where’s the money going?

is the $40 million being spent on hillary duff? (I would’ve booked lindsay lohan instead. now that’s a girl who knows how to party).

many people seem to be questioning the cost and extravagance of this event. sure, it may be an important event in the eyes of his supporters, but $40 million?

from newsday’s scott maxwell at the inauguration:

But, sensing that some people may believe the spending is excessive — especially with America at war — the inaugural committee has made supporting our troops the primary theme. That way, if anyone criticizes the spending or partying, the organizers can reply: “Well, you’re not opposed to honoring our troops in fine fashion, are you?”

Still, I heard a woman on the Metro yesterday say that a better way to support the troops would’ve been to spend that $40 million fortifying the tanks, trucks and equipment that many soldiers say are inadequate.

it’s not that kerry wouldn’t have done something similar to kick off his term. who knows what the costs would have been. but this is actually happening, and the amount of money being spent on a single event (and all this for a second term, not exactly a brand new experience) is staggering. wouldn’t it make more sense if the donors had given this money to the tsunami relief effort instead? sure, maybe they’ve already donated, but $40 million is nearly 2/3 of what spain, china, and south korea each gave.