Editor, The Times:
At a time when millions are losing their jobs and the economy is in a downward spiral, why must the United States spend a record $170 million on President Obama’s inauguration?
Democrats who called for then-President Bush to be frugal in 2005 issued no such request this year when their man prepared to take office. Instead, they planned a weekend of rock-star concerts and celebrity-filled galas – a world apart from the White House oath and chicken dinner suggested (in part) by Seattle’s very own Jim McDermott four years ago.
According to estimates, $150 million was used to fund the 10 official inauguration balls. The swearing-in ceremony itself cost just $1.24 million, a drop in the bucket compared to costs of security, Port-a-Potty rentals, and, of course, parties.
Perhaps we should be happy that the federal government only had to fork over $49 million of its own money last weekend. Thanks to Obama’s connections with the Hollywood elite, a large portion of the inauguration was paid for by the likes of Steven Spielberg, Sharon Stone, George Lucas and Halle Berry.
Even still, I can't help but wonder how that $49 million could have been better spent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this editorial draws from the loci of quantity in the discussion of how the inaugural money could have been better saved or better spent. There is an absense of "greater good" in spending money on inaugural balls and such.
ReplyDeleteI think it's great that you used the word Port-a-potty rentals in this letter. The language you used is really opinion and value laden, which is really effective in the context of this letter.