See the report for yourselves here. Mr. Obama to be President Obama, and I believe in respecting the office of the presidency. However, there is a substantial difference between respect and worship. At a price tag of over $170 million, this inauguration feels like more than just a ceremony given our national leader out of respect. Why the sudden increase in spending on this ceremony? We would be naive to assume that it is purely the result of increased security and and logistical spending. So what is the stimulus for this change? I guess, as Mr. Obama says, anything is possible, but paying off the national debt is not seeming like a possibility our nation will ever attain when indulging in such careless spending.
Or, at least, that is my two cents.
ROB: I agree, up to a point. The problem is that I think we're both predisposed to dislike Obama. It's hard to overcome or even fully recognize our confirmation bias -- fitting any new facts into the picture we have, and using them to affirm our preexisting beliefs.
It's hard to really imagine being on the other side. I can see a bit of an argument, though. To an extent, if people are excited about this inauguration in some ways it's good for them to be able to come in large numbers (the opening of this event to the public being a major factor in the increased cost). It could be good and/or inspiring for some people to be able to witness this inauguration, which means so much to them, in person.
Personally I think it comes uncomfortably close to a cult of personality, and unlike some of Obama's more ardent followers I have no need for a new Messianic figure. I also think it borders on irresponsible to spend so much money going into what is likely to be a major recession (though apparently the cost to the government itself won't be higher than other inaugurations; the increase comes from Obama's coffers). On the other hand if it inspires hope and confidence in the public, mitigating the hopelessness and despair inherent in a poor economy to some extent, it could be a valuable gesture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would help you to consider the amount of money such a huge event generated for an ailing economy.
ReplyDeleteadditionally, consider the $$$$ of security for the event and why that is necessary.
First, let me thank your for disagreeing politely. Also, you have a solid point in that the festivities poured money into an ailing economy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, $42.3 million was the cost for the 2005 inauguration. Personally, I doubt that there was enough money poured into an ailing economy to justify the extra $127.7 million to the pricetag. As for the extra security, I concede it raises the pricetag, but by "$127.7 million?
Even if I am wrong, were I president, I would not want to open my governing years with the most expensive inauguration ever during the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, if only for political reasons at least.
Perhaps there is more to the story than the report lets on, and, if so, I hope someone posts a link to evidence, like a spending report (not just a budget). It'd be interesting to see just where all that money went.
Thanks again for your comment. We love getting the opposing perspectives.