Wednesday, January 19, 2005

WHAT'S A FEW MILLION? There's the Bush-whacking that he deserves, and there's the Bush-whacking that takes place because liberals can be just as stupid as conservatives. In the latter category: prolonged moaning over the $40 million cost of Bush's inauguration, as though he ought to take it all and donate it to tsunami relief. (Where money doesn't seem to be a problem, by the way.)

So where's the context? Here's the context. Cost of Bush's 2001 inauguration: $40 million; cost of Clinton's 1997 inauguration: just a shade under $30 million - down from the $33 million he spent in 1993. (By the way, the CNBC.com story I cite refers to Bush's spending this year as a "record," even though it appears to be basically the same as four years ago.)

Yes, Clinton spent a bit less, but not that much less. And of course you've got to adjust for the fact that Republicans drink better-quality booze.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Those aren't Republicans on Newbury Street and the Upper East Side with the single malts.

island_earth said...

Missing a little context, there, Dan? Bush is the one insisting that the action in Iraq is part of the war on terra that started on 9/11... if we're in that big a war, after being attacked, and our soldiers are dying, than spending $40 million on a lavish party is not only tacky, it's insulting to those who are actually fighting and dying in that war.

FDR practiced war-time austerity during his inauguration -- even though he appears to be the only president to do so, the fact that FDR showed some class and sensitivity doesn't mean Bush shouldn't be criticized for being the insensitive, hypocritical clod that he is.

Anonymous said...

Jeez, DK. I can see why you get frustrated. You showed a little intellectual honesty and Island Earth complains about it. Right wing nuts aren't the only idealogues paralyzed by fear. (I get it, "earth", "terra", perhaps too cute by half....)