What I want to know is: can we please get our $40 million back from Bush and spend it on something better, like maybe Obama's inauguration?Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”
Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?
Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance
The point here is that the man, the moment, and the enthusiasm behind Obama's historic inauguration is nothing like Bush's. Don't believe me? Let's compare notes afterward.
When you go from a "high enthusiam" president to a more "meh" one, such as Reagan to H.W. Bush or Clinton to the GWB of 2000, the inauguration isn't such a big deal.
But when you go from a terrible president like the GWB of 2008 to a high-expectations one like Obama, it may as well be a world holiday.
Update: reason has issued a hackwatch, but it doesn't seem to take into account the demand for Obama's inauguration, which will be attended by 2 million people vs. Bush's 300,000...you can't just cancel a thing like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment