Change we can believe in.
$170 million for an inauguration, and $100,000 to redecorate the White House.
Think of all the people who got to work that day -- the police officers who got some overtime, the interior decorators who probably got the biggest paycheck of their lives, the people who constructed the stage, the businesses that printed the tickets....
Ahhh so trickle down economics work for you now!
It's not like the money went nowhere. Probably hundreds to thousands of hotesl were completely booked for days, not mention the restaurants and the car rentals.... I'm pretty sure those companies aren't complaining. I'm sure you wouldn't have turned down a photography job for that day.
Given the Obama-mania I'm seeing, the local venders would have had a field day whether they spent $100 or $100 million. The teeming millions would have come either way. Including photographers.
My point is, in these economic times, is there room for excess? With the all the TRILLIONS of dollars the government is spending trying to right the economic ship, is a $100 million for an inauguration a good way to spend? Is it responsible? Go back and look at the guy Obama is being compared to, FDR. What did he do for his inauguration? He took the oath, had a chicken dinner and got to work (not that he did the right things once he got to work).
There is discussion, rightly so, about the CEOs of the banks for their excess, like the Merril Lynch CEO (now unemployed) who first tried to justify his $10 million bonus, then when he couldn't get that spent around a million redecorating his office (using the same interior decorator that Obama is using btw, Obama is getting him a lot cheaper though). Also the CEOs of the auto companies coming to Washington to beg for money in their private jets.
Now is not the time for conspicuous consumption. Now is the time for belt tightening.