Ran across this article today at the NY Times (from Feb. 17th). Apparently, the estimated $175 million security costs have approached/eclipsed $1,000,000,000 (those are billions)! The article states, "While the Vancouver Olympics have generally stayed within budget, the security costs have risen beyond initial estimates of $175 Canadian, or $167.5 million American, with the finaly tally widely expected to go beyond $1 billion Canadian."
Talk about an extreme Woopsies! While I'm not quite as gloom and doom about sports subsidization as J.C. Bradbury, I think the Olympics are a terrible way to spend money. If you really are going to invest in sports--and you think it is planned the right way as a worthwhile endeavor that includes other things valuable to society--it better be something that's there for more than 3 weeks. But this? I'm curious how the Times can even claim the Olympics 'generally stayed within budget.' Did they leave themselves $825 million in wiggle room?
Hat Tip: Libertarianism from A to Z