Response To Comment
As of yet I have not responded to comments from readers. I probably wont do so much in the future either, but I received a comment on my Inaugural Costs article that I felt needed a response. Here was the comment:
“The government can’t help the fact that millions of people are about to flood the streets of DC. Obama’s election was too huge of an event for Americans to even allow a scaled back inauguration, and they will show up in DC regardless of the size of the “party”. It’s necessary to spend large amounts of money for safety reasons when dealing with a crowd that big; it’s not like they’re buying $40 million worth of booze. With so many nonresidents showing up, the crowd could easily become restless and end up costing the gov’t (not to mention the poor people caught in the subsequent panic) even more money than they’ve already spent.
Think about it: do you remember anyone jumping in their car to go see Bush sworn in? Me either, although I do know quite a few people that will be traveling well over a thousand miles this week just to catch a glimpse of history.
Anyhoo – most of the money spent on the actual festivities comes from private donors. Public funds are used mainly for unavoidable security reasons”
Let me start my refuting the 2nd to last sentence. Most of the money spent on the festivities is NOT coming from private donors. For one, the Federal government’s costs alone are at least $49 million. As I said in my previous post, Virginia and Maryland’s combined costs are over $28 million. Washington D.C.’s costs are at least another $47 million. The total so far for D.C, Maryland, Virginia, and the Federal government is $124 million, meaning that this is the vast majority of the funds being spent. If the total costs of the inauguration are $160 million, at least 77.5% of the money will be coming from the government.
Also, I understand that this is a historic event, but my argument was simply that Obama could have tried to tone down the celebration. I used the example of Jimmy Carter in my article. President Carter was inaugurated in 1977 after 16 years of failed presidencies, including a long war, corruption, criminal behavior, and an economy that makes today’s economy look great. Yet, Mr. Carter explicitly asked supporters to tone down the celebrations. All I was saying was that Obama could have at last asked his supporters to limit the inaugural activities. People poured into D.C. because Mr. Obama encouraged it. He could have refrained from encouraging it, given the current economic turmoil our nation is experiencing. I would have.
Americanly Yours,
Phred Barnet
