2008 Woodie Awards
The Inauguration of the 43rd President: Has Anyone Seen Such Frivolous Spending in a Time of War?
Brian O'Connor
Issue date: 2/2/05 Section: Perspectives
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Regardless of whether one is a member of the 51% of the country who applauds Mr. George W. Bush, or of the 49% who don't, the inaugurations total cost is appalling to anyone who possesses a sense of rationality in a time of war. With the total amount spent on this inauguration topping every other in our nation's history, any rational American must begin to wonder exactly why this price tag comes at the current time, with our Armed Forces outstretched and ill-equipped, and our national debt in billion dollar figures. While the Presidency is a position that deserves a certain level of grandeur and respect that an inauguration celebration provides; one of this scope is not only impractical, but imaginably demoralizing for troops who see the limitations of their budgets when their First Lady and Daughters in Oscar De La Renta dresses - designs with price tags that could have bought Kevlar vests for a few more troops in Fallujah.
In an article written by Will Lester of the Associated Press, a list of other uses for the money spent for George W. Bush's inauguration lists such items as 200 armored Humvees for troops in Iraq; vaccinations and health care for 22 million children affected by last December's tsunami, and a payment towards resolving the national debt of over $400 Billion. While it makes sense that a celebration that is of the size and scope of the average presidential inauguration comes at a high cost, the frivolity seen by the planners of this inauguration provides foreshadowing of the next four years of Bush's fiscal policy: spending money where it doesn't belong, for people who are less deserving than others. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said, "President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake. During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inauguration, saying that such festivities would be undignified." So as our wars continue on unabated, why is it that this inauguration surpasses all others with its size, scope, and cost?
In an article written by Will Lester of the Associated Press, a list of other uses for the money spent for George W. Bush's inauguration lists such items as 200 armored Humvees for troops in Iraq; vaccinations and health care for 22 million children affected by last December's tsunami, and a payment towards resolving the national debt of over $400 Billion. While it makes sense that a celebration that is of the size and scope of the average presidential inauguration comes at a high cost, the frivolity seen by the planners of this inauguration provides foreshadowing of the next four years of Bush's fiscal policy: spending money where it doesn't belong, for people who are less deserving than others. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said, "President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake. During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inauguration, saying that such festivities would be undignified." So as our wars continue on unabated, why is it that this inauguration surpasses all others with its size, scope, and cost?