Bush sticks DC with $12 Million Inauguration Expense

[Relbeek Einre]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan10.html

What was that about privately funded inaugurations, Chants?

The $11.9 million doesn't include $5.4 reimbursed by the federal government - that's a total of $17.3 million cost by the city of Washington alone. I told ya the government costs were substantial.

[Burz]

Its ok. All the hippies going there to protest will boost the local economy!

[Ddrak]

Those are NPR and CNN reporters, not hippies.

[Rsak]

But there is a difference betwen DC and the federal government.

I strongly suspect that DC willingly will pay this amount since they feel it will be reimbursed by having the ceremony.

And do you really know what the money that is being rimbursed by the federal government is for? Is this for money that would be spent by the federal government for any other event that the President visits or participates in?

P.S. post the story if you are going to link to a password protected site.

[Ddrak]

Net Ettiquite doesn't require posting articles on a site with free registration. To do so would be a violation of copyright anyway.

Or, you could just go to http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6810085/

Dd

[Zyllen]

DC should just pass out milk and cookies, and have volunteers do the security, then maybe the administation would change their tune.

I normally am pretty supportive of this administration, but this is stupid. "Take money out of a security program that you were given money for, so you can pay for security and a big fancy party."

[Rsak]

Nor did I state it did, but having to register gets your address on email lists. And proper sourcing of hte material makes and copyright complaints relatively moot here.

Having read the article I feel that DC is the proper group to pay for the event. The 5.4 million would have been spent anyways.

It supports the claim by Chants that the federal government is authorizing and paying for the inagurations. That however does not preclude federal money being spent on inagurations in the form of city expenses.

If DC feels this is too much then they need to either scale back the inaguration activities, financially plan for it better, or stop having it.

[Alannia_Raindancer]

Ok, wait...Can someone clarify for me what I'm reading here?

Using Ddrak's link (I'm not a washington post subscriber yet either), it looks to me like:

- Government granted DC money so that they could use it to tighten up their security in prevention of potential future attacks.
- Private funding covers a lot of the funding for the big 'ole party that I'm not invited to celebrating the presidential election. (no real beef with that, since I wouldn't go even if I was invited. )
- City is responsible for security for said event, which is being held in their town (which is actually pretty normal for any event being held in a city...no beef with that either)
- City says "HOLY SHIT! We don't have that kind of cash!
- Government says "Pffft, don't worry about it, just take it out of all that money we gave you for that other reason that we thought it was important to give to you at the time".

If what i'm reading is what I think I'm reading, pardon me if I'm a little indignant. It gives the appearance that the platform that the current administration has been running on (protecting our people) is less important than a big party celebrating the winning candidate. I won't even get into the places those private donations could have been better used, 'cause private donations aren't my business. With the exception of the fact that I truely don't want to see anyone hurt because of lack of security, I'd almost advise that DC do exactly what has been suggested: get volunteers for the security jobs. Better yet, provide what they can afford, and if it's not good enough, "OH WELL!".

I sincerely hope someone can point out where I'm wrong in what I read, I voted one way, but wasn't heartbroken when my candidate didn't win, cause I thought for certain that the guy that won was also working toward our country's well being, just in a different way than I would have chosen. Requesting...no... DEMANDING money out of a fund designated to protect the city/country from future 9/11 type attacks is counter to this administration's stance.

I came inches away from losing family/friends in both DC and in the Towers during 9/11. Literally. Less than a half an hour, in fact. Other people weren't as lucky as me, by a long shot. I don't talk about it because what's done is done is done. We have security issues in the US that need to be addressed, and I think that the government has done a fairly good job of trying to help victims and their families with that. Above and beyond I would strech to say. The mere suggestion that funds be taken from the grant given to DC to protect itself better from further attacks makes me physically ill.

And I tell you now, I hope to God that I'm just reading this article wrong, and one of you conservative people can explain to me the right of it....

[Relbeek Einre]

(Hint: There is no right of it.)

[Partha]

It gives the appearance that the platform that the current administration has been running on (protecting our people) is less important than a big party celebrating the winning candidate.

If they had REALLY been worried about protecting our people, We'd have 135,000 troops in Pakistan and Afghanistan, finding the planners who murdered 3,000 Americans.

[vaulos]

Killing Bin Laden isn't going to make anyone safer.

[Relbeek Einre]

It's sure not going to make anyone LESS safe!

[vaulos]

THAT is true. And what is more, it would be a just thing to do. But it doesn't make us safer, as Partha is contending.

[Relbeek Einre]

I disagree.

Losing Osama's strategic slash charismatic ability I think will cripple al Qaeda.

[vaulos]

Maybe, but I think it is far more likely that his martyrdom would simply spur on the general anti-Western effort. But, more to the point, I think the greatest threat we face atm isn't from Bin Laden's network, but rather from the loosely affiliated entities around the world. Bin Laden is a nice focal point, true. And indeed he brings a lot of name recognition and know-how. But it doesn’t take a lot of knowledge or money to pull off attacks in the US as 9-11 proved.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it is affective in the short term to go after the leadership of these different groups, in order to deter any plan to attack the US. But it does not have a beneficial affect in the long term. Long term strategy must be to eliminate those conditions which create these groups, i.e. by creating conditions in which Muslim states interact positively with the outside world by growing their reliance and dependence on other countries economically (similarly to how we softened China’s stance towards US).

So perhaps I misspoke when I said that killing Bin Laden would not make us safer. Perhaps I meant to say, the safety will only last for a few moments, and then we must face the next threat which spawned as a direct result of his death.

[Relbeek Einre]

I don't think killing him will necessarily cause that. But that's just me.

[vaulos]

Then why were you earlier concerned that by invading Iraq we would create more terrorists? I beleive I recall that conversation to have centered around the fact that we were only making martyrs of these people. That everyone killed was loved by someone, and those people became more likely to support a anti-American cause. If that is true of Joe Average, why isn't it doubly true of someone so beloved in the area as Bin Laden?

[Ddrak]

I tend to agree with Vaulos actually. Making a martyr of Bin Laden at this point wouldn't necessarily do us any good at all. Al Qaeda is a network of cells and Bin Laden is more a figurehead than an actual head. 75% of the leaders that were known in 2001 have been captured or killed and yet we don't really see their strength diminshed that much - just their effectiveness inside the US, which is more from tightening of local security than any direct effect on AQ themselves.

If I were in the business of capturing or killing Bin Laden, I'd want to know an awful lot about who was going to replace him as the nominal leader of AQ.

Dd

[Rsak]

- Government says "Pffft, don't worry about it, just take it out of all that money we gave you for that other reason that we thought it was important to give to you at the time".

The other reason the money was given was not for matters of security, but because the city hosts the national capitol. There are certain expenses that are incurred because of this and the city services for the inaguration is one of them. That is where the 5.4 million comes from.

The homeland security money given was so large because it was the national capitol and this is certainly a security expense.

Whether you feel that is the right thing to do or not is up to you, but that is what the article actually says.

[Relbeek Einre]

Holy crap, Rsak dragged us back on topic.

Did I enter bizarro universe?