The controversy over inaugural spending

[Scrooge McSam]

There's been much talk of late on other boards based on a recent Washington Times story by Joseph Curl suggesting (misleading, actually) that more money was spent for Mr. Clinton's second inaugural than was spent for Mr. Bush's second inaugural.

Here's a link to the Times story, if you're interested.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...3531-1062r.htm

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

Too bad the Washington Times has chosen to misrepresent the truth yet again, and people are swallowing it right on down.

Read this rebuttal on www.salon.com in the War Room section and see what you think then.

Coming to a last-minute defense of President Bush and the unprecedented cost of his lavish inauguration, the right-wing Washington Times today informs readers the cost is no big deal because President Clinton was guilty of spending more on his '97 inauguration. That's flat-out false. But the Washington Times being what it is, the paper charges right ahead in an effort to defend the White House.

First, the Times reports Bush and his team of supporters are spending $40 million in private funds to pay for the inauguration, making it the most expensive in history. The $40 million figure is interesting because just nine days ago the very same Washington Times reported that the Bush team hoped to raise $50 million for the parties and parade. Today, seeing Bush under fire for spending too much against the grave backdrop of events in Iraq, the Times conveniently chops off $10 million from its very own inauguration estimate.

Second, the Times claims that Clinton's second inauguration cost $42 million, and adjusted for inflation, that means it cost $49 million in 2005 dollars. And voila, Clinton spent more than Bush. The only problem is, according to a vast array of news accounts (Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Newsday, St. Petersburg Times), Clinton's 1997 inauguration cost $30 million or, more precisely, $29.7 million. Even adjusted for inflation, that puts the '97 cost at less than $35 million, well behind the $40-$50 million the Bush camp will spend.

The only way the Times can boost the Clinton cost to $42 million is if it adds in the approximately $12 million spent in '97 by the Defense Department, the National Park Service, the General Services Administration and the government of the District of Columbia, which traditionally chip in to cover inauguration costs. But then the Times would have to add the roughly $20 million being spent this week by the federal government, which would boost Bush's tally toward $60-$70 million. Any way you look at it, the Times' lame defense does not add up.

Interesting, no?

[Gemini Cricket]

Bush mantras:
"Clinton was worse."
"Blame it on Clinton."
"Clinton lies, I do not."
"I inherited Clinton's messed up country."

Ohmmmmm.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Why doesn't this surprise me. The Washington Times shows its true colors yet again.

[NirvanaMan]

Man the silly hippies are out in force today.

[Gn2Dlnd]

It's an insane amount of money for anyone to spend on a "Welcome to the job" party. Especially if you've already got the job.

[Jazzman]

If it's private funding, what’s the big deal? If it were tax payer money I'd say it's a problem. But if it's money from contributors then who cares if they spend $40, $50, or even $100 million? It may be excessive, but people have the right to spend their own money how they see fit; even to inaugurate Presidents.

This seems more like a left wing grudge for losing the election.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Because our President asked for the money, and by the way, did you notice, they're now doing beheadings on sidewalks in broad daylight?
And did you notice, the estimated death toll from the tsunamis is now over 226,000 people?
And did you notice, "There have been 1,532 coalition troop deaths, 1,372 Americans, 76 Britons, seven Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 16 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 17 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of January 21, 2005."
And did you know that a minimum of 15,365 civilians have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion?
That sure beats the hell out of the 2,752 civilians and 10 hijackers who were killed on September 11.
So, I don't think a little moral outrage over 40 million dollars being wasted is at all out of line.

[Nephythys]

I agree- it's time to get over it. I'm sorry, but I really do not think you would be doing this if Kerry had won. You can say otherwise-but I suspect some of you would have spent money to have your own party had it gone Kerry's way.


I fail to see how it is any of your business how people spend their money. You can't possibly know how much these people have given in charitable donations. So you are tilting at a windmill blindfolded. This kind of moral arrogance and judgement is really pretty annoying.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Yes. So many things are annoying.

[Scrooge McSam]

I don't care how much private money is spent. It's yours. Spend it as you please. It's the lying I can't stomach.