Obama Inauguration Could Bankrupt D.C.

Could this be done in the oval office and telecast to the viewers? Do we need inaugeral parades and balls?

I thought this man stood for change, not the same old, same old.

To much is made out of the Inauguration, the president is not a king or dictator being lifted up to power he is a public servant. He should have respect if he earns it and that is all. He is highly paid to do the presidents job and all these extravagant trappings are an expense we can do without. The money would be better spent feeding the hungry or helping the homeless like the homeless vets which many suffer from war wounds and cannot support a living wage job. If a president elect wants to put on such a show then they should have to pay for it.

I wonder why the city has to pick up the bill? Maybe they are doing more than they have too, and just want to do some things? I dunno'....

He has pent more money then anyone in history , why should things be different now? Maybe he will make up the difference?

Mariah,

It's what's known as an attention grabber. The number of people expected to attend is noted in the article. I think this is a real issue for D.C. This one event will exceed their entire annual budget for hosting federal events. Do D.C. taxpayers then get stuck with the difference?

Mariah,

There's a difference between inaccuracy and misleading. Misleading, I'll concede. Inaccurate, not if you're talking about the event hosting budget.

Oh my....

The king is dead god save the king. lol

"The D.C. Examiner reported November 19 that the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama could exceed the annual budget of the District of Columbia for hosting such events. "
Mis-leading head line... well done Mariah for spotting such an offence to our inteligence.

'This year, officials estimate nearly five times that many people for the swearing in of President-elect Barack Obama."'

Hyped audience, when I see officials estimate, such statement gets a "whats their names" comment.

tut, tut, tut to the editor of The D.C. Examiner less of the hype please and lets have some good honest journalism.

We can't actually blame AC W. as the headline is actually a loic conclusion to the contents of the D.C> Examiner and it was aimed to produce that opinion

We can blame the D.C. Examiner for making up part of the story using the old and well used sign of bad journalism an un-named source.

Sorry to cut your article to shreds AC W. take some pleasure please that its worthy of a good rating as such bad journalism by D.C. Examiner needs to be exposed.

I gather the D.C. Examiner publication is a republican rag?

Like I said, it grabs your attention and is expanded upon in the article. It's incomplete.

Not when coupled with the information in the article.

If they want the inauguration they need to budget accordingly. If it is not worth that much to them, then either the party could pay for it or it could be a greatly reduced ceremony.

It is a two edged sword.
It is both a money maker and money breaker for DC.
DC is commerce is mainly tourism.
Think of the money this inauguration will bring in: food, hotels, parking, cab fares, souvenirs, etc.
It will cost plenty to maintain the crowds, as well.
I think the Feds ought to pick up part of the tab.
Tax revenue on the tourism should help pay down some of the costs.

All of this hyperbole after the shrub has indebted this nation an additional 7 TRILLION dollars. Sorry but your GOP concern for the budget is crocodile tears.

Of course there were so few people at the bush inauguration. Most of the people that were there were protesting bush's illegal activities.

I think the feds should pay for the extra costs.

George W.,

What, you don't want him to be inaugurated? The people will demand his inauguration, regardless who pays for it. Just as Regan and Bush were inaugurated. Nothing new about that, did you expect that Obama would say "no inauguration for me?" If you did then I want some of what you've been smoking!

All of these people will spend money in the DC area. This will not bankrupt DC. If anything it will be beneficial. One has to understand that the economy works because there are consumers. The city of Washington DC will recover from this. There will be federal funds allocated for it. It's amazing to me that the "Examiner" publishes this. They are surely only interested in finding fault with the president-elect.

Obama is MADE of money... let the DNC pickup the diff.

The voters didn't only vote for him, they funded him as well. It is great when democracy works. To these naysayers, I have to say, that you sound childish. After eight years of such a rise in the public debt alone - I'm happy to have someone with better plans for America. We didn't deserve to be belittled by our own president these past eight years. Now, we will have an intelligent and competent leader in the White House. Hooray!!!!!

I am hoping to be there myself for this historic occasion.

That newssource is a Washington, D.C. newspaper.

I'm in Northern Virginia, about 10 miles from D.C. proper and my kids are off from school. You know, I don't like Ms. Norton, and I certainly don't agree with her political ideology, but I do respect the fact that she fights HARD for her constituents, day in and day out.

Thank you for sharing this fantastic article with us.


web hosting reviews Team..