The party's paid for by bribes, but the security tab is still for the taxpayers. Just like the party conventions, not one taxpayer cent should go towards them. I would only understand paying for the normal level of security associated with any other presidential appearance.
Yes, I do support government austerity.
http://joustthefacts.typepad.com/joust_the_facts/2005/01/clinton_ii_inau.html
It's interesting to note, that, for all of the griping about the pricetag of this inaugural that it comes in at-or-about the cost of Clinton's second inaugural (inflation adjusted, of course).
And, for every one of those so-called "bribes" of yours, there are hundreds of private citizens (and their private donations) just getting together to celebrate the President's victory. Calling them all bribes would hardly be fair.
Interestingly, I'm currently reading one of the books of Reagan's letters...I just read one this morning in which he lamented the idea that he had to have a second inaugural. He would have preferred a modest swearing-in ceremony to all of the pomp and partying.
Tell us, are you happy Bush won?
I was going to say something and then I say your name! Says it all!!! You are so very little...
Anyone who has serious problems with the celebration of the Inauguration of a President has more problems than can be dealt with here.
I'm sure they share your sentiments about this Inauguration on DU, though, so you might want to sign up there if you haven't already done so.........