The Cost of Pomp & Circumstance

You know what? The more I research and think about the issue of $40 million or so being spent on President Bush's inauguration tomorrow, the more I am convinced it is not as big a deal as many are trying to make it out to be.

Brian, you normally talk about fiscal restraint; how can you believe this price tag isn't a bad thing? The simplest answer to that question is that it is not my money being spent on this shindig! If my tax dollars were going for this I would much more angry, yet it is private donations from people and corporations that are paying for most of the inauguration. It is much more difficult to complain about how other people spend their money. You could complain how big donors are buying access to political bigwigs, and how that might not be fair compared to average people like you and me. However, that is a very different issue; one that I don't want to get sidetracked on in this post to be honest.

The amount spent on this year's festivities will rival the $40 million raised to celebrate Bush's first inauguration in 2001, and will exceed the $33 million spent by President Clinton in 1993 when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.

Once you factor in inflation is 40 million 2005 dollars that much more than 33 million 1993 dollars? I don't know, is it? Is there an economist in the audience?

"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted if not canceled -- in wartime," Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York wrote Bush on Tuesday.

Rep. Weiner is likely referencing President Roosevelt's 1945 inauguration during World War II. That was a very subdued affair from what others, those mysterious others, have said. I have no desire to make light of the current fighting in Iraq and against terrorists elsewhere, but the 'War on Terror' is a very different animal than World War II. We had 16 million men involved in WWII out of a total American population of less than 100 million (by my guess) people. Today our country has over 280 million citizens, yet we have less than 500,000 military personnel (by my guess) involved in the 'War on Terror' and Iraq. Our society is less openly involved in the current wars than our grandfathers' were. Since Rep. Weiner wants to draw on historical analogies I'll draw another one: the Viet Nam War. I've asked my elders if people complained about the cost and scope of inaugurations during the Viet Nam era. They don't recall any such protests, or if such protests existed none compared to the intensity of now.

D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams has estimated it will cost the district $17.3 million to help pay for security at the first post-September 11 inauguration, which includes 6,000 law officers and 2,500 military personnel to guard the 250,000 people [Ed. wow that is a lot of people!] at the swearing-in and the half-million expected to line the parade route.
Williams, in a letter last month to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, said he can use $5.4 million from a fund for special events in the capital, but the other $11.9 million will have to come from the city's federal homeland security budget.

To paraphrase a friend when discussing this last week, Washington D.C. was created for pomp and circumstances like this. The only reason the city exists is to be our nation's capitol and the capitol city is expected to perform certain duties like host big political parties! Doesn't a vast majority of Washington D.C.'s city budget come from the federal government? If the answer is yes, then this city will be spending budget money, both regular and Homeland Security, that was given to it from the federal government to do things like host an inauguration in the first place. Thank you Washington D.C. for doing your job.

Would John Kerry have spent less money on his inauguration? We'll never truly know, but I doubt it. I guess we can't complain about the cost from that point of view.

Besides I kinda like the traditions and the pomp and circumstances involved in things like this. It gives me pride as an American citizen that we can transfer or maintain executive power peacefully with no blood in the streets and no bullets fired in anger. The most powerful country on the planet can decide a leader with the flick of a lever or a marking on a ballot. The big party shows the rest of the world that a republican form of government works and is something to aspire to. See, if you go with democracy you can have a peaceful party to celebrate your victory. I like that message. I hope the Iraqis feel that at the end of the month when they select their general assembly.

On a last note, we often denigrate the idea of "Well we don't want the terrorists to win" whenever it is offered to excuse something we don't like. Yet after our buildings were destroy and our people killed we, as a country, said that we were going to continue living our lives as normally as we could. We were not going to alter our behavior just because of some suicidal nutjob. We've always had Presidential Inaugurations. This is the way Americans celebrate a winner. Why should we as Americans do it any differently this time?

Tomorrow I am simply an American and I am going to enjoy watching the celebration. Hail to the Chief baby!