AP: Some Now Question Cost of Inauguration

This type of story is my favorite, mainly because of its self-righteousness, but mostly because it descends into self-parody.

The AP has a story in which it reports on "questions" regarding the propriety of holding an expensive inauguration at this particular time. Among the points made by the AP are comparisons of the cost of items that could be purchased with the inauguration funds (presumably the $40 million in private donations), FDR's decision not to hold a lavish a inauguration in 1945 and the views of Mark Cuban, owner of the NAB Mavericks.

The article wonders what could "that kind of money" buy? It then lists:

- 200 armored humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
- Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children
in regions devastated by the tsunami.
- A down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year.
- Two years' salary for the Mets' new center fielder Carlos Beltran, or all of pitcher Randy Johnson's contract extension with the New York Yankees.

Considering that $40 million of these funds are from private donations, perhaps the AP could tell us how these private donors would go about purchasing armored humvees for the armed forces or reduce the deficit. With regard to the vaccinations and the newest signing by the Yankees and Mets, is anyone at the AP willing to write an article arguing that perhaps the Yankees and Mets could have used the salaries to be paid to Beltran and Johnson to buy vaccines for tsunami victims instead? Probably not, because each team would point out its large contributions to tsunami relief funds and other charities.

The AP then moves to the FDR example:

New York Rep. Anthony wiener, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt inauguration during World War II.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," according to a letter from Wiener and Rep. Jim McDermott.

Missing from this "precedent" are the facts that (1) FDR was seriously ill by January 1945 and would certainly have had reason to want a more low-key inauguration, which was probably the reason for the "short speech"; (2) the 1945 inauguration was his FOURTH, which, after 112 years in office, certainly would have been a "been there, done that three times" event; and (3) despite a war in Europe and Japanese aggression in Asia at the time of the 1941 inauguration, FDR did not tone down the 1941 inauguration.

Completing its closing argument, the AP resorts to citing Mark Cuban:

Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the National Basketball Association's Dallas Mavericks, voted for Bush — twice. Cuban knows a thing or two about big spending, once starring in ABC's reality TV show, "The Benefactor," in which 16 contenders tried to pass his test for success and win $1 million.

Cuban questioned spending all that money on the inaugural.

"As a country, we face huge deficits. We face a declining economy. We have service people dying. We face responsibilities to help those suffering from the ... devastation of the tsunami's," he wrote on his blog, a Web journal.

Cuban challenged Bush to set an example: "Start by canceling your inauguration parties and festivities."

This is where the argument collapses for good. Mark Cuban, the host of a reality show in which he gave away $1 million dollars to contestants based on their performance in various challenges, including a game of "H-O-R-S-E," lectures the president, without a trace of irony, on the serious issues facing the country. Here is how Mr. Cuban approached the serious issue of giving away $1 million dollars: "Why has he agreed to give away such a large sum of money? Because he can't wait to see how America's applicants will prove to him that they deserve it!"

Quite an example, indeed. With so many people always in need, could there have been a better use for "The Benefactor's" $1 million? Sure, but maybe the recipients would have to "prove to him that they deserve it!"

The bottom line is that every dollar spent could always be spent on something better or more worthwhile, depending on one's point of view. If the argument advanced in the AP article is to be accepted, then we should be prepared to cancel all inaugurals, all ceremonial events and, in fact, all non-important spending from now on because there will always be better ways of spending money in the view of many. Somehow, I do not expect this approach to take hold.