Obama says a big "F U" to the economic crisis. Really, this pisses me off.

Please take some time to read these 2 articles, one about Obama's Inauguration Party in 2009, and one about Bush's 2nd Inauguration Party in 2005. I don't see why it's "OK" for Obama to spend $150 million on himself in such a time of hardship. Especially considering how hard people criticized Bush for spending roughly 25% of that only 4 years ago. This really urks me, and I hope it is not foreshadowing of Obama letting me down for the next 4 years.

===============================================

Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy

WASHINGTON – Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.

Obama's inauguration committee says it is mindful of the times and is not worried people will see the four days of festivities as excessive.

"That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it," said committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values."

Douglass said the campaign sought to keep costs down by having the same decorations at each of the 10 balls, eliminating floral arrangements and negotiating prices on food.

"Those at the Obama administration are trying to be reflective of the climate," McDermott's spokesman, Mike DeCeasar, said Saturday.

The festivities began Saturday with a speech at Philadelphia's historic 30th Street train as Obama's trip began.

Sunday's concert at the Lincoln Memorial includes performances by Sheryl Crow, Stevie Wonder, Garth Brooks and others. Denzel Washington and Queen Latifah will read historic passages. HBO paid $2.5 million for the exclusive rights to broadcast the concert.

Monday, the inaugural committee is hosting a national day of service, followed by three "bipartisan dinners" and a concert at the Verizon Center honoring military families. The Disney Channel will broadcast the concert, which includes performances by teen stars Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers, as part of a $2 million deal that also gave ABC the exclusive rights to broadcast one inaugural ball.

The television deals allowed the committee to recoup about $5 million of the $15 million production costs for the televised events, Douglass said.

Security and transportation costs are being paid by taxpayers. And with millions of tourists expected to descend on Washington for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, Bush declared a state of emergency, allowing the district to recover some costs for the event.

The inauguration committee is paying for 10 stadium-style screens to broadcast the inauguration ceremony on the National Mall. It is also hiring garbage and recycling services and renting thousands of portable toilets for what one supplier called "the largest temporary restroom event in the history of the United States."

Obama has pledged transparency in his inauguration fundraising. He has disclosed inaugural donors as the fundraising continued, though he is not required to do so until after the ceremony.

Many of the fundraisers are well-known moneymen and women in Democratic circles. Those leading the list raised at least $300,000. They include two of Obama's top campaign fundraisers: Louis Susman, who retired this month as vice chairman of banking giant and government bailout recipient Citigroup, and billionaire Hyatt hotel heiress Penny Pritzker.

==========================================================

Compare the above article, in which we pretty much give Obama a free pass (why? well, because it's Obama, and he's historic, right?) compared to this one from the Washington Post from 4 years ago, which severely criticizes Bush for spending roughly 25% of what Obama is spending.

==========================================================

Inaugural Excess

This Is the Wrong Time for a Lavish Celebration

By Bernard Ries

Sunday, January 9, 2005; Page B07

The Presidential Inauguration Committee intends to forge ahead with its resplendent plans for the second Bush inaugural. At the risk of sounding like a Grand Old Party pooper, I'm not thrilled.

What gives me pause is the decision to spend some $40 million-plus at this moment in history. When I first began mulling over this expenditure, I thought it quite unseemly that, at a time when so many Americans and countless Iraqis have been and will be killed and maimed, we should be mounting a spectacle said to celebrate our troops, replete with nine official balls, many unofficial affairs, a youth concert, a parade, a fireworks display, etc. (and, at the Ritz-Carlton, white chocolate cowboy boots). But now, with the appalling misery in Southeast Asia added to the scene, it seems even more obvious that an extravaganza is wholly inappropriate.

Previous presidents have chosen to continue the festive inauguration tradition during wartime. Lincoln was one, although he most certainly didn't spend the 1865 equivalent of $40 million. But I prefer the example of moderation set by Franklin Roosevelt in wartime 1945: a short speech at the White House, a buffet luncheon featuring chicken salad and pound cake -- and that was it. No parade, not a single ball. FDR knew something about propriety.

President Bush, of course, has already had a big inaugural party; in 2001 he enjoyed a four-day, $40 million inauguration. How many $40 million fetes is one man entitled to, I wonder, particularly since we're only transitioning from Bush to Bush. Bill Clinton spent less on his second inauguration ($23.7 million) than on his first ($33 million), and that was, moreover, in a very different context: The economy sparkled, Clinton had won a rousing election victory, we weren't at war -- and a sizable portion of the world had not just fallen apart.

In his Christmas Day radio address, Bush admonished Americans: "We have a duty to our fellow citizens, that we are called to love our neighbor just as we would like to be loved ourselves." That sentiment would have been notably served if, on the day after the election, he had announced that his inauguration would be confined to one modest day of celebration and he had urged prospective supporters to redirect their contributions toward charities and the needs of our troops and their families.

Such a gesture could well have caused major inauguration patrons to donate for eleemosynary uses (perhaps with a discreet note so informing the inaugural committee). It most certainly would have suggested the president's sincerity about the importance of a benevolent spirit. And, in thus displaying a modest charitableness instead of what many have perceived as ungenerous arrogance, he might have made a good start on mending the rupture between himself and half the country (and much of the planet).

Our recently elevated pledge of aid to Asia should now be helpful in that respect, as will signals such as lowering our flag for a week, sending Colin Powell to that suffering region and enlisting former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to raise private funds. But these are the sort of boilerplate actions that might be expected in a situation of such horrific dimensions. In a time of great suffering -- in Asia, could we be looking at, ultimately, a half-million or more dead? -- what is required is a sign of true respect and sorrow, of sacrifice of a national symbol, that will acknowledge and honor both our fighting forces and the calamity of the tsunami. The inaugural self-indulgence now planned sends a directly contrary message.

We should substantially curtail the inaugural program. By doing so, we would demonstrate due regard for the needs and sensibilities of our citizens and our world (and put to better use the money to be saved -- District police security costs alone are estimated at $15 million). It isn't too late to act. In 1985 the weather led President Reagan to cancel his parade on the day before the inauguration, thereby disappointing 200 high school bands and equestrian troupes from 50 states. The kids survived.

This is no time for Sousa and fireworks and red-white-and-blue cocktails. Some future inaugural, perhaps.