Bush sticks DC with $12 Million Inauguration Expense

[Rsak]

Your mind is closed and you are unwilling to have a discussion on the topic. Enjoy your argument alone!

[Partha]

I love when Rsak posts to himself.

[Eidolon Faer]

The Gub'ment has ALWAYS picked up the tab for the security surrounding the President. There's even a group dedicated to that particular task. It's called the Secret Service.

So yes...EVERY Presidential Inauguration has had the taxpayer on the hook for at least part of the security expenses. And that is, in fact, what you're moaning about here. The expenses incurred by Washington DC are security-related.

As for the party itself, that's privately funded. And one would think the Left would be delighted that vast amounts of cash from evil, nasty, hateful Republican running-dog plutocrats will be making their way down to good, honest members of the proletariat. Lots of that money will be ending up in the pockets of waiters, bartenders, maids, janitors, cooks, limo drivers, prostitutes, and other good, honest Democrat-voting lower class workers.

No, the fact that this embarrassingly petty nonsense has become a major Democrat talking point over the past few days tells me that this is just another feeble attempt at Bush-bashing. Last week it was carping about the Tsunami relief effort. The week before that it was trying to sell us on the absurd notion that Bush's 100,000+ margin of victory in Ohio is somehow suspect. And next week it will be something new and equally silly.

Honestly...the "How can we inaugurate a President when there are people somewhere in the world suffering?" tack is a total non-starter. If that were the real reason for the Left's objections, George Washington's dessicated corpse would still occupy the Oval Office. There's ALWAYS something, somewhere, to moan about.

And listening to a Liberal moan about spending too much money is always a hoot.

[Relbeek Einre]

Always fascinating how you try to turn the argument into something it isn't.

Yes, the Secret Service pays for security for the President. That doesn't account for sticking DC (which does not pay for the Secret Service) with $12 million. This is an unprecedented amount by far.

As for the party itself, well, already said exactly what you're suggesting I'm not... hooray for spending private money how one chooses.

No, the fact that this embarrassingly petty nonsense has become a major Democrat talking point over the past few days tells me that this is just another feeble attempt at Bush-bashing.

And yet, somehow, this argument "You're just Bush bashing!" is the only response the Right seems to have -- they can't say "Clinton stuck DC with a bill like this too!" because he didn't. Nor did Bush, Reagan, or Carter, etc. Not even in adjusted dollars. Saying "It's just Bush bashing!" is just a deflection. The charge has merit, and to a city government an unexpected bill of that size is painful to endure. Cries of "Bush Bashing!!!!oneonezomg" might serve to distract from that, but don't refute it.

Honestly...the "How can we inaugurate a President when there are people somewhere in the world suffering?" tack is a total non-starter.

Yes it is. Because it's just you trying to distort the argument.

And listening to a Liberal moan about spending too much money is always a hoot.

You're a libertarian - well, you claim to be. What should bother you is that Bush's spending makes a liberal look like a libertarian's fellow traveler by comparison.

[Eidolon Faer]

Breathe deeply, Relbeek. You're hyperventilating.

You do realize, Relbeek, that the District of Columbia and the city itself were CREATED to serve as the seat of the federal government? You realize that from the moment the first shovelful of earth was turned over for the first building in Washington DC, that city was to exist principally as the nation's capitol?

The nonsense you've been spewing about Washington DC wanting statehood earlier in this thread serves to reveal what is either a fundamental misunderstanding of history or fundamental dishonesty.

Washington DC will never be a state. Period. And anybody who wants to bitch about taxation without representation is free to move to a neighboring state and commute to work. The District of Columbia was there before they moved in. It was there before they were born. Their whining reminds me of some stupid asshole who buys a house that is cheap because it's 10 feet from the end of an airport runway, and who then bitches about the noise.

Likewise, the City of Washington DC EXISTS as the nation's capitol first and anything else secondarily. The City of DC WILL get bailed out by the Feds no matter how stupidly it mismanages its' money, and several Mayors have taken advantage of that fact in the past. Marion Barry leaps to mind. Drawing a distinction between the Federal Government and the City of DC is pointless. And if anything should be changed, the sock-puppet / wholly-owned subsidiary nature of the relationship should be made even more explicit.

Trying to blibber that an expense is coming out of Washington DC's pocket when it ought to be coming from the Federal Government is like arguing whether to pay for something with money coming from your left pocket or your right pocket. Who fucking cares? It's all the same.

[Relbeek Einre]

I'm sorry you feel the need to be so patronizing, Eidolon.

Perhaps a google search on: ("Washington DC" Statehood) will give you some idea of how much of a large political issue this has been the last few decades, and perhaps educate you on the reasons and legalities.

No reason you should have known, however, since you don't live there and have never been there.

There are a number of issues related to DC self-governance. DC getting Congressional pseudo-representation and DC having presidential electors are two fairly recent changes to the law that revolve around this ongoing problem.

[Relbeek Einre]

Oh, and DC does have its own treasury, much as Saint Paul has its own treasury independent of Minnesota's. It's very odd you suggest that DC's treasury is somehow integrated with the federal budget.