million!
Here are the factoids based on reading the cnnMoney article alone:
The cost needs to be broken down and analyzed, looking at what the money was spent on, where the money came from, and who was asking for the money:
1. The cost of the parties: "the $45 million comes completely from private donations, not the government. The organization is not accepting funds from corporations or lobbyists." Classical Education says that Bush's party cost $40 million (42.3 million to be exact), and I wouldn't be surprised if there was corporate/lobbyist funds.
2. The cost of the swearing-in ceremony: ~$6.5 million. This includes construction of the platform and the chairs. Incidentally, the "budget [of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies] ... is $10,000 less than the budget from the 2005 inauguration". This is federally funded (i.e. tax-payer).
3. The cost of security and transportation: this is where things get confusing in the article and big numbers get thrown out without a detailed explanation. It seems security (secret service and the military) will cost several 10's of million dollars. Furthermore, Virginia and DC are asking for $75 million. Hmmmm ... sure sounds like inflation by the Governor of Virginia and the Mayor of DC. I don't think Obama "threw" this to himself.
Note also the the article states close to the beginning that $150 million is an "estimate"; "the figure is fluid". Perhaps what they intended to say but couldn't: "we hyped the number to make a catchy title for the article".
OK, now read this (also mentioned above):
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003
Soooo, Bush's 2005 TOTAL cost is $157 million IF you take into account security and all that other stuff that Virginia and DC asked for!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Thank you miserable news media for giving us miserable quality reporting. Mike, may you please tell your friend, Urban C., to correct his egregiously incorrect chart.
So, did "President Obama [throw]$150 million inauguaration celebration"? No; it was actually $45 million, comparing apples to apples!
Dear sir, you missed the point yourself. The point wasn't how much money one or the other spent or even where the funds came from. The point was the obvious bias of the media and other Obamabots in failing to mete out the same criticism as they gave to Bush at his inauguration.
So let's have a real discussion and compare recent inaugurations to the one of my shining star of an example, Thomas Jefferson. I'll grant inflation and improvements to security and television coverage. You do the math and tell me how he does.
Post a Comment