According to USA TodayBush's first inaugaration party was about $30 mill.
According to USA TodayBush's first inaugaration party was about $30 mill.
The solution is for the people that can't afford the price is for them to become wealthy too. So, in the future they can attend such events.
Our ball is looking like a bargain.
"People have the option of coming to the inauguration and attending the events that are free of charge or buying tickets à la carte," said Steve Schmidt, communications director for the Presidential Inaugural Committee."
http://www.inaugural05.com/
It is not what I would do if I were president. There would be a modest swearing in ceremony, a modest party afterwards.
My idea would be to have in advance sought out some worthy places to direct those funds, people, organizations that could use the hand up. The funds would be dispensed the last business day before the inauguration with a signed letter.
It would be done quietly with no no media press releases. Let the word filter out just as the New York Times was writing a scathing article about how cheap I was for not having a multi-million dollar inaguaral.
That said, Bush is no different than the other presidents as the grapic in this thread shows - at least on inagural spending. And the New York Times is being its usual biased self in trying to highlight as something different what Bush is spending this time.
MTV-Viacom is "doing their part" by not holding an event for George W. Bush. Their excuse last election was that things were decided too late for anything to be planned.
The truth is that Viacommie just likes to show Democrats' balls.
The MSM paid no attention to how much Clinton spent or how many drug dealers helped bankroll him. More double standard nit picking.
Not only that but Clintoon's second inaugural party was $41,000,000 while Bush's is $40,000,000 and only $12,000,000 of it from taxpayers. (According to Tom Sullivan)