January 12, 2005

Who Pays for the Inauguration?

With the Presidential Inauguration just around the corner next week (and with my tickets en route to my house) I thought it would be beneficial for me to touch upon the misinformed ideas regarding who pays for this costly event. I've read on various blogs and political websites complaints that $40 Million dollars in tax payer money is going to waste on the Inauguration set to take place next Thursday.

This is a common complaint made by the public, especially from members of the losing party, to make our re-elected President seem like a selfish fool (something he is most certainly not). In actuality, the entire inauguration, including all of the fireworks, parades, parties, and events are paid for by donors. Not one cent of tax payer money goes to paying for the events, and in this inauguration the only tax payer money even being used is D.C.'s homeland security money to cover the increased security measures (something the city would be responsible for anyways). So efforts like Alternet's "Not One Damn Dime" are fruitless, mislead attempts to make a point that is already moot.

In fact, it's no secret as to which corporations, businesses, groups, and private citizens donate to the cause. The inauguration planning committee plans on raising $40-$50 million dollars for the event, and so far they are right on track. For a list of all the major donors (who can't donate more than $250,000), visit the Official Inauguration Donor Page on the Inauguration website.

I am quite interested to see how all of these events are going to play out next Thursday, when I drive down to D.C. with a friend of mine. The events should be televised on all the major media stations, unless CNN finds footage of a cat in a tree. But for you liberals out there freaking out about paying for an inauguration you don't want... rest easy, this one's on me.

Posted by MikeRubino at January 12, 2005 10:37 PM | TrackBack


Comments

This may be of interest to you, Mike: http://paiges-page.net/2005_01_01_archive.html#110546497586305549

So, who is paying? I have heard accounts from both camps. Just trying to get the story right, and you seem motivated enough to find out for me...:-)

Posted by: Amanda at January 13, 2005 7:10 PM

It's not an issue that can be debated, or is shrouded in mystery. The truth is that tax dollars are in no way involved with the ceremonies or parties on inauguration day. The only thing that tax dollars are used for is providing extra security, something that only folks in D.C. have to pay for, not citizens across the country.

Posted by: Mike Rubino at January 13, 2005 7:16 PM

Uhhh...Mike? Get your facts straight. The festivities themselves are not costing tax money. But, as has been reported by every major news organization (with the possible exception of FOX), D.C. is picking up the bill for security (police and military) surrounding the event. Now, I know you are going to come back and say that the city is supposed to do this and always has. Yes, the city has and is providing security. The break from past precedent is the current administration's decision not to reimburse the city for those security expenses (which has generally been done in the past). So, who is paying for this security? Right...tax payers... thanks again W.

Posted by: Eddie at January 20, 2005 5:45 PM

Only paid for by those folks in D.C.? Have you read where the money for security is coming from? They were told by W's administration to use homeland security grant funds that were given to the city. These funds come from federal tax dollars. So, it really seems like we are all paying in the end.

Posted by: Eddie at January 20, 2005 5:48 PM

I will have you know, Eddie, that I did state in my entry that yes the security will be paid for by Washington tax dollars. I am not denying that, and yes Fox News did report on it (as much as I'm sure you hate to admit that).

The truth is this... if Washington did not beef up its security the way it did (and I was just down there and saw everything first hand), then who knows what kind of terror attack could have happened. And who would be the first people to be complaining if there WAS an attack? It would be the liberals saying "Bush didn't spend enough money to raise security! It's all his fault!" There will be nay-sayers no matter what he does, and I've come to accept that. I believe that it's D.C.'s responsibility to pay for this security because guess what... D.C. goes down, our entire government goes down.

Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2005 12:33 AM

Sorry, Mike, but this one is on you AND me. Not to mention security, consider the tax breaks given these companies which allow them to be so magnanimous. Wouldn't it be lovely if the rest of us were given the same incentives?

Posted by: Rett at January 24, 2005 1:26 PM

The swearing-in ceremony is paid for with tax-payers' money.

Posted by: Jennifer at January 14, 2009 10:39 PM

NOTHING IS GOING TO "CHANGE"

Posted by: BOB at January 20, 2009 9:46 AM

i know alot of people are concerned just as i am so here is part of the change people...

check it out:
http://www.wral.com/news/political/page/4324089/?appSession=107461877653290&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=2&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

Posted by: hemnebob at January 22, 2009 5:12 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?