Did you know Obama's inauguration is expected to cost between $95 and $150 million (depending on who you ask)? Part of that is paid for by private donations, but we the taxpayers are picking up a large chunk of the tab. In fact, Bush has had to declare an economic emergency to pay for it. Isn't there something wrong with having a hugely expensive party when the nation is in a severe economic mess?
Did you know that for Bush's inauguration in 2005, which cost $40 million, the Associated Press (on 1/13/05) made a list of all the things that money could be spent on instead and asked "do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?" On 1/13/09, the AP ran a report stating: "So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable? To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must. This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment." (courtesy of Rush Limbaugh)
So it's ok to throw an over the top inaugural bash during horrible economic times for Obama, but to throw a bash that's one-third as expensive in a booming economy for Bush is a waste of $$? Give me a break.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment