What Recession? The $170 Million Inauguration

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit
Jan. 19, 2009—


The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .

The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

And then there is the party bill.

"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.

That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.

Douglass said that this will be the "most open and accessible inauguration in history," with members of the general public able to participate on a greater scale than ever before.

"The money is going toward providing events which we hope are going to connect people, make them feel like we are all in this together and reinforce the notion that when we pull together, we're stronger," Douglass said. "And we need to pull together to face the challenges that are before us today."

Among the expenses: a Bruce Springsteen concert, the parade, large-screen TV rentals for all-free viewing on the national Mall, $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to stay open and, of course, the balls, including three that are being pitched as free or low cost for the public.

But there are plenty of rich donors willing to pick up the tab.

"They are not the $20 and $50 donors who helped propel Obama through Election Day," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "These are people giving mostly $50,000 apiece. They tend to be corporate executives, celebrities, the elite of the elite."


Best Seats in the House
The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees.

"The finance sector is well represented, despite its recent troubles," Ritsch said. "Those who worked in finance still managed to pull together nearly $7 million for the inauguration."

The donors will get some of the best seats in the house for the inauguration, as well as admittance to some of the best balls and other events.

"I don't think that they're going to get a whole lot of face time with the new president himself," Ritsch said, "but they are certainly establishing themselves from day one as his biggest financial supporters. And if there's something they need or to tell him down the road, they will have an easier time doing that than everyone else."

Besides Wall Street firms, a large chunk of the money came from employees at companies such as Microsoft, Google and DreamWorks Animation, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer and his wife, Connie, each gave $50,000. So did Microsoft chairman and co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda.

DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and his wife, Marilyn, each gave $50,000. Filmmaker and DreamWorks co-founder Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate, both also gave $50,000. And DreamWorks employees gave a total of $275,000.

Billionaire investor George Soros and his family contributed $250,000 to the inauguration, and Google co-founder Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt each donated $25,000.

Other big-name donors who gave $50,000 include filmmaker George Lucas, artist Dale Chihuly, Los Angeles Dodgers President Jamie McCourt. Citigroup managing director Raymond J. McGuire; Oracle President Charles E. Phillips Jr.; actresses Halle Berry and Sharon Stone; and Melvin Simon, co-founder of Simon Property Group, the largest mall owner in the United States.

Despite all the donations, Obama's team has made donations much more restrictive than in the past.

Obama capped donations at $50,000 per person, which is still more than 10 times what individuals could give to his campaign, but a lot less than the $250,000 cap President Bush had at his last inauguration. Contributions from corporations, labor unions, political action committees and registered lobbyists are not being accepted by Obama.


The Real Money
For Bill Clinton's second inaugural in 1997, contributions were capped to $100. But that committee had some leftover money from the previous inauguration and charged people up to $3,000 for inaugural tickets.

"We have the broadest fundraising restrictions in inaugural history," Douglas said.

The inauguration team is also posting all donations of $200 or more on the Internet almost as quickly as they are coming in. The law only requires it to disclose the information 90 days after the actual swearing-in.

"The transparency of this inaugural fundraising effort is unprecedented as far as we can remember," Ritsch said. "We see that as a positive step and hope it's an indication that President Obama will use technology to make government more responsive and transparent to people."

That's all the play money. The bulk of cash will actually be spent on security and logistics.

In a letter to members of Congress, the governors of Maryland and Virginia, and the mayor of Washington said that their combined costs could exceed $75 million. That's on top of the $49 million the federal government is spending, again mostly for security.

"The historical significance of inaugurating the first African-American president of the United States alone makes the event unprecedented," they wrote. "Given its political significance, we expect that the event will be attended by hundreds, if not thousands, of elected U.S. government officials and foreign dignitaries. Turnout by the general public for the swearing-in ceremony alone is likely to exceed 2 million. Transportation officials estimate that roughly 10,000 charter buses will enter the District with approximately 500,000 riders alone, a number which nearly matches the city's population."

The emergency managers for the three jurisdictions said they expect this to be the most complex and challenging inaugural in history.

"The mass of attendees expected will challenge fire, law enforcement, emergency medical and mass transit capabilities," the governors and mayor wrote. "Moreover, the high volume of buses/traffic, weather factor and other threats will create additional demands."

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6665946

WASHINGTON – Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.

Obama's inauguration committee says it is mindful of the times and is not worried people will see the four days of festivities as excessive.

"That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it," said committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values."

Douglass said the campaign sought to keep costs down by having the same decorations at each of the 10 balls, eliminating floral arrangements and negotiating prices on food.

"Those at the Obama administration are trying to be reflective of the climate," McDermott's spokesman, Mike DeCeasar, said Saturday.

The festivities began Saturday with a speech at Philadelphia's historic 30th Street train as Obama's trip began.

Sunday's concert at the Lincoln Memorial includes performances by Sheryl Crow, Stevie Wonder, Garth Brooks and others. Denzel Washington and Queen Latifah will read historic passages. HBO paid $2.5 million for the exclusive rights to broadcast the concert.

Monday, the inaugural committee is hosting a national day of service, followed by three "bipartisan dinners" and a concert at the Verizon Center honoring military families. The Disney Channel will broadcast the concert, which includes performances by teen stars Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers, as part of a $2 million deal that also gave ABC the exclusive rights to broadcast one inaugural ball.

The television deals allowed the committee to recoup about $5 million of the $15 million production costs for the televised events, Douglass said.

Security and transportation costs are being paid by taxpayers. And with millions of tourists expected to descend on Washington for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, Bush declared a state of emergency, allowing the district to recover some costs for the event.

The inauguration committee is paying for 10 stadium-style screens to broadcast the inauguration ceremony on the National Mall. It is also hiring garbage and recycling services and renting thousands of portable toilets for what one supplier called "the largest temporary restroom event in the history of the United States."

Obama has pledged transparency in his inauguration fundraising. He has disclosed inaugural donors as the fundraising continued, though he is not required to do so until after the ceremony.

Many of the fundraisers are well-known moneymen and women in Democratic circles. Those leading the list raised at least $300,000. They include two of Obama's top campaign fundraisers: Louis Susman, who retired this month as vice chairman of banking giant and government bailout recipient Citigroup, and billionaire Hyatt hotel heiress Penny Pritzker.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_spending


So what do you guys think about the cost? All I know is that if Bush has to declare a state of emergency to help pay, then it's too much.
 
Well, with spending like this, all this 'volunteerism' talk is starting to make more sense. Pretty soon half the government will need to be run by volunteers.

It doesn't really matter if it's mostly from doners, it's the symbolism of "wasting" that much money in this economic crisis. If guantamano is a symbol to the world that needs to be shut down as a positive symbol to the world, why isn't this a negative symbol to the world as well?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The keyword is donor.[/QUOTE]

It's not all donor money, taxpayers will be paying for millions.
 
It is a bit silly, but since it's donor funds I don't have much problem. Also having so many people come into it should be good for the economy I'd think withall the money going to airfares, hotels, DC area restaurants, etc. etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] Also having so many people come into it should be good for the economy I'd think withall the money going to airfares, hotels, DC area restaurants, etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

Nice silver lining, thanks for pointing it out.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It is a bit silly, but since it's donor funds I don't have much problem. Also having so many people come into it should be good for the economy I'd think with all the money going to airfares, hotels, DC area restaurants, etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

Well said. I'm from the DC area, and the inauguration is providing a lot of jobs to people who would otherwise be unemployed at this time. Granted, they'll probably lose their jobs soon after Tuesday but at least it's some money during these otherwise difficult times.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It is a bit silly, but since it's donor funds I don't have much problem. Also having so many people come into it should be good for the economy I'd think withall the money going to airfares, hotels, DC area restaurants, etc. etc.[/quote]

That's how liberal hack economists think... The only way to get out of this slump is to rebuild an ecomony in which 1.) we actually produce something useful, rather than being totally consumer based and 2.) cut spending across the board...

... it's common sense that applies both to the individual as well as groups: if I have a deficit, I: 1.) Get to work to make money and 2.) keep my spending to a strict budget such that money input is less than money output...

...in contrast, our government wants to 1.) print more money or increase taxes and 2.) spend more money to "stimulate" the economy... that's complete lunacy... am I the only one who is sane here? :bomb:
 
[quote name='BigT']That's how liberal hack economists think... The only way to get out of this slump is to rebuild an ecomony in which 1.) we actually produce something useful, rather than being totally consumer based and 2.) cut spending across the board...

... it's common sense that applies both to the individual as well as groups: if I have a deficit, I: 1.) Get to work to make money and 2.) keep my spending to a strict budget such that money input is less than money output...

...in contrast, our government wants to 1.) print more money or increase taxes and 2.) spend more money to "stimulate" the economy... that's complete lunacy... am I the only one who is sane here? :bomb:[/QUOTE]

How do people get to work if there are no jobs? No one buys anything, which hurts those in manufacturing (who produce goods), who then lose their jobs, and don't buy anything.

How will they pay for food, medicine, and housing when they have no income?

Banks won't loan out money because they're afraid people won't pay then back, so no capital for new ventures and even established business can't make payroll because loans are harder to get.

We should just leave it up to the market economy, like we have over the past 20 years, to solve all our problems. Because...you know...the market is self correcting and self regulating.

Government alone is not the answer. The private sector definitely can't dig us out of this mess. It will take a concerted, joint effort across all sectors of this society (and the world) to recover. I hope, against hope, that we can come together as a people and actually work on developing solutions rather than saying, "X party is stupid" and not propose any solutions of their own. It's easier to be against an idea than stand for a solution.
 
I agree. It is pretty dumb.

However, a lot of people want to come see this however and money needs to be used to ensure the safety of the people.
 
Apparently Obama's inauguration only costs that much if you factor in the security, something they don't do for the figures from Bush and Clinton's being tossed around.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Apparently Obama's inauguration only costs that much if you factor in the security, [/quote]

Yeah the Kryptonite proof vest cost a ton.
 
The next economic boom will come from the "green collar" market, it's growth, it's expansion. Not just "dye and perfume-friendly detergents," but cleaner, more responsible factories as well. The greening of production itself, in addition to the products, will usher in the next great job boom in the United States.

And, since it's green, we can accurately predict in advance that conservatives will have nothing to do with it. :lol:

As for the cost of the inauguration, the bulk is going to police/fire/emt/security, no? Those aren't things we can really give up having at an inauguration on account of "cost savings," no?
 
[quote name='BigT']That's how liberal hack economists think... The only way to get out of this slump is to rebuild an ecomony in which 1.) we actually produce something useful, rather than being totally consumer based and 2.) cut spending across the board...[/quote]

Have you ever taken a history or an economics class?

... it's common sense that applies both to the individual as well as groups: if I have a deficit, I: 1.) Get to work to make money and 2.) keep my spending to a strict budget such that money input is less than money output...

You are comparing your household budget to the entire US, no one is going to hold your hand with this one figure it out yourself.
 
I don't want to hear Bushbots complaining about the inauguration costs. We are wasting $300 million EVERY DAY in Iraq thanks to Dubya. This is peanuts by comparison.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
You are comparing your household budget to the entire US, no one is going to hold your hand with this one figure it out yourself.[/QUOTE]

I get it. throw 825 billion dollars at anything and its bound to improve the economy. Why do you have so much faith in this??? Why do you believe this is infallible?? And why is the stimulus package so large?? couldn't we do smaller amounts over time and gage the results? Why is a stimulus package better than tax cuts? You can be condescending all you want but just say something useful.
 
[quote name='tivo']I get it. throw 825 billion dollars at anything and its bound to improve the economy. Why do you have so much faith in this??? Why do you believe this is infallible?? And why is the stimulus package so large?? couldn't we do smaller amounts over time and gage the results? Why is a stimulus package better than tax cuts? You can be condescending all you want but just say something useful.[/QUOTE]

Tax cuts don't help much when you don't have a paycheck to pay taxes on.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Have you ever taken a history or an economics class? [/quote]
Thankfully, not too many after all my AP classes in high school... the liberal distortions were difficult to bear...

You are comparing your household budget to the entire US, no one is going to hold your hand with this one figure it out yourself.
The same basic idea holds! If you don't have money you spend less or do something that generates wealth... that's why I agree with Mykevermin's rather astute assertion that green energy solutions may be the next stimulus for our economy.

But, what are we doing? Using credit or printing more money to create an illusion of wealth... those things must naturally self-correct, so it is no surprise that we are in a recession.

Read or listen to Peter Schiff, he has some very good insights into this matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2x7R8pxUs
 
Schiff was one of the few predicting the crisis we're currently in. There's a great clip (in a schadenfreude way) of him on various news programs around 2005, being laughed out the door for saying that what did happen was going to happen.
 
[quote name='Ecofreak']
We should just leave it up to the market economy, like we have over the past 20 years, to solve all our problems. Because...you know...the market is self correcting and self regulating.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying except for this. We absolutely have NOT left it up to the market economy the past 20 years. There has been plenty of meddling through policies and legislation. Many can argue that is the problem.

Almost everyone in this thread is right. We've had intervention in all the wrong ways and allowed the free market to do what it should never have been allowed.

It will take a vast change from the bottom up to fix this economy, but one thing is certain, as Peter Shchiff states in that clip - the government can only make this worse with the plans as they are.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']It's not all donor money, taxpayers will be paying for millions.[/quote]

OK, I'll bite. Out of the $170 million, how much is coming from the taxpayer?
 
And it ends with a nice creamy facial here in a couple hours. Then the honeymoon is over. And don't think you're getting head ever again, Obama.

As for the $170 million, I'm cool with it. I'd much rather spend that much on a huge party that will employ thousands. It's much better than throwing money down the toilet overseas. And by overseas, I mean Iraq and not Israel, dicks.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is it me or is this the first inauguration that seems like a week long blowjob?[/QUOTE]

According to Bloomberg the actual taxpayer bill for all this fluff is about $45 million.
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']According to Bloomberg the actual taxpayer bill for all this fluff is about $45 million.[/quote]

That's 0.005625% of the $800 billion party given to bankers earlier this year.

I don't think we are spending ENOUGH on the coronation?
 
Which Supreme Court Justice did not attend the inauguration? I didn't see Sam Alito there, but I'm not certain he was the one who did not attend.

I saw John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, but not Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, or Alito.
 
I don't think you can have them all there. Also, did anyone notice they screwed up the oath? As well as him being the first President to not have "So help me God" at the end of it? Just thought I'd point that out.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Would you guys be as pissed if McCain spent the same amount?[/QUOTE]

yes

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That's 0.005625% of the $800 billion party given to bankers earlier this year.

I don't think we are spending ENOUGH on the coronation?[/QUOTE]

its true that its not a lot when it comes to the overall picture. but you wouldnt buy a new tv if your house was being foreclosed. like i said in the op, if bush has to declare a state of emergency to help with funds, then its too much.

[quote name='mykevermin']He did say so help me god. He also flubbed his lines. Hannity has a boner right now.

Inaugural speech was fantastic though.[/QUOTE]

and yes, he did say so help me god.

maybe its just me but that poem after was tough to listen to and the benediction got a little a silly

heres the oath for anyone that missed it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d99tGRXYoQQ

dont see the speech up yet, at least not one that wasnt recorded on a cell phone.
 
Do we have a new king yet? I want to get back to the business of selling off the country.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']
its true that its not a lot when it comes to the overall picture. but you wouldnt buy a new tv if your house was being foreclosed. like i said in the op, if bush has to declare a state of emergency to help with funds, then its too much.
[/quote]

Will it really matter in six months or a year?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Would you guys be as pissed if McCain spent the same amount?[/QUOTE]

Not only would I be just as pissed, but at least more of the press would be to.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

Will it really matter in six months or a year?[/QUOTE]

In the big picture it's only a small dent in our budget, but we seem to have a lot of dents these days.
 
Wow this topic is dumber then even your usual ones. Seriously, a large chunk of that is going to be security especially given the fact that more people are flocking to this speech then idiots like yourself to Alaska after he won.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Wow this topic is dumber then even your usual ones. Seriously, a large chunk of that is going to be security especially given the fact that more people are flocking to this speech then idiots like yourself to Alaska after he won.[/QUOTE]

MSI Magus everyone, give him a round of applause.
 
bread's done
Back
Top